Wiki wish
: I wish someone would put up a wiki for the collective blogosphere to fact-check, fisk, confirm — whatever — Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11 now that it’s set to be released this month.
51 responses to “Wiki wish”
-
I think this is such a non-story. Yeah, he’s a repulsive man, but this whole michael moore flap seems to me like another excuse for the blogosphere to whip themselves in to another self-righteous fury. It seems like half of the blogs would close down tomorrow if it weren;t for supercilious indignation.
-
Jeff, Have you seen the wiki that’s been put up with the DailyKos website?
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
It’s pretty ingenious, though I have to say I don’t know if a large blogosphere wide wiki would work with so many trolls from either side wanting to well, lie or fudge. It’d have to have a good team behind it. -
Freaky how some people firmly believe Michael Moore is serving the public through his ‘educational’ crockumentaries.
Michael Moore is a big con artist, both literally and figuratively, and is living high off the hog from money willfully given by the Collectively Unconscious.
Freaky man.
Does the Collective Unconcious know Richard Clarke contradicts Michael Moore’s brain-fried film? -
Freaky how some people firmly believe Michael Moore is serving the public through his ‘educational’ crockumentaries.
Just like how some thought the “Jessica Lynch Story” produced by NBC was factual… -
mm,
nice try, but the jessica lynch story was not portrayed as a documentary or an educational film! -
There are two sites waiting for you Mr. Jarvis-
http://www.moorelies.com
http://www.moorewatch.com -
From NBC on Jessica Lynch Story:
“This dramatic and inspiring NBC movie is based on the true story behind the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company, and the dramatic rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, an American prisoner of war in Iraq. With the help and official story rights of Mohammed Al Rehaief, the Iraqi citizen who risked his own life to aid Lynch, the film follows Lynch -
Yes, “mm”, nothing is purely factual, except, of course, for facts.
MK -
“This dramatic and inspiring NBC movie is based on the true story ”
From this you read “Documentary”?
“It seems like half of the blogs would close down tomorrow if it weren;t for supercilious indignation.”
Most people who post on blogs or USENET or other forums as well would similarly “vanish”. -
mm, how about sharing with us the parts of the Jessica Lynch Story that weren’t factual. You saw it. I didn’t.
Point is, nothing is purely factual. Nothing? Let’s start with this pure fact: the sun sets in the west and rises in the east. -
mm,
It seems to me that NBC got more ‘facts’ correct in their dramatization of Jessica Lynch’s ordeal than Mr. Moore has ever gotten correct in all of of his movies combined.
Of course, I’ve read more about Mr. Moore and his ‘work’ than I have actually viewed it. But I still think that given Mr. Moore’s more obvious errors and the lack of complaints about similar errors related to the Jessica Lynch movie, your original comparison between the two is not very apropos.
Regards,
Dann -
why would anyone complain about the Jessica Lynch story? It was a wonderful piece of propaganda that made the whole country feel warm and fuzzy.
And of course people will comb through Moore’s work to find errors becuase he discusses polarizing topics.
My only point is that all media products have bias, whether it is a TV movie “based” on real events, a “documentary” or even the TV news. There’s no formal reason to hold Moore’s work to any standard we’re not willing to apply to other media products. -
Hey mm,
How about first we hold to the standards of a documentary! Which is of course what this thread and Jeff’s post are all about. Moore has been shown to distort facts, make stuff up, and basically lie to get his point across while calling his work a documentary.
So why don’t you first compare Moore’s work to other documentaries and see how they hold up. Don’t start complaining about all media having bias and lay claim to that being your point. -
I’m not here to defend Moore’s film. Nor am I prepared to compare his “truthfullness” to other documentaries. My only point is that no documentary will be without bias. From Nanook of the North to Triumph of the Will to Ken Burns’ Jazz, all documentaries present only certain facts from only a certain perspective.
Jeff’s call for a fact-checking device for Moore’s film is reasonable, and necessary. But we should be calling for the same fact-checking on the front-page of every newspaper, every political talk show, every speech on the floor of Congress…. -
Cori Dauber at Rantingprofs.com reports that Tom Brokaw did a commercial for Moore’s film tonight on the NBC News, including film clips and a mention of the film’s opening date. So either Fahrenheit 911 really is an important news documentary or the network news shows have sunk to incredible depths from which they will not recover.
-
But we should be calling for the same fact-checking on the front-page of every newspaper, every political talk show, every speech on the floor of Congress….who says “we” aren’t? You seem to have not noticed the “fact checking your ass” culture of blogging, a whole grassroots movement demanding transparency. Your “Michael Moore-Ken Burns-whatever” attitude is disingenuous. One’s a politcal hack caught in deliberate lies, the other a serious historian for whom bias would be something to avoid. Maybe, that sentence confused you. Moore’s the hack.
-
Maybe, that sentence confused you. Moore’s the hack.
Cute. -
I don’t know why anyone is taking the comparison of Moore’s film with The Jessica Lynch Story. No one gave the latter an award at Cannes, or otherwise touted it as some sort of groundbreaking moment in docudrama film-making. (Note: I didn’t watch the Lynch thing, and I doubt I’ll be watching Fahrenheit. Cheesy docudramas aren’t my thing.)
-
Argh. Put “seriously” at the end of my first sentence for sense-making purposes.
-
Well, Michael is now describing his movies as “documentary-style films” so I guess he’s off the hook. Now we see that he’s not the enemy, just the stupid people who believe what he puts in his films.
-
When a large percentage of the population listed “Entertainment Tonight” as their primary news source, I knew we were in trouble. My daughters went to see the Oliver Stone film on the Kennedy assassination. It took me several years to get them over it – Stones version was deliberate deception. But it got high marks from the reviewers – probably not very knowledgeable themselves.
Now Michael Moore has created a deliberate deception to peddle for political purposes. It should have a before and after disclaimer stating that it is a fictional account. -
I’m curious to see how Moore’s movie will compare to the Frontline I saw that also addressed the Bush/Saudi love affair. as for calling Moore’s movies “documentaries”….they’re actually op-ed pieces. I do believe he’s even said so. I don’t think he’s as deluded about his movies as people think he is. but that’s just me.
-
Michael Moore is not just guilty of “errors”. His films are constructed with the specific purpose to mislead.
If you want to see how he does it, and how truly outrageous it is, check this page out. It is a side by side comparison of Charlton Heston’s over 600 word speech to the NRA in Denver after the Columbine massacre. Moore hacked it to pieces and extruded a less than 80 word montage that totally lacked the meaning and nuance of the original.
Moore is no passive player. He is an active propagandist whose mission is to disseminate lies to advance his political point of view. For more examples of Moore’s lies, see the the referring page to the above link. Observe Heston change suits in the middle of his speech (Moore combines snippets from entirely different speeches and uses diversionary tactics to make you not notice). Watch a cartoon that equates the NRA, founded by Union officers after the Civil War, with the renegade Southern KKK.
Moore lies and, only Moore-ons defend him. -
I’d no more expect the Jessica Lynch story to be factual (key phrase: based on fact) than I would expect any of Irving Stone’s historical fictions to be well-received as historically accurate by the academic community.
Apparently for some, the dividing line between truth and propaganda is a very fine one. -
I will go and see Farenheit 911, because I’ll be interested to see what he says and what footage he has to present it. I think his errors have been vastly inflated by his opponents, but there are an unsettling number of deliberately misleading parts in Bowling for Columbine, so I don’t really blame those who decide he’s lost any credibility – that’s the problem with credibility: hard to earn, but when lost, is normally irretrevible.
-
Its amazing that all of you are able to offer reviews of a movie that none of you have seen yet.
-
“Its amazing that all of you are able to offer reviews of a movie that none of you have seen yet.”
It’s really amazing that no one actually is reviewing the movie and more the man himself and his past endeavors.
But you couldn’t resist typing out that cliched put down. -
…Tom Brokaw did a commercial for Moore’s film tonight on the NBC News, including film clips and a mention of the film’s opening date.
It seems reasonable for network news to run a story on this. The film is certainly been in the public sphere of discourse. Showing clips might be a little questionable, unless they were doing it to contextualize the concern over its anti-Bush position.
Mentioning the opening date, I suppose, is a little more specific than necessary; they could ust mention that it is “opening later this month.” But, my guess is that all the networks probably aired similar stories when Star Wars Episode I or the first Harry Potter were released simply becuase they were of public interest. -
People need to get a grip when it comes to Michael Moore. That there are good counterarguments or other responses to what Moore has to say does not make Moore a liar. He may be wrong in his conclusions, even egregiously so, but quoting your opponents in a way that “totally lack[s] the meaning and nuance of the original” is not the same as what Jayson Blair did. If you want to write essays or books or make films saying that what Michael Moore believes is wrong and you are right, I say to you in all sincerity go to it. I personally don’t buy a lot of what Moore believes. But calling Moore a liar essentially for not agreeing with you is itself not particularly honest.
Similarly, the charge that Moore is a “propagandist” is weak tea. His films are plainly opinion pieces, not National Geographic specials. If you don’t share his point of view, make your counterargument, don’t namecall.
(Incidentally, spare me the references to the various compendia of “Moore lies” posted around the internet. They are mostly of the “Moore failed to point out that …” variety or are true nits having to do how he phrased this thing or that. I’ve seen lies; those ain’t that.) -
Nope. If you’d bothered to read the web site I linked to, you’d see that what Moore did to Charlton Heston was little different from cutting letters out of a magazine, pasting them onto a piece of cardboard to form a message, and then claiming the magazine publishers wrote it. It was just a little more high tech, involving audio and video splicing. You can make anyone say anything that way. If you think that’s fair, well, let’s just see what you say when it’s done back to your side.
-
I did look at that web site. It states that Moore showed Heston saying one arguably inflammatory thing in an earlier speech, then introduced Heston’s speech from the NRA convention in Denver after Columbine, intercutting bits of the Denver speech with other footage around Denver.
The complaints appear to be that (1) Moore is not sufficiently clear that Heston did not say the inflammatory thing in Denver, and (2) Moore intercut bits of the latter speech together.
As to (1), I won’t say that’s an unreasonable criticism, but it’s not a lie. If Moore had said Heston said X in Denver and Heston didn’t really say X, that would be a lie. Moore didn’t do that. Moore’s point was that Heston, a guy who arguably says inflammatory things, gave a speech in Denver right after Columbine. That’s true enough. If you want to point out in Heston’s defense that Heston wasn’t inflammatory in his Denver speech — which is certainly a fair point — go ahead.
(2) is not even a reasonable criticism. Journalists ordinarily use particular quotes from a speech rather than printing it in full, and I don’t see that there’s anything particularly unreasonable about the way Moore cut those bits together. The intercutting of other footage signals that you are not seeing the complete speech. Could Moore have chosen some more flattering bits from the speech to make a different point? Yes. If you want to show that side of Heston, you can make your own film. -
Incidentally (and I’ll try to stop droning on), the real response to Moore’s point about the NRA holding their convention in Denver right after Columbine is this:
“Even if holding the NRA convention in Denver 10 days after Columbine were in some small way insensitive — and there is scant evidence that anyone was genuinely offended — that convention is a large event that was scheduled long in advance, and it can’t be moved on a dime. Putting the NRA to the enormous expense of changing convention sites would not be fair; the NRA was not responsible for what happened at Columbine.”
Those are solid and honest arguments. Just because “Michael Moore is a liar” might have more punch doesn’t make it a better argument. -
(Incidentally, spare me the references to the various compendia of “Moore lies” posted around the internet. They are mostly of the “Moore failed to point out that …”variety or are true nits having to do how he phrased this thing or that. I’ve seen lies; those ain’t that.)
Geez, I guess when Moore accused Disney of reneging on distributing his newest film and later was caught in that lie(Disney publically denied ever having an any agreement with him), he was just lapse in his phrasing.
What you don’t seem to get is that Moore starts with a conclusion, his agenda, and then edits the distorted half-facts to support it. He is no benign innocent.
As Moore makes a living off name calling, your need to protect him is rather ironic. If it makes you feel more virtuous, cringe at this: he’s a lardassed liar. I said it. You didn’t. -
Uh Franky, “deliberately misleading parts” are more commonly referred to as “lies”. The hilarious thing about Moore and the numbnuts who pay to see his material is that they know, as Franky obviously does, that he is a liar, but the leftist vitriol he spews is just to irresistble for them to accept the reality that he is liar. Their thinking is something akin to, “Well he puts deliberately misleading parts into his movies but he is telling the truth. I just know he is. How could he not be? Shoot, he says thing that I have always known about GW Bush and the evil Republicans. He speaks to me.” You have really got to be able to suspend some major belief, replete with empirical evidence of falsehoods and fabrications, to get to that logic. Great scott man, what are you to believe; your ‘feelings’ or your lying eyes.
I personally think Moore is just a greedy, but shrewd, asshole. He plays on the anger and paranoia of the rabid and/or ignorgant left. Then he takes their hard earned money to tell them what they want to believe is true. They feel better because their beliefs and feelings have been reinforced and he feels better because he has more money to spend at the all-you-can-eat lobster and foie gras buffet.
It’s actually kind of scary as hell when you think about it; that a whole lot of college educated people don’t or can’t think for themselves, and will dismiss outright lies as irrelevant, because they are controlled by their emotions. I think the term for these people is sheep. And man, the sheep always get sheared. Sheesh, Moore must be laughing his fat ass off. Whereas he should be ashamed of taking advantage of the feeble minded. -
“alkali”:
Insinuating that Charlton Heston, a man who participated in the civil rights marches back when it was dangerous to do so, is a racist is a lie.
Insinuating that the NRAs origins are linked to the KKK is a lie.
Insinuating that Heston tastelessly made the “cold dead hands” remark at the Denver NRA meeting is a lie.
Insinuating that Heston taunted the Mayor of Denver with the phrase “we’re already here” as if they had come expressly against the Mayor’s wishes is a lie.
Manipulating snippets of audio and video, pasting disparate pieces together to form a misleading and false narrative for the purposes of demonizing one’s political opponents is lying.
Lies, lies, lies. Yeah. -
If I was coming from a pro-Bush slant, I’d be real careful about calling others sheep, suspending disbelief about what prominent figures say.
I’m glad that the burdens of consistency don’t weigh you down, Harry.
But this is the point I made in my first post; it’s all about self-righteous indignation. Director of CIA resigns, and this forum has filled up with rants about Moore (myself included I’m ashamed to say). -
onecent writes:
Geez, I guess when Moore accused Disney of reneging on distributing his newest film and later was caught in that lie(Disney publically denied ever having an any agreement with him), he was just lapse in his phrasing.
He said he had a contract with Disney and later said that he knew Disney had no intention of honoring it. Disney denies there was a contract. I don’t know who’s right. In any event, I thought we were talking about Moore’s films.
What you don’t seem to get is that Moore starts with a conclusion, his agenda, and then edits the distorted half-facts to support it. He is no benign innocent.
I didn’t say you have to like the guy or agree with him. The question is whether he is a “liar,” i.e., whether the view that his films are filled with false statements of fact is accurate. It is not. Nor is he, to my knowledge, a counterfeiter, a pedophile or an arsonist. Whether he is a windbag, a nutjob or a jerk is up to you.
Responding to Reid:
Taking the items on list, (1) and (4) are clearly matters of opinion. (2) could arguably be said to be a matter of opinion, and in any event Moore doesn’t say that there is any direct link: he’s making a point about American culture, which is certainly a matter of opinion. I’ve already addressed (3); Moore doesn’t claim that Heston made that remark at that meeting.
In (5), you’re once again saying that Moore is making incorrect arguments, which makes him a liar. It does not. -
I thought we were talking about Moore’s films. I thought we were talking about Moore’s lying which is reflected in his films.
I don’t know who’s right. Really? Does it matter to you? The “whose right” is the central piece of information you seem to ignore in your persistent defense of Moore. If you re-read your own sentences…“He said he had a contract with Disney and later said that he knew Disney had no intention of honoring it”….the inconsistency doesn’t seem to matter to you. If he had NO contract with Disney, why say he expected them to honor one? A little bit of time at Google or Lexus/Nexus would resolve your “don’t know who’s right“, but you aren’t willing to do that. Moore’s lies are well documented and countered with facts all over the internet with appropriate links.
I don’t understand your position, you admit in your own words you don’t know who is right, but insist on defending Moore. It smacks of the same lame Mooresque approach to documentary making. No factual substance, just whatever agenda I want to advance. -
A little bit of time at Google or Lexus/Nexus would resolve your “don’t know who’s right”, but you aren’t willing to do that.
It is not inconsistent for Moore to say that there was a contract but that he did not expect Disney to honor that contract. Can I tell if there was a contract (Moore) or there wasn’t (Disney) by Googling? No.
Moore’s lies are well documented and countered with facts all over the internet with appropriate links.
No, they aren’t. There are people all over the internet who say Moore is a liar, which is not the same thing. Those people, in my reading, are typically charging that Moore is making a bad argument or is reaching incorrect conclusions. He may be (indeed, I disagree with a lot of what he has to say) but that doesn’t make him a liar. A liar intentionally makes false statements of fact. With trivial exceptions, Moore’s films are literally factual, even if the arguments he constructs with those facts are wildly wrongheaded.
I think what I have said above makes reasonably clear that I am not hell-bent on making a saint out of Michael Moore. What I disagree with is the conventional wisdom among some people that his films frequently misstate facts. Whatever their flaws, they don’t do that. -
alkali –
I really hate making the same points over and over again while you stick your fingers in your ears shouting “I can’t hear you”.
These are NOT matters of opinion.
1) As I said, Charlton Heston has a record of support for racial equality. Moore hacked a lengthy interview into some choice snippets to paint Heston as a racist. It is a lie.
2) I have already made this point. If you think the NRA and KKK have common origins, you know NOTHING about the NRA. The NRA was founded by former Union officers shortly after the Civil War. That’s Union as in the guys who fought for emancipation, get it? The NRA supported the right of blacks in the South to own firearms to guard against the KKK. This attempt to link the NRA to the KKK is a monstrous lie.
3) Moore clearly spliced the scenes together with a billboard scene in between and no break in the audio to make it appear that Heston was rubbing salt into the wounds in Denver with the “cold dead hands” remark. It is a lie.
4) No, it is not opinion. You obviously did not read the speech and the several paragraphs that Moore cut out. Heston’s remark was making the point that NRA members already lived and worked in the Denver area, not that they had come to taunt the mayor. The fact that you have been taken in by this misrepresentation shows that Moore accomplished his purpose with this LIE.
5) No, I am saying he is cutting and pasting audio and video to willfully mislead people into making false conclusions, otherwise known as a LIE.
F***ing Moore-on. -
Can I tell if there was a contract (Moore) or there wasn’t (Disney) by Googling?
YES, FOR GOD’S SAKE! In an interview with CNN, Moore ADMITTED HE HAD NO CONTRACT WITH DISNEY to distribute his film IN SPITE of his initial statement to the contrary.(Read this three times, please.) Google the damn key words and you’ll find the article linked at least 20 times. Are you brain dead? Or is verifying this too difficult for you. The above is a FACT. What is it about researching some facts that you don’t get. You’re a gift from God as I’ve always pondered the logic skills of a Moore defender. -
A little fun, the Michael Moore way:
Alkali posted the following. You can find it up above. No lie:
Moore is, (cut to a scene of thoughtful people nodding in agreement) to my knowledge, a counterfeiter, a pedophile or an arsonist. (back to speaker) Michael Moore is a liar. (cut to protesters outside) I think what I have said above makes reasonably clear that I am (back to speaker) hell-bent on making a saint out of Michael Moore. -
And, before you say it “alkali” (would you get a decent screen name), yes, what I did above is less subtle and more obvious than Moore’s lies. That is what makes him such a danger. He is good at what he does, twisting facts and manipulating people like you into defending and believing him.
-
Reid writes, among other things:
These are NOT matters of opinion. … As I said, Charlton Heston has a record of support for racial equality. Moore hacked a lengthy interview into some choice snippets to paint Heston as a racist. It is a lie.
Whether Charlton Heston, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or my Aunt Tillie is a racist is quintessentially a matter of opinion. Someone can walk in a civil rights march and still harbor racist sentiments. Heston said what he said in Moore’s interview, but if you want to make a film arguing that Moore is wrong and showing what a good guy Heston is (and I don’t think he’s a bad guy) go ahead and make it. But it is, at the end of the day, an opinion. Moore may be wrong about his opinion, but that does not make him a “liar.”
onecent writes:
In an interview with CNN, Moore ADMITTED HE HAD NO CONTRACT WITH DISNEY to distribute his film IN SPITE of his initial statement to the contrary.(Read this three times, please.) Google the damn key words and you’ll find the article linked at least 20 times. Are you brain dead?
From CNN:
“[Moore:] So Disney signed a contract to distribute this, they got cold feet, they’re afraid.”
Here is a list of other Moore material on CNN; if I’m looking in the wrong place, please correct me. -
Hi,
Sorry I’m coming in late. Can someone tell me who won the debate?
(just kidding)
I’d like to understand why Moore pushes the buttons of Bush supporters so much. Are they aghast that someone in show biz actually stretches their point sometimes? I think not. Has anyone actually watched Sean Hannety recently? Theoretically, he’s an actual news person. I’m not joking, I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s supposed to be.
If it helps any, I don’t think F9/11 will change anyone’s presidential vote. The audience will be people who either like his films, or people who are just out for a fun evening. I guess I don’t see a lot to get worked up about. -
It’s kind of funny how people who will excuse the most obscene rantings of the right (Rush saying torture of Iraqi prisoners was on the level of frat hazing, Coulter wishing that the NYT had been bombed , etc.) go childishly beserk when they get return fire.
Grow up. Republicans can dish it out but they can’t take it.
On the other hand, keep going beserk. You’re doing a better job selling movie tickets for the big guy than any ad blitz could. So I guess I owe you guys a thank you, for helping to fund the NEXT Moore film.
Keep it up, I need the laughs. -
Franky,
I never said I was pro-Bush but I am definitely anti-Moore. And I also realize that at times people in government mislead us either for legitimate national security reasons or for personal gain. Besides Moore is not the President of the United States and has little or nothing to do with my or your personal security or the defense of the nation he is into making money. So yes I am somewhat more bias towards someone who has my back rather than my scorn. I would always rather have a loyal hob-nailed redneck watching my back than a lard-ass cynical nancyboy when caught in a life or death barroom brawl. But hey that’s just me. On the other side Moore may be able to talk reason into a fanatical jihadist bent on your an my destruction. That’s your business but I ain’t putting my life and the lives of my family an friends in his greasy greedy hands. -
alkali, perhaps this is what you couldn’t find. Consider your obtuseness game over.
-
onecent:
That article, in fact, confirms what I stated above: Moore stated that Disney signed a contract to distribute the film. (Again, I note Disney denies that it is contractually obligated to distribute the film. I have no way of knowing who is telling the truth on that issue, nor does this article shed any light on that question.)
The question this article raises is whether Moore was inconsistent in saying in a May 5 post on his web site that he was told on May 4 that Disney had “officially” decided not to distribute the film when he stated in a May 6 CNN interview that he had understood a year ago that Disney CEO Michael Eisner did not want Disney to distribute the film.
One possibility is that prior to May 4, Moore might have had some reason to believe that notwithstanding Eisner’s reluctance, Disney would distribute the film, but that on May 4 he received some kind of definitive statement from Disney’s lawyers stating that Disney would not do that. Another possibility is that Moore expected to receive that advice all along and made the announcement upon receiving it simply to gin up publicity. There are numerous other possibilities. I have no idea what the truth is and neither do you. Nor do I particularly care: establishing the true story of Moore’s p***ing contest with his distributor is not really very interesting to me. -
Ooo! Can I play this game? *adjusts voice*
Pff! Of course Moore doesn’t lie! He just has opinions, opinions aren’t lies. Oh, wait, what you mean he actually did lie? No he didn’t! … uh … he did? Well, who cares? That’s not a very big lie. I don’t care if he lies!!! Why does anyone care if he lies? You probably only care that he lies because he’s right! You’re stupid! You’re stupid and you like Bush, stupid! -
alkali! you are a marvel.
I applaud your logical sense.
after reading all of this banter, I truely say that that your opponents are so obsessed with an anger of Michael Mooore’s attempt to sink their precious King George(Pres. G.W. Bush) that they are completely blinded to any logical reasoning.
Well done alkali!
It is a shame that these conservative fanatics believe that King George is the savior of the world.
