Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52
  1.    #1  
    I probably will never take the time to watch this as I have always taken radical far lefts as well as radical far rights with a grain of salt.....but I found this article interesting nonetheless.

    Documentary Film Takes on Michael Moore's Credibility
    LONDON — The hunter has become the hunted.

    Michael Moore, the celebrated left-wing film-maker, has become the unwilling subject of a new documentary that raises damaging questions about the credibility of his work.

    The director and star of successful documentaries such as "Roger & Me," "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore has repeatedly been accused by his right-wing enemies of distorting or manipulating the material in his films. On his Web site he dismisses his critics as “wacko attackos”.

    Click here to read the complete story in Times of London.

    Yet the latest assault on Moore’s film-making techniques has come from an unexpected quarter. In "Manufacturing Dissent," a documentary to be shown for the first time at a Texas film festival on Saturday, a pair of left-wing Canadian film-makers take Moore to task for what they describe as a disturbing pattern of fact-fudging and misrepresentation.

    “When we started this project we hoped to have done a documentary that celebrated Michael Moore. We were admirers and fans,” said Debbie Melnyk, who made the film with her husband, Rick Caine. “Then we found out certain facts about his documentaries that we hadn’t known before. We ended up very disappointed and disillusioned.”

    "Manufacturing Dissent" includes a long catalogue of alleged exaggerations or distortions in several of Moore’s films. In "Bowling for Columbine," a scathing indictment of gun violence in America, Moore visited Toronto to show parts of the city that were supposedly so free of crime everyone left their front doors unlocked.

    “In the film, Michael makes it look as though 100 percent of the doors were unlocked, but his local producer told us it was really only 40 percent,” said Caine.

    Caine and Melnyk said they had hoped to interview Moore about his views on how much editing was acceptable before a factual documentary turned into misleading propaganda.

    “We had met him at a premiere of the Columbine film in Toronto, and he said, ‘Oh yes, talk to my people and they’ll set something up’,” said Caine. “We then called his people and they said he’s not doing any more interviews in Toronto. We had his e-mail, we sent a letter to his lawyers, we had his phone number in New York. But each time he said no.”

    SOURCE

    SOURCE
  2. #2  
    Hobbes, Hobbes, Hobbes.

    Don't you know by now that there is no such thing as a "radical far left"? There is only Left and Radical Right.

    Interesting article, though. Since it comes from the Left it will probably be given some attention. Not too much, though, as we wouldn't want people to think there is any real dissention among the ranks.
  3. #3  
    I'm really curious and will try to see the documentary. Thanks!
  4. JayL's Avatar
    Posts
    226 Posts
    Global Posts
    277 Global Posts
    #4  
    guys, come on:
    starting a war under false pretense is sooo much less important than having 'sex' with an intern.

    rollseyes
    Sprint 700p
  5. #5  
    I am bothered that there are people that genuinely believe he has credibility in which to question
  6. #6  
    As much as I may be a liberal and stuck on the left side of the spectrum, there is nothing I celebrate more than the verification and inspection of claims and "facts."
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv View Post
    As much as I may be a liberal and stuck on the left side of the spectrum, there is nothing I celebrate more than the verification and inspection of claims and "facts."
    Very well stated!
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    ...as I have always taken radical far lefts as well as radical far rights with a grain of salt.....but I found this article interesting nonetheless.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Don't you know by now that there is no such thing as a "radical far left"? There is only Left and Radical Right.
    Michael Moore should not be confused with (anything) left-ism. He represents himself only.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Michael Moore should not be confused with (anything) left-ism. He represents himself only.
    You mean Michael Moore does not speak for all liberals? wow, I had better re-read "Treason" I missed that part.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Michael Moore should not be confused with (anything) left-ism. He represents himself only.
    Maybe. But he seems to be popular enough amond the Democrats and the Left in general.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Maybe. But he seems to be popular enough amond the Democrats and the Left in general.
    Marilyn Monroe was popular among men. As far as I know she wasn’t a man.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Michael Moore should not be confused with (anything) left-ism. He represents himself only.
    Where did his $200 million in ticket sales come from?
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Where did his $200 million in ticket sales come from?
    Not me...
    Hey, he’s a selfish, money-publicity-hungry (albeit talented) individual. If some (or many) “leftists” get excited over him: Big deal. He’s all for himself. Would you consider Rush Limbaugh a spokesperson for the entire “right”?
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Marilyn Monroe was popular among men. As far as I know she wasn’t a man.
    Her popularity, however, did demonstrate at least in part what interests men.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Marilyn Monroe was popular among men. As far as I know she wasn’t a man.
    Not quite analogous. Monroe was popular for beauty; Moore is popular for his ideas.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Not quite analogous. Monroe was popular for beauty; Moore is popular for his ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Her popularity, however, did demonstrate at least in part what interests men.
    Which is?..
    I understand. But my point is: Mr. Moore is a selfish fellow that should be looked at as All-For-Himself guy.
    There are, I assume, many on the left that cringe when he gets himself into foolish acts because he’s been equated with the left. But put Moore’s persona in perspective, that’s all.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Not me...
    Hey, he’s a selfish, money-publicity-hungry (albeit talented) individual. If some (or many) “leftists” get excited over him: Big deal. He’s all for himself. Would you consider Rush Limbaugh a spokesperson for the entire “right”?
    The issue is how much Moore has shaped the left's thinking. He was a thought-leader for the left on issues like "Bush lied," the oil motivation, and his slow reaction to 9/11, when Bush and the war were still relatively popular. Democratic leaders didn't pick up on these themes until after the public swung around, thanks to Moore.

    Rush is hardly a thought leader for conservatives.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Rush is hardly a thought leader for conservatives.
    Wow... OK...

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The issue is how much Moore has shaped the left's thinking. He was a thought-leader for the left on issues like "Bush lied," the oil motivation, and his slow reaction to 9/11, when Bush and the war were still relatively popular. Democratic leaders didn't pick up on these themes until after the public swung around, thanks to Moore.
    I think you are dumbing-down the left’s ability to think for itself (and, after all, the left consists of a rainbow of people).
    If Moore has had that much influence on the left and on it’s ability to make coherent decisions then I’d say the left deserves what Moore’s getting. But it ain’t so.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    But it ain’t so.
    Is too.
  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    I think you are dumbing-down the left’s ability to think for itself (and, after all, the left consists of a rainbow of people).
    If Moore has had that much influence on the left and on it’s ability to make coherent decisions then I’d say the left deserves what Moore’s getting. But it ain’t so.
    I don't think that the Left (or any demographically defined group for that matter) cannot think for themselves. They have the ability to. But far too often they choose not to. I cannot tell you HOW many times for 2 years after 9/11 came out I had left friends, posters on this board, blogs, Hollywood celebrities, etc... quote a "fact" from 9/11 as if it was the gospel truth and could not possibly be any other perspective, any other additional evidence, any other opinion that could be true or even concidered......and when questioned and pressed about it, 9/11 was their only source. Whether it defined the thinking of many on the left or merely influenced it, there is little doubt Fahrenheit 9/11 had an impact on it.

    The argument above goes for the "dedicated-no-matter-what-the-party-says-is-true" or the "no-matter-what-it-is-as-long-as-it-is-bad-for-bush / dems" on the left and on the right.

    I have seen the same for far right with Rush as well. I personally don't view Rush as the conservative spokesman no more than I view Franken as the Liberal spokesman....as I personally hold them in both the same category (which is not a very good category to be in) at the opposite end of the spectrum.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/07/2007 at 02:27 PM.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions