Tell Me How Michael Moore is Wrong, How He Lied.

[champu 1]

Quote

Seriously, is the Charlton Heston/NRA thing all you've got? I think you have about 3.8 more hours of footage to debunk.

This is an interesting attitude that I see in speakers corner a lot and, quite frankly, it's one I can't understand. You appear to be making the claim that everything Michael Moore says is true until someone proves otherwise in this little corner of the internet. I'll tell you right now, no one cares enough about what you believe to hold your hand through this. A couple people in this thread have given examples and references to further reading in the hopes that maybe you'll start taking what Michael Moore says with a grain of salt. That's all you can expect anyone to offer you in their spare time.

In short, don't believe everything you read, and believe even less of what you watch.

[jgoose71 0]

Seriously, go rent "Micheal More Hates America". Watch that after anything produced by him and you might actualy come out with something close to "Fair and Balanced".

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

There are lies of commission and lies of Omission. Failure to tell the whole story is a pretty bad thing. If he has to omit things to make his point, then his point is without merit.

Which scenes did he fabricate? Someone drawing an incorrect inference does not constitute a lie.

What a load of BULLSHIT!

Quote

I mean, lawyers lead juries to do that every day.

What are you saying? That you think lawyers never lie?

Quote

Compared with Bush's statements on Iraq and the size of the deficit, Moore is a shining beacon of truth.

Oh look. Another one of Kallend's "well, Johnny did it first" style of childish (il)logic.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are lies of commission and lies of Omission. Failure to tell the whole story is a pretty bad thing. If he has to omit things to make his point, then his point is without merit.

Which scenes did he fabricate? Someone drawing an incorrect inference does not constitute a lie.

What a load of BULLSHIT!

Quote

I mean, lawyers lead juries to do that every day.

What are you saying? That you think lawyers never lie?

Quote

Compared with Bush's statements on Iraq and the size of the deficit, Moore is a shining beacon of truth.

Oh look. Another one of Kallend's "well, Johnny did it first" style of childish (il)logic.

So please tell us all, which scenes are fabricated? Just juxtaposing people's speeches to emphasize their stupidity is not fabrication, it's good editing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Michael Moore lies.
Michael Moore speaks the truth.

There is global warming.
There is not global warming.

We are winning the war.
We are not winning the war.

Decreasing taxes increase revenue.
Increasing taxes increases revenue.

In each of these arguments, there are "experts" who argue each side, providing data that proves their case. Can both sides be totally right? No. This creates a cognitive dissonance where nobody really know what is fact or fiction, or right or wrong. Who benefits from this? The politicians who play the game the best.

We need to somehow figure out how to get some very smart people to look at these things, and keep politics out of it, and get to the real truth. Can we make that happen? Doubtful.

But it would go a long way toward solving some problems we all must deal with, eventually.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[champu 1]

Quote

So please tell us all, which scenes are fabricated? Just juxtaposing people's speeches to emphasize their stupidity is not fabrication, it's good editing.

I'm not sure how much "good editing" has to take place before you'd no longer consider a scene authentic, but rather fabricated. If the underlying time line doesn't survive the process the product deserves to be filed away with the National Enquirer.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

So please tell us all, which scenes are fabricated? Just juxtaposing people's speeches to emphasize their stupidity is not fabrication, it's good editing.

I'm not sure how much "good editing" has to take place before you'd no longer consider a scene authentic, but rather fabricated. If the underlying time line doesn't survive the process the product deserves to be filed away with the National Enquirer.

I agree - editing out a word like "not" would be a fabrication since it reverses the meaning of the speaker. But juxtaposing two speeches whereby the speaker is shown to contradict himself would not be fabricating anything.

So which scenes of Moore's are fabrications?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

So which scenes of Moore's are fabrications?

Regarding time lines staying intact, I was referring to one of the scenes called out in the reference that kelpdiver posted, the one regarding the Flint Michigan shooting. If you care to, you can read about it there but I'll sum up the most egregious bit of "good editing."

