Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

[Adam]

So... Where is the support for this assertion that Michael Moore lied?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Since Moore uses innuendo, as when he shows you Bushes palling around with Saudis and let's you draw your own conclusions, it's impossible to get him on the fiction charge. I don't believe anybody has a serious contradiction of anything he DEFINITELY STATED in the movie.

Yes, suppositions based on no solid foundation...fantasy. Moore has found a willing audience and he's milking them for all their worth.

 

[Adam]

Yes, suppositions based on no solid foundation...fantasy. Moore has found a willing audience and he's milking them for all their worth.

Once again: Please support this assertion.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Please support this claim. Heck, you may be right, but I'd like to see the evidence.

Here is a link to ALL OF THE CALLS (by State) for either Bush or Gore (and retractions where applicable).

http://mikehammer.tripod.com/tables.htm

Note: NBC called it first for Gore followed by CBS and FOX minutes later. The first retraction of the call for Gore was by CBS not FOX and that retraction was at 10 pm more than four hours before FOX’s retraction and the retraction of ABC, NBC, and FOX..

Why did Moore lie?

And, again, from this site –

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/foxcall.htm

...In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 P.M., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 P.M., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never let's the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 P.M., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.

At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.

Over four hours later, at 2:16 A.M., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 A.M.

CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 A.M., CBS also took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations” (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)…

1) We'll never know, since it was all rushed through while a good portion of the voters were still trying to figure out why they weren't being allowed to vote...

2) Please support this claim. Heck, you may be right, but I'd like to see the evidence.

From CNN showing a comprehensive University of Chicago study done after the election in Florida. This study indicates that Bush would have won the Florida election whether the then existing method was used OR even if the limited recount method suggested by Gore was employed. Again, why did Moore lie?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.
As well as attempting to discern voter intent in ballots that might have been re-examined had the recount gone forward, the study also looked at the possible effect of poor ballot design, voter error and malfunctioning machines. That secondary analysis suggests that more Florida voters may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Democrat Al Gore but failed to cast a valid vote.

In releasing the report, the consortium said it is in no way trying to rewrite history or challenge the official result -- that Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Rather it is simply trying to bring some additional clarity to one of the most confusing chapters in U.S. politics.

Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, ]the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.
The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios….

So you're saying that visit did not happen?

No, read my post again. I’m saying that the Clinton Administration authorized the Taliban visit – not Bush, as implied by Michael Moore. In fact the Clinton Administration visited with the Taliban leadership. Does Moore mention that the Clinton Administration authorized this visit? Does Moore mention that the Clinton Administration also visited with the Taliban? Why not? Why? Because Michael Moore isn’t interested in truth – he’s interested in propaganda ---

A quote from that link --

…Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL (search), a California energy company.

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html

Clarke? The FBI denied all Clarke's claims...

Well Moore sure seems to use Clarke's statements in his movie when they suit his storyline. In any event, what does that have to do with Clarke’s assertion that he was totally responsible for the bin Laden / Sandi flights AND Moore’s decision to ignore those Clarke comments when addressing THIS issue - yet his focus on other Clarke statements when addressing other issues? Answer: Moore isn’t interested in the truth so he omits here and admits there depending on how it fits into the story he has already decided he will tell.

And in relation to the Heston speech and the extreme remake of the speech by Michael Moore --- why did he do that? As a refresher here’s my original response to you when asking for a Mooreism --- “Heston’s speech in Moore’s movie was NEVER made by Heston ---- it’s a Moore creation. How odd. Need Moore? Go to this site (linked) for a side by side comparison of the actual speech given by Heston against the a speech created by Moore and pieced together to look as if it’s Heston’s.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

 

[JohnDubYa]

You can make any true claim about your product. Advertisers do it constantly, making claims which are true but give the impression of something outside what they state.

You are flat-ass wrong.

"Finally, careful consideration must be given to the overall message of the advertisement. Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted. In a case where a comparison between the advertiser's and competitor's products was truthful and accurate, the overall impression was held misleading because of a lack of disclosure of the material differences between the products that was relevant to the comparison.2'"

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00338/008730/title/Subject/topic/Communications_Advertising/filename/communications_2_1664

Care to back away from your statement?

 

[Adam]

Tigers2B1:

Thanks for those links, I'm reading them now.

Seems the calls for Florida go:
19:49:40 - NBC for Gore
19:50:11 - CBS for Gore
19:52:00 - Fox and VNS for Gore
20:02:00 - ABC for Gore
22:00:00 - CBS retracts earlier call for Gore
22:16:00 - VNS retracts earlier call for Gore
02:16:00 - Fox calls for Bush
02:17:30 - NBC calls for Bush
02:17:52 - CBS calls for Bush
02:20:00 - ABC calls for Bush
03:57:49 - CBS retracts calls for Bush
04:00:00 - ABC retracts call for Bush
04:02:00 - NBC retracts call for Bush
04:05:00 - Fox retracts call for Bush

That is the entire list of events from the page regarding Florida. Looks to me like Fox was the first to call it for Bush.

From CNN showing a comprehensive University of Chicago study done after the election in Florida. This study indicates that Bush would have won the Florida election whether the then existing method was used OR even if the limited recount method suggested by Gore was employed. Again, why did Moore lie?

Once again, we'll never know, since the vote never was allowed to be counted.

The page you linked to about NORC admits that the study is not definitive in its findings.

Are you saying Moore lied when he showed all those black people in Washington trying to get a hearing because their towns were blocked in during voting time?

No, read my post again. I’m saying that the Clinton Administration authorized the Taliban visit – not Bush, as implied by Michael Moore.

Did Moore say Bush authorised it? Or are you assuming that? Either way, does it negate the clear connection between Bush and the Taliban? You know Bush placed a UNOCAL guy in charge of Afghanistan, yes?

By the way, Australia gave the Taliban tens of thousands of dollars, but that does not negate the connection between Bush and the Taliban either.

Well Moore sure seems to use Clarke's statements in his movie when they suit his storyline. In any event, what does that have to do with Clarke’s assertion that he was totally responsible for the bin Laden / Sandi flights AND Moore’s decision to ignore those Clarke comments when addressing THIS issue - yet his focus on other Clarke statements when addressing other issues? Answer: Moore isn’t interested in the truth so he omits here and admits there depending on how it fits into the story he has already decided he will tell.

What happened to you supporting your assertions about those Saudis on planes? Clarke's words are doubtful at best, even the FBI said so. So where do you get your information from?

Heston’s speech in Moore’s movie was NEVER made by Heston ---- it’s a Moore creation.

I'm well aware that Moore takes slices of speeches from different occasions. It's not hard to tell. Often the subjects are wearing different suits and such. But that does not in any way negate the individual slices of insanity spewing from their mouths.

 

[Adam]

You are flat-ass wrong.

"Finally, careful consideration must be given to the overall message of the advertisement. Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted. In a case where a comparison between the advertiser's and competitor's products was truthful and accurate, the overall impression was held misleading because of a lack of disclosure of the material differences between the products that was relevant to the comparison.2'"

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00338/008730/title/Subject/topic/Communications_Advertising/filename/communications_2_1664

Care to back away from your statement?

From the same page:

Once the meaning or meanings are determined, statements must be separated into claims and puffing. Whether a statement is a claim or is puffing depends on whether it is measurable. A claim is not measurable if it is a statement of opinion. For example, a testimonial that the product is "great" cannot be measured in any meaningful way and is mere puffery. Puffery is an exaggerated advertising, bluster and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely and is not actionable. For example,"Less is More," was held to be non-actionable puffery because it was not measurable and precisely the type of generalized boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely.1 However, the court also held that the claim "50% Less Mowing," was a specific and measurable claim of superiority and was therefore not puffery. In order to prove a statement is merely puffery, the advertiser must show that there is no method by which the statement can be proven. In some instances, if a claim cannot be proven to be true because the scientific community can only agree to a hypothesis which supports the claim, it may be necessary to determine if competitors are using the same claim. Competitors' use of the claim may go towards reducing the likelihood that the claim is deceptive.

Your point?

When you have something worth posting, get back to me.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Here is your claim:

You can make any true claim about your product.

Is that statement true, yes or no? If yes, then how can you explain the following?

Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted.

This directly contradicts your statement. It is pretty obvious that you scanned real hard to find some way to weasel out of your statement, and the puffery quote was all you could find.

Sheez, Adam, why not just admit that you blew it? Your statement that businesses can make any true claims about their product is clearly incorrect and unsupportable. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense that the law would allow such bending of honesty.

 

[Adam]

This directly contradicts your statement. It is pretty obvious that you scanned real hard to find some way to weasel out of your statement, and the puffery quote was all you could find.

It was the largest paragraph of the page you provided, smack in the middle. You provided the analysis of the laws, which supports what I said. Now take a pill and relax, Dave. If the first analysis of the laws doesn't support you, feel free to go find another.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks for the link, but that's apparently a transcript of the movie. I'd like some context. And a date would help too: that quote would mean two different things on 9/10/01 and 9/12/01.

Russ & Graphic,

This might help some :

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There's more context in the text than in the video clips.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Here is your claim:
Quote:
You can make any true claim about your product.

No mention of puffery anywhere in your statement.

Again, is your statement true, yes or no? If yes, then how can you explain the following?

Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted.

This directly contradicts your statement, does it not?

And forget all the talk about taking pills and relaxing. Just answer the questions.

 

[graphic7]

It seems that everyone is ignoring the more important points to itterate on the "more-vulnerable points" to declare Moore a "minister of disinformation."

Yes, Moore provided some incorrect statements about the election, but Moore provided us video clips of two other events. Keep in mind these are video clips, not Moore saying a bunch of junk.

1. Bush, Rice, and Powell saying two years before the attack on Iraq that he was still rebuliding his forces and was *no threat*. I'm not a military expert but if you haven't rebuilt your forces in roughly ten years, you're not going to rebuild them in another two and become a threat. The video clip refers to Iraq and is before the war on Iraq.

2. Bush's infamous, "I'm a president of war" quote. I don't care if I can provide the context of it or not. How many different contexts can that quote be in, and not be disturbing or non-offensive? The video clip clearly has Bush in an interview saying this quote.

It seems that the people that are against Moore, and only arguing against the weaker arguments. Let's see some argument about these two points.

Another point to bring up. What about Bush refusing to open independent or government panels for investigating the 9/11 incident? What about the video clip in Fahrenheit interviewing Bush.

TIM RUSSERT (TO BUSH):

Will you testify before the commission?

BUSH:

This commission? I don't testify-- I mean, I’ll be glad to visit with them...

Again, how many different contexts can you put this in and *none* of them be disturbing?

In Farhenheit 9/11, Moore specifically targets our reasons for going to war with Iraq:

The main argument I hear about going to war with Iraq is we are saving the people. When have we ever been crusaders of freedom and liberators? Take Cambodia between 1975-1979 during the Khumer Rhouge reign. Millions died during those 4 years. Not just the ocasional Iraqi or two off the streets of Baghdad. Again, when have we ever been liberators? Cambodia didn't have oil, we didn't liberate it.

Next you're going to tell me that Saddam killed the Kurds. Saddam only killed the Kurds because we gave him the necessary materials. The intentions of those materials were to be used for attacking Iran. The person that actually made the deals with Saddam, is no other than our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Moore highlights all of what I have said in the film. If you question any of the facts I listed in the two above paragraphs, I'll be glad to provide some "context."

Edit: Some of you might say that Cambodia wasn't even during Bush's presidency, you're right. However, the same situation as Cambodia is developing in Sudan. There's been estimates that 200-300 people die in Sudan a day, and it's boarding being declared a genocide. Does Sudan have oil? No, therefore, we won't liberate it.

 

[russ_watters]

I do fail to see how it would matter between those two dates, though? If *any* president utters those words, it's not good. Even after 9/11, no president should have war strictly on his mind.

I disagree. For several months after 9/11 that should be the only thing (mild exaggeration) on his mind.

Russ & Graphic,

This might help some :

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

There's more context in the text than in the video clips.

Thanks, but that quote appears nowhere on that page. I don't see what it has to do with anything.

It seems that everyone is ignoring the more important points to itterate on the "more-vulnerable points" to declare Moore a "minister of disinformation."

Yes, Moore provided some incorrect statements about the election, but Moore provided us video clips of two other events. Keep in mind these are video clips, not Moore saying a bunch of junk.

Not quite (but just about) everything was a deception, so we should listen to him? Um, sorry, I won't.

To the rest, I recommend not responding to any more of Adam's questions until he responds to some already posted. His tactic is to avoid stating, much less defending his position at all costs.

Even the "puffery" thing, JD - let it go. Its comically obvious.

 

[JohnDubYa]

2. Bush's infamous, "I'm a president of war" quote. I don't care if I can provide the context of it or not. How many different contexts can that quote be in, and not be disturbing or non-offensive? The video clip clearly has Bush in an interview saying this quote.

I interpret the quote to mean that he has to take the war into account for every decision he makes. Sounds reasonable to me.

No one has accused Bush of being eloquent. Sometimes he makes statements that are hard to parse. But when I read the quote, I think he is simply elevating the fight against terrorism to the highest priority.

Another point to bring up. What about Bush refusing to open independent or government panels for investigating the 9/11 incident?

He probably felt that opening up investigations during the time we are still trying to win over Iraqi sympathy was bad timing. Has anyone asked him for his reasons?

What about the video clip in Fahrenheit interviewing Bush.

TIM RUSSERT (TO BUSH):

Will you testify before the commission?

BUSH:

This commission? I don't testify-- I mean, I’ll be glad to visit with them...

Again, he may have felt that testifying in an investigation while we are still in Iraq would be distracting. Again, has anyone asked him to explain his statement? What was his response?

The problem with Michael Moore is that all context is stripped out of people's statements. And he does that for a reason, and not just concern over time restraints. Look at what he did to Condi. That behavior is completely underhanded, so why do people support it?

 

[devil-fire]

i think its ironic that the reason why moore is such a bad guy is because he is twisting the truth to give an impression that is not the truth when the main thing he does is try to expose that same characteristic in others (expose may be the wrong word, he trys to do it anyway). i hadn’t even seen his movie yet but iv seen interviews with people who claim the president wanted to go to war because of weak "fact"s.

just as an example. colon Powell said there were mobile biological weapons facilities in iraq without talking about evidence and showed pictures of a rendition. a point raised to congress and the united nations was that a son-in-law of saddam who was in charge of the chemical weapons program in iraq claimed there was a sizable arsenal. the same man also stated he order the arsenal destroyed, but that part was left out because it would not help sell the point they were trying to make

if moore is such a bad guy because of how he presents his case, what about some of the people he talks about?

 

[Dagenais]

The same argument is going on at another forum I go to. The only difference is that it's almost all Moore fans.

I was wondering what you think of the posts in that thread and does it change your opinion on Moore (especially page 2):

http://www.couchmaster.ca/forum/messages.cfm?topic_id=12&thread_id=1060&page=1

That behavior is completely underhanded, so why do people support it?

Why do people support his films?

Well, his films are pretty hyped up. If you hype something up enough, people are bound to show up at the Cinema.

You see his commercials everywhere, how people claim his film is controversial, and how he'll fly to Toronto, then break the law, just to get people to come to his film. It works, people get curious.

There are a lot of people that dislike, but he does have his supporters, especially those against Bush.

 

[Dagenais]

Wow, I'm reading the new posts in the thread I linked to, and it's amazing how some people won't admit that Michael Moore is a liar.

Even when their is proof right in front of their face.

 

[Prometheus]

it's amazing how some people won't admit that Michael Moore is a liar.

Even when their is proof right in front of their face.

Why are you so surprised? This is the way that people are.

Isn't it also amazing how some people won't admit that Bush is a liar, even when the proof is right in front of their face?

 

[russ_watters]

I won't claim either is a liar: Both are very good about covering their butts while they speak (Moore does it himself - Bush has people do it for him). That said, both have been intentionally deceptive. It shouldn't be surprising from Bush - he's a politician and they all do it - but that doesn't make it acceptable.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think Moore's intentional attempts to distort events is far more egregious than Bush's supposed denials. It is one thing to cover your own butt (which I think all of us do from time to time); quite another to craft lies to attack others. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Nereid]

I think Moore's intentional attempts to distort events is far more egregious than Bush's supposed denials. It is one thing to cover your own butt (which I think all of us do from time to time); quite another to craft lies to attack others. But that's just my opinion.

Hmm, let's see, one is the Commander in Chief of the only superpower here on Earth, and President of the world's largest economy. He has a large staff, and is head of the cabinet (Secretaries of Defence, etc). He is personally very wealthy, and has strong personal connections with a great many other, very wealthy people, many of whom are CEOs of large multi-national groups. The other is a film-maker.

Given the disparity in terms of real power (could Moore order the bombing of Afghan villages? can Moore get on prime-time television just about any time he wants to? etc), I feel Bush's lies and deceits are far, far more egregious than Moore's. Read the report of the 9-11 commission - the Bush team learned from Reagan's 'plausible deniability' weaknesses. Even that well-known left-wing pinko rag "The Economist" calls Bush and Blair 'the sincere deceivers'.

 

[kat]

Edit: Some of you might say that Cambodia wasn't even during Bush's presidency, you're right. However, the same situation as Cambodia is developing in Sudan. There's been estimates that 200-300 people die in Sudan a day, and it's boarding being declared a genocide. Does Sudan have oil? No, therefore, we won't liberate it.

No oil in Sudan?! Hello?

 

[Nereid]

I won't claim either is a liar: Both are very good about covering their butts while they speak (Moore does hit himself - Bush has people do it for him). That said, both have been intentionally deceptive. It shouldn't be surprising from Bush - he's a politician and they all do it - but that doesn't make it acceptable.

Are you implying that there's one standard for politicians and another for the rest of us? That their profession teaches politicians the art of spinning, deception, lying (and when exposed, how to 'contextualise' the lie) so they are more skillful at it? But that it's not the intention which counts (a pollie's spin is just as much an intent to deceive as a lie from a non-pollie) - or the outcome (how well the intention is realized), rather the direct truth value of the statements themselves?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm pretty sure Russ doesn't mean to imply this (I'm not so sure about several other posters to this thread though).

 

[Tigers2B1]

Add another Mooreism onto the high heap of Mooreish lies and misrepresentations. Let's call it Mount Moore. Here Michael decides that the real newspaper headline used by The Pantagraph just would not do for the story he decided he wanted represented. Can’t find the facts? Don't like the facts? Never stopped Mike! Just another "editing" job in the Moore work day. So add this one onto his growing heap of lies and misrepresentations.

BLOOMINGTON -- The Pantagraph has a message for Michael Moore, creator of the movie hit, "Fahrenheit 9/11":

If he wants to "edit" The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job and not simply show made-over and "falsely represented" pages from the newspaper in his movie -- or he should at least ask for permission first.

In a letter drafted Thursday and sent to Moore and the movie's Santa Monica, Calif.-based distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment, the newspaper admonished him for his "unauthorized ... misleading" use of The Pantagraph in the film. He also was cited for copyright infringement..

And the link --

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

"Stunned into silence" by Big Mike's editing skills yet??

 

[Nereid]

Pot calling the kettle black?

Add another Mooreism onto the high heap of Mooreish lies and misrepresentations. Let's call it Mount Moore. Here Michael decides that the real newspaper headline used by The Pantagraph just would not do for the story he decided he wanted represented. Can’t find the facts? Don't like the facts? Never stopped Mike! Just another "editing" job in the Moore work day. So add this one onto his growing heap of lies and misrepresentations.



And the link --

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

"Stunned into silence" by Big Mike's editing skills yet??

Have you read the 9-11 commission's report yet? Having read it, how culpable do you feel your leaders are for the deaths of, first, thousands of folk in the twin towers, and second, thousands of totally innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians? Perhaps you would like to tell us that Bush et al are merely bad leaders, not cynical liars? Once you have read the report, you may be able to tell us why Bush resisted the establishing of the commission so strongly (and refused to make statements under oath to it).

Oh, and remind me again, how many thousand innocent Afghan and Iraqi (and other) civilians have died as a direct result of orders issued by Michael Moore?

 

[Tigers2B1]

Hey Nereid, we’re talking about Mike Moore – o’tay? – If you want to start a Bush Bashing thread feel free --- I might even post over there. Otherwise please don’t try to hijack this thread or use what's become the standard deflect tactic common among the hyped up Moore folks --- you know the "never mind that man behind the curtain! --- look over here! -"BUSH IS A LIAR!" – yada yada yada" If you can’t defend Moore’s tactics, better just admit as much and move on --- If the only method you have to "defend" Moore's lies and misrepresentations is by bashing Bush - well that speaks volumes -

 

[Dagenais]

He is personally very wealthy

And Moore isn't?

 

[Nereid]

Hey Tigers2B1, we can really only bash Moore by showing that his characterisation of Bush (and his administration, friends, associates, the Republican Party, etc) is inaccurate - a discussion devoid of the key content of Moore's film would constitute a perfect example of just what you decry; "us[ing] what's become the standard deflect tactic common among the hyped up [Republican] folks --- you know the "never mind [the main purpose of the film]! --- look over here! -"MOORE IS A LIAR!" – yada yada yada""

After all, the title of this thread is 'Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?'. We're talking about a film too, not a government press release. Moore - a film-maker, not a politician, remember? - seems to have chosen to make a political statement, so it's only natural that those who wish to counter him - politically - will use the standard political tactic of sowing FUD, while resisting furiously any attempt to address the question of the extent to which Bush et al did actually say and do the things depicted in the film.

If you can’t defend Moore’s target, better just admit as much and move on --- If the only method you have to "defend" Moore's target's lies and misrepresentations is by bashing Moore - well that speaks volumes -

 

[Nereid]

He is personally very wealthy

And Moore isn't?

Hmm, didn't I read, earlier in this thread, that one of Moore's blackest sins was to take words out of context? Not give the full quote??

Nice one Dagenais, you learn fast.

 

[loseyourname]

No oil in Sudan?! Hello?

Here's a decent overview of the oil situation in Sudan:

http://southsudanfriends.org/issues/oil000614.html

Just so that nobody is stupid enough to believe that the reason we are in Iraq and not Sudan is that Iraq has oil. By the way, Venezuela, which is (I believe) either the 3rd or 4th largest exporter of oil to the US (it is certainly a larger exporter than Iraq), had a great deal of civil unrest and yet we did not invade and take over there.

War for oil? I don't think so. On to the next vast right-wing conspiracy, please.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you implying that there's one standard for politicians and another for the rest of us? That their profession teaches politicians the art of spinning, deception, lying (and when exposed, how to 'contextualise' the lie) so they are more skillful at it? But that it's not the intention which counts (a pollie's spin is just as much an intent to deceive as a lie from a non-pollie) - or the outcome (how well the intention is realized), rather the direct truth value of the statements themselves?

I'm actually not quite sure what you mean here (and I thought I was clear enough that Bush is not skillful at it - he has speachwriters and strategizers to do it for him). To the specific questions though:

First one, there shouldn't be, but it appears to me that most people do not hold politicians to the same standards they hold themselves.

Second one, absolutely yes.

Third one, I don't understand. An intentionally deceptive statement, even if it contains actual facts has no "truth value." I'm not sure that was your point though.

Let me elaborate on my own opinion:

When I hear a politician whine about the other side's negative campaign ads, I laugh. When I hear a Democrat whine about their party not having a counter to Rush Limbaugh, I laugh. When I hear a politician who simultaneously voted for and spoke against a bill say he was deceived, I laugh. When I hear someone argue that we should accept a deceptive argument to counter a deceptive argument, I laugh really hard. When I hear someone say deception is ok if it serves 'a greater good,' I'm saddened.

Functionally, Bush's deception on Iraq and Moore's deception on Bush are quite similar. Moore's cover a wider range of topics, but whatever - both are equally wrong. If Bush were an honorable man, he'd have told the country exactly why he wanted to go to Iraq before he sent troops and accepted the political consequences. I supported the action then and I support it now - I don't support Bush.

