Michael Moore the subject of a new documentary...oh how the tables have turned.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How do you figure, if Moore in fact did get to speak to Roger Smith and then lied (imagine that ) in his film that Smith refused to talk to him, it destroys the whole premise of that film. Its hardly a paparazzi piece where they're making things up.

we know that Moore is incredibly dishonest and very smart about his editing in his fillms, and it follows a trend that show that his films are a good collection of fiction with a few facts thrown in supported by lies and fiction.

Its hardly a paparrazi piece since it dosen't allude to Moore having relations with Elvis. It could be considered a journalism piece if its blowing the roof off of Moore's industry and exposing a film maker that himself is no better then the Paparrazi.

Good for these two kids.

Say what you want about Moore and his tactics, but he at least tackles difficult and important issues (issues that often require strong tactics). A documentary about Moore is like the photo journalistic equivalent of snapping pictures of Britney Spear's cooter. Who really cares? There are so many more important things in the world to worry about than whether or not he interviewed Roger... and if it gets much worse than that, the link that was posted doesn't make any mention of it.

Seriously, some people care more about Moore, than they do about important issues. That is what I meant when I compared it to a paparazzi piece. It's a diversion.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Say what you want about Moore and his tactics, but he at least tackles difficult and important issues (issues that often require strong tactics). A documentary about Moore is like the photo journalistic equivalent of snapping pictures of Britney Spear's cooter. Who really cares? There are so many more important things in the world to worry about than whether or not he interviewed Roger... and if it gets much worse than that, the link that was posted doesn't make any mention of it.

Seriously, some people care more about Moore, than they do about important issues. That is what I meant when I compared it to a paparazzi piece. It's a diversion.

He's not tackling difficult issues, he's discrediting them by not actually presenting the facts. If anything he pushes the actual issues to the background as he bandstands and promotes only his own self interests.

He's full of crap, and because he's full of crap he discredits anything that he talks about.

I find its funny that your so supportive of Moore and his method, but so easy to discredit the documentary about Moore, its a little hypocritical if you ask me.

Someone once accussed my of blasting Moore without looking at his films and the issues (which I did watch his films, and I understand the issues). Your putting yourself into the same kind of lost argument.

Moore should have stuck to making comedy films like Canadian Bacon, at least he was honest with himself in that he was making entertaining movies with some social commentary. Instead of describing himself as the media voice of the Hollywood left.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Ah journalistic integrity...

I don't think we've seen anything resembling it since...pre-WWI?

Sensationalism rules the day, and why fix the problem when you can make money tearing down other people (even if they deserve it) and adding to it?

Not only the integrity...but what about reporting something positive for a change?

Its no secret that an individual will have a much better day if they hear some positive, heart-warming stories.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not only the integrity...but what about reporting something positive for a change?

Its no secret that an individual will have a much better day if they hear some positive, heart-warming stories.

I don't know if that's true or not, but I know it's also no secret that focusing on good news is a one-way ticket to Bankruptville.

They have the feel-good stories in the news all the time, but if they ignored the actual news for more stories about reunions with lost dogs, the kid who raised 50 bucks for cancer research and the new Ronald McDonald house, nobody would watch/read/listen. It's just the way things are.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not only the integrity...but what about reporting something positive for a change?

Its no secret that an individual will have a much better day if they hear some positive, heart-warming stories.

Michael Moore is NOT a reporter...nor should he be.

He is, however, a documentary maker (at least according to him and bis website) which makes him accountable for what he allows into his productions.

He likely had a reallly true (his version anyhow) idea of things at one point, and should of pursued the TRUTH that way...but instead he capitulated to self serving interests and turned out to be nothing more than a big fat liar.

This just seals the deal....he is done as an "artist" or "moviemaker".

[edn88]

In my books, the only fraud greater than Moore is Dr. Phil. Tell, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, instead of what you see as being the 'convenient truth'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know if that's true or not, but I know it's also no secret that focusing on good news is a one-way ticket to Bankruptville.

They have the feel-good stories in the news all the time, but if they ignored the actual news for more stories about reunions with lost dogs, the kid who raised 50 bucks for cancer research and the new Ronald McDonald house, nobody would watch/read/listen. It's just the way things are.

You don't think its like that because we have been fed this negative news for the longest time now?

You're right though, negative news does sell, and that will probably never change.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

You don't think its like that because we have been fed this negative news for the longest time now?

We get the negative news because the negative news is the news. You aren't going to read a story about a freight train loaded with ammonium rolling into the railyard right on time, are you? Me neither. If it goes off the rails a mile out of town and a bunch of people get evacuated you probably will.

We aren't fed the negative news, we ask for it. The consumer is the boss in this relationship.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He's not tackling difficult issues, he's discrediting them by not actually presenting the facts. If anything he pushes the actual issues to the background as he bandstands and promotes only his own self interests.

He's full of crap, and because he's full of crap he discredits anything that he talks about.

I find its funny that your so supportive of Moore and his method, but so easy to discredit the documentary about Moore, its a little hypocritical if you ask me.