Moore claims, verbatim, that the NRA had a big pro-gun rally following Kayla Rolland's death. He shows a scene of himself with the school principal, then shows a clip of a speech made by Heston 8 months after the shooting at a presidential campaign, then shows a highlighted clip from an article that simply says, "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead..." (mind you, the article that this fragment was highlighted from had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA, it was actually saying 48 hours later, Bill Clinton went on the today show to discuss it.)

There was no pro-gun rally following the event, let alone in response to the event. It never happened. It was completely conjured up out of thin air. That is not "good editing." That is a fabrication. That is lying.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

So which scenes of Moore's are fabrications?

Regarding time lines staying intact, I was referring to one of the scenes called out in the reference that kelpdiver posted, the one regarding the Flint Michigan shooting. If you care to, you can read about it there but I'll sum up the most egregious bit of "good editing."

Moore claims, verbatim, that the NRA had a big pro-gun rally following Kayla Rolland's death. He shows a scene of himself with the school principal, then shows a clip of a speech made by Heston 8 months after the shooting at a presidential campaign, then shows a highlighted clip from an article that simply says, "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead..." (mind you, the article that this fragment was highlighted from had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA, it was actually saying 48 hours later, Bill Clinton went on the today show to discuss it.)

There was no pro-gun rally following the event, let alone in response to the event. It never happened. It was completely conjured up out of thin air. That is not "good editing." That is a fabrication. That is lying.

So you're saying 8 months later isn't "after". Are you claiming 8 months later is "before" now? You have a wierd idea of timelines.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I agree - editing out a word like "not" would be a fabrication since it reverses the meaning of the speaker. But juxtaposing two speeches whereby the speaker is shown to contradict himself would not be fabricating anything.

Well, if you'll let yourself believe that, then you can't really take issue with the 'non frabrication' that the White House used to build support for Gulf II. Bush merely juxtaposes a few sets of intelligence data.

After the Nancy Kerrighan attack, one of the big weekly magazines had a cover photo of her and Harding skating on the rink. Except that didn't happen - they combined one photo of each. There was no doubt that this was a fabrication, just as merging two speeches together is a lie as well, unless it's made abundantly clear that they are separate. And if the snips are edited to lose context in the interests of enhancing the perceived contradiction, that's absolutely propoganda, which is a nicer way of saying a lie.

[AWL71 0]

He lied when he opened his mouth. That is true 90% of the time. That is Moore's formula, 10% truth with 90% fabrications.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So you're saying 8 months later isn't "after". Are you claiming 8 months later is "before" now? You have a wierd idea of timelines.

Every gun rally in the US after 2001 is is celebration of Al Queda's 9/11 attack.

Sure....

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

I agree - editing out a word like "not" would be a fabrication since it reverses the meaning of the speaker. But juxtaposing two speeches whereby the speaker is shown to contradict himself would not be fabricating anything.

Well, if you'll let yourself believe that, then you can't really take issue with the 'non frabrication' that the White House used to build support for Gulf II. Bush merely juxtaposes a few sets of intelligence data.

After the Nancy Kerrighan attack, one of the big weekly magazines had a cover photo of her and Harding skating on the rink. Except that didn't happen - they combined one photo of each. There was no doubt that this was a fabrication, just as merging two speeches together is a lie as well, unless it's made abundantly clear that they are separate. And if the snips are edited to lose context in the interests of enhancing the perceived contradiction, that's absolutely propoganda, which is a nicer way of saying a lie.

Are you claiming Moore was responsible for the Kerrigan photo, or what?

I asked for example of Moore lying, and all I have got so far is examples of other people lying or people unable to tell the difference between before and after in a timeline.

So far Moore seems more credible than you or Champu.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crotalus01 0]

Okay, i cant currently be assed with reading this entire thread but I will give exactly one (1) instance on MM lying. In Roger and Me he claims that he was never able to confront Roger except at the famous stockholder meeting he was ejected from, when in fact Roger gave him a sit down (albeit short) interview.
From what I can recall, most of MMs bullshit is not really lying, its manipulating, which all documentarians do to some degree, but there ARE instances of outright baldface LIES, one of which I just sited.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

The last thread about Coulter prompted me to start this. I'm not advocating him, nor will I defend him. This is not intended to be a bashing session.

