Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Government Politics

Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 2464

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-channel-would-air-it dept.
telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11

Comments Filter:
  • by dirvish (574948) <dirvish@foun d n e w s . c om> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:17AM (#10189292) Homepage Journal
    You've got questions? He's got answers [michaelmoore.com].
    • by savagedome (742194) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:21AM (#10189361)
      Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'. Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'. You need to take it with a grain of salt.

      Nobody wants to talk about the real issues anyway. Both the parties are busy butchering each other on stupid stuff.
      • by iceperson (582205) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:35AM (#10189614)
        I guess if you call altering newspaper editorials and letters to the editor "facts". If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"? The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries".
        • by Rui del-Negro (531098) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:55PM (#10191048) Homepage
          If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?

          Yes. Documentaries are not statistics and are not reporting. A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view - in fact, most people agree that that's preciely the point of documentaries (Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?).

          Unfortunately, some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with. Maybe you should apply for a job with the KGB (or, the way things are going, with the Bush administration).

          If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...

          And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...

          RMN
          ~~~
      • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:52AM (#10189965) Homepage Journal
        Right on.

        I thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore
        because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.
        • by htmlboy (31265) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:51PM (#10190992)
          thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.


          iirc, they sued him for $1, since that's the minimal amount they could ask. the suit was only a means to seek a formal apology, which i believe they got.
      • by iwadasn (742362) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @01:07PM (#10191242)

        When we were shown the videotape of the police beating rodney king, that was also skewed. It hardly showed the LAPD at their best, nor was it representative of the vast majority of LAPD officers, however... it was the truth. A single "mishap" of that magnitude is enough for a criminal case, and the fact that it might not happen all the time is irrelevant.

        The vast majority of serial killers spend the vast majority of their time not killing, does that make it OK? Could you walk into a court of law and say "well, you do have my client on film killing someone, but he doesn't do that all the time, certainly less than one hour a month, how about we just let it slide".

        The facts are the facts. Biased or not, what was shown in that movie should be enough to get bush nailed to the cross, even if it is a selection of his worst deeds.

    • by cliffa3 (789920) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:23AM (#10189403)
      Will it air on Disney?
  • Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamacat (583406) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:18AM (#10189299)
    It will get people to vote either to oppose Bush or to oppose people who are influenced by the movie. Either way, democracy wins over apathy!
    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rlglende (70123) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:27AM (#10189461)

      Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.

      The manipulation of the mob is always easy, and modern media and concentrated media ownership has mad it even easier. Now, even a boob like Bush can succeed.

      The US Constitution also tried to limit government power to prevent a boob like Bush from doing great damage. Too bad we ignore those parts of the Constitution, also.

      Lew
  • Voters don't think (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fred3666 (539394) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:18AM (#10189309)
    This election hasn't been about issues anyway. It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.
    • by Nos. (179609) <andrew@nOspAM.thekerrs.ca> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:24AM (#10189420) Homepage
      As a Canadian, I find American politics to be... disturbing. It seems most of the media is about politicians attacking each other rather than promoting themselves. Growing up in Canada I don't remember seeing this here, but lately its started to become the same thing here. Rather that promote their plans for the future, they basically take the stance of, well at least we're not doing what the other party is.
      I'd rather see politicians telling us what there plan is rather than spending their air time making suggestions about who inhaled while they were in college.
      • by roystgnr (4015) <roystgnr@@@ticam...utexas...edu> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:25PM (#10190548) Homepage
        John Kerry voted for one version of an appropriations bill for Gulf War II, and voted against another. George W. Bush threatened to veto one version of the appropriations bill, and signed another. Because the Bush campaign was the first to figure out how to work half of these facts into a soundbyte, now Kerry is a "flip-flopper" in the public eye.

        The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck. I know that for a lot of voters the answers to "Do you want George W. Bush as your president?" and "Do you want John Kerry as your president?" are the same: no! IMHO the Bush campaign is doing a good job keeping the latter question in people's minds, and it's going to win him the election.
      • by hey (83763) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:34PM (#10190695) Journal
        Nearly all Canadians think Bush is an moron and bad for the USA/world and we don't understand why our American neighbo[u]rs don't see this too. Normally we are very good at understanding the behavour of Americans. In fact we're usually better than Americans at this. Way better than the Brits. I think its like when your sister is dating some guy who is a bit mean or rude and you wish she'd drop him since she can do better. Talking to her won't help -- you know that. You just hope she grows out of him. Good luck, sister.
  • Dumb The Vote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Foofoobar (318279) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:20AM (#10189328)
    Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.

    And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years), it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.
  • Moore (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pHatidic (163975) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:20AM (#10189334)
    People keep saying Moore's movie isn't a documentary because it's full of bias. This is a load of crap, all documentaries have bias. Everything ever written for that matter has bias. If F/911 can be said to be not a documentary it is because he doesn't actually really document anything. It's just him talking over CNN and fox news footage for two hours. That is the thing that pissed me off about this movie, that in the previous ones he and his film crew are taking all the footage, but in this movie its just him narrating his opinions on top of stock footage. It cheapens his message (which I agree with) and lowers the quality of the experience overall.
  • by WaRtHaWg (55454) * on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:20AM (#10189336) Homepage

    After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.

  • Fair and Balanced (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColdWetDog (752185) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:20AM (#10189347) Homepage
    "one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

    As opposed to all of the partisan commercials, and of course, the Fair and Balanced(TM)(C)(Patent Pending) "news".

  • by scotay (195240) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:21AM (#10189352)
    airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

    Since when have the American electorate ever shown thoughtful contemplation? We sell our presidents like soda. The electorate consistently rewards mud slinging (or fails to vote against it) and runs on emotion rather than reason. That's why we get the government we deserve. McCain-Feingold will never change this fact. Until people stop voting for the 2-party duopoly and stop rewarding the lies, this mess will continue.
  • helps or hurts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:21AM (#10189354)
    even if we assume it to be pure propaganda, would you say that a partisan filmmaker saying the president is wrong hurts more or less then the Vice President of the United States saying that if voters make the "wrong" choice in November, the terrorist boogyman is literally going to kill them?
  • Mccain-feingold (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dfenstrate (202098) * <dfenstrate@gm a i l .com> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:21AM (#10189356)
    one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

    Not to mention it may very well be prohibited under the mccain-feingold act, a trashy unconstitutional piece of legislation if there ever was one.

    Funny how the supreme court finds it more important to protect simulated child pornography (unimportant) and is okay with silencing political speech (the most important type!).

    If someone ever finds the supreme court's balls, please return them to washington. They're desperately needed.

  • by palad1 (571416) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:23AM (#10189397)
    After scrutinizing thoroughly both candidates' proposition, my mind is set.

    It was nor quick nor easy, but I'm really confident about my vote now.

    GO NIXON!!!
  • by Jonny Ringo (444580) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:24AM (#10189415)
    Its a tough call. But after watching his movie I'm still on the fence. I'm either going with Ralph Nader, or Michael Badnarik. I know what all you are saying. Voting for Badnarik takes votes away from Nader and lessens his chances of being in future debates. Well I'm sick of this tired old argument. So all of you naysayers, I don't want to hear it! You have to vote with your heart.
  • Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sheepdot (211478) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:29AM (#10189498) Journal
    questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda

    People are still questioning it?

    Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections

    There's your answer right there.

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but there was a clear opinion expressed. F911 is material disseminated by an opponent to a poltical agenda, thus "propaganda" by definition.

    It is entirely possible for something to be both truthful and propaganda. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most politically-biased material is truthfull. At least, efficient propganda is.

    The only thing I took issue with was claims about the family ties between Bush and bin Laden. They are actually very weak ties and arguments. Specifically the one with the Carlyle Group. For more information on this, I would suggest checking out the following K5 Diary entry: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/8/2/121046/0201 [kuro5hin.org]
  • by slusich (684826) * <slusich&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:32AM (#10189561)
    I don't feel that having F911 air is any more inappropriate then allowing all of the talk radio people continually talk about what a great man Bush is. It's all a matter of free speech, which should be protected. That being said, I have serious doubts that the film will ever be shown on a major network. The "Liberal Media" tag has been thrown around for far too long by people who are so far to the right they no longer understand where the center may be. The truth is that most of the media is controlled by large corporations who stand to gain nothing by allowing someone in office who might restrict them from growing their monopolies. For the last 4 years, the media has given Bush a free ride. No serious investigations have been done into his past, despite allegations of conduct much worse then anything Clinton was ever accused of. Bush has been allowed to change his position over and over again and still point the finger at Kerry for being indecisive. The total time spent airing the RNC vs. the DNC should show whose side the media really is on.
    • by haggar (72771) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:57PM (#10191083) Homepage Journal
      For the last 4 years, the media has given Bush a free ride.

      Is this even true? Looking from Europe, I see that all the media are pro-democrat, except FOX. All the shows have Bush, Cheney and the rest constantly on the floor: Conan O'Bryen, Jay Leno, MSNBC.

      FOX seems to attract a lot of indignation, but I question whether it's because it's so biased, or because it's the only one biased in a different direction. In other words: is it possible that hard-core democrats can't stand one single voice of opposition? It looked so, seeing some of the protests during the republican convention.

      I am aware that my view is very unusual for a European, but I am a European who came from an ex-communics country, so I developed a refined smell for bullshit.
  • by jdreed1024 (443938) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:33AM (#10189579)
    It's only propaganda if you let it be propaganda. In the age of the global internet, with hundreds of different news sources at your disposal (or accessible via your local public library), it's real hard to call something propaganda.

    Flash back to World War II, for example. Consider the famous German propaganda broadcasters - they were on government-owned radio stations, broadcasting to the German people that England was about to surrender, and Hitler was marching through London. The average person had no way of knowing whether or not that was true. They couldn't go online to someone's blog showing the Allies storming the beaches at Normandy. They couldn't flip to FOX News showing German troops freezing in Russia. And they couldn't turn on AMC showing Steve McQueen jumping his motorcycle across the border. It was either accept what the government said, or die.

    Nowadays, however, you can find hundreds of sites devoted to debunking Michael Moore. You can go look up the Congressional Record and see if all those people in F9/11 really did object to certifying the election results and if it was really true that no member of the Senate would sign their objections (it was). You can search newspapers and see old video clips and see if Moore really did edit Charlton Heston's speech in Bowling for Columbine (he did). You can see if the family Moore interviewed really did lose a son in Iraq (they did).

    The days of newsreels in the movie theater are long gone. If you go to any movie and take what is says as fact (Be it Fahrenheit 9/11, I Robot, the Passion of the Christ, or the Pokemon movie), you're an idiot. Moore has said many times that he wants his movies to raise questions, not indoctrinate people. That's why I go to see them - to have my values and viewpoints challenged. But you can't suddenly base your entire life on them, any more than you should change your values based on someone coming up to you on the street and saying that your political party sucks.

    I'm not a huge fan of Moore outside his movies - I think a lot of his speeches are grandstanding, and I thought he was kind of a jerk at the Oscars, but that doesn't mean he can't make movies that make you think. I mean, David Lynch makes good movies, but man I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes along with him.

    • by StrawberryFrog (67065) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:13PM (#10190357) Homepage Journal
      It's only propaganda if you let it be propaganda. In the age of the global internet, with hundreds of different news sources at your disposal ... They couldn't flip to FOX News

      Yes, but the percentage of Americans who let thier information on current events begin and end at fox "news" is what? Far too high anyway.

      You say it's not Propaganda, millions of couch potatoes to lazy to change the channel or read something say "let it be". I say "you'll get the government you deserve, you cretins". Unfortunately, I'll get it too, even though I live in England.
  • by Tri0de (182282) <dpreynld@pacbell.net> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:40AM (#10189722) Journal
    Thhe fact that this is a underhanded flamefest is a Good Thing, IMO.
    If Kerry thinks the leaders of other countries are going to be any nicer than thhe WORST that Rove and the swifties can throw at him he's nuts. Welcome to the big leagues, John.
    But then I'm a Libertarian and so I KNOW my party is going to lose, so let 'em rogh each other up. There really is no hope until we shitcan the two party system and Greens, Libertarians and everyone else can have an actual reason to VOTE for someone they give a crap about.
  • Michael Moore (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101 ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:41AM (#10189726) Homepage Journal
    I can't prove this, but I highly suspect that Michael Moore has gained Bush more votes than he has cost him.

    People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda. Michael Moore has done more damage to the left than anything the GOP could have done.

    What I always find interesting about the left is how they sabatage themselves. Look at all the ridiculous things they say about Bush... comparing him to Hitler, saying that he's out to kill as many people as possible, that he wants to poison everyone, on and on. I remember exactly the same thing happening with Reagan. The things they were saying about him were insane. (Literally, saying things like, "He WANTS a nuclear war!!").

    The left seems to do this far more than the right. The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle. Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.

    • Re:Michael Moore (Score:4, Insightful)

      by isaac (2852) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:11PM (#10190326)
      People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda.


      Right, which is why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were so unsuccessful.

      I believe you've got it completely backwards. People hate substantive discussion of issues. People hate nuance. Nuance and intelligent discussion = nerd. And people really hate nerds. Take Al Gore, please!

      Pro wrestling has more fans than "Meet The Press" and image triumphs over substance every time. Unfair propaganda works.

      -Isaac

    • Re:Michael Moore (Score:5, Informative)

      by Morganth (137341) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:30PM (#10192438) Journal
      ...comparing him to Hitler...

      This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.

      To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.

      MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.

      Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here [thememoryhole.org] and here [thememoryhole.org].

      Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like [c2.com]. Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others [illinoisfi...center.com]).

      That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.

      The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler. [salon.com]

      Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992 [issues2000.org]. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.

      But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati
  • Hurting the process? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fw3 (523647) * on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @11:46AM (#10189841) Homepage Journal
    By the exercise of first ammendment rights?

    I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.

    It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.

    Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:

    Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'
    ...

    Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented.

    And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.

    So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!

    No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.

    • by tigeba (208671) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:41PM (#10190824)

      Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'

      This is a perfect example of the benefit of doing a little simple research and thinking, instead of absorbing information served to you. Based on watching the film, you were probably under the impression that Bush delivered this line at some sort of secret fund raising dinner, rallying the his vast right-wing army. In fact, this occured at the Al Smith dinner, which is a charity dinner that traditionally hosts presidental candidates, and of course the candidates are encouraged to make self depricating remarks. You would probably be surprised to know that the other guest of honor that evening was Al Gore, who I believe re-stated his claim that he invented the internet (as well as virtually every invention of the 20th century) as well as some other gems about keeping various types of produce safe in his fridge.

      You can find a brief blurb here:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politi cs /main242210.shtml

      Feel free to draw your own conclusions about who is telling the "truth". And remember all facts are always true :)

  • by Schnapple (262314) <{tomkidd} {at} {viatexas.com}> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:02PM (#10190166) Homepage
    Michael Moore is a genius and is good for America.

    I'll explain.

    He comes out with Fahrenheit 9/11. It's full of things. It's a very effective piece of propoganda. And there's almost nothing in it which is false or a lie.

    It's been my experience that it's by and large intelligent people who go see his films. Think about it - it's the intelligent people who will give his work the time of day. It's been my experience that the people who say "he's a damn dirty liar and I won't support that" haven't done their research and are on the whole the ones who would rather not hear anything he has to say.

    Consequently it's these same intelligent people who walk out of the theater saying "wow, that was pretty bad for Bush & Co. - but I bet it's only one side of the story". And it is.

    Moore tells you about the VA Hospitals Bush closed down, but not about the ones he opened up.

    Moore tells about the opinon piece that says Gore won, but he doesn't tell you about the dozen stories that say he lost.

    Moore tells you about the judges Bush couldn't get appointed, but not about the ones he did.

    People have made it their goal to point out the one-sided arguments in the film [davekopel.com] while others have pointed out the fallacies [dailykos.com] in those arguments against the film.

    56% of Americans have either seen the film or plan to see the film. There's no way in hell that 56% of Americans are informed about politics. So they learn a lot from Fahrenheit 9/11. Then they learn a lot more from the people against F911. Then they learn even more from the people who are against the people who are against F911. And they decide for themselves who they want to believe more. Or more importantly they decide for themselves which information is important to them.

    And then they're informed. In ways they never would have been before. I wouldn't know most of this stuff if I hadn't seen the film and then read all the debates. And I wouldn't have read the debates if it weren't for the Internet. Hell, Michael Moore used footage he got from the Internet to make the movie.

    And that's why Michael Moore is a genius. Thanks to him there's a ton more informed voters out there, if for no other reason than people need to see the movie and get their ducks in order in order to hate Moore and his arguments. In many ways he's leveled the playