Tables Turned on Fahrenheit 9/11's Maker

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Tables Turned on Fahrenheit 9/11's Maker


Source Link: www.timesonline.co.uk

THE hunter has become the hunted. Michael Moore, the celebrated left-wing film-maker, has become the unwilling subject of a new documentary that raises damaging questions about the credibility of his work.

The director and star of successful documentaries such as Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has repeatedly been accused by his right-wing enemies of distorting or manipulating the material in his films. On his website he dismisses his critics as “wacko attackos”.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
No fan of Michael Moore here, but it appears that his ego has turned him into what he has railed against.
Intersting article.

Here's a review of the movie, Manufacturing Dissent
imdb.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Nothing new here.

He's had his "documentaries" picked apart in the past, both on a factual and personal level.

If he'd just stop calling his films "documentaries" and instead "opinion journalism" none of this would be an issue.

-The Big O



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
He's still around?

I thought that Michael would be celebrating with fellow Oscar winner Al and comparing bank accounts.....and footprints.....



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I just bought The Awful Truth, by Michael Moore (never seen it, think it might be interesting). Now I see this. I guess deep down you always knew he was biased on his views and what he shows. But then again so are all the other media outlets. So I guess this makes him no better then the others, except the fact that he's on our side.

I do think that this evidence could damage our, "conspiacy theorists", credibility to the the public.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Anybody know how much money his films grossed?? I'm guessing quite a bit..With that in mind its kind of hard to take anyone serious when they stand to make hundreds of millions IMO..



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It will be interesting to see if the facts and conclusions that Melnyk and Caine use are any less accurate then they claim Michael Moore are. You would think that if Michael Moore had nothing to hide he would have given an interview to the documentary makers.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Michael Moore is a liar and an opportunist. I welcome anything that exposes his corruption so that people will stop spending money on the garbage he pumps out.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Oh poor Michael. Im surprised he's still around. I thought Al Gore killed him and ate his heart to gain his powers.

Why didnt he present his "documentaries" as op-eds rather than fact?

I guess it doesnt matter. There isnt any integrity in docs or journalism anymore. Everyone thinks theyre special and the schools are filled with journalism majors who when confronted with "youre just spreading you ideology" they agree and dont see the problem with it. Ive lost quite a few friends to "jounalism." And they dont see anything wrong with it.

Poor Michael.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I cannot stand to look at the man, let alone listen/watch his endlessly biased, opinionated, self-important, self-promoting, celebrity-seeking, hypporcitical "work."

Documentaries by a muppet? Muppetmentaries. Who can take that serious?

I agree with the Big O with the point that, at best his work...er, I can't even call it that...his "stuff" should be considered (and none-to seriously) "opinion journalism."

Didn't I mention I can't stand the man, or what, or the way he does things?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Don't you just love to see karma in action?

That's right. There's that old saying, "What goes around, comes around". And I alway add to that, "And if you're lucky you'll be there to see it when it does."

Looks like some people have decided remove Moore as a "factor" early in this campaign.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
I cannot stand to look at the man, let alone listen/watch his endlessly biased, opinionated,


Sure he includes a few opinions but it's pretty obvious when they are introduced and when not. Whatever the flaws of Fahrenheit 911 ( Which is probably the one that got you so worked up ) endlessly biased and opinionated his documentaries are most certainly not.


self-important,


Not by the standards of those he investigates and attempts to expose...


self-promoting,


Why should those who attempt to spread the truth not on occasion indulge in self promotion? Is that something reserved for the criminals in government and the media in your opinion?


celebrity-seeking,


Your not serious are you?


hypporcitical "work."


As i said everything he employs in Fahrenheit and the follow on movie is based on well established facts even if you were never made aware of them by the 'liberal' media.


Documentaries by a muppet? Muppetmentaries. Who can take that serious?


When one can source your documentaries claims from government documents why should it not be called a documentary?


I agree with the Big O with the point that, at best his work...er, I can't even call it that...his "stuff" should be considered (and none-to seriously) "opinion journalism."


In the sense that the BBC/CNN spreads 'opinionated journalism' while the WSJ and so many others prints it i fully agree with you.
In fact any investigation of the 'facts' will probably reveal that few of those organisations employ investigative journalist that routinely comes close to his standards.


Didn't I mention I can't stand the man, or what, or the way he does things?


It's pretty evident that this is a emotional issue for you and almost as apparent that it's not really related to the factual content ( or absence of it) of his movies.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Oh poor Michael. Im surprised he's still around. I thought Al Gore killed him and ate his heart to gain his powers.


At least Michael did not single handedly sell out the American people by not contesting a stolen election. That being said global warming is very loosely related to reality unlike the well documented realities exposed in Fahrenheit 9-11.


Why didnt he present his "documentaries" as op-eds rather than fact?


Because they are documentaries based on well established facts?


I guess it doesnt matter. There isnt any integrity in docs or journalism anymore.


There is on occasion if one watches material by dissident journalist and the occasional wonderful investigative pieces by mainstream journalist... It really takes a critical eye and a great deal of general knowledge to be able to start telling the truth from fiction.


Everyone thinks theyre special and the schools are filled with journalism majors who when confronted with "youre just spreading you ideology" they agree and dont see the problem with it.


Well if they want to be employed by major media organizations they better not be able to tell truth from lies as that would ensure they never get hired in the first place.


Ive lost quite a few friends to "jounalism." And they dont see anything wrong with it.

Poor Michael.


Journalist are after all the people who write on the back of advertisements so the vast majority were never there to 'investigate' anything to start with.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Michael Moore is a liar and an opportunist.


Not a liar but the opportunity to introduce some reality into mainstream media channels is pretty hard to resist for those who want to help their fellow man arrive at a point closer to the truth.


I welcome anything that exposes his corruption so that people will stop spending money on the garbage he pumps out.


Well it's after all documentaries and while your distaste for reality has long been evident to me your foaming at the mouth wont change reality any more than the Michael ever could.
Feel free to introduce the 'facts' that actually contests the data as presented in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirty_underground
I just bought The Awful Truth, by Michael Moore (never seen it, think it might be interesting). Now I see this.


The "awful truth' is awful but in the sense that it tries to do the general right thing in a way that will seriously antagonize the wrongdoers; not something i find to be constructive or worth my time. If you don't watch it watch it because it 's not close to his best work.


I guess deep down you always knew he was biased on his views and what he shows.


That is the case for any single person on the planet , if only a few are adult enough to admit to it, and if it's your sole objection your bias is more obvious than his and predisposes you to finding out much less about the 'truth' than he so far has.


But then again so are all the other media outlets


And nothing Moore has ever suggested or said in his work encouraged or obscured genocidal actions by the government. Fact is that whatever Moore's mistakes or 'lies' ( which is not made evident in that idiotic article) his not only on the side of humanity but employs far higher standards than the absolute massive majority of his critics.


So I guess this makes him no better then the others, except the fact that he's on our side.


Reality is pretty one sided even if those who are acting against humanities best interest are past adept at creating illusions to distract us from it. Michael Moore has done some truly stupid stuff ( which helped others no end in effectively attacking him and by proxy his work) in my opinion but compared to the lies and deceptions employed by his detractors he is most certainly' better' than them and in general a great ally against the criminals in the US and European governments.


I do think that this evidence could damage our, "conspiacy theorists", credibility to the the public.


What credibility? Those who do not want to find the truth will jump at every and any oppurtunity to destroy the 'credibility' of those who bring news they do not want to hear and making this issue one of of the presumed personal credibility of the messenger does in my opinion not much other than expose your own urge to be regarded as 'credible' independent of what the truth may or may not be. In the end if you do not feel you have the ability to judge the merit, of the data you are employing towards determining the way things 'really are', stop trying to uncover 'the truth' and go back to reading 'acceptable' 'credible' text books till you feel you are knowledgable enough on the general notions to start questioning the particulars.

If you are not sufficiently versed in reality as sold by CNN/BBC/Pravda what chance on Earth do you have in investigating the truth of those realities? How can you investigate issues you have no opinion or knowledge about?

I guess the Internet came at the right time for me as the mostly fragmented nature of information on the net may very well not serve to educate those who did not have a proper education to start with and lead plenty of them towards making the type of comments i had to suffer trough reading earlier. It is very hard for me to imagine how i would ever have managed the instant gratification that the Internet provides to read the volume of books i did and still employ as basis for my investigation of dissenting voices and views.

Noam Chomsky said made such references to the internet ( as i recall ) and while i still disagree in part the last year has certainly served as education in more ways than one.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
Nothing new here.

He's had his "documentaries" picked apart in the past, both on a factual and personal level.


Please feel free to point us to such places as these types of accusations never normally pans out in my experience. Human beings ( he qualifies btw) makes mistakes and his different from the WSJ only in that his 'mistakes, and i currently believe them to be mostly 'honest', do not help convince the American public to sponsor a criminal invasion and occupation of a foreign nation leading to well over half a million Iraqi dead and many tens of thousands of American dead ( and it's significantly more than 3000 in my opinion) and seriously wounded.


If he'd just stop calling his films "documentaries" and instead "opinion journalism" none of this would be an issue.

-The Big O


Most of his detractors have every reason to do so and i am relatively sure that Michael wont mind doing as much if everyone else happened to admit to their own various predispositions.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   
I invoke Occam's razor.

If the material Mike Moore is reporting is true then this action to discredit him is a logical and equal reaction from the entities he is reporting on.

Truth is Truth no matter who is reporting it.

You can't dilute facts.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Seriously, there's no defense for this guy. All I can figure is that those of you who defend him don't know all of the facts. The stories he tells in his "documentaries" range from truth to outright bold lies and fraud. When one makes a "documentary" and it is later proven that certain facts in said "documentary" are outright manipulation of information that is prevented as a fact, that makes the entire documentary political propaganda and it should be presented as such. If Sean Hannity or Rush Bimbo put out a "documentary" that condemned the left and it was presented as a documentary, the left wingers would be up in arms. However when you're a lefty, if it pushes the agenda, it's ignored.

One great example from farenheight 911. I'm sure you've all read about the infamous newspaper article in the Pantagraph. The article actually never existed as he presented it. In the movie, Moore shows a bold headlined news article at the top of a page that states "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election". However, strangely enough, if one goes to the date (12/19/2001) and page# of the Pantagraph that it shows in the movie...the article isn't there. How very strange.

What actually happened here is that Moore took a letter to the editor (by a reader of the paper) from the 12/5/2001 issue of the Pantagraph, bolded the title, made it look like a news article rather than a letter to the editor, moved it to the top of a page, changed the page #, changed the date of the paper...and after doing all this he presented it as factual evidence in his "documentary".

That is fraud, my friends, pure and simple. He does it throughout his movies. Not every incident is outright fraud like this one, but he has a tendency to present a situation from one side and "lead the horse to the water" so to speak, so that the watcher thinks they're forming their own opinion. However, it's based on one-sided information and manipulation.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Forgot links and it's not letting me edit for some reason. Here's a link for you. It shows the actual article as printed and what Moore represented in the movie. One right above the other, although it's pretty hard not to notice a difference.

www.moorewatch.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Well, "he" was more right than wrong.

Of course there was lack of quality and information- he left out many things but that would have been high DRAMA and not a light hearted documentary......

Lets count on a right winged movie producer to tell us the complete "truth" shall we?

I cant wait.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join