The lies of Michael Moore.

**travelinman** · July 8th, 2004, 12:06 PM

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Continue Article

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#Con...ontinueArticle

[ July 08, 2004 09:07 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]

**reason** · July 8th, 2004, 02:34 PM

I haven't been able to find it online, but Richard Cohen's column in last Sunday's Enquirer was quite good. Cohen - one who is known to be critical of the president - wrote that the Michael Moore movie was so biased to the point that it functioned only to humor those who already hate Bush. His fear was that the falsehoods and the innaccuracies of Fahrenheit 911 would only serve to sway those on the fence - over to the Bush side.

I have yet to find any columnist who has defended the Moore movie as a bastion of accurateness.

[ July 08, 2004 11:34 AM: Message edited by: reason ]

**cincygreg** · July 8th, 2004, 02:38 PM

Arent documentaries supposed to be an unbiased presentation of factual information?

OOPS!

**cincygreg** · July 8th, 2004, 04:17 PM

So you agree that his film is NOT A DOCUMENTARY.

It is just a bunch of anti Bush rhetoric and basically a one sided opinion that is not based entirely on fact.

Well good then, we finally agree on something.

Now about you and Kerry and Edwards being pro war...

**Sean Pa** · July 8th, 2004, 04:35 PM

I love it when the RIGHT get worried.

**reason** · July 8th, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cincygreg:
Arent documentaries supposed to be an unbiased presentation of factual information?

OOPS!

Yeah, kinda like people who rant about how wrong it is without actually seeing it.

OOPS! indeed.<hr /></blockquote>Well, I've not seen it, and I won't see it. I just refuse to give Moore the money.

I've read enough commentary on the movie to know what its failings are. Even those who don't like Bush acknowledge that Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. Both Richard Cohen and Leonard Pitts have commented to that effect.

[ July 08, 2004 02:39 PM: Message edited by: reason ]

**Piña** · July 8th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by cincygreg:
So you agree that his film is NOT A DOCUMENTARY.

Sigh. No CG, I didn't. I was disputing your definition by pointing out your own lack of credibility. (I really shouldn't have to explain these things, should I? I mean, I know you're not that bright but this is simple stuff, c'mon now.)

A documentary is a presentation of the facts as the documentarian sees them. It is always going to be a subjective execise supported with factual information. This is true of any documentary ever made.

Moore has presented what he sees as factually true. You, and other mindless little neocon-bots, seem to be so badly threatened by it that you won't even so much as make that highly radical step and, [shudder], see it before parroting the ranting and whining of the uber-conservative hit squad.

Instead you turn to junior high debate tactics and shout nyaa nyaa nyaa at the big bad scary thing.

**Piña** · July 8th, 2004, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by reason:
Well, I've not seen it, and I won't see it. I just refuse to give Moore the money.

I've read enough commentary on the movie to know what it's failings are. Even those who don't like Bush acknowledge that Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. Both Richard Cohen and Leonard Pitts have commented to that effect.

Sorry reason, but secondary sources on this one just don't cut it. I can read reviews about Spidey 2 till they come my ass but it's not even remotely the same as seeing the movie.

The "I'm not giving my money to moore" excuse is about as weak a one as I've ever heard. A couple of bucks to see the movie that is rocking the bush white house into frothing at the mouth rage. A bargain, if for no other reason than it's historical value.

You've always struck me as someone who tries to stay informed. Why you let your prejudices keep you from seeing this film is beyond me.

Hey, I hate the asswipe in the white house but I sat through his last state of the union address. Gritting my teeth and shouting at the television perhaps, which with gritted teeth is no small feat, but I watched.

**travelinman** · July 8th, 2004, 05:29 PM

And you expect us to believe you would go to the movies and pay money to see George Bush's speech?

Right.

**reason** · July 8th, 2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by reason:
Well, I've not seen it, and I won't see it. I just refuse to give Moore the money.

I've read enough commentary on the movie to know what it's failings are. Even those who don't like Bush acknowledge that Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. Both Richard Cohen and Leonard Pitts have commented to that effect.

Sorry reason, but secondary sources on this one just don't cut it. I can read reviews about Spidey 2 till they come my ass but it's not even remotely the same as seeing the movie.

The "I'm not giving my money to moore" excuse is about as weak a one as I've ever heard. A couple of bucks to see the movie that is rocking the bush white house into frothing at the mouth rage. A bargain, if for no other reason than it's historical value.

You've always struck me as someone who tries to stay informed. Why you let your prejudices keep you from seeing this film is beyond me.

Hey, I hate the asswipe in the white house but I sat through his last state of the union address. Gritting my teeth and shouting at the television perhaps, which with gritted teeth is no small feat, but I watched.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry, after spending a couple years debating those tools on the Michael Moore bulletin board (now Upsizethis.org), I made the decision never to give the man my money. So the decision to not patronize Michael Moore came long before Fahrenheit 911.

We as consumers often have little power against those with the money. In this case, I'm the poor consumer and Michael Moore, most ironically, is the powerful "corporation."

My greatest source of power is to withhold my money.

Trust me, this is an independent decision.

As far as relying on third party sources, mind you I've read both sides, both liberal and conservative. I've yet to see anyone claim Moore is fair or accurate with the facts, with many of the same situations mentioned over and over, and new ones mentioned with each new commentary.

We all know what Moore's MO is. I don't need to see his movie to confirm it.

[ July 08, 2004 02:47 PM: Message edited by: reason ]

Thread: The lies of Michael Moore.

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions