Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'

Most of those "parts" are not Michael Moore but Bush verbatim, so I am not talking about his opinions. It's when one sees them along with other real footage all in one package that makes Moore's side of the argument. Moore himself has said that his opinions may be right and may be wrong. He's offering them up for each of us who have seen the movie to decide. I really doubt that most of the conservatives on these boards will even go see the movie. They will go by heresay criticism of those journalists and politicians they bank on to think for them.

But assuming 'they are right about the parts' seems a rather bold assumption given that none have seen or are planning to see the film (at least none who have so far spoken up).

oops...sorry LW, I now see you made the same point.

Moore has shaky
handle on 'truth'


The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9:

"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock-solid information, which, apparently, Moore was sure that he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the cineplex. The 9/11 commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the U.S.A. while everybody else was grounded.

Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

So by June 20, Moore had "evolved" a bit, as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC news program: "[The movie] is an Op-Ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time, but, as responsible columnists know, all Op-Ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth, and facts should be cited in backing up one's opinion. Uh-oh.

But just when Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment of Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon."

Paging Shrek!

In the space of two weeks, the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about "Fahrenheit 9/11": "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth."

So we're back to the truth, now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Moore's movie, and here's the deal: It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things, using cut-and-paste video interspersed with the opinions of far-left people like Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington State and John Conyers of Michigan. For me, the first 60 minutes were tedious, but I have to interview guys like that every day, so I'm jaded.

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay $10 to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda, and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

Originally published on June 28, 2004
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/206835p-178461c.html

I'm no fan of Moore and his distortions of veracity, but that article is just as bad.

The "going from this to that" parts of it are reminiscent of Moore.

Trying to take his two different statements and say he changed his opinion because of the 9/11 commission is ficticious.

His inital commenst had more to do with what was being said about him and Bowling for Colombine.

Sorry, I think he's a waste of time and I think he's a boon to the right. But whoever wrote that article did something just as ugly by indicting someone for prevarication while prevaricating him/herself.

What do you see as prevarication?

error.

The first half of the article. And the other parts that try to make a case for vacillation through the use of diverse and selective quotes.

It's the ole ploy I keep carping when it's used to try to assert vacillation of a party.

When you are taking positions from multiple people what you have are differences, not vacillation.



So does the unamed author. Let me explain.



This is false.

Moore's references were largely about the criticism he engendered from his Bowling for Colombine movie.

Since the author of the article is dumb as rocks let me spell it out.

1) Moore got much (justified IMO) criticism for Bowling for Columbine

2) He launched his "wacko attacko" page and started issuing threats

3) The statment the author cites was not in reference to criticisms about Moore's latest film but criticism about his last one, and he was warning that he would react agressively to "attacks" on him in the future.

At that time the film was not released. Moore was giving his usual rhetoric and wasn't really talking about the film so much as exhibiting exhuberance about having won.



Here the author tries to make the case that Moore's film "evolved".

This is prevarication. Moore is still the obnoxious boon to the right that he always was and it is prevarication in the least to try to assert "evolution" based on those quotes.

Outright deception at best. Either way, very much a remembrabce of Moore's own style.



The idiotic author is prevaricating again. What people say about the movie does not constitute evolution on its part.

If he had selected his quotes differently he could have asserted any evolution he desired.

The article is what it criticizes, using selective attributions to simply say what it wants to say.

A pity, because there're a lot of legitimate things to criticize about a Moore film.



"Who is 'we'?"

The author is a fool, just taking selective quotes from different people and trying to assert vacillation.

No, I indict the author for:

a) an outright falsehood in the attribution of the initial quote

b) asserting vacillation through the use of selective quotes from varying sources

c) for trying to indict Moore for what he/she is doing at the very moment

Couldn't have put it any better myself, Craven.