Someone once accussed my of blasting Moore without looking at his films and the issues (which I did watch his films, and I understand the issues). Your putting yourself into the same kind of lost argument.

Moore should have stuck to making comedy films like Canadian Bacon, at least he was honest with himself in that he was making entertaining movies with some social commentary. Instead of describing himself as the media voice of the Hollywood left.

I'm not all that supportive of Moore. I could take him or leave him. The way I see it, if only half of what he says is true, then that is still a lot that he has uncovered.

I'm not trying to discredit the makers of this documentary. I'm just not convinced by the link provided, that this documentary somehow neutralizes him. This is what I meant about it being a diversion. People call out Moore on numerous things, but not the things that matter the most. The larger points stand on their own.

I did check out these film makers on IMB though, and found it funny that some of the other documentaries they've made have the keywords "gossip columnist" and "paparazzi" attached to them.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not all that supportive of Moore. I could take him or leave him. The way I see it, if only half of what he says is true, then that is still a lot that he has uncovered.

But there's the rub.

What's true and what isn't? he has perpetuated this on himself now....can't believe anything he says cause you know he flat out lies at times.

[Burninator]

Okay some of you are making out Moore to be like he's some sort of puppy killer. What are all these lies and decet? I've seen his movies and can tell the bias and see the slant. But why is there all this hate for him? He seems to do some good. In the bowling for Columbine movie he pretty much singly handedly got non-hunting ammunition removed from K-Mart. I'm not a Moore fan-boy I just wondering why most of you want to string him from the gallows.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Okay some of you are making out Moore to be like he's some sort of puppy killer. What are all these lies and decet? I've seen his movies and can tell the bias and see the slant. But why is there all this hate for him? He seems to do some good. In the bowling for Columbine movie he pretty much singly handedly got non-hunting ammunition removed from K-Mart. I'm not a Moore fan-boy I just wondering why most of you want to string him from the gallows.

Okay fanboy...

A couple of things, just because you can tell the bias and slant, that doesn't mean the masses in the US can. These are the people that take his movies as gospel. He is teaching people in the US his version of the truth (much like most media, actually,) and they're buying it hook, line and sinker.

He is causing people to blame persons/businesses/associations/things for the problems in this world, instead of helping the US take responsibility for their own actions. That's the biggest one.

[Josh]

Great, I'll definetly be watching it. The world would be better off without Micheal Moore.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Why do people need to attack Micheal Moore?
I don't get it.

If his movies and books are all BS, why don't people rebuttle his message instead of attacking him as a person.
The Al Gore energy costs was the same thing. Instead of proving his claims wrong, people just try to smear his personal image.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Why do people need to attack Micheal Moore?
I don't get it.

If his movies and books are all BS, why don't people rebuttle his message instead of attacking him as a person..

Because he chooses to put himself in a prominent role for all his docs, he's fair game to be attacked. Michael Moore the person is a huge element of all the docs he produces, and therefore ripe for attack.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Why do people need to attack Micheal Moore?
I don't get it.

If his movies and books are all BS, why don't people rebuttle his message instead of attacking him as a person.
The Al Gore energy costs was the same thing. Instead of proving his claims wrong, people just try to smear his personal image.

They dont rebuttle his message cause it doesnt need rebuttling its so idiotic

You cant rebuttle Al Gore;s message because its one of those things that we wont know for sure for maybe 50 years or until something really bad happens. Untill something really bad happens the Al Gore's will continue to sing while the rest of us wait.

If the earth has been around for millions if not billions of years, one would assume that it hasnt stayed stagnant over those years. Something obviously happened to cause the Ice age and that cause wasnt humans, maybe things change and this increase in temperature is a normal occurance. No one knows and its impossible to prove, Global Warming is a fact, its the cause that is up for debate, the GHG crowd have carbon emissions as a hypothesis with no clear causal evidence to back it up except that the earths temp has gone up as carbon emissions have risen.

The problem for me, is that if the cause is carbon emissions, that means that the earth should be able to support roughly only 10-15bil people based on their emissions alone and the required vegetation etc to support them.

MYK

[transplant99]

Why do people need to attack Micheal Moore?
I don't get it.

Because he is a liar who has a pretty big influence on the young minds of the US and other countries, all while making some 190 Million dollars on his last movie, that was full of lies and half-truths?

Other than that....not sure.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Because he is a liar who has a pretty big influence on the young minds of the US and other countries, all while making some 190 Million dollars on his last movie, that was full of lies and half-truths?

Other than that....not sure.

I'll ask again. What lies are people getting so bent out of shape about?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I'll ask again. What lies are people getting so bent out of shape about?

Are you saying that there are lies it's okay to tell?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I'll ask again. What lies are people getting so bent out of shape about?

He claims to be adocumentary maker...meaning that the content of his movies should hold zero bias in regards to the truth of the subject.

He has NUMEROUS times, concocted things, used very sketchy editing to show his made up junk as truth, then used it in the final product as absolute fact.

59 falsities in Farenheit 9/11 alone according to Dave Kopel.

This makes everything Moore says/does/writes come into question as tgo what is true and what is not...dont you think?