• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 14 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 132

Topic: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    Moore put this on his website:

    In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!).

    For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time.

    No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying.

    Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.

  2. #2

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    Moore put this on his website:

    In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!).

    For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time.

    No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying.

    Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.
    good, thanks for the information, the conservatives are desperate to destroy Michael Moore, even more than their revolting attempts at destroying Chomsky, but Chomsky's stronger than ever, and i am certain that Moore will come through as well stronger than ever

  3. #3

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    I'm still waiting to see the film my self, but it sure seems like the info contained at the following website punches un-patchable holes in Moore's "irrefutable facts":
    http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

    Of course, it must be remembered that Moore is very clever in his definition of a "fact". Moore can say things that are technically accurate while showing the viewer something completely unrelated with the intention of having the viewer connect the two pieces of information (which actually have nothing to do with one another) thus leading to a deception. All the while, technically speaking, no actual lies (in terms of spoken words) have been uttered. Nevertheless, the message conveyed to the viewer is a falsehood. For instance, the message conveyed to the viewer in Bowling for Columbine that Charlton Heston held a gun rally 48 hours after the death of Kayla Roland. Everybody I know got that impression from the movie, but it is false. And yet technically, Moore never *said* this, he just strongly implied it through clever use of the combination of words and simultaneous imagery.

    One example from the Kopel article would be when Moore asked the guy about how much the Saudis own in the stock market. The guy he interviewed said he had "heard" a figure as high as 860 billion. Moore then picks that figure up and runs with it. But, of course, technically, Moore never said this was a hard fact, it's just what he was told by another guy who had "heard" this. Another example would be the Secret Service agents Moore asks about protecting the Saudi embassy. While the agents implied by their words that what they were doing was unusual, it makes it no more factual seeing as how it's right there on the Secret Service's website that one of their main tasks is protecting embassies in the DC area! But again, Moore can claim that he never personally claimed otherwise.

    So in other words, much of Moore's explicitly stated facts are indeed true. But the picture he paints with these "facts" coupled with innuendo are anything but irrefutable.

  4. #4

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    Another point to add:

    Another way Moore deceives while remaining "factual" is by omission of information. Often, Moore's deceptions aren't in what he DOES say, it's in what he DOESN'T say. For instance, he paints a damning picture of the Bush administration by pointing out that James Bath's name was blacked out on his National Guard record. But in fact, federal law (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf) required that names other than Bush's (whose records were being released by request) be blacked out for privacy reasons. And according to the Kopel article, Bath's name was not the only one blacked out on the documents for this very reason.

    So again, Moore deceives while never uttering a technically untrue word.

  5. #5

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Another example would be the Secret Service agents Moore asks about protecting the Saudi embassy. While the agents implied by their words that what they were doing was unusual, it makes it no more factual seeing as how it's right there on the Secret Service's website that one of their main tasks is protecting embassies in the DC area! But again, Moore can claim that he never personally claimed otherwise.
    Since you haven't seen the movie I can see why you would think this bit of information (about Secret Service protecting embassies) is important, but what is TRULY STRIKING in the movie is NOT the fact that the Secret Service is protecting the Saudi embassy, but that Moore is standing ACROSS THE STREET in front of the Watergate Hotel, talking to a guy on camera. The Secret Service suddenly drive up and start asking him what he's doing there.

    And THAT'S the point. The scene has less to do with who's protecting the embassy than with WHY are they harrassing Moore?

    There will ALWAYS be errors or arguments over facts in any documentary, and EVERY documentary has a bias. That bias usually comes out in the editing room when choices are made what and what not to show.

    Moore has a bias and is the first to admit it. What cannot be negated, however, is that despite the bias, some very powerful opinions are expressed that DO have basis in fact.

    I knew MANY of these things long before Moore made his movie and the movie does nothing to distort or change my understanding of events as they played out before all of us a few short years ago.

    What I LOVE about Moore's film more than the film itself, is how conservatives are tripping all over themselves trying to find any little flaw they can -- as if that somehow negates the power of the movie or puts lie to the facts presented.

    They wouldn't be that concerned if it didn't hit so close to home.

  6. #6

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Another point to add:

    Another way Moore deceives while remaining "factual" is by omission of information. Often, Moore's deceptions aren't in what he DOES say, it's in what he DOESN'T say. For instance, he paints a damning picture of the Bush administration by pointing out that James Bath's name was blacked out on his National Guard record. But in fact, federal law (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf) required that names other than Bush's (whose records were being released by request) be blacked out for privacy reasons. And according to the Kopel article, Bath's name was not the only one blacked out on the documents for this very reason.

    So again, Moore deceives while never uttering a technically untrue word.
    I don't remember exactly where he got it from -- probably the freedom of information act or whatever -- but the reason Moore KNOWS that the name blacked out is Bath's is because he has a copy that ISN'T blacked out. It seems it was okay to release it at some point without the name being blacked out, but when the BUSH'S released it, THEY blacked it out.

    The fact that it's blacked out, however, is NOT the point of the segment. The point of the segment is to talk about WHO James Bath is and how he's related to Bush. Moore doesn't really make a big issue of it (the blacking out), but uses it more as a segue device to talk about Bath.

    Again, this is SUCH a minor part of the movie that it smacks purely of nitpicking. Had Moore added the info you say he omitted, it would not have changed a thing.

  7. #7

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    Brady, I went to the website you posted. I didn't have a chance to read it all, but was struck by the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by WEBSITE
    To understand the deceptions, it helps to understand Moore’s ideological position. So let us start with Moore’s belief that the September 11 attacks on the United States were insignificant.

    Edward Koch, the former Democratic Mayor of New York City, writes:

    A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s “Question Time” show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

    “One of the panelists was Michael Moore…During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than die from an act of terror.”…I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
    Now, NOTHING in Moore's statement indicates that he feels the 9/11 attacks are/were insignificant. It's obvious that his statement is referring to the POTENTIAL terror attacks that we're constantly being warned of. And he's CORRECT that the chance of one of us getting caught in one is relatively slim. I've been saying the very same thing for years.

    So the website author's statement is completely disingenuous. He's doing EXACTLY what he accuses Moore of doing. Not to mention the simple fact that Koch's quote is hearsay.

    In the movie, Moore makes quite a big deal about how the Administration is trying to SCARE us with their multicolored alerts. So his alleged statement is completely in keeping with what he says in his movie.

  8. #8

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    Moore doesn't really make a big issue of it (the blacking out), but uses it more as a segue device to talk about Bath.
    Okay, so what about Bath? He invested in Arbusto, right? So what? Oh, he was an investment broker for the bin Ladens, right? So what’s the connection? Sure, it seems pregnant, but what is the real implication? So the bin Ladens use Bath for some investments (not in any of Bush’s companies though). Let’s come out and say what we’re thinking. So what ARE we supposed to think here? Or was Bath a segue to something else?

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    Again, this is SUCH a minor part of the movie that it smacks purely of nitpicking.
    I was only giving an example of Moore’s technique. The thing is, however, that if you use this technique THROUGHOUT the entire film, all these “minor parts” eventually add up. You eventually see that the whole film is comprised of a collection of such “minor parts” and that once these parts are debunked, there is little substance left.

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    Had Moore added the info you say he omitted, it would not have changed a thing.
    Not true. It would have completely changed the perception of things. As it is, the implication is clearly, “what does Bush have to hide that is so ugly that he had to black out Bath’s name?” And, as you say, this segued into the Bath thing. The intent was to prejudice the audience and color their perceptions of what was about to be presented to them. If the audience knew that Bath’s name being blacked out was of no significance since other’s names were blacked out as well simply to comply with federal rules, the Bath connection would seem a lot less ominous and menacing.

  9. #9

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    Brady, I went to the website you posted. I didn't have a chance to read it all, but was struck by the following:



    Now, NOTHING in Moore's statement indicates that he feels the 9/11 attacks are/were insignificant. It's obvious that his statement is referring to the POTENTIAL terror attacks that we're constantly being warned of. And he's CORRECT that the chance of one of us getting caught in one is relatively slim. I've been saying the very same thing for years.

    So the website author's statement is completely disingenuous. He's doing EXACTLY what he accuses Moore of doing. Not to mention the simple fact that Koch's quote is hearsay.

    In the movie, Moore makes quite a big deal about how the Administration is trying to SCARE us with their multicolored alerts. So his alleged statement is completely in keeping with what he says in his movie.
    That's all perfectly valid, Rob, except that I don't think it's necessarily disengenuous. I just thing Kopel has a different perspective on that quote, and perhaps a very wrong perspective. But if you read that entire page, you'll see that he's very open about this. He clearly states that if you disagree with his interpretation of that quote, that's perfectly fine and valid and should not be taken as part of the facts he presents but rather as an opinion of his own. So to borrow from your own posts, this is a very minor point and is nitpicking. If you want to prove Kopel wrong, attack the facts he presents, not just the opinions.

  10. #10

    Re: Moore's Preliminary Response to Critics

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    "He said his shirt was blue, actually it's kind of a blue green."

    It's checkmate you losers, and actually the world isn't flat.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 14 123411 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •