55 replies to this topic

[Natasha Bennett]

Well, if you're canadian we do happen to have an election next week for PM.     Hopefully people'll show interest for that.  

[Delvo]

Jid, on Jun 25 2004, 06:11 PM, said:

For better or worse, regardless of their view - they may be clowns, but they get people talking.

But about what? Bloodthirsty anti-whoeverism like his can only create conversation about their own bloodthirsty anti-whoever rhetoric, which is worthless conversation and even of somewhat negative value.

[Jid]

You'd think that, and I did at first, since my city had someone who was fixing to basically set back so called "Indian Affairs" in the city by 20 or 30 years if he was elected.  (He was later under investigation for hate speech, and so forth, by the RCMP).

Funnily enough, people didn't start taking radical sides along the lines of his policies, but actually *gasp* discussed the issue, rather than simply screaming along with whatever side they'd normally agree with.

In short, I think you're overgeneralizing what can be one (perhaps the only) redeeming quality of people like this.

[DWF]

I've not seen much of his work sine TV Nation ended, so I don't know what his recent is like. But I don't really have a problem with him. He takes advange of situations that come his way and I don't think that's a bad thing. Nor do I think that, his work/comments raise emotions, is a bad thing either, if he didn't get under people's skin, he really isn't doing what sent out to do.

[Mr.Calgary]

Dev F, on Jun 25 2004, 09:42 AM, said:

.......to embrace Moore they have to turn a blind eye to all the ways in which his arguments are dishonest and mean-spirited and illogical.

A good summation.

Someone has a different viewpoint from me?  Fine.

Just spare me incoherence, lies and the hate, fear and smear.

(the five main qualities of the Liberal election campaign)    

[ZipperInt]

I don't like Michael Moore, for the simple fact that he is a self-serving hypocrite. I'll admit the man is good as what he does, but I won't give money to something that has such an obvious purpose, ie; anti-guns, anti-Bush, etc., when I have good reason to believe that he distorts facts in order to appease/attract the certain group he is targetting.

[MuseZack]

Drew, on Jun 25 2004, 11:56 PM, said:

Delvo, on Jun 25 2004, 05:06 PM, said:

It's horrible how much of an effect the flurry of lies like his could actually have on the course of events in this country.

We could say "is having," as opposed to "could actually have," because big media is lapping it all up and spreading Moore's corrosive propaganda for him. They think that just by calling the film "controversial," they're taking a neutral stance.

What was I saying about frothing rage?


Anyway, you'd have to be blind to have missed the fact checking the film got in the New York Times and Newsweek, the abundant ink given to the film's critics practically everywhere, and the openly hostile toward Moore interviews by people like Matt Lauer (transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn...22/-matt lauer).  

To say that the mainstream media has somehow given Michael Moore a free ride is patently absurd.

[UoR11]

I didn't like "Roger and Me", largly because he seemed to both be entirly motivated by personal revenge for his father and trying to hide that that was his reason, but I did really like TV Nation, and Candian Bacon is still one of my favorite movies. Unfortunatly, after TV Nation, he seems to have lost touch with the fact he's only good when he's balanced.

[Ogami]

I think a rather more interesting topic than Michael Moore is the fawning coverage he receives from the partisan press. USA Today ran a cover story on him and his documentary, he's being feted on every news outlet and newspaper in existence. His claim of his documentary being censored was a transparent publicity ploy, he has no more trouble getting published than Al Franken or Bill Clinton would.

Books and documentaries depicting the Clinton scandals went unheralded and buried by the partisan press when he was in office. Yet with Bush, every book writer or filmmaker who has a score to settle gets the royal treatment. Coincidence? Not with a Democrat news media.

-Ogami

[Drew]

MuseZack, on Jun 25 2004, 10:50 PM, said:

To say that the mainstream media has somehow given Michael Moore a free ride is patently absurd.

Horsecrap. He's getting loads of free press. This week hiis snarling face graced front-page sections of both the newspapers I get regularly. And the articles that accompanied those pictures . . . as I said, the worst they could say about him was that his film was "controversial."

[DWF]

Drew, on Jun 26 2004, 09:56 PM, said:

MuseZack, on Jun 25 2004, 10:50 PM, said:

To say that the mainstream media has somehow given Michael Moore a free ride is patently absurd.

Horsecrap. He's getting loads of free press. This week his snarling face graced front-page sections of both the newspapers I get regularly. And the articles that accompanied those pictures . . . as I said, the worst they could say about him was that his film was "controversial."

