Sunday Afternoon Book Review

[CaptainCrunch]

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned in this very forum that I had received a book from my father called Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man by David Harey and Jason Clarke. When I mentioned this the first response was how could I read a biased piece of garbage like this which was clearly a piece of garbage. So after sitting down and reading it over the last week and finding that the labour day classic was far from pleasing, I thought I would at least put a brief review of the book from my own perspective.

First of all I will remind you all that I made it a point to watch Farenheit 9/11. Bowling for Columbine, and Roger in me so I could be a fair as possible even though I am far from a fan of Michael Moore.

Lets start simply

The title of the book is Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man, and on the back cover is the phrase dud, where's your integrity? Is it a mean spirited and nasty set of titles? sure, but its also a play on Michael Moore's own book titles Stupid White Man and Dud, Where's my Country. Its an interesting way for the authors to get attention to these books, and I have no problem with that.

The book is broken into chapters and split up with independant essays by various authors. they examine everythin from Moore's early careers as a college writer to an editor in San Francisco to his various books, movies and public appearance. The writing style is a little erratic as the main authors often give way to different writers so at time the continuallity of the book. It almost feels like one is missing a gear or two.

There are some truly funny moments in the book as the writers respond to the 7 questions put forth by Moore in his book Dude, Where's my country. At times the writers can be a little mean spirited, but to be honest there are areas where there is a grudging respect given to Moore based on his technical ability, and some of the points that he makes. there's also a really good chapter written by Anthoney Zoubeck who professes to his favorite movie being Roger and Me

This book is a hard look at the questionability of Micheal Moore's version of the truth, and goes from gentle shots to outright anger over Moore's accusation that the passengers on the jets on 9/11 were fraidy cats made during a public appearance in England.

What I really liked about this book was the inclusion of a huge notes and sources section that backs up thier position, the sources range from reliable news sources to various web sites, to Michael Moore's own inconsistancies, backed up by some pretty good research.

This book never gets into an area where emotions get whiped up, and the anti moore sentiment is never personal, and tries to stay within the researched material.

some of the outside writers get a little carried away, not from a researched point of view, but they try to come across as a little too casual, and cool when questioning Moore.

Must read sections

There is an interview with one of Michael Moores former camera men who gushes about Moore's film making ability, and his integraty, in an area where the authors had a chance to really go after Moore they decided to hold up.

The section that breaks down the editing in Bowling for Columbine, and the 7 answers for Michael Moore are a good read and a nice basis for debate,

The chapter entitled Michael Moore's last day in office tho was not needed and was actually a little stupid, and as much as I was tempted to skip it, I read through it and thought it was a waste of 10 days. It was basically a list of scenarios if being a film maker was a elected position.

The title might be a little inflammitory for anyone in the pro Moore camp, but if you can get by this, the book is a good read, and more fair and balanced then it would ever get credit for.

It would be interesting to see Moore going head to head with these two writers, but I doubt that this will ever happen. But the book dosen't go far enough to be slanderous and the target of a law suit.

From its easy writing style, to its break down and research this was a thouroughly enjoyable book to read.

Check it out of not. But if Michael Moore wants a stage to work with, he'd better be prepared to share it with people who are going to go after him.

And oh great, the Stamps just fumbled the ball. Lovely

[JiriHrdina]

Great review. I think if one is going to read Michael Moore's stuff than you owe it to yourself to take the time to examine the opposing view.

Only one quibble. It ain't Sunday. ;-)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Sep 6 2004, 10:04 PM
Great review. I think if one is going to read Michael Moore's stuff than you owe it to yourself to take the time to examine the opposing view.

Only one quibble. It ain't Sunday. ;-)

hmmm ok, I was hoping it was still Sunday

crap

[Flame On]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Sep 6 2004, 10:04 PM
Great review. I think if one is going to read Michael Moore's stuff than you owe it to yourself to take the time to examine the opposing view.

Only one quibble. It ain't Sunday. ;-)

Oh what because CNN or Fox News or Rush Limbaugh etc. look at the other side empathically or hell even do research? To my mind, if even 10 percent of Michael Moore's statements are true the Bush campaign should be run out of town.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flame On+Sep 6 2004, 10:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Sep 6 2004, 10:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JiriHrdina@Sep 6 2004, 10:04 PM
Great review. I think if one is going to read Michael Moore's stuff than you owe it to yourself to take the time to examine the opposing view.

Only one quibble. It ain't Sunday. ;-)

Oh what because CNN or Fox News or Rush Limbaugh etc. look at the other side empathically or hell even do research? To my mind, if even 10 percent of Michael Moore's statements are true the Bush campaign should be run out of town. [/b][/quote]
How about CTV news, the new york times, Washington post, various web sites including Disney's and Mirimax, the wall street journal, la weekly, Moores own books, Flir photos from Waco texas, the tampa tribune, Cornell daily sun, the LA times, the CBC. And that dosen't even cover one/tenth of whats there.


Various interviews, and books,

And the interesting thing is that the sources aren't from opinion pieces but actual news stories for the most part, the opinion pieces are from books and interviews and its clearly marked in the sources section.

And hey I was reviewing a book, and not making a political point, or stating my opinion on Moore.

But in my opinion this book is far more even handed then Moore could ever be.

And congrats about trying to tear something down because it dosen't fit into your mode. your basically doing what you've accussed anyone who's torn down more of doing.

thanks

[Weiser Wonder]

What I like about Micheal Moore is when he interviews people in Flint or that lady that lost her son in Iraq. Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine were better than 911 for this reason. I also think he has several good points about Bush but I don't like his shady editing tactics and I certainly don't believe everything I see in a Moore film.

But I don't like his books they're boring and self prompting.

Oh and just so you know he made another film called 'Downsize This' or something like that...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Sep 6 2004, 10:54 PM

Oh what because CNN or Fox News or Rush Limbaugh etc. look at the other side empathically or hell even do research? To my mind, if even 10 percent of Michael Moore's statements are true the Bush campaign should be run out of town.

If even 10% of Rush Limbaugh's statements are true than the Kerry campaign should be run out of town.

See how that works?

This is what happens when you follow the extreme.

Your reply is exactly why Jiri's post is so dead on right.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 6 2004, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 6 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Sep 6 2004, 10:54 PM

Oh what because CNN or Fox News or Rush Limbaugh etc. look at the other side empathically or hell even do research? To my mind, if even 10 percent of Michael Moore's statements are true the Bush campaign should be run out of town.

If even 10% of Rush Limbaugh's statements are true than the Kerry campaign should be run out of town.

See how that works?

This is what happens when you follow the extreme.

Your reply is exactly why Jiri's post is so dead on right. [/b][/quote]
So vote Nader?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Weiser Wonder@Sep 6 2004, 11:47 PM

So vote Nader?

Well, no..that wasn't my point, but that's not a bad option if you are completely disgruntled with both candidates.

I was simply trying to illustrate the one-sidedness of flameon's comment and that it can work both ways when you are defending people with extreme views...like Moore and Limbaugh.

Now that I think about it, are those guys almost a mirror of each other or what? Both fat, self-serving, popmpous poitical 'activists'.

[Flame On]

Well Captain I do watch CTV news and the CBC news and many other sources, including the best news reporters in the world, the BBC (IMO). I also sometimes check out the agrivating Dennis Miller and religiously the Daily show. My point was that I always find it funny that the news groups and the right question Moore and say he has an agenda. Yes. He's up front about that. But Fox who disguises themselves as a news broadcaster and by virtue no agenda, patently does. So I don't have a problem with people having a problem with Michael Moore and his tactics, but I think CNN and the like are far more insidious. I don't rate most US news sources (and I only comment on the ones i see by media and such) with much quality. Even if they have no slant, I don't think they paint the whole picture which can be worse.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flame On@Sep 6 2004, 11:55 PM
Well Captain I do watch CTV news and the CBC news and many other sources, including the best news reporters in the world, the BBC (IMO). I also sometimes check out the agrivating Dennis Miller and religiously the Daily show. My point was that I always find it funny that the news groups and the right question Moore and say he has an agenda. Yes. He's up front about that. But Fox who disguises themselves as a news broadcaster and by virtue no agenda, patently does. So I don't have a problem with people having a problem with Michael Moore and his tactics, but I think CNN and the like are far more insidious. I don't rate most US news sources (and I only comment on the ones i see by media and such) with much quality. Even if they have no slant, I don't think they paint the whole picture which can be worse.

Chances are within every pile of stinky poop there's a nugget of truth and thats true with almost any news agency, and even Michael Moore himself or Rush Limbaugh

If anything they're all the same, they might start with something that they find truthful, but in thier effort to hammer thier point across they cover it over with untruths, fiction, and outright lie's

Michael Moore at base might have a good message, but because its so hard to know whats truthful and whats not, I have no use for him. the same with Rush, and other people.

there's a neat little quote in the book.

and its by Albert Maysles who made Salesman and give me shelter, two very good documentaries

"Our culture is so confuse about what the truth is and our ability to arrive at it. Most believe in cynicism and you can't ever tell the truth. Others go overboard on the other end and believe that we all tell the truth. Those are the people that went to see Bowling for Columbine in Droves and bought into it because it was the biggest documentary of all times and won awards everywhere

But that's the hypocrisy. Its the judge who turns to the witness to be and says 'do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god'

I've yet to hear a witness who has answered 'look Mister, I'll do the best I can."

[Flame On]

Captain Crunch, I realise all that. Here's where I stand. I think the right wing media has pretty much cornered the market in the States, that's my limited view. I'm talking media outlets now, not Sean Penn.
So when a person comes along with an equivalent liberal slant, I feel better, that it's evened up. But I've never heard CNN question Rush Limbaugh (perhaps I'm wrong) and I've never heard ABC news lay into Fox News. But Michael Moore who has an agenda, gets heat for....what having an agend! I just think it's laughable is all.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flame On@Sep 7 2004, 02:45 AM
Captain Crunch, I realise all that. Here's where I stand. I think the right wing media has pretty much cornered the market in the States, that's my limited view. I'm talking media outlets now, not Sean Penn.
So when a person comes along with an equivalent liberal slant, I feel better, that it's evened up. But I've never heard CNN question Rush Limbaugh (perhaps I'm wrong) and I've never heard ABC news lay into Fox News. But Michael Moore who has an agenda, gets heat for....what having an agend! I just think it's laughable is all.

I guess we'll leave it at that, I disagree that the media is some republican propaganda machine. I've seen just as many attacks on the Bush presidency coming from the main stream media.

Maybe what the Democrats have to look at is they're just not very good at dealing with it, and because of that they've spun into this whole ineffectual and stupid at least I'm not Bush strategy.

[Savvy27]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 7 2004, 02:59 AM
I guess we'll leave it at that, I disagree that the media is some republican propaganda machine. I've seen just as many attacks on the Bush presidency coming from the main stream media.

Maybe what the Democrats have to look at is they're just not very good at dealing with it, and because of that they've spun into this whole ineffectual and stupid at least I'm not Bush strategy.

From the mainstream media I would agree with you (unless of course you include Fox as 'mainstream'). The problem is the majority of people do not look to numerous sources for information. Liberals read the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. because there is more of a liberal slant and conservatives look to the New York Post, Washington Times, and Wall Street Journal's Opinion section because there is more of a conservative slant.

So the people who already oppose Kerry because he is a member of the opposite party, are reading stories from one type of source. The same goes for democrats and Bush. Unfortunately, strictly conservative publications are also read by hard line right wingers and accepted as objective fact which leads to the stories trickling into the mainstream media, although they are poorly researched and extremely biased, so in reality there is more criticism in the media of the Democratic party and their candidate than there is for Bush.

Even if the media did criticize each candidate evenly, it shouldn't be. Kerry is attacked on a personal level about things that happened 30 years ago, while Bush is being criticized for doing a poor job in the last 4 years.

The Anybody But Bush strategy shouldn't suprise you at all. The Democrats do not have an even moderately charismatic candidate, so they are simply going to criticize Bush's record which is extremely easy and say that they're guy isn't going to be nearly as bad. Calling it ineffectual and stupid because you disagree with it doesn't make it so. I can't prove to you that it will be effective any more than you can prove to me that it is ineffectual so I suppose we'll just have to wait for the election, but I think you'll be suprised.