I received this in the past week and kept it to share - interesting comparisons given here
Look at the earnings from Michael Moore's 'documentaries' and his comments about his audience to understand his motivations. In his films,
Moore condemns the automotive, energy, healthcare, and other industries, claiming their intense greed compromises their ethics.
In contrast to the small to negative profit margins of the targets of his critiques, Moore the 'philanthropist' on the other hand, enjoys a 94% margin from his films, earning $292 million:
Roger and Me - $8 million
Bowling for Columbine $54 million
Fahrenheit 9-11 $216 million
Sicko $14 million (to date on $216 million in ticket sales)
Source:
Box Office Mojo
And while portraying himself as a modern day savior for the downtrodden, Moore characterizes the audiences who enriched him as 'possibly the dumbest people on the planet', glibly noting that 'there is a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled.' He used these audience traits to captialize on tendering misinformation.
Contrasting Moore's personal windfall from
Sicko are laudable efforts for people to take note of such as those of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which funds a multitude of world health projects, including a recent $42 million grant to develop a malaria cure cheap enough to be given away to all the poor nations in the world.
Which will most benefit the heal of the population of our world?
A profiteer selling inflammatory half-truths or quietly funding decisive action?
Another self-enriching movie or development of a cure for the 300 - 500 million people who will be newly infected with malaria just this year?
I think even the least of those who are 'easily led in ignorance' can comprehend the difference.