~Stupid White Men~ ~How much of it is true?~~

Let me just ask a question here. I don't mean to offend, but can you imagine if his book was entitled this:

"Stupid Black Men: And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of our Nation!"

Instead of "Stupid White Men... etc"

I'm sure there would have been quite an uproar.

I have absolutely no respect for Michael Moore. I think he's a con artist and an extremist idealogue.

If you have an opinion that is genuine and happens to be liberal, then I can respect that (my best friend is liberal). If you are an extremist idealogue with absurd commentary, then I don't have any respect for you whether you be conservative or liberal.

 

1/5??

yeah right

i dont think hes honest but i think your jumping all over him (hes a big guy theres plenty of room)

im not saying hes a saint, or the light of truth in america

im saying that not everything he says is a lie!

1/5? yeah right, get real

 

Cheers for the link.

COME ON MAN, IT'S MICHAEL MOORE! What did you expect?

Yet...

i think we're being lied to on both fronts, but i think michael moore is looking out for us, though he may not always be telling the truth at least he has good intentions

See the problem?



EDIT: DM, what is your opinion of Ann Coultier?????

 

Yeah this is a rough topic

 

but people need to accept that he is known to sprout out a nugget of truth among his far fetched claims

"democrats tell the common people they're your friend then screwing you over and republicans just plain screw you over"

reminds me of what we're talking about

they're both liars? personaly i think bush lies far more then moore

 

I didn't give the 80% figure, Gonk did who appears to be a fan of Moore.

I'd place the number far lower because most of what you'd claim as truth is just opinion and baseless accusations.

Why are you even asking this since you obviously are unwilling to accept that Moore is a self promoting propagandist and nothing, pardon the pun, moore.

 

And you didn't respond to if you'd expect other people to trust you if 1 out of five thigns you said were lies.

Yes, the time has come... wait for it... here it comes...

<eyeroll.gif>

Just because a documentry is 80% truth does not mean the other 20% were lies. Must we wander through the mire here? As always, the bulk of the rest resides in exaggeration and half-truths.

 

Oh yay, Moore Apologists.

So it's okay to wilfully and deliberately provide and create half truths and exaggerations if you're a liberal propegandists because your cause is just even if you yourself wouldn't know honesty if it bit you on your rather ample ass.

Check.

I think we should just redifine political honesty to "saying what the audience agrees with".

 

I didn't give the 80% figure, Gonk did who appears to be a fan of Moore.

Sure I'm a fan of Moore. Are you a fan of Ghandi? Doesn't mean he speaks for me on every issue. That's what happens when someone makes a stand. Everyone else who stands with him has to get dragged along into everything else he tries to make a stand for which is NOT what you signed up for.

 

Watch it...

 

Superimposing two seperate images or editting someones comments to change what they said are not acceptable by anyone with even a passing relationship with the truth.


You'll find that is a common practice in modern history and more importantly for most people in the modern world - it is STANDARD practice in journalism. It shouldn't be - but it is. Besides, I have always taken Michael Moore or infact any media spokesperson with a grain of salt. We are taught in Australia at a young age to not believe a word the media says. Critical literacy, as it is called, is one of the most importantly stressed learning techniques of teaching - in which kids are taught to be critical. Do you know what it teaches? - Don't believe a word from the media - be they Michael Moore, the Courier Mail, The Australian or the BBC. Do your own research because the media *will* lie to present their view.

Michael Moore is no different.

Anyway, we are steadily heading of topic (or at least I am). One of my friends is currently reading this book and has promised to lend it to me. I'd love to see some more parts on how it is wrong.

Kithera

 

DM, what is your opinion of Ann Coultier?????

I don't have any respect for her, either. She's whacky alright, but not as wacky as Michael Moore is.

 

If everyone is lying Kit' how are you supposed to do research?

It must be a very sad world where you presume people to be lying until proven honest.

How does a legal system work in a culture based on that?

 

So it's okay to wilfully provide half truths and exaggerations if you're a liberal propegandists because you're cause is just even if you yourself wouldn't know honesty if it bit you on your ample ass.

Ah, so I resort to your eyeroll and now we start with the ass and the 'you don't know what you're talking about' eh? And with the words in the mouth too I see. Methinks this man has done this before.

Did I say this is ok? NO. What I implied, though you refuse to acknowledge it (though I think you DO know and you're being very hard to be coy about it) is that THIS IS TO BE EXPECTED. Because just about ALL information is going to be biased in some way or another. Get some expectation for reality man, geez. Of course it's not ok, but we have to live with it. And we should expect it from all our sources, not just Michael Moore. Maybe someday we will live in a utopia of dreams where all information comes from the font of truth. But that day is not today.

(RED-SEVEN, if you think this goes to far, just edit)

 

So it's not acceptable but it's expected and uncommented on and excused when it occurs?

So it's not acceptable but it's accepted?

I'm just a simple boy, perhaps you could explain it to me.