I also wish the Democrats had a better candidate (or perhaps just a better party focus) - even a Kerry/McCain ticket would have been compelling. I'm not seeing anything from Kerry that makes me want to vote for him. And not liking Bush is not a compelling reason to vote for Kerry.

 

[russ_watters]

[questions not directed at me but deserve answers]

Have you read the 9-11 commission's report yet?

No. I really need to.

Having read it, how culpable do you feel your leaders are for the deaths of, first, thousands of folk in the twin towers...

Not having read it, I'd say our leaderS are primarily responsible.

...and second, thousands of totally innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians?

Loaded question. Do you consider Bush responsible for saving thousands of "totally innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians" as well?

Perhaps you would like to tell us that Bush et al are merely bad leaders, not cynical liars?

Bush is a bad leader, and that's an opinion. Liar is much tougher, but can be a fact - if his opponents believed they could prove it, they would already have indicted him.

Once you have read the report, you may be able to tell us why Bush resisted the establishing of the commission so strongly (and refused to make statements under oath to it).

Politicians don't like investigations of anything and politicians don't like to go on record about anything. None of that should be surprising, nor is it evidence of anything other than that Bush is no better than other politicians.

Oh, and remind me again, how many thousand innocent Afghan and Iraqi (and other) civilians have died as a direct result of orders issued by Michael Moore?

Exactly the same number as were saved by Moore's non-removal of two dictatorial regimes.

 

[amp]

Russ Vote for Nader, who is now the republcan 'safe' vote.

 

[Dagenais]

Hmm, didn't I read, earlier in this thread, that one of Moore's blackest sins was to take words out of context? Not give the full quote??

Nice one Dagenais, you learn fast.

My point was that you pass Moore off as "just a flim maker." Just a helpless film maker, up against the world's most powerful man, and the world's most powerful man, knows a lot of rich powerful people. And Moore..."just a film maker."

I'm sure Michael Moore has his connections with rich people too. Moore is wealthy, his Fahrenheit 9/11 film made more money than Bush's annual salary - a lot more.

Fahrenheit 9/11, according to Access Hollywood, is tied at 9th place with Anchorman. It hit the 3.1 Million mark.

Moore has his fans too.

Don't pass him off as "just a film maker" up against George Bush.

 

[Nereid]

But that it's not the intention which counts (a pollie's spin is just as much an intent to deceive as a lie from a non-pollie) - or the outcome (how well the intention is realized), rather the direct truth value of the statements themselves?

I'm actually not quite sure what you mean here (and I thought I was clear enough that Bush is not skillful at it - he has speachwriters and strategizers to do it for him). To the specific questions though:

...

Third one, I don't understand. An intentionally deceptive statement, even if it contains actual facts has no "truth value." I'm not sure that was your point though.

Thanks Russ, looks like I judged your position pretty accurately (ambiguity in my questions notwithstanding).

What I was getting at is close to what you actually addressed: in 'bashing' Moore (or Bush) are we to examine the words themselves, and judge if they are literally true (or not)? Or should we seek to determine the intention behind the words, or the outcome of using those particular words? IMHO, that's what a politician's spinning is all about - finding ways to say something that is not, strictly speaking, an untruth or a lie but nonetheless is intended to create an impression or interpretation that the politician knows perfectly well is misleading (at best) or downright false (the 'outcome' part is perhaps better described as 'gaming').

Those engaged in politics - whether professionally (e.g. Bush, Cheney) or as amateurs (e.g. Moore) - will use whatever words and tools (and $$) they have at their disposal; they will spin, deceive, and occassionally lie. They will try to avoid big, obvious lies, and stick to small, 'white' lies, or lies that are hard to detect. When accused of telling big fibs, they will react in predictable ways - misdirection, obfuscation, waffle, denial, ... occassionally mea culpas - and they will plan their reactions carefully, with their advisors if they have them. None of this is new; neither is it new that many see the best defence against Moore's Bush-bashing as Moore-bashing (rather than trying to make the case that Bush's words and actions were honest, honourable, and 'the whole truth').