Dispatches from the Culture Wars

1

Agreed. And I usually like Michael Moore. That was in really bad taste.

Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | August 31, 2008 10:24 AM

3

It's a bit of a lose-lose, isn't it? I agree MM was tasteless, but clearly he doesn't mean it (as if I meant it when I invoke god).

The right make tasteless arguments, both serious and 'joking' all the time. If no-one ever reflects back into their face what it feels like, how will they ever know? "Fire with fire", as they say..?

Of course the problem is that when the audience this is intended for hears it, the Bill'Os of the world, they, without a sense of irony, will rationalise completely differently to their own comments.

Oh well...

Posted by: Dan | August 31, 2008 10:43 AM

5

It's very sad. Being a non-American I spent years thinking that Michael Moore was the only American alternative to Fox News and the broadsheets (NYT, Washington Post, etc). Bowling for Columbine and, to a lesser extent, Fahrenheit 9/11 were popular in the cinema here (in the UK) and I even went to see him on stage when he came to London.

However, since the election loss of 2004 it seems like he's increasingly desperate to do things to get back in to a media limelight that no longs gives a damn about him. This is just another example.

I'm glad I've found non-partisan and left-leaning commentators who can actually talk on the issues I care about without the ridiculous hyperbole (a few examples being Ed, Jason, Greg Pallast, Al Franken, Olbermann, Larry Lessig and especially Andrew Tanenbaum of electoral-vote.com).

Now, sadly, I agree with most everyone else is wishing he'd just fade into obscurity before he embarrasses himself any more.

Posted by: David Durant | August 31, 2008 10:58 AM

7

James Hanley:

liberals = "idiots"

I think this says far more about you than it does about Moore.

Posted by: marcia | August 31, 2008 11:08 AM

9

Of course it was a mockery of Dobson's praying for rain, as evidenced by Moore's Open Letter to God.

Posted by: unicow | August 31, 2008 11:26 AM

11

I ordinarily like Michael Moore, but this comment was beyond the pale and seriously demonstrates a descension into Ann Coulter realms of conduct.

Moore is a left-wing Limbaugh.

I don't think that's accurate at all. Disagree all you want with Moore's politics (and I certainly don't agree 100% with him), but he has at least a humanitarianism about him that has leant itself to productive works. His latest film "Sicko" and certain episodes of The Awful Truth demonstrate this. When was the last time you saw or heard about Rush Limbaugh doing anything productive in such a manner?

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 31, 2008 11:45 AM

13

I cringed when I saw Moore was going to be a guest on Countdown.

Posted by: CHV | August 31, 2008 12:26 PM

15

I do find it funny when people call Moore the left's Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore, for all his box office success (which is considerable in terms of documentaries but minuscule by any other measure), can't even begin to come close to the type of influence and sway Limbaugh holds with GOP voters.

Limbaugh is pounding his distorted message out 15 hours a week, every week of the year while we hear from Moore, what? a few minutes every few months. (I can't even remember the last time someone mentioned that he was on TV.) Even if you accept the fact that Moore is as bad as Limbaugh in the types of thing he says no one can seriously argue that he shapes public opinion in any significant way these days.

Posted by: tacitus | August 31, 2008 12:37 PM

17

Michael Moore on with Keith Olbermann said on Friday night that if Hurricane Gustav hits New Orleans during the RNC, that would prove there is a god.... Bill O'Reilly for joking that he wished Katrina had hit the UN building.

Personally, I don't find either of these as particularly offensive. Maybe it's my cultural background: I originally hail from Sarah Palin's Alaska, and we used to make comments/jokes like this all the time. It was just understood that someone making a comment like this wasn't really being serious. Is the problem that the comments are themselves offensive, or that they may be an accurate expression of the commenter's opinions?

But then, I'm an atheist, and so one can argue that my morality may be underdeveloped.

-

Olbermann should have called him on it. After all, Olbermann did bash Bill O'Reilly.... Let's be consistent.

I agree that consistency is important. Although, I'm not familiar with the O'Reilly case. If O'Reilly waited several days after people were criticizing him harshly before he claimed it was a joke, then I do think that there is a difference here in that it is not too unreasonable to suspect that the comment may not have been a joke after all.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 31, 2008 12:41 PM

19

Marcia, I did not say liberals = idiots. I said the theater was full of liberals, and those in the theater were idiots.

The great irony is you undercut your own criticism by, well, being an idiot--twice so far on this thread.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2008 1:33 PM

21

Here's an idea-- how about we denounce moronic blowhards regardless of what faction spawned them? Crazy, I know, but it just might work...

Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2008 1:44 PM

23

James Hanley: It makes no sense to me to say "Hooray! We finally have our own moronic blowhard! Take that, you other moronic blowhards!"

Me, I like our blowhards. And I don't begrudge them their own blowhards.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 31, 2008 1:59 PM

25

Amazingly, I saw that. I say amazing, because I have had no interest in politics for four or five years, and I never watch the political shows. But the appointment of Palin was interesting enough that I thought I'd watch Keith Olbermann, since he seems to be the man these days, and I saw so many teasers featuring him during the Olympics. (Advertising works.)

My first comment is I found him every bit as unprofessional and anti-intellectual as I recall Rush Limbaugh. It seems to me that the only excuse for liking one and despising the other is that you happen to agree with one. Based on admittedly just one viewing of Olbermann, I presently despise both equally. Are there no journalists who even give a pretense of nonpartisanship? I suspect one would have had to watch Cronkite for years before you would be willing to bet the farm that you knew his leanings; with Olbermann it took me all of two minutes. What a Limbaugh-esque jackass. As for Michael More, he just looked and sounded like a repulsive idiot. Surely there are better-spoken talking heads? I would say the same thing applies to Michael Moore and Ann Coulter: the only excuse for liking one and despising the other is alignment.

I'll try the politics/news shows in another five years or so, to see if the political-journalist profession has elevated itself out of the gutter.

Posted by: heddle | August 31, 2008 2:00 PM

27

chiroptera,

Obviously we disagree about the value of blowhards! But I support anyone who, as you are, applies the same rules/standards to each side.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2008 2:14 PM

29

James Hanley:

And I have no problem with people having a problem with blowhards as long as we apply our standards consistently.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 31, 2008 2:19 PM

31

Wow.

I generally disagree with Moore, but I respected his work as a director (or propaganda artist, depending on how you want to look at it). This comment was way over the line.

Posted by: JStein | August 31, 2008 2:35 PM

33

James Hanley: However it's not going to help us when we move to the non-scientifically verifiable issues that rely primarily upon value judgements.

I agree about value judgments. However, when evaluating proposed or enacted public policies, it is possible to use scientific data to compare the intent of the policy with the goals stated by its supporters and to examine the factual claims made by the partisans on both sides.

I think that in many cases, in a misguided effort to be hyper-"fair", either good data on one side is ignored or bad reasoning on the other is presented as data.

To get to heddle's point (to which I was responding), I don't know if he/she was thinking in terms of taking partisan stands on value judgments, and whether he/she was thinking of a specific example factual inaccuracy due to partisanship.

Now, in the case of Olbermann (who, as I've said, I've never seen), I thought his role is that of an op-ed columnist. If so, then his role is explicitly to discuss issues according to his value judgments. Op-ed is supposed to be partisan to value-judgments, although I would hope that a good-faith attempt at factual accuracy is made at all times.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 31, 2008 2:41 PM

35

James Hanley wrote:

I don't think Ed, or anyone else here, is claiming Moore was serious about it. Just that it was despicable even as a joke. (Of course other peoples' taste may vary. That's just a subjective opinion)

Well, the fact that Micheal Moore doesn't think it's true speaks to the fact that he said it specifically to mock the people who do say such things in all honesty. This was pretty clearly a parody. I can see why people would find it distasteful, but it's supposed to be distasteful because it's mocking people who said some really distasteful things.

At least that's what I got out of it. And I don't have a problem with that kind of humor. Had he delivered it better I might even have laughed. (Course, that's probably not saying much. I laugh at poop jokes.)

Note: I'm not a Michael Moore fan. Haven't seen his movies and don't plan to. But I winced more at the delivery of the joke than the joke itself. It was just awful. At least what I saw of it. The clip kind of pooped out halfway through and froze the page... which seems oddly appropriate now that I think about it.

I also don't think the O'Reilly comment was that bad. Crude maybe, but not really that high on the long list of horrible things he's said.

Posted by: Leni | August 31, 2008 3:05 PM

37

I kinda like the name "Hurricane Gustav". If I had my house destroyed by Gustav, fair's fair, it's a pretty manly name and a good hurricane moniker. "Hurricane Katrina" - that just makes me think of cake - pink, frilly cake. Or a car from the 50s.
Anyway...
Michael Moore is notoriously edit-happy and as with most people in the public eye, and people in every day life, there are things I agree with him on and things I disagree with him on, and this is a situation where I think he is a prick, plain and simple. Fuck him. Shut up Michael.

Posted by: Al West | August 31, 2008 3:20 PM

39

Michael Moore made a joke about the RNC being disrupted by a just God. How can anyone watch Gustav tracking toward New Orleans right on schedule with the RNC and not see the humor in that?

To equate such a joke with the lies and venom-dripping aspersions of Limbaugh and Coulter is not only off the mark, but below the belt.

Michael Moore has proven by his actions that he is a good man, while Limbaugh and Coulter have done exactly the opposite.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 31, 2008 4:30 PM

41

thedeviliam: liberals get sanctimonious when Republicans make jokes like that, and then turn around and do the same thing.

Just to point out a wacky feature of English that may not be known to our foreign readers: leaving out a quantifier like "some" or "many" gives the impression that the writer is speaking about a characteristic of all liberals, or at least the vast majority of them, and so those of us who actually know liberals and speak with them end up dismissing his comments as cranky.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 31, 2008 4:52 PM

43

@Ed

It's not the "same behaviour", so why pretend you have to treat it the same? Are you going to condemn all satire?

Posted by: Dan | August 31, 2008 5:39 PM

45

Anyone who becomes a media personality somehow goes through a magical metamorphosis that transforms them into a jackass.

Limbaugh and Moore are media personalities. They're jackasses. The word "taste" for them relates to burgers and fries. 'Nuff said.

Furthermore, regardless of who is doing the reporting, one should always be critical of what they're saying. All I care about is whether or not they were honest about the facts.

Now, I will grant that there are a countless number of ways to manipulate data and information to make it say what you want, but I expect this when I listen to the news. If you've been trained to think critically, you can easily recognize such a sway in a story.

All I care about is that they don't outright lie. Anyone who chooses to fabricate data or ignores it completely has lost all credibility in my book (*cough* COULTER *cough*).

Do I expect Olbermann to take the left-wing viewpoint? Of course. Do I expect O'Reilly to take the right-wing viewpoint? Duh. And I take every word with a grain of salt.

Has everyone forgotten the old maxim, "Don't believe everything you read in the papers?"

Posted by: Ingersoll's Revenge | August 31, 2008 6:18 PM

47

Moore already lost credibility with me when he touted Cuba. This doesn't help my opinion of him. I saw the Countdown interview and I thought it must be the first time that "The Worst Person in the World" was actually on the show.

Posted by: Bill in NC | August 31, 2008 6:29 PM

49

@Brutus
From your site:

Liberal quacker Michael Moore has finally gotten himself in trouble with his own base of supporters. He "joked" that Gustav hitting New Orleans would prove there is a God.

Do you know that in the English language you put things into quotes when they don't have their usual meaning? You are a disingenuous swine, because you know that it was a joke, not a "joke".

@Ed, are you proud of what you've done? Your fake even-handedness means that Moore can somehow be called a "liberal quacker", allegedly by "his own base". If anyone thinks that Moore is somehow the equal of the army of right-wing insults-to-rationality: Limbaugh, Coulter et al, then they are insults to rationality themselves.

There's a difference between a "joke" and genuine irony. There's also a difference between bias and lying. Please don't conflate any of these!

Look, there are quite simply two types of people who will see Moore's oeuvres:

First, those who understand its (strong) bias in terms of the full context of the political discourse. If you are in this category, on the left or the right, count yourself lucky, and stop whining.

Second, those who don't understand the biases in Moore's output; well, quite frankly, these people need to hear what he has to say!

Posted by: Dan | August 31, 2008 6:43 PM

51

@Ed, are you proud of what you've done? Your fake even-handedness means that Moore can somehow be called a "liberal quacker", allegedly by "his own base".

If people like Ed constitute Moore's "base," then I'm a tap-dancing giraffe.

Posted by: Gretchen | August 31, 2008 7:21 PM

53

No, Chiroptera, when I said "liberals" I didn't mean "all liberals". Funny, after you admonish me for the lack of a quantifier I notice you say you "know liberals and speak with them". Really? All of them?

Now people (excuse me, some people) are getting up in arms about the word "joke" being in quotation marks. Outrage over political rhetoric is like religion: pretend not to understand anything so you can be offended by everything.

Posted by: thedeviliam | August 31, 2008 7:31 PM

55

when Dobson's rep made the "pray for storm" comment, it backfired, at that point they said it was a joke. They only made it a joke to defend their hate and stupidity. Focus on the Family is evil, read their comments on gays and non christians to verify that. It was not a joke to them until the complaints came in. Their favorite activity is hating, they are evil (it was not originally a joke but another hate spiel)

Posted by: richCafes | August 31, 2008 7:57 PM

57

@James

If someone needs a website to refute all the accusations of lying, I think that says something right there.

Why? What does it say? That some people are unhappy with what he/she has to say?

Posted by: Dan | August 31, 2008 8:06 PM

59

Dan

@James

If someone needs a website to refute all the accusations of lying, I think that says something right there.

Why? What does it say? That some people are unhappy with what he/she has to say?

I think, and reality agrees, that it just means there are lots of accusations. I also think, and once again reality agrees, that it doesn't say shit about their veracity.

I can't say for sure for what James Hanley thinks it means, but it did let him avoid justawriter 's request. If I had to guess, I would say that James Hanley is insinuating that having a website to debunk lies means that the lies must be true, or at least truthy.

Of course now that I've said that, he'll deny it but now that I've said he'll deny it he'll have to admit it.

Posted by: tincture | August 31, 2008 8:33 PM

61

Folks, I'm not going to run to Moore's website and spend a lot of time reading his refutations of accusations so that I can refute his refutations for your pleasure. Tincture is pretty close to the target as to what I was saying, and I don't need to deny it. How many honest people do you know who are on the receiving end of so many claims of dishonesty that they need a website to refute them? I'm not saying all the claims are correct. I'm saying an honest person wouldn't be in that position, and I'm saying that I've seen the evidence of his dishonesty (already gave example in previous comment). Actually, tincture, don't you think there's at least a chance that Moore might be doing what you accuse me of doing? Denying?

Marcia, you revert back to my original post to pretend I focus only on emotional arguments and ignore my later explanation of one example of Moore's mendacity. Kudos for playing his game--cherry-picking your "facts" and ignoring counter-evidence to make a fallacious argument. However I will point that you are once again wrong--stating that people didn't recognize they were being manipulated is not an appeal to emotion. It's a statement of what I experienced in that theater. So far you have managed an innacuracy in each post--excellent work.

But to clarify, here's my argument that the people in that theater were idiots who were manipulated by Moore: the largest roar of delight was for the clip of Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb and running it through his hair. That people would get such a thrill out of that moment, as though it had some relation to his (very bad) actions and beliefs shows how shallow and moronic they were. That clip by Moore was the real appeal to emotion, not anything I've said here.

And, Marcia, I've yet to see you admit that you were wrong in calling Ed out in your first post. You keep posting with bravado as though you're pretty convinced of your insight--but you haven't yed had the decency to do the mea culpa on something where you were obviously and completely wrong. Don't go pointing out the splinter in my eye until you pull the tree trunk out of your own.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2008 8:55 PM

63

@Dan

People often put the word "joke" in quotation marks to point out they don't find something funny. I've seen movie critics put "comedy" in quotation marks when they're panning one. I'm certainly not defending anyone who got up in arms about Moore's joke, it just sounds like this is one of those scenarios where false outrage is being met with false outrage and everyone has to be deeply offended or nobody gets a cookie.

Posted by: thedeviliam | August 31, 2008 9:18 PM

65

James Hanley:

Folks, I'm not going to run to Moore's website and spend a lot of time reading his refutations of accusations so that I can refute his refutations for your pleasure. Tincture is pretty close to the target as to what I was saying, and I don't need to deny it. How many honest people do you know who are on the receiving end of so many claims of dishonesty that they need a website to refute them? I'm not saying all the claims are correct. I'm saying an honest person wouldn't be in that position, and I'm saying that I've seen the evidence of his dishonesty (already gave example in previous comment). Actually, tincture, don't you think there's at least a chance that Moore might be doing what you accuse me of doing? Denying?

The amount of people who have so many of these kind of lies spread about them is surprisingly close to the amount of people who have pissed off authoritarian american tools. Did you know that Obama is a secret gay muslim communist who wants everybody to be gay and be under Sharia law at the same time?

Your post is proof, that for some people, "throw enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick" is still a very effective strategy.

I can't help but once again notice that you've avoided justawriter's request.

Posted by: tincture | August 31, 2008 9:47 PM

67

Um, Professor Jimbo:

I don't think I said the comment bothered me. I think I did say that I thought it was strange that a guy who trumpets his genius for the world to hear would drop down to "my" level (although I haven't used that particular gambit with you, yet) when his temper gets the better of him.

Marcia called you on a comment and rather than retract what was, really, a generalization, you decided to attack her.

"Marcia, I did not say liberals = idiots. I said the theater was full of liberals, and those in the theater were idiots.

The great irony is you undercut your own criticism by, well, being an idiot--twice so far on this thread."

I'm sure there are other definitions for the word,
"idiot", but this one is from an online dictionary.

id·i·ot (d-t)
n.
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, do you actually think that Marcia is a fool, or that she is stupid? Or do you think that she has a mental age below three years of age?

You have a penchant for ridiculing folks who disagree with you. Me, I don't really care that much. I do wish that you would occassionally offer answers to the questions I pose instead of telling me that I don't belong in your clique of folks who are, oh so serious about all the weighty subjects we get into here. But, that's just me.

Oh, I wouldn't want Ed to ban anyone who isn't making death threats or something like that. I expect he would ban me first in any case, because I'm riff-raff and do not bring to the threads the sort of genius that you exhibit day in and day out.

BTW, your degrees and position don't impress me, but they obviously impress you.

You really should consider apologizing to Martha and then you can burn my effigy.

Posted by: democommie | August 31, 2008 9:57 PM

69

Taz is correct. This guy Hanley states unequivocally that the idiot liberal 9/11 viewers were manipulated and THAT is THE reason they laughed.

Misleading vividness logical fallacy.

This guy is a walking logical fallacy. Evey one of his posts is filled with fallacies. Plus, he seems clueless about Olbermann's style of humor. He says I was obviously and completerly wrong yet provides no evidence to the contrary. Never seen this Hanley guy's posts before and will avoid this blog if he's a regular. (However, I love picking out fallacies in arguments. It's like those picture games where you have to find the ten hidden items. It's the adult version of that kid's game.)

Posted by: marcia | August 31, 2008 10:04 PM

71

Democommie, you keep striking the victim pose and generally acting like a five-year-old in response to James Hanley's posts. I do not agree with Hanley much of the time, but I think he is generally well-written and thoughtful. You, on the other hand, aren't representing yourself well at all. Your smears are immature and reek of bitter anti-intellectualism; this, for instance,

I expect he would ban me first in any case, because I'm riff-raff and do not bring to the threads the sort of genius that you exhibit day in and day out.

is no more becoming when coming from your keyboard than it is when written by a right-wing authoritarian.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 31, 2008 10:16 PM

73

So now you're admitting there are no examples that haven't been dealt w/? That's a 180 from your original argument. It also contradicts your claim that you already posted an example, by you're own admission that example doesn't exist. In the interest of fairness, but mostly boredom, I did look for your example but it's a long comment block and i didn't find shit.

Obama is not lied about solely by those of "the opposing ideological persuasion" but simply by people who don't like him, just like Moore.

Posted by: tincture | August 31, 2008 10:24 PM

75

Anna:

Hey, I hope this one gets through, the first two got losted.

Are you Professor Jimbo's sockpuppet. I don't see you on the thread until he's got most of his leg down his gullet.

I though you were like all not gonna be insulting and stuff, I mean you gave me hell for it earlier. But, then you go and pick on this Marcia person, that "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" thing was really not very nice. But, hey, maybe it's okay, because she's not someone who's suitable, like me. I'm not saying that, mind you, I'm just sort of getting that from your dismissal of her.

Professor Jimbo:

Dude, just say "I don't like him, I think he's an asshole" it really gets right to the way you feel about him Mr. Moore. It's okay, really, I feel that way about every asshole that's on Fox News and Clear Channel. Of course they are lying 24/7 while Mr. Moore generally tells the truth (albeit in a very colorful way). I can't speak for Mr. Moore, so I can't say how thrilled he might be that you agree with him on the subject of George Bush--but since you don't like him it probably won't matter.

You have a wonderful way of making all sorts of statements as if they are factual. The truth is that you're just another person spouting opinions--opinions which you can't or won't defend with any back up.

Posted by: democommie | August 31, 2008 10:32 PM

77

Taz and Tincture, Oi! You're right! I thought I had mentioned an example. I think I must have cut it out of a post before I posted--my bad. First, tincture, to say I don't have a new example that hasn't been dealt with is not 180 degrees of my claim. I never claimed to know a new example. Here are my examples, they're well known, and I'm sure Moore has a response, but I did see Bowling for Columbine, and this is what I saw.

1. He implies that the NRA held its annual meeting in Denver in response to the Columbine shootings. In fact as a legally incorporated non-profit corporation, the NRA must by law have an annual meeting. That meeting had previously been scheduled for Denver and could not be rescheduled quickly enough elsewhere. The NRA actually reduced its number of events at that meeting in response to Columbine. Full disclosure: I have no guns and am not a member of the NRA. In general I dislike all organized interest groups. I could care less about them. I do care about Moore spinning a false story line.

2. He implied in his film that at the one bank you could walk out of the bank with a gun right after opening a checking account. Again, false.

3. In Fahrenheit 9/11 he implied that pre-invasion Iraq was a happy place. He showed smiling children and happy families--wholly obscuring the fact that Hussein's cronies would often take a teenage girl from her family, rape her for days, then either kill her or return her to her family in disgrace. Wholly obscuring that Saddam Hussein used poison gas on the tribes in southern Iraq and drained the swamps on which they depended for a living to try to destroy them.

That last one is the one that particularly offended me. I was a vocal opponent of the invasion from the beginning, but I didn't have to try to tell everyone that Hussein's Iraq was peaceful and happy to make my point.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2008 10:41 PM

79

He implies?

Posted by: democommie | August 31, 2008 10:46 PM

81

@James

3. In Fahrenheit 9/11 he implied that pre-invasion Iraq was a happy place. He showed smiling children and happy families--wholly obscuring the fact that Hussein's cronies would often take a teenage girl from her family, rape her for days, then either kill her or return her to her family in disgrace. Wholly obscuring that Saddam Hussein used poison gas on the tribes in southern Iraq and drained the swamps on which they depended for a living to try to destroy them.

Unfortunately, all this is not for you to judge. At least, you may have hated what imagery he used, but it was no lie. If it was a lie, then you've set the bar so low that there's probably nothing you or I can say about Iraq, now or then, without being accused of lying. It certainly had nothing to do with going to war, plus you didn't have to have an opinion on Saddam Hussein to be against the war.

You don't think the kite flying was tongue in cheek, by the way? All five (or less) seconds of it? I call false outrage, to use a term I've learnt recently. :)

Posted by: Dan | August 31, 2008 10:51 PM

83

Demo, This back and forth between us really is getting ridiculous, but I do want to respond to this bit of a previous post.

You have a penchant for ridiculing folks who disagree with you.

And do you really think you don't? Calling me Jimbo, repeteadly mocking me for having an education, etc. You have every right to ridicule me for disagreeing with you, but I do think it cuts both ways and I have just as much right to ridicule you.

I do wish that you would occassionally offer answers to the questions I pose instead of telling me that I don't belong in your clique of folks who are, oh so serious about all the weighty subjects we get into here. But, that's just me.

I have answered your questions, frequently. But you just ignore my answers. I have called you a liar before, and here is another example of a lie. And you cannot, at any point, find a comment where I tell you that you don't "belong in my clique of folks who are, oh so serious about all the weighty subjects." Never happened, and you can't find a place where I did. I have called you an idiot. But it's because you say things like this. Hell, you should see my clique. Our "weighty discussion" this weekend was watching the Star Wars parody "Troopers" on youtube and talking about Futurama. It's only in your mind that there's some vision that I take myself that seriously.

Oh, I wouldn't want Ed to ban anyone who isn't making death threats or something like that. I expect he would ban me first in any case, because I'm riff-raff and do not bring to the threads the sort of genius that you exhibit day in and day out.

Yeah, here's the victim pose again. Even Sadie, who also doesn't agree with me, has noticed it. There's a real passive-aggressive thing going on here; you repeatedly attack me, then retreat into victim mode. As I said, feel free to continue attacking me, just stand up and have the spine to take as much as you dish out.

BTW, your degrees and position don't impress me, but they obviously impress you.

Actually, you keep bringing it up. I've only mentioned it occasionally, and then only in reference to technical subjects I've studied. I don't bring it up on a thread like this because it's irrelevant, but you have already brought it up more than once here. Is it just so that you can play vicim some more? "Look how mean the big bad college prof is! He disagreed with me, and that's not fair!"

There are many people I respect on this blog. In addition to Ed, I would name kehrsam, Rev AJB, Troublesome Frog, Gretchen, Dingo Jack, Sadie, Abby Normal, James K, tacitus, King of Ireland, my alleged sock puppet Anna, and others whose names I can't think of now but who deserve to be named (my apologies to all you other fine contributors). Even Raging Bee, with whom I have had some very rough arguments, I think often makes good points. There are very few whom I have found it impossible to have any respect for. You have voluntarily put yourself in that company. Now you play the "poor me, give my sympathy" game. You know my response--after all, you've brought it up enough times.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2008 11:06 PM

85

democommie - I saw Hanley's name followed by yours and stopped by to see if anything I said to you had any impact whatsoever. I realize it didn't.

As far as your creative namecalling. I am nobody's sockpuppet. i think for myself that is why I don't need a political party affiliation to identify with.

As for the Marcia comment, I saw your comment where you were trying to "save" her from Hanley. Yeah my dogging you was a bit at her expense so to her I apologize. You however, did not come here to debate the issue at hand but to launch into a attack on Hanley using the same arguement that you launched in the other thread.

Hanley doesn't need me to defend him. I just thought initially before it got ugly, that I could use my non-academicness to help you to understand his arguements. So I did have intentions of being nice at the end of the other thread because I thought maybe just maybe you would behave like an adult and argue the issues. Instead, you launched directly into a personal attack and my desire to be nice has ended. I am through arguing with you on this or any other thread. You can bait me - attack Hanley - have the last word. I am DONE.

Posted by: Anna | August 31, 2008 11:34 PM

87

And in fairness, the strongest point, for me, in F 9/11 was the scene of the Iraqi father carrying his daughter's blood-covered body. Can't call it a high-point, exactly, for obvious reasons. But that one image all the pro-war yahoos who thought it was a glorious event needed to see repeatedly. I'm sure most of them managed to miss it, wherever and whenever else it was shown.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 1, 2008 12:03 AM

89

First sentence of my last post should have been It would be interesting to see if O'Reilly will refrain from criticizing Moore, given his own 'joke' about the U.N".

Posted by: daniel rotter | September 1, 2008 2:17 AM

91

I agree that one COULD take away from F911 that the portrayal of pre-terrorist invasion was a happy place; but one could also take from that movie the portrayal of this Iraq as a STABLE place, supremely superior to post-terrorist invasion Iraq. The movie could be misleading, if one assumed that MM looked the other way while Hussein committed his crimes, the way that pretty much the entire world looked the other way while he was committing his crimes. I think it was hard-left blowhards who pointed out these crimes, while they being committed and not at a convenient distance of time, and who pointed out that being among his enablers does not afford one the slightest shred of moral high ground.

Posted by: jws | September 1, 2008 2:30 AM

93

Having written it twice you think I might have proof-read my own post!
Of course, it should have read:
Marcia - Perhaps you read it differently from me...
Apologies DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2008 3:03 AM

95

Dingojack:

I don't think you're anything like a sockpuppet.

You may be right about what Hanley "thought" when he saw F9/11. It's certainly not what he said.

Just so everyone is clear on this, I don't feel like a victim--that is a projection by some other commenters who are apparently feeling like one themselves. I say what I say about Hanley because I don't like the way he addresses those he disagrees with--not just me.

a few examples from this thread.

Comments to Marcia:

"Moore is fully as dishonest as Limbaugh, and I find it stunning that so many people can't recognize it."

"The great irony is you undercut your own criticism by, well, being an idiot--twice so far on this thread."

"You first criticized Ed for not doing something, even though he had explicitly done it. Then you badly mis-stated my words to twist them into something I clearly did not say. Both of those are examples of idiotic arguments, so to call you an idiot in response is not an ad hominen, but a comment on the intellect that spawned those bad arguments...In answer to you question, no, your last comment was not an ad hominem. It's refreshing to see that you're aware of your need for guidance on the subject."

"And, Marcia, I've yet to see you admit that you were wrong in calling Ed out in your first post. You keep posting with bravado as though you're pretty convinced of your insight--but you haven't yed had the decency to do the mea culpa on something where you were obviously and completely wrong. Don't go pointing out the splinter in my eye until you pull the tree trunk out of your own."

Comments to Justawriter:

"Moore deals in deceit, no differently than Limbaugh, and I can never condone that."

"justawriter, If someone needs a website to refute all the accusations of lying, I think that says something right there."

Comments to Tincture: (made after about eight or nine requests from several different commenters that Hanley furnish some example of Moore's "mendacity).

"Now just how do you propose I go about coming up with some example of Moore's mendacity that hasn't already been brought up? Not to bash justawriter, because I don't think this was his intent, but the only way I could bring up an issue that Moore hasn't already addressed is by bringing up an issue of dishonesty that has never been raised before. I don't have any secret information about Michael Moore that everyone else lacks.

If you think that's ducking the question, then please explain how I'm supposed to have this secret information about Moore. I'm not magic."

In these comments Hanley insults people he disagrees with or refuses to offer proofs for his assertions re: Michael Moore, liberals and people being idiots.

Obviously you have some respect for him, perhaps because he is intelligent (I've never suggested otherwise). I don't, primarily because he treats those he disagrees with as though they can't have gotten it right. And when they persist in their "wrongness" he then gets ugly. I don't care how intelligent he is, if he wants to play that game (and he does, based on the threads I've been on) I'm there. When he decides to stop insulting others when they disagree with him, instead of answering their questions, I'll lay off him.

Posted by: democommie | September 1, 2008 7:23 AM

97

Asking for respect on these "science" blogs is like handing out speeding ticketts at the Indy 500.

Posted by: Old Coot | September 1, 2008 8:23 AM

99

thedeviliam said -

But when Michael Moore makes a joke that isn't funny, people don't criticize it for not being funny, they use it to frame Michael Moore as a heartless, callous monster who wants people to die. Then, of course, they get sentimental watching a George Carlin show where he talks for an hour about wanting people to die.

Of course they do, you are referring the people that hate him regardless and of course they will jump on this. They were given the perfect opportunity to do so - but I don't see that as the case on this thread. This failed attempt at humor was in bad taste and hypocritical. It confirms why his arrogance proves he is dispicable to even those like myself who agree with him in many ways. He is not a comedian, we expect Carlin to be ridiculously crass. It is his schtick (sp?). Moore is always acting as though he is morally superior - this just proves that he is not. Good behavior does not excuse bad behavior. He isn't a victim, he brought this on himself.

Posted by: Anna | September 1, 2008 8:38 AM

101

Moore made a joke that was in questionable taste. That's all. Get over it.
Dave S. makes a good point, though: The fact that Gustav allows a pretext for McSame to distance himself from the loathed Bush/Cheney duo who will be absent from the RNS and presumably be fighting Gustav in hand-to-hand combat may prove out to be a blessing is disguise.

Posted by: Joe | September 1, 2008 8:56 AM

103

With regards to the montage of Iraqi civilians - when I first saw the film, which was pretty soon after it came out, I really didn't interpret it that way at all. I thought it was just showing civilians in Iraq to set up the absolutely devastating shots of civilian casualties later. It was only in discussions afterwards that it struck me that those scenes could be interpreted as whitewashing Saddam Hussein's regime. (Although, if you wanted to make that charge, the line of voiceover shortly after it where he implies that Iraq has never harmed an American civilian is much more damaging to his credibility. Er, Mike, there was this thing called the Gulf War...)

I have very mixed feelings about him. I think that on a simple level of documentary craft he is genuinely excellent, and anyone planning to go into the documentary trade should study how films like Fahrenheit 9/11 are structured and edited. Some of the complaints about him are ridiculous and easily dismissable - I'm particularly scornful of the idea that any documentary which has an agenda or opinions about what it's documenting is "propaganda". Utter nonsense, frankly. But there are many things, like the specific charges about Bowling for Columbine that James mentioned, or the Afghan oil pipeline stuff at the start of F9/11, which make me very uneasy about the lengths he's willing to go to make his point.

Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | September 1, 2008 9:28 AM

105

@James, Sadie,

Irrespective of whether the kite scene in F911 agreed with what you thought should have been used to represent pre-invasion Iraq, or in fact if it made good film-making sense in terms of the narrative, let's consider it's truth value, since that's what James's example came up in the context of. There are a number of metrics you could use to evaluate the truth value of that scene:

1. Globally, more Iraqis died and suffered as a result of the invasion. Whatever global (as in overall) stability there was pre-invasion, has not (yet) been restored.

2. Locally, that scene is almost certainly true for a very many Iraqis. The average Iraqi was almost certainly more affected by the invasion than Saddam. This is especially true of children.[1]

Since you make these claims in the context of supporting or not the war, let me make some tangential points:

3. The many who attempt to mitigate (at least partially) the war by citing Saddam's crimes (including many leftie friends of mine!) must face a significant inconsistency: If Saddam's behaviour toward his people were in any way the reason for invasion, we should first do something about North Korea and Tibet, which are older and more significant than Iraq. Not to speak of recent conflagrations such as Darfur, about which we are doing squat. Of course, you may think we should invade these places too, in which case you are at least consistent.

4. Saddam's crimes were neither the formal nor the real reason for the invasion. The former had to do with WMD and outward threats, and the latter presumably with a strategic foreign policy or oil objective (to be sufficiently vague). Pitying the poor Iraqis was merely an enterprising rationalisation by some (honestly) concerned (and good intentioned) observers.

In conclusion: Was the kite-flying scene a lie? I think from points 1. and 2. clearly not. Points 3. and 4. stress that it does not even undermine the real reason the war broke out, and hence does not undermine the film's narrative.

[1] I grew up in a totalitarian regime, for which I have no love, especially because the system persecuted my family. However, the horror stories of my parents and adult friends were much worse than anything I, as a child, experienced. I'm not pretending it was the same as Saddam's Iraq, but you get my point.

Posted by: Dan | September 1, 2008 9:37 AM

107

Oh, Michael Heath! Whose name was inexcusably left off the list of Dispatche regulars I sincerely respect.

All I would say in response, Michael, is that I think his critique of Bush would be even stronger if he could have done it without the misrepresentation.

As to the gentleman who suggested Moore was just showing a stable Iraq, and that the post-invasion Iraq was worse; it all depended on who you were in Iraq and where you lived. Post-invasion has been better for the Kurds, by far, than pre-invasion. For those who were brutalized by the regime, the word stability must sound like a cruel joke.

Again, I was not, and am not now, a defender of the war. I believe the invasion was unjustified, not in the U.S.'s interests, and inexcusably caused the deaths of countless innocent civilians. But I believe we can critique the war without pretending there was anything desirable about the political system of pre-invasion Iraq.

On the other hand--Thomas Hobbes would agree with you, and who am I compared to him?

Posted by: James Hanley | September 1, 2008 9:41 AM

109

Wow. After reading through the comments section of this blog, I won't be reminded to stay away...some interesting points but much more fluff than needed. Fluff which seems to revolve around certain characters...

Posted by: selac | September 1, 2008 10:56 AM

111

At least Moore's on the right side of the propaganda machine.

I don't agree that Micheal Moore is the left's Rush Limbaugh, that title clearly belongs to Keith Olbermann. Micheal Moore sometimes goes a little over the top, but the bulk of his work is really very good.

It is unfortunate Micheal Moore didn't think this particular statement through. But, just because someone agrees with you is a terrible excuse.

Posted by: JED | September 1, 2008 11:04 AM

113

@johannes

who should judge a movie, or any other product of the cultural industry, if not the viewer, as the customer and consumer, for whom the product is made?

I attempted to clarify what I meant by that. Care to respond to that? Of course a film is to be judged by the audience. But that's a different sense to whether we can judge that scene's veracity. For that, we are out of our depth.

> Was the kite-flying scene a lie?
It was a piece of propaganda. It's ideology. Hence the question if it was factually true is largely irrelevant. It is not a factual lie: those kites probably existed.

You give propaganda a bad name. ;) Seriously though, propaganda has to be more than just biased presentation. Otherwise you'll have to accuse a whole army of scientists, advertisers, bloggers, lawyers and parents of propaganda.

Don't bandy the word around so easily, lest it lose its meaning like the word fascism has. (A real pity.)

And this:

Hence the question if it was factually true is largely irrelevant.

You must be kidding. Do you realise that this scene was mentioned by James as an example of a lie?

That you have a distaste for what a fact implies is "largely irrelevant" from the point of view of whether it is true or not.

If you think the movie as a whole is propaganda, or you disagree with its message, or you disagree with its narrative logic, that's fine. But claiming that a five second scene is propaganda is plain silly.

Posted by: Dan | September 1, 2008 11:40 AM

115

This offhand comment by MM is worth a blog post? How about Ed Brayton: "Shut up" until you get some perspective.

Posted by: RoySV | September 1, 2008 12:05 PM

117

What is wrong with people here? If Michael Moore wants to be a jerk by saying those things, so the fuck what? Isn't this just a matter of taste? And "shut the hell up", Ed? If you had titled this post "Michael Moore is a fucking jerkwad", I'd have kept silent, since that was your opinion, but... What the hell happened to free speech?

Yes, you didn't call for MM to be silenced, but seeing how some people have parroted your post title, I can't help but wonder whether you could've rephrased it.

Posted by: FO | September 1, 2008 12:27 PM

119

ginger asked:

You make a charge that his 9/11 movie was "so full of misinformation". Does a review of his vetting page resolve those issues, and if not, perhaps you could list those instances of misinformation and distortions that belie the messages of his movie?

No, a review of his vetting page does not resolve the issues for me. I object to the way he uses facts to make spurious implications, whereas his website addresses blunt facts.

Here is a list of 3 items that I see as disinformation in his movies Bowling and F 9/11:

1. Implying that pre-invasion Iraq was a happy place.
2. Same-day reception of gun after opening bank account.
3. NRA going to Denver to capitalize on Columbine.

Here are the sorts of facts he verifies on his F 9/11 page:

"Fox called the election for Bush before the other networks."

"People pelted Bush's car with eggs."

"Gore got more votes than Bush."

"Over the next eight months things didn't get better for Bush."

" On August 6 th, 2001, George W. Bush went fishing."

I've never heard that these were big objects of dispute. Perhaps someone has made a critical claim on each, but these are not the major criticisms of the film. The real criticism is that he edits his films in a way that sends misleading messages. It is fairly common knowledge that the most compelling mistruth is one that is based on facts, because a misleading implication is much harder to directly refute than a factual error.

And I looked through his whole F 9/11 verification page, and nowhere does he address my criticism--that he falsely portrayed pre-invasion Iraq as a happy place. He simply does not acknowledge that criticism, so far as I found. So, no, his page does not resolve my issue--it could not resolve it as it does not address it.

Similarly I checked the page for Bowling for Columbine, to see how he dealt with the "getting the gun from the bank" issue. He has the transcript of his conversation with the bank teller online. The teller does say that he will receive a gun from the bank, and that the bank has at least 500 firearms in a vault. But the teller twice says, "after we do the background check," and never does the teller say "you'll get it today." At best this transcipt is inconclusive, so again I have to say that, no, it does not resolve my questions.

Nowhere on the Bowling page did I find that he has responded to the claim that he misleadingly implied that the NRA chose Denver for its meeting in response to the Columbine shootings. So, again, the issue remains unresolved, as he apparently has not addressed it. (And again, I own no guns and am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with the NRA.)

I believe I have done what was asked. I listed several points where it seems to me that Moore was deceptive. I checked his website to see if his verification pages satisfactorily resolved these issues. In two cases the critiques--which are not original with me, and which he has had plenty of time to respond to--are not even addressed. The other--the bank/gun issue--is addressed, but with a transcript that provides no conclusive evidence either for or against my claim.

There, without rancor, profanity, insults, or emotional rhetoric, I did what was asked of me.

I do not assume I have convinced anyone who disagrees with me. I am sure that we view his films differently, and come away with a different understanding of them.

All I do ask is that you acknowledge that I have answered your question, not ducked it, and have done so by going to Moore's page, as you requested.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 1, 2008 3:21 PM

121

And I looked through his whole F 9/11 verification page, and nowhere does he address my criticism--that he falsely portrayed pre-invasion Iraq as a happy place. He simply does not acknowledge that criticism, so far as I found. So, no, his page does not resolve my issue--it could not resolve it as it does not address it.

quick question: have you e-mailed him? I guess he can't respond to every possible criticism and interpretation, but maybe e-mailing him wouldn't hurt.

Posted by: Dan | September 1, 2008 4:24 PM

123

Dan,

I did answer your previous point, in my post at 9:41 a.m., where I argued that pre-invasion Iraq was not a safe, happy, or stable place for many of its citizens.

I should email Moore? Are you kidding? I haven't even thought about him since the last time I read Rivethead about 8 months ago. Now as a consequence of critiquing him I'm supposed to go spend my time chasing him down and asking him to answer all my questions? I already went to his website. If you want to convince me he's honest, feel free to email him yourself, give him my critiques, then email me with the answer.

I think it is clear that you don't like the way the movie made its points, and it particularly hurt because it used some form of facts.

Right on the first count, I don't like the way Moore made his points, which is pretty much all I've been saying. I'm not sure what you mean by "hurt" in the second point. The film didn't "hurt" me, other than that it was 2 hours of my life I could never get back, but that's true of Howard the Duck and Star Wars Episode I, also. I don't think the only options were to like the film or to be "hurt"--I just simply walked out thinking Moore was not someone I respected.

Taz,

I didn't claim the transcript was dishonest. I said it neither confirms nor disconfirms the way the whole thing was presented in the movie. The movie contained more than the transcript.

As to Moore saying he's never been sued by the NRA, I don't think they'd have much of a basis for a suit. While I think his presentation was dishonest, I think it was also legal. So the claim that they haven't sued him doesn't really demonstrate anything except that he didn't make a tortious claim. If it came to that, I'd loudly claim Moore's First Amendment right to make every single frame of his film as he made them. But I think we can all agree that defending someone's First Amendment right to say something doesn't imply agreement with it.

I've made my points, and nobody's refuted them, just said that they interpret it differently. My claims clearly didn't persuade you. That's all right. Our different perspectives apparently make it an irresolvable debate. But please note that I did go to his website, as requested, to see if he had refuted my accusations, and he in fact has not done so. Nor has anyone else done what they asked of me and sought out more information. Consequently, I remain unpersuaded by my respected opponents.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 1, 2008 8:03 PM

125

As someone who had the same thought (and blogged it here) I tend to be sympathetic with MM.

This is not a matter of consistency. There is a vast, vast difference between chuckling about the irony of the republicans taking it in the butt by a natural disaster given that it is the religious right that is always telling us that we have sinned and this is why we have an AIDS crisis, a bad storm, whatever. These are simply NO parallel or mirror image cases. This is simply a little random justice, worthy of comment. Then moving on.

Although, I must say, my blog post was much better done than this interview.

Posted by: Greg Laden | September 1, 2008 9:10 PM

127

Curt, Thank you. You have done what others haven't. I hadn't realized that particular link was relevant (I did not peruse evey single page of Moore's website--I do have something of a life, which included taking my kids somewhere to have fun on Labor Day). I hereby soften my stance from "Moore lied about the gun transaction" to "I remain unconvinced of the veracity of Moore's claim." Here is my evidence, which does not disprove yours, but leaves us with two contradictory stories about the event.

First, from Andy Ihnatko, a technology columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. Andy claims to have liked the movie, then began to have doubts about the accuracy of it.

So I called the bank, North Country Bank & Trust. The spokesperson who processed Moore's free gun in the film doesn't work there any more, but I spoke to one of the gun program's customer-service reps. It turns out that it's impossible to duplicate Moore's experience.

Here's the procedure for the gun program, as it was explained to me:

1) You walk into the bank and ask for "the account where you get the free gun."...

4) You fill out paperwork. Two sets, actually. One is the usual paperwork for opening a CD, the second is information for the required firearms background check.

5) You go home and wait. The bank processes your paperwork, both to make sure that no other bank has ever lost money doing business with you, and to make sure that they can legally sell you a firearm. I asked the rep how long the bank took to approve a customer and get him his gun, but she was uncomfortable with giving me an actual number.

"Well, are we talking hours? Days?" I asked.

"Oh, days, definitely." Later in the conversation, she described it as "Like, two weeks' worth of days."

Second is this bit from Roger Ebert's website.

Q. I was the "Bowling for Columbine" producer who scouted the bank that gives you a gun. I was there for Michael Moore's only and entire visit to the bank and was dismayed to see you repeating an outright lie about this scene. Mike walked into North County Bank and walked out with a gun in less than an hour. He opened a CD account, they faxed in his check, it came back all clear, and a bank official handed him his rifle. ... (Jeff Gibbs, Traverse City, MI)

...

Of the bank incident Gibbs mentions, author John Fund writes:

"Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. 'What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing,' she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. 'Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period,' she says."

I asked Michael Moore about this report. His response: "I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun.

So there you have it, two stories. Bank says one thing, Moore says another. Of course the bank could have been embarrassed by the bad publicity and tried to cover up what happened. Or Moore could have carefully set it up ahead of time by the production company, in which case Moore can truthfully say he walked out the same day, while still misrepresenting the reality of what normally happens there.

Who to beleive? I don't have any basis for being convinced by any of them, which is why I soften my critique from "lie" to "dubious about the veracity." But having seen two of Moore's films, I don't really trust him.

I have also seen the film Michael Moore Hates America (a tongue-in-cheek title, and two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper). In it a young (conservative) filmmaker pulls a "Roger" on Moore, trying to get an interview with him. In it you can see Moore apparently lying to the young filmmaker--saying "I don't appear in any films but my own," a claim which the filmmaker then exposes as false by showing a list of films Moore has been in--and then being exceptionally rude to him. It's not a funny moment in the film, in fact it's rather chilling.

So let me reiterate. Curt has, by presenting more evidence forced me to soften my stance on the one claim. But there is contradictory evidence, so I cannot be fully convinced.

I have now spent far more time arguing about Michael Moore than I had ever though I would.

Oh, and, Demo, you're so cute when you try to be mean.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 1, 2008 10:42 PM

129

I've been trying to reply to Curt's post. My response keeps getting stuck in moderation. (Ed--only the first one, please). In a nutshell, I praise him for a good reply, soften my stance a bit, and provide two rebuttals to Moore's claim. Conclusion: I have no basis for deciding either side is telling the truth, but I remain unconvinced of Moore's honesty.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 1, 2008 10:54 PM

131

Curt, Thank you. You have done what others haven't.

I did go to Moore's site, but it's a little hard to debunk a claim for which there's been offered absolutely no evidence. Now I see that you have finally posted something to back it up. That's great, but as the accuser it was incumbent upon you to do this in the first place. You're not the only one that has a life, you know.

Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 11:29 PM

133

James, thanks for providing your other sources. They're illuminating. However, you really ought to carefully read the entire page to which I linked, I think. It's not terribly long. And by the way, I, too, did not peruse every page of Moore's web site; in fact that page linked from the transcript you posted is the only other page on his site I have ever read, at least in the last year or two.

Most of the "lies" claims appear to have come from a short Forbes piece by Daniel Lyons:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1209/059.html

I find many other articles quoting it, but most are opinion pieces, implying a lower level of fact checking right there (opinion is not held to the same standard as straight news, for reasons I can get into if you really like). I can find little other truly independent research into these things.

Most of these claims are already addressed on Moore's page. As Moore points out, his fact-checking has to be very, very careful, since there are a lot of people out there who would be quite happy to sue him for getting facts wrong. So while I might not buy his slant on things, I'm not likely to dispute outright facts he places in front of me without a good bit of evidence to back me up.

And of course the statements from the Bank itself are not only not fact- checked, they are generated by a PR department with a strong interest in spinning the story a certain way and restrained only by the need to avoid being sued, if possible. I would take with a large grain of salt anything that comes out of a company that is not given under oath or under some other penalty for perjury.

cjs@cynic.net

Posted by: Curt Sampson | September 2, 2008 12:26 AM

135

> Don't bandy the word around so easily, lest it lose its
> meaning like the word fascism has. (A real pity.)

It is the other way around: The definition of fascism became wider and wider, until it became just a generic slander. The definition of propaganda, however, became narrower and narrower over the years. Once it meant every form of agitation, even commercial advertising. AFAIK, it ist still used in that way in several languages, South American Spanish for example. And there are quite a few leftists around that still consider agitprop (= agitation and propaganda) quite a honorable occupation.

> But claiming that a five second scene is propaganda is
> plain silly.

Where I live - in Germany - this 'childlike innocence protected by paternalistic power' stuff harks back to WW I at least, and was frequently used by nationalist and conservative intellectuals to decry western liberalism. Hence I recognise it as propaganda if I see it, even if it's only for seconds. It might be otherwise for people from other countries or with other cultural backgrounds

Posted by: johannes | September 2, 2008 4:26 AM

137

Demo,

Shut the fuck up. You're getting really tiresome. You've provided nothing to this thread except insults.

I provided three instances where I my impression is that Moore was not truthful. For one of those I didn't immediately provide evidence, and everyone jumped on that. Fine, then I provide some evidence (which, contrary to the above claim by Curt, are not described as coming from the bank's PR department (what's your source for that, Curt?). Then I still get shat upon by the illustrious democomie, and Taz moves the goalpots to cry that I haven't demonstrated Moore is like Limbaugh.

For God's sake, if Moore doesn't rise to Limbaugh's level of mendacity it's only because he's not on the radio for hours a day like Limbaugh. Apparently I touched a nerve among some Moore acolytes here--sorry to have pissed upon your god.

Have at me, because I recognize the relentless crowd that you are. You'll keep shifting ground and shifting ground to find something to demand that I prove, keep moving the goalposts, keep ignoring whatever answers I give, because you're offended that I crtiqued the guy you love. There's no end to a debate with folks like you--every time I have provided what you asked, it's just been, "Oh, yeah, but what about this?"

Yeah, I'm annoyed. You all argue as dishonestly as Moore himself. You've got under my skin now, so have at it.

I'll just close with this. Curt, if you think it all comes from a piece from Forbes, you haven't looked hard. There are plenty of people critiquing Moore. Numbers don't make it true, obviously, but it's not like everyone's just copying from that article (which I've never read). As to my critique of Moore's depiction of pre-invasion Iraq, I didn't need to read anyone else's critique to see that--I walked out of the theater thinking Moore had just denied the evil that was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and if denying evil isn't Limbaugh-like, what is?

Just for kids, here's a piece by Christopher Hitchens about F 9/11 titled "The Lies of Michael Moore." He roasts Moore not just for lying but for contradicting himself. And here's what Hitchens says about Moore's take on Iraq.

In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then--wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

And that's the end of my participation in this debate. Once again, despite providing more evidence than anyone posed against me, my debate opponents don't even have the decency to say, "OK, I see your evidence. I'm not convinced, but I see your evidence." No, taking their cues from the modern political style of debate perfected by people like Moore, Limbaugh, and others, they continue to make a pretense that their opponent hasn' presented any evidence at all, and pretend their opponent has no justification for his views.

Color me unimpressed.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 2, 2008 6:42 AM

139

My friend is a "L"iberal documentary film maker and the mere mention of MM and documentary film in the same sentence makes here cringe - why? For the exact point that only a few posters here seem to get. He is not making documentary films here he is making PR films. If he wants to just make movies that portray certain ideas in a particular light, than more power to him, and if he wants to defend those assertions fine, but this is NOT documentary worthy, it is not equal and balanced in its delivery or in its fact gathering. Doesn't it strike even a few of you MM fans that even liberal leaning folks are feeling uncomfortable and suspicious as to how events are accurately portrayed? I believe that says volumes about his work. I don't have reason to doubt his "facts" but the reason I find him to be dispicable is that he uses the guise of "truth and facts" to distort certain events enough to send a particular message but not enough to that he can't somehow defend it. Clever, yes - but as far as my definition of documentary (which requires objectivity and not just documentation to back up assertions) - not even close. It may not be enough to say he is a liar, but it definitely leaves a bad taste and anyway I look at it is still dishonest.

Posted by: Anna | September 2, 2008 8:11 AM

141

That was to James Hanley, obviously.

Posted by: tincture | September 2, 2008 8:15 AM

143

This is a minor point, but it made by BS detecter go off nonetheless:

James Hanley quoted Andy Ihnatko:

5) You go home and wait. The bank processes your paperwork, both to make sure that no other bank has ever lost money doing business with you...

To buy a $1000, 20 year CD? He wasn't getting a loan, he purchased a CD. (At least that's what Moore said in the quote in Curt's post.)

Maybe I'm confused and there's some other kind of CD I'm not aware of, but it took me all of ten minutes to purchase one at my bank. They were quite happy to take my money.

(Note: I am not interested in defending Michael Moore's movies, claims or opinions. It just struck me as an odd description of purchasing a CD.)

Posted by: Leni | September 2, 2008 10:12 AM

145

Taz,

Do you genuinely not see how others percieve dishonesty in what MM is doing? Do you believe that his "documentaries" are made objectively - in that he looks at the whole truth?

If you believe that he is objective than you will also be justified to saying he is an honest documentarian.

If you have any perception or valid suspicions of instances of objectivity, than it would be simple to surmise that he is not an honest documentarian. This is the point that I see several posters making.

For me, the reason for not trusting MM is justified - not by "factual proof" per se but in how the message is relayed or understood by the viewers. If MM only based his documentaries on factual evidence where the opposing viewpoint actually was shown in an objective manner, I think he would have garnered more respect(the comb licking scene may be funny, but has no place in a political documentary). But please, explain to me why I should take his word over others whose complaints and questions of how things are portrayed are also legitimate. It is as impossible to prove that some of these posters have erroneous interpretations as it is proving MM is an outright liar.

I don't buy that some of the obviously intelligent posters here merely misinterpreted how MM presented the material - Call it it poetic license, but it is subtle manipulation of the facts - maybe it is not a Lie, but it obviously isn't an objective view of the truth either - and definitely not a documentary under my definition - therefore it is not unreasonable for anyone to consider him dishonest.

Posted by: Anna | September 2, 2008 12:56 PM

147

I didn't realize Taz actually wanted real proof that Moore was like Limbaugh. It's such an amorphous statement, really just a statement of contempt, that I wouldn't even consider it a provable one. It's just that the utter contempt for Limbaugh that Taz and I share is what I also feel for Moore.

I never moved any goalposts, quite evidently. I claimed there were at least three points in Moore's films that I took issue with (those are the ones I remember now, years after watching), I stated what they were, and I provided supporting arguments.

As I've said repeatedly, I have no objections to people not being convinced by my arguments. I fully recognize that you might interpet a Moore film differently. For example, one could make the argument that any minor inaccuracies are irrelevant because the overall message is what's true.

What persistently annoys me is that most of you who debated this with me do not understand logic and evidence. It's clear you think you do, but it's just as clear to me that your understanding is severely deficient.

I probably ought to have more patience--it's a good quality, after all, and it's true that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. But when I see a person writing smugly about how I've not argued fairly, when that person has failed to produce any evidence, or to construct an argument based on logic, it gets under my skin.

I'm surprised this argument even went so far. I had thought that it was the norm on a blog like this for a person to make a broad statement about someone like that without being hounded for precise evidence. It's not like I accused him of being a child-molestor, or some such. Nevertheless, as people asked, I provided more clarification of my criticism, and in response to further requests I provided more support for those more specific criticisms.

Only Curtis had the understanding that each side needs to provide evidence, rather than solely one side.

At the end gingerbaker tries to do the same, and I accord that due gratitude. I don't think the piece supports his claim. The person making the report does say that he could be executed for criticizing Saddam. And it does not report that Saddam used poison gas on his own subjects. Before or after the invasion, life was precarious for Iraqis. Even if it is, arguably, worse afterwards, Moore painted a falsely positive image of the before state--he didn't show anyone being executed for criticizing Saddam, nor did he show the effects of Saddam using poison gas on his own citizens. Showing the good and ignoring the bad is dishonest. Gingerbaker quoted the whole piece, good and bad, about life under Saddam--that puts Gingerbaker on a higher plane of honesty than Moore.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 2, 2008 2:25 PM

149

James -

Only Curtis had the understanding that each side needs to provide evidence, rather than solely one side.

Show me were I've done that. Here's how the dialog went from my point of view:
- I presented an alternate interpretation of the audience's reaction to the comb-licking incident.
- I pointed out that you had not yet given a specific example of Moore's dishonesty, although you claimed you had. I understand this was merely an oversight on your part.
- You then posted your three examples, and I went to Moore's site to see if I could find any evidence against your claim. Admittedly I didn't come up with much - certainly not as much as Curtis, but what I did come with I posted. You'll note that at this time I hadn't asked you to justify anything.
- You responded to my post, and everything was fine. Curt than posted what he found on Moore's site, and in response to that you wrote "Curt, Thank you. You have done what others haven't." It was only at this point that you provided any evidence of your own. I pointed out that it was hypocritical of you to get snippy about people not coming up with evidence to debunk your points when you hadn't yet supplied any to support them. And I added that your evidence hadn't convinced me.
- You then complained that I "moved the goalposts" and added

You'll keep shifting ground and shifting ground to find something to demand that I prove, keep moving the goalposts, keep ignoring whatever answers I give, because you're offended that I crtiqued the guy you love. There's no end to a debate with folks like you--every time I have provided what you asked, it's just been, "Oh, yeah, but what about this?"

and

Once again, despite providing more evidence than anyone posed against me, my debate opponents don't even have the decency to say, "OK, I see your evidence. I'm not convinced, but I see your evidence."

- I then pointed out the the majority of that particular post was nothing but petulant nonsense. After rereading it, that's still my opinion by the way.

I realize you're responding to several people, but you might try to make an effort not to lump everyone together. However, that seems to be your MO.

"Have at me, because I recognize the relentless crowd that you are."
"There's no end to a debate with folks like you"
"You all argue as dishonestly as Moore himself."
'Once again, despite providing more evidence than anyone posed against me, my debate opponents don't even have the decency to say, "OK, I see your evidence. I'm not convinced, but I see your evidence."'
"But it occurs to me that I couldn't possibly expect people who fell for Moore's style of argumentation to actually understand the concept of evidence and logic."
"What persistently annoys me is that most of you who debated this with me do not understand logic and evidence. It's clear you think you do, but it's just as clear to me that your understanding is severely deficient."

Maybe in your mind you've provided a sterling example of intellectual discourse here, but I'm not sure an impartial observer would agree with you.

Posted by: Taz | September 2, 2008 5:55 PM

151

Anna - I don't think Moore is quite the hypocrite Limbaugh is. Rush will excuse from a conservative today the same thing he condemned from a liberal yesterday.

Posted by: Taz | September 2, 2008 6:20 PM

153

Taz - I don't deny that Limbaugh is a hypocrit and probably wouldn't defend him against pretty much what anyone doles out against him, but, isn't one of the big issues here that Moore is getting a pass for poor behavior that we wouldn't give a conservative doing the same? Don't you think that's also kinda hypocritical on the part of his defenders? Just being devil's advocate - but I think it is a valid point never-the-less. :)

Posted by: Anna | September 2, 2008 8:47 PM

155

Gingerbaker

Yet, what Moore presents is objectively true.

Is it objectively true? I don't necessarily think that it is. There are aspects that are true, but because his approach is suspect, his methods are suspect, he is basically an arrogant prick - He has given me numerous reasons not to trust him over anyone else. This is the rub - Those that distrust him have no perfect case as to evidence to what we percieve as deceitfulness - and no, going to HIS website is not where someone who has issues as I have stated before would trust to get answers to those particular questions - and even if he did answer them, I can't say I would buy into it. Those that trust him will believe him no matter what he does - so we remain at an impasse.

Posted by: Anna | September 3, 2008 7:03 AM

157

Yes, indeed tasteless, but people have to relax and know that it was meant as a joke. Who really cares what MM says?

Posted by: Billigflug | October 14, 2008 10:37 AM