 

So it's not acceptable but it's expected and uncommented on and excused when it occurs?

So it's not acceptable but it's accepted?

Very well. This I have time for.

It simply has to do with mass numbers. Michael Moore, for instance, is not in the majority of opinions but it is in by far the majority of practices. It is accepted because we already accept so much of media. If we can narrow it down and say "this person did this which is undesirable and NOT in tha majority" then we can begin to judge. But if it IS in the majority we can't. Because if we do then we have to by principle drag out everyone who currently does this and it just messes society up in a big way. Because then someone could say "what about this documentry?" or "what about that news source?" and pretty soon the majority of news services are railed against for things that were more or less prcedure the day before. So unless society was going to go through worse than this if you did nothing, you let it go. Otherwise you end up getting a big mess on your hands. Life is compromise, it's just about how far you have to do it. In this case, we have to.

 

So basically, never ask how much is true since you'll just be dissappointed.

Two ways to go then.
The Australian Model, as so aptly described by Kit', believe that everyone is lying.

Or the American model, where you are inanely credulous.

Yay.

 

There's no model either. At least, certainly not Australian or American. To me at least, these names mean nothing. They're just things that exist on paper. We're just people trying to get along and we're expressing some ideas we happen to think might possibly be the way things go.

Nobody's got all the information, nobody's telling 100% truth, and nobody's really an Australian or American to boot.

 

Nice try, you still have to pay taxes.

 

I'm with Gonk.

If you are any good at research or if you've ever done history then you'll know to use more then one source for your assignment. The thing is, particularly with journalism, is to assert that everything *has* bias. Every source you will come across (except maybe the Guiness book of records) is going to have bias one way or another. Why? - Because people will pick and choose the research that supports their arguement and ideas.

I could read the Courier Mail (which is unreliable) down here in Australia. It might say that the U.S. POW was rescued. I could believe it without checking or I could get online and check the BBC and then check CNN and several other independent news sources. If they all say the same thing, then I can most probably assume its right.

I'm not saying that everyone lies, but I honestly believe after several years of doing modern history, of doing Critical literacy until I know it off by heart and by simply being an aware reader and watcher when it comes to journalism that the media is never to be trusted. People have their own agendas when they give you information - its a cynical view point...but its also a good one to have. This goes with Michael Moore as well.

Anyway, Faraday, I'm not going to continue along this line of debate with you. I'll move it to a media thread. However, we are quickly derailing a thread that is meant to be about Michael Moore's book and its truths/half-truths and lies...

Kithera

Edit: Faraday - it isn't an Australian model. We are teaching our kids to be thinkers and critical thinkers at that. More importantly we are teaching them NOT to take everything at face value - that includes what Michael Moore says.

 

bravo

 

Why? There's nothing left to do in this thread.

Question answered, lock thread.

Or we can continue on this discussion about how the media lies to you but that's okay because everyone does it.

 

So we've concluded that no one tells the truth in the media? thats not very satisfying haha

 

No, more like the conclusion that 80% truth is a reasonable about to expect from a news service, I would suppose.

 

What Kit' said, basically.

Documentaries are not even meant to be 100% factual or accurate. They are considered art and entertainment, not news or fact finding. In this sense, they are like history books, which are full of slants, lies and misperceptions. Or didn't any of you learn that Christopher Columbus discovered America and was not a slave trader?

There are more lies in the evening news than there are misleading statements in Michael Moore's documentaries, and the news is more dangerous. It purports to be pure fact, but there are no limits to how they will mislead, "accidentally" misreport, judiciously edit and virtually make up a story where there isn't one just to keep ratings going. If you actually keep track of the stories on an average evening broadcast - particularly your local ones - and follow up, you'll find something like 70% of what they report is either totally untrue or so misreported or misleading as to be dangerously deceptive. I did that as a project once.

I don't think Moore's strongest critics have ever alleged that more than 30% of what his films imply could be construed as incorrect (I'm getting this statistic from roughly weighing the misinformation I've heard about against the actual volume of information in the film).

And in answer to the question of who can we believe.... always be skeptical. Don't assume people are lying, just double check what they say. Get verification, at least from one source.

Look, folks, please. You know presidents and their people lie, if only for "national security". You know people running for office and grubbing dollars for God lie, cheat and steal. But presidents, politicians and evangelists also tell the truth sometimes.

It's a clear theme in Moore's work that he is advocating a little skepticism from the American public. Take BFC - we believe, despite overwhelming odds to the contrary, that if we leave one lock undone on our doors, mobs of vicious (usually black or Latino, eh?) criminals will descend like vultures on our property to rape and pillage. Who gives us this fear? The evening news. We believe Americans are getting dangerously overweight - despite the fact that the stats being reported are in comparison to the 1980's, the poster decade for anorexics, bullemics and people who made Twiggy look curvy. We are apparently so mind-bogglingly dense as to not notice how the news manipulates us.

But Michael Moore does it to a far lesser degree, and you notice? Hmmm. I'd say his work here is done.