So, how many of them have seen it? I've seen alot of people wanting to criticize the movie, but few seen it yet.

Edited by DWF, 26 June 2004 - 10:03 PM.

[MuseZack]

Drew, on Jun 27 2004, 01:56 AM, said:

MuseZack, on Jun 25 2004, 10:50 PM, said:

To say that the mainstream media has somehow given Michael Moore a free ride is patently absurd.

Horsecrap. He's getting loads of free press. This week hiis snarling face graced front-page sections of both the newspapers I get regularly. And the articles that accompanied those pictures . . . as I said, the worst they could say about him was that his film was "controversial."

Two papers in Wisconsin does not a trend make.

I provided multiple cites from both print and broadcast media that demonstrated people are asking Moore tough questions, fact-checking his film, and giving lots of room for his critics to sound off.  The major publications of record-- The New York Times, The LA Times, the Washington Post, USA Today-- have all done it.   Slate gave Christopher Hitchens 4000 words to trash the film, and even Salon ran a negative review along with its positive one.  You can find many more here:

http://story.news.ya...t=Michael_Moore

[Chipper]

I could really liken this to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

All the hype surrounding it contributed to a massive box office total.  If those against it hadn't raised hell over it, it wouldn't have made even 1/4 IMO of what it did.  Something tells me it would be the same for Moore's documentary.

[MuseZack]

Chipper, on Jun 27 2004, 03:03 AM, said:

I could really liken this to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

All the hype surrounding it contributed to a massive box office total.  If those against it hadn't raised hell over it, it wouldn't have made even 1/4 IMO of what it did.  Something tells me it would be the same for Moore's documentary.

The right wingers would have been so much smarter to have simply ignored the film and let it play to the usual big city and college town audiences.  Instead, by attacking it and him so vehemently they made the thing an object of curiosity for a lot of people who probably wouldn't have otherwise seen it.

[Rov Judicata]

GiGi, on Jun 25 2004, 09:49 AM, said:

It exists for him alright.  He gave a talk here for the UCSC Arts and Lectures program.  The decided to add an extra show because the first one was sold out.  Boy did he ream them on the price.  It was outragous and they lost a lot of money on that show when they should be making money!

... figures.

Quote

To say that the mainstream media has somehow given Michael Moore a free ride is patently absurd.

I concur. The only really dissapoitning interview I saw was with Jon Stewart. Stewart had just done a hard-hitting confrontational interview with Stephen Hayes the night before about the alleged Iraq/AQ link, but he didn't challenge Moore on a single fact; you could actually see Stewart holding himself back. It was pathetic. When Stewart was asked about Moore on Larry King he used the usual cop-out of, "Well, I don't agree with everything he says, but..."

Stewart is, of course, a fake newsman. But if he's going to fact-check and confront Hayes he should do the same to Moore.

[Delvo]

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 26 2004, 09:15 PM, said:

I concur. The only really dissapointing interview I saw was with Jon Stewart.

Strangely, that was also the most well-behaved I've ever seen Moore; the giggling made me wonder if he's all there upstairs, but he didn't lash out at anybody other than to say describe that his movie was a lashing-out movie, and even that he did without anywhere near the embellishment that could be expected.

Quote

Stewart had just done a hard-hitting confrontational interview with Stephen Hayes the night before about the alleged Iraq/AQ link, but he didn't challenge Moore on a single fact; you could actually see Stewart holding himself back.

Maybe it's a case of opportunism. He discovered early on that Hayes was spectacularly bad at standing up for himself and coming up on the spot with the case he'd been able to make on paper, and realized that it wouldn't take much to appear to be doing a serious heavy-duty grilling with such an inept interviewee. Moore, meanwhile, is better at coming up with lots of his own kind of stuff to say on the spot when he's prompted for it, so Stewart could expect that any attempt to "hit hard" and be serious would be immediately given a strong comeback instead of stammering and forgetfulness, so it wouldn't look as if Stewart had really been so tough in the first place.

Of course, that's the explanation I come up with when I try to avoid the easier but cheaper explanation, that Stewart's just turned into a liberocrat hack in the last several months to a year, basing his "jokes" on "facts" that are just plain untrue and such, like Jay Leno always did for Clinton.

As for "those against the movie raising Hell about it", they didn't; that's a standard old universal claim being brought out again. All the noise I've heard aboout it has been advertizing how great it was.

Edited by Delvo, 26 June 2004 - 11:09 PM.