The Fahrenheit 411: Michael Moore's Phony "Facts"



"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> So tell us specifically what portion of the film you saw
> and where you saw
> it.

I've ridden with three lawyers. One of them rode down a four
lane road and ran into a car-sized tarp willed with new mown
grass waiting for the truck to come by and pick it up. He
suffered a broken rib and separated shoulder. The rest of us
watched this idiot ride into this huge thing directly in
front of him.

Another one has fallen off twice in the last year. He broke
his neck and luckily survived, but he was walking around in
a halo for several months. Then he broke his shoulder.

The third lawyer rides so slowly that we suggest that he
ride on the sidewalk.

Which catagory do you fall into Brian?
 
Originally posted by Sam
Moore is a proven liar in every propaganda film he has made.
Then how come nobody has managed to sue, prosecute or penalize him?
 
Originally posted by Tritonrider
Read for yourself. Bill C
Sure. But he is saying some pretty damning things about the most powerful men in the world. You don't think that they would sue or jail him if it was really lies?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: patch70 [email protected]
>
> >Sam wrote:
> > > Moore is a proven liar in every propaganda film he
> > > has made.
> >
> > Then how come nobody has managed to sue, prosecute or
> > penalize him?
> >
> This gives you a search list of Moore stuff at
> Spinsanity. They are as close to completely unbiased as
> it is possible to be. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp100115c6&sp-
> f=iso-8859-1&sp-q=micha el+moore
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L656531B8 Read for
> yourself. Bill C

There's one thing that's interesting to me about the
brouhaha over F.
9/11, and this doesn't address the veracity of his facts.
There are many people who are all up in arms over Moore
and this movie, making impassioned claims of "propaganda!"
But how many of those same people have no problem
whatsoever repeating whatever they have heard from
O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.? Is Moore biased on this
movie? You bet. And why not? Are the above listed
personalities biased in their "reporting"? If you want
bias, just go to Fox news.

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> There's one thing that's interesting to me about the
> brouhaha over F.
> 9/11, and this doesn't address the veracity of his facts.
> There are many people who are all up in arms over Moore
> and this movie, making
impassioned
> claims of "propaganda!" But how many of those same people
> have no problem whatsoever repeating whatever they have
> heard from O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.? Is Moore
> biased on this movie? You bet. And why not? Are the above
> listed personalities biased in their "reporting"? If you
> want bias, just go to Fox news.
>

I think a lot of people associate the word 'documentary'
with 'objective'. Just as Lafferty seemed to imply by saying
that "the Advocate that did a _lengthy and well researched
piece_" (my emphasis) should mean objective, too.
 
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in
message > >
>
> I think a lot of people associate the word
> 'documentary' with 'objective'. Just as Lafferty seemed
> to imply by saying that "the Advocate that did a
> _lengthy and well researched piece_" (my emphasis)
> should mean objective, too.

Sorry, I meant to say that Lafferty said that in the RAAM's
stain thread.
 
Originally posted by Carl Sundquist
[BI think a lot of people associate the word 'documentary' with 'objective'. [/B]
It is a great pity that we can't associate the word 'politician' with 'honest'.
Lots of people here screaming that MM lies but not too many of those people seem concerned that the political leaders have been lying to us repeatedly.
 
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> I think a lot of people associate the word 'documentary'
> with 'objective'.

Those people do not understand documentaries.
 
On 6/30/04 5:41 PM, in article [email protected],
"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> From: patch70 [email protected]
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Moore is a proven liar in every propaganda film he
>>> has made.
>>
>> Then how come nobody has managed to sue, prosecute or
>> penalize him?
>>
> This gives you a search list of Moore stuff at
> Spinsanity. They are as close to completely unbiased as
> it is possible to be. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp100115c6&sp-
> f=iso-8859-1&sp-q=micha el+moore
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L656531B8 Read for
> yourself. Bill C

Just a SMALL sample of the Moore ****.........

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

By Bryan Keefer
October 16, 2003

In his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic
against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again
demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod
journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.

Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose
with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary
"Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his
hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline
Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of
his film, implying that certain events were a response to
GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred
years before.

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less
factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes,
ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost
of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the
outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks
on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for
Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy
Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern.
Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of
Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth
about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a
scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one
could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a
Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other
distortions.

Moore has generally brushed aside such criticism with
suggestions such as "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"
as he put it to Lou Dobbs on CNN's "Moneyline." More
recently, however, he has gone on the offensive, going so
far as to suggest critics of "Bowling for Columbine" are
"committing an act of libel" in an August 19 appearance on
MSNBC. And in a long article posted on his web site, he
denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination"
and "make-believe stories."

Despite repeatedly dismissing his critics, Moore has
recently acknowledged some of his errors. For instance, in
the DVD release of "Bowling for Columbine," he changed the
caption he inserted over a Bush/Quayle '88 campaign ad,
making the text more accurate (although the viewer still is
unlikely to realize that the text wasn't in the original ad
in the first place). One his web site, Moore explicitly
admitted making this correction in the film.

In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly
acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several
occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that
(as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush
Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in
part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money
they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore."
"Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that
the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of
Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to
help relive famine, was given to non-governmental
organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore
finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be
distributed by international organizations." (page 34)

Moore also implicitly corrects himself about what was
manufactured at a Lockheed plant in Littleton, Colorado. In
"Bowling for Columbine," Moore implies that the plant made
nuclear weapons at or immediately before the time he
visited. Actually, while the plant was involved in nuclear
missile production years before, it now makes rockets that
are used as space-launch vehicles for military and civilian
satellites. In his newest book, Moore sets the record
straight, writing that "Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms
maker in the world, built rockets that carried into space
the special new satellites that guided the missiles fired
into Baghdad" during the recent war in Iraq. (page 74)
 
On 7/1/04 12:14 AM, in article BD0907D7.33A90%[email protected],
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 6/30/04 5:41 PM, in article 20040630204151.19209.00000972@mb-
> m04.aol.com, "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> From: patch70 [email protected]
>>
>>> Sam wrote:
>>>> Moore is a proven liar in every propaganda film he has
>>>> made.
>>>
>>> Then how come nobody has managed to sue, prosecute or
>>> penalize him?
>>>
>> This gives you a search list of Moore stuff at
>> Spinsanity. They are as close to completely unbiased as
>> it is possible to be. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp100115c6&sp-
>> f=iso-8859-1&sp-q=micha el+moore
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L656531B8 Read for
>> yourself. Bill C
>
> Just a SMALL sample of the Moore ****.........
>
> Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?
>
> By Bryan Keefer
> October 16, 2003
>

In addition, Moore attacks the Patriot Act with an array of
examples that have nothing to do with it. He introduces the
list by writing that "To date, there are at least thirty-
four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act -
and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal
complaints. Many of these people were just minding their
own business, or seeking to partake in our free society.
Consider these examples." (page 111) Moore lists an anti-
globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration
officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge
who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French
journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local
police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to
photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student
questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American"
material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way
to Prague. None of the incidents he lists, however,
happened as a result of the Patriot Act, nor did any of
them involve the FBI (the French journalists were detained
for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist
was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own
sources note).

Bush's policies towards Iraq come in for particular
criticism - and, in several cases, gross distortions. Moore
writes that "There were claims that the French were only
opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam
Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were
making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading
trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's
oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi
dictator." (page 69) In reality, that "trade" was done under
the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food program,
which allowed Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil to
purchase humanitarian supplies. (For details on the program,
see this report to Congress.) One can only imagine what
Moore would have said if the U.S. refused to purchase Iraqi
oil and allowed its citizens to starve.

At another point, Moore attacks Secretary of State Colin
Powell's statement to the United Nations that "What we are
giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid
intelligence." According to Moore, "Just days earlier,
Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA
officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein,
Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not
reading this. This is ********.'" (page 82) Moore makes it
appear as though the speech Powell gave at the UN included
the evidence he had called "********." In fact, the US News
& World Report article that Moore cites does note Powell's
exclamation, but it details the process by which Powell
winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable
presenting. The article concludes "And plenty was cut [from
Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information
wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his
speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director
George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush
administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush
tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example,
he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were
shut down early this year because they ran out of tax
money." (page
160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax
cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed
a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax
system from the federal government's, insuring that the
2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's
budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New
York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources
- notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in
the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools
and other spending.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> >
> > There's one thing that's interesting to me about the
> > brouhaha over F.
> > 9/11, and this doesn't address the veracity of his
> > facts. There are many people who are all up in arms
> > over Moore and this movie, making
> impassioned
> > claims of "propaganda!" But how many of those same
> > people have no problem whatsoever repeating whatever
> > they have heard from O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.?
> > Is Moore biased on this movie? You bet. And why not? Are
> > the above listed personalities biased in their
> > "reporting"? If you want bias, just go to Fox news.
> >
>
> I think a lot of people associate the word
> 'documentary' with 'objective'. Just as Lafferty seemed
> to imply by saying that "the Advocate that did a
> _lengthy and well researched piece_" (my emphasis)
> should mean objective, too.

I think your "documentary/objective" comment is on the
mark. Most (if not all (*)) documentarians go out with a
point of view that they are aiming to focus their film
around. It's human nature.

(*) I suppose nature study docs. might be an exception to
this.

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <BD0907D7.33A90%[email protected]>,
Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 6/30/04 5:41 PM, in article 20040630204151.19209.00000972@mb-
> m04.aol.com, "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> From: patch70 [email protected]
> >
> >> Sam wrote:
> >>> Moore is a proven liar in every propaganda film he has
> >>> made.
> >>
> >> Then how come nobody has managed to sue, prosecute or
> >> penalize him?
> >>
> > This gives you a search list of Moore stuff at
> > Spinsanity. They are as close to completely unbiased as
> > it is possible to be. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp100115c6&sp-
> > f=iso-8859-1&sp-q=micha el+moore
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?L656531B8 Read for
> > yourself. Bill C
>
> Just a SMALL sample of the Moore ****.........
>
> Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

Steve, I breathlessly await your efforts on the fact-
checking front for Ann Coulter.

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On 7/1/04 12:46 AM, in article
[email protected], "Howard Kveck"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <BD0907D7.33A90%[email protected]>,
> Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/04 5:41 PM, in article 20040630204151.19209.00000972@mb-
>> m04.aol.com, "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> From: patch70 [email protected]
>>>
>>>> Sam wrote:
>>>>> Moore is a proven liar in every propaganda film he has
>>>>> made.
>>>>
>>>> Then how come nobody has managed to sue, prosecute or
>>>> penalize him?
>>>>
>>> This gives you a search list of Moore stuff at
>>> Spinsanity. They are as close to completely unbiased as
>>> it is possible to be. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp100115c6&sp-
>>> f=iso-8859-1&sp-q=micha el+moore
>>>
>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L656531B8 Read for
>>> yourself. Bill C
>>
>> Just a SMALL sample of the Moore ****.........
>>
>> Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?
>
> Steve, I breathlessly await your efforts on the fact-
> checking front for Ann Coulter.

I love the way you blow off my post............

I never said anything about Ann Coulter!
 
On 7/1/04 12:46 AM, in article
[email protected], "Howard Kveck"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <BD0907D7.33A90%[email protected]>,
> Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/04 5:41 PM, in article 20040630204151.19209.00000972@mb-
>> m04.aol.com, "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> From: patch70 [email protected]
>>>
>>>> Sam wrote:
>>>>> Moore is a proven liar in every propaganda film he has
>>>>> made.
>>>>
>>>> Then how come nobody has managed to sue, prosecute or
>>>> penalize him?
>>>>
>>> This gives you a search list of Moore stuff at
>>> Spinsanity. They are as close to completely unbiased as
>>> it is possible to be. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp100115c6&sp-
>>> f=iso-8859-1&sp-q=micha el+moore
>>>
>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L656531B8 Read for
>>> yourself. Bill C
>>
>> Just a SMALL sample of the Moore ****.........
>>
>> Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?
>
> Steve, I breathlessly await your efforts on the fact-
> checking front for Ann Coulter.

http://www.cpl.net/~carville/ann_coulter-lingerie.jpg
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> (*) I suppose nature study docs. might be an exception
> to this.

No.
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> >
> > I think a lot of people associate the word 'documentary'
> > with 'objective'.
>
> Those people do not understand documentaries.
>
>

We're talking lowest common denominator here.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:

> All news outlets are biased, as are histories, or any
> other non hard science reports. This is an old topic of
> debate and research among historians. Just how much
> cultural/politic/experience based bias is included in
> the account, and how much is acceptable. That's open for
> discussion, what is not open for acceptance is flat out
> lies and purposefully chosen distortions in a piece of
> work. This is the big one of my two *****es with Moore.
> The other one is that there is no way in hell we are
> ever going to get good answers to a bunch of the issues
> he's raised because he's poisoned the subject. I would
> have loved to see someone with credibility pursue these
> questions, say Woodward. But now after the incredibly
> disastrous Moorew escapade Nobody with any credibility
> is going to touch this pile of **** with a ten foot
> pole. Bill C

Well, I can easily see your perspective on this, Bill,
and agree with much of it. But I will say that I think a
biased news source like Fox is far more damaging to the
public than Moore, simply because it is a "NEWS" source.
At least that's what they call themselves. And they are
readily available for viewing any day, whereas F. 9/11 is
at a theatre for a limited time. The regular exposure to
bias has obvious problems, as we saw with that survey
that showed correlations between news sources and the
belief that Iraq was associted with the attacks on 9/11.

