Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

[loseyourname]

I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.

 

[Tigers2B1]

From Nereid - …We're talking about a film too, not a government press release. Moore - a film-maker, not a politician, remember?..

Moore's creation is not just "a film" like The Wizard of OZ you know -- Moore presents this as a "documentary" (which, by the way, is yet another Mooreish lie) --- you know, a “documentary” is a piece that "presents facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter..." (from American Heritage Dictionary).

Moore's idea of a documentary is almost the exact opposite of a documentary. When I, and most other reasonable folks, go to a documentary, we expect to see real headlines (or, at worst the facsimile) not wholly made up headlines taken out of time AND context – we expect real speeches, not one pieced together by Moore and presented as what the speaker really said (when he never said anything of the sort) – real chronology not artificial chronology that leads the viewer down a different storyline – honest implications and not false innuendo -

So, it appears at least, that in the Book of Nereid, it’s just fine that 'Moore The Unethical' uses unethical means to call someone else "unethical" --- Gees, who is going to buy that? Wait, those glassy eyed Mooreites that file stoned faced out of his film seemed to have.

This is what I don't like about Moore and his cult following – truth doesn’t matter – it doesn't matter just as long as "the message" follows their preconceptions of what Bush is or isn't. Just as long as the prescribed "message" gets out there – it ethical to say to hell with facts, to hell with truth. Big fat liars and the liars who lie are A-OK when they lie for our truth –

So, we see how some liberals and the Moore cultists react when one of their own are caught in a multitude of lies, half-truths, and misleading statements. These same libs who constantly whine about what they describe as "Bush's lies" – start the two-step in defence of their own. Sorry, but Integrity doesn’t jump up, spring wings, and fly out the window just because you're speaking about someone who holds different political beliefs.

 

[Nereid]

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.

OK, fair 'nuff ... but why didn't you say that?

Why use precisely the tactic which someone in this thread accuses, and condemns, Moore of using?

 

[Nereid]

Moore's creation is not just "a film" like The Wizard of OZ you know -- Moore presents this as a "documentary" (which, by the way, is yet another Mooreish lie) --- you know, a “documentary” is a piece that "presents facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter..." (from American Heritage Dictionary).

Moore's idea of a documentary is almost the exact opposite of a documentary. When I, and most other reasonable folks, go to a documentary, we expect to see real headlines (or, at worst the facsimile) not wholly made up headlines taken out of time AND context – we expect real speeches, not one pieced together by Moore and presented as what the speaker really said (when he never said anything of the sort) – real chronology not artificial chronology that leads the viewer down a different storyline – honest implications and not false innuendo -

So, it appears at least, that in the Book of Nereid, it’s just fine that 'Moore The Unethical' uses unethical means to call someone else "unethical" --- Gees, who is going to buy that? Wait, those glassy eyed Mooreites that file stoned faced out of his film seemed to have.

This is what I don't like about Moore and his cult following – truth doesn’t matter – it doesn't matter just as long as "the message" follows their preconceptions of what Bush is or isn't. Just as long as the prescribed "message" gets out there – it ethical to say to hell with facts, to hell with truth. Big fat liars and the liars who lie are A-OK when they lie for our truth –

So, we see how some liberals and the Moore cultists react when one of their own are caught in a multitude of lies, half-truths, and misleading statements. These same libs who constantly whine about what they describe as "Bush's lies" – start the two-step in defence of their own. Sorry, but Integrity doesn’t jump up, spring wings, and fly out the window just because you're speaking about someone who holds different political beliefs.

... 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').

Thanks Tigers2B1, for so quickly and so convincingly demonstrating my point.

 

[Nereid]

I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.

Or, if I may be so bold as paraphrase in terms of this thread ... 'don't vote for (or against) Bush just because of the lies he's told (or not told), nor cast your vote for (against) him just because of the lies Moore told (or didn't tell)' ... or 'this thread doesn't do much to help any reader understand Bush's platform'.

 

[Tigers2B1]

And thanks Nereid for being a crowning example of a guy who gives liars a free-pass when you agree with their politics. The hypocrisy is just amazing --

 

[loseyourname]

Nereid isn't a guy. But yeah, I agree with you.

 

[loseyourname]

Or, if I may be so bold as paraphrase in terms of this thread ... 'don't vote for (or against) Bush just because of the lies he's told (or not told), nor cast your vote for (against) him just because of the lies Moore told (or didn't tell)' ... or 'this thread doesn't do much to help any reader understand Bush's platform'.

Yeah, pretty much. Weed through the propaganda and vote based on reason.

 

[Adam]

So, I've been away for most of the week. Do we yet have an example of Moore lying?

 

[Nereid]

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.

So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?

a) To overthrow a despot (plenty of despots in the world, why choose Sadam?)
b) Because Sadam broke Security Council resolutions (please remind me again how many such resolutions has Israel broken? why not invade Israel?)
c) Iraq had WMD (the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea, and yes, even Israel all have WMD; Iran is pretty clearly intent on getting them too - why not invade those countries?)
d) It suited the national interests of the US to do so (no further questions needed)
e) To restore honour to the Bush family.

Read some history - countries go to war primarily over access to resources.

AFAIK, Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia; Canada's - and Venezuela's? - oil tar deposits not included).

 

[Nereid]

Nereid isn't a guy. But yeah, I agree with you.

Nereid isn't a US citizen, so cannot vote for (or against) Bush, Kerry, Nader, ...

 

[russ_watters]

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

Nope. I don't like him either. He pushes a flat tax, right?

Nereid, we seem to be more or less in agreement - except that Moore is most decidedly not an amateur. He's a highly successful marketing/media professional: his movie did, after all gross something like $100 million.

I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.

Actually, honesty is more important to me than that. I hate the "lesser of two evils" argument. Call me idealistic (I've been called worse), but I want to want to vote for someone. In last year's election, I didn't vote for a major candidate for the Senate - I voted for someone who I first heard of when I read about him in the newspaper that night. Some organization publishes candidate facts and answers to questions: his was the only answer that wasn't canned. He sounded sincere and real, so I voted for him. I may do the same thing this November.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid, we seem to be more or less in agreement - except that Moore is most decidedly not an amateur. He's a highly successful marketing/media professional: his movie did, after all gross something like $100 million.

:surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?

 

[JohnDubYa]

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? Just answer the questions.

 

[russ_watters]

:surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?

Well, at an average of $8 apiece, that's 12.5 million people. Some of that is the Howard Stern Effect - if you saw his movie, there was discussion of how people who hated Howard Stern used to listen to him twice as much as those who liked him. Like him or hate him though, Moore elicits a strong emotional response - and that fills seats.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Goebbels had a strong following too.

 

[pervect]

Well, I must admit that I'm mildly interested in what opponents of Moore think.

So I visit this website - and what do I see? O'Reily - from "Faux" Fox news! He's the guy who's telling the "truth" here

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

It'd be funny if it werent' so tragic.

 

[JohnDubYa]

If you have examples of where O'Reilly behaved in a manner like Moore, feel free to post them. Otherwise, of what value is your post?

 

[loseyourname]

So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?

a) To overthrow a despot (plenty of despots in the world, why choose Sadam?)
b) Because Sadam broke Security Council resolutions (please remind me again how many such resolutions has Israel broken? why not invade Israel?)
c) Iraq had WMD (the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea, and yes, even Israel all have WMD; Iran is pretty clearly intent on getting them too - why not invade those countries?)
d) It suited the national interests of the US to do so (no further questions needed)
e) To restore honour to the Bush family.

a) First, he was one of the worst. Second, removing him and installing a democratic regime could be key to reforming a good deal of the middle east.

b) It was probably more important to the US that he ignored mandates from the US. Israel is our ally, and is also democratic. There is no need to overthrow a democratically elected administration. They can be voted out.

c) N Korea may very well be next if it doesn't shape up. Of course, all of these other nations have nuclear capabilities, which makes it a little trickier to deal with them, and most of them are our allies and have shown no inclination to use their WMD for first-strike. The concern is over regimes having the capability to perform a first-strike using WMD.

Also, with regard to Iran, I was watching the senate hearing before the decision to go to war was made. The intelligence men testifying before the senate sold the committee that they had good reason to believe the Iranian regime might be overthrown by the people of Iran if Iraq were to become democratic. If that is the case, it is better to wait and see rather than go right in and fight two wars.

d) Of course. It suits many interests to have a democratic government in place in one of the largest and most affluent (especially once they get into their oil reserves) nations in the middle east.

e) I'm sure you have a lot of evidential basis from which to make the claim that GW Bush took us to war because he felt his family was slighted, right? Who is he? Agamemnom?

Read some history - countries go to war primarily over access to resources.

AFAIK, Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia; Canada's - and Venezuela's? - oil tar deposits not included).

Countries go to war over access to resources when there is a dispute over resources and those resources are scarce. You're acting like the US annexed the land and claimed ownership of the fields. Why not open up the reserves in Alaska if oil is such a huge concern? Surely that's easier than fighting a war in the most volatile part of the world for which myriad terrorist groups are plotting revenge.

 

[Adam]

Note that the new USA-installed government is debating bringing back the death penalty. Yay for executing opposition in a democractic society!

 

[JohnDubYa]

They are not going to be executed for being political prisoners, but for real crimes in which they terrorized a country with brutality.