I want to know exactly what he lied about.

I'm just looking for anyone with concrete information about this to pipe in. If you know specifically how he got it wrong (in any movie) please let me hear it......

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Is deceit really lying?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[champu 1]

Quote

So you're saying 8 months later isn't "after". Are you claiming 8 months later is "before" now? You have a wierd idea of timelines.

I have to be honest, your response here makes me call into question the legitimacy of your interest in this discussion. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt...

There's more to a time line than a bulleted list of events. That's why it's called a time line. Saying a statement came 48 hours after an event when it came 8 months following an event is altering the time line of events... lying. This lie was told in order to fabricate a cause and effect relationship between the shooting and Heston's statements that simply was not there.

Now, if you want to argue that displaying the text, "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead..." on the screen while talking about Heston's statement does not constitute, "saying a statement came 48 hours after an event" then you are more than welcome to do so. Though if you do, I will no longer grant you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions here.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Are you claiming Moore was responsible for the Kerrigan photo, or what?

...

So far Moore seems more credible than you or Champu.

Well, hardly surprising, since you use some of the same lame tactics as he does rather than make an argument that can stand on its own.

Selective vision is a wonderful thing for you to have. A true scientist would know better, but academia is full of the other.

[rushmc 18]

His lips moved

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

His lips moved

So far one dubious example has been given, while a lot of hot air has been spouted by the right. And in that example all that happened was the picture and sound weren't matched to your liking, there's no suggestion that he altered the picture or anyone's words.

Surely you guys can do better than that to justify your self-righteous indignation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

His lips moved

So far one dubious example has been given, while a lot of hot air has been spouted by the right. And in that example all that happened was the picture and sound weren't matched to your liking, there's no suggestion that he altered the picture or anyone's words.

Surely you guys can do better than that to justify your self-righteous indignation.

Not even you can stop me from having a little fun in this site.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Quote

Which scenes did he fabricate? Someone drawing an incorrect inference does not constitute a lie. I mean, lawyers lead juries to do that every day.

Compared with Bush's statements on Iraq and the size of the deficit, Moore is a shining beacon of truth.

He fabricated the whole movie, didn't he. And editing the way he does has already been accurately labeled a lie of ommission. So one lie is a shining beacon of truth compared to another lie? A lie is a lie.

They are both decietful manipulative sons of bitches - in other words - politicians.

Moore just didn't run for office.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Which scenes did he fabricate? Someone drawing an incorrect inference does not constitute a lie. I mean, lawyers lead juries to do that every day.

Compared with Bush's statements on Iraq and the size of the deficit, Moore is a shining beacon of truth.

He fabricated the whole movie, didn't he. And editing the way he does has already been accurately labeled a lie of ommission. So one lie is a shining beacon of truth compared to another lie? A lie is a lie.

They are both decietful manipulative sons of bitches - in other words - politicians.

Moore just didn't run for office.

"Lies" are only of any importance DEPENDING on which side it comes from. In this case a left leaning lie justifies the getting to the wanted outcome

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

He lied when he opened his mouth. That is true 90% of the time. That is Moore's formula, 10% truth with 90% fabrications.

Personally I think that Michael Moore has a tendency to be intellectually dishonest, but your assessment is a bit of an exaggeration -- and dishonest.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Which scenes did he fabricate? Someone drawing an incorrect inference does not constitute a lie. I mean, lawyers lead juries to do that every day.

Compared with Bush's statements on Iraq and the size of the deficit, Moore is a shining beacon of truth.

He fabricated the whole movie, didn't he.

I have no idea, I haven't seen any of his movies, and don't wish to.

I was under the impression he used newsclips etc. as his source material. How did he fabricate these? How did he fabricate pictures of Bush, for example?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have no idea, I haven't seen any of his movies, and don't wish to.

I think I'll file this one along with your claim that you support the 2nd Amendment. Don't point your nose at me!