The reason I am on Fox so hard is because they go far
beyond the usual biases of any other mainstream news
source. Roger Ailes, the head of Fox news division, has
and is in regular contact with the Bush admin. and other
GOP people, helping them with talking points and framing
of issues. That in itself goes *far* beyond the norm.
But where that becomes even more insidious is that he
controls what goes out on Fox very tightly. There is a
memo out every morning that lays out what stories are
covered and what the perspective is on them - detailed
down to the order story sources are presented (one
example that I read about allowed the environmentalists
to get some time to present an idea, but the memo was
very specific about how much (or little) time they were
allowed and that they were absolutely not to get the
last word in.)

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <BD0914DC.34145%[email protected]>,
Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> I love the way you blow off my post............
>
> I never said anything about Ann Coulter!

You know, Steve, since F. 9/11 came out, you've been on
a rampage against it and people you think might be
supportive of it. As I mentioned previously, you started
8 threads in 1 hour, 14 minutes. All related to Moore or
Democrats/liberals, but seemingly all keyed off of F.
9/11. Yet when Ken called you on it, you sputtered
something about "I reply and they whine." Indeed. But I
guess you didn't notice that when (for example) they
showed that thing on CBS about 9/11 that tried to make
out that Bush was a brave and effective leader on 9/11,
nobody on the left started 8 threads about it. Same
thing when Coulter's recent book came out. Or Hannity's,
or O'Reilly's, etc., etc., etc. Ok, you don't like Moore
or his movies - then don't go see 'em. Easy, isn't it?
(And cheaper, too.) Instead you'd rather cut and paste a
bunch of stuff about them and him here. If you want to
contribute in a thread that goes political (or even
start one), fine. But starting eight of them seems like
you are doing more than your share of whining. To
paraphrase the blogger called Billmon, since the release
of "Farenheit 9/11", it's been "Unfair-enheit 24/7" for
you. Just saying...

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:

> There's a lot in there that I didn't know about FOX, but
> a lot of it sounds like the complaints that came from
> writers at the NY Times who were told the same types of
> things. I've also heard quite a bit of that stuff with
> 20/20, CNN with Ted at the helm, and 60 Minutes.

A certain amount of management control of content is
pretty much the norm, but Fox goes far beyond that point,
according to a bunch of former (and some present
employees of Fox). It's interesting that the NYT's
editor, Bill Kellor, has been quoted (and written memos)
as saying that he wants to avoid the label of "liberal
media", so he's pushed for stories that reflect that -
many of the stories in the lead-up to the war were like
this. Stories that could have influenced opinions the
other way (from the Bush admin.'s chosen story-line) were
shoved into the middle of sections where they were less
likely to be spotted. Good article on this here (I think
I've sent you this before): http://www.metronewyork.com/-
nymetro/news/media/features/9226/index.html

Of course, when I'm talking about Fox, I'm only talking
about the straight news section - not the talking heads
like Hannity and O'reilly, etc. Those guys are in a
league of their own when it comes to churning the
admin. line.

> I do agree that Fox has been way too close to this
> administration, but the network news types did an awful
> lot of spin for Clinton and the UN.

This is one of those things where we probably saw much
the same coverage (if you were in the states, that is)
but draw wildly different conclusions about how the
coverage was slanted. Most presidents get a sort of easy
first 100 days (press wise), but I have always thought
they didn't give Clinton 100 hours easy. Now GWB is a
very different story. His freebie days were still going
in September '01, imo. And it got worse after that. Even
in the campaign, he was getting it easy - they missed
stories left and right (for instance, his service record:
asked why no one was looking into it, the most common
reply was, "Well, they said it wasn't an issue...")

> Did you know that the UN/Nato just removed 60 officials
> from office in Bosnia. If that's not the act of an
> occupying power I don't know what is, but I do know that
> if we did that in Iraq or Afghanistan there'd be hell to
> pay, but since that was Clinton's war everybody has
> chosen to ignore the fact that we are still pulling their
> strings and running their country.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3854457.stm

The coverage of that has been exceedingly low profile
here, but I'd say it was less an issue of it being
because of any Clinton influence. More that Bosnia isn't
on the radar screen right now, like many other things.

> I just wish that people would stop being so selectively
> outraged. Bill

Well, I've said it before: people are best at wanting
thiings both ways.

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 

Similar threads

W
Replies
8
Views
935
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
W
Replies
9
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
S
Replies
32
Views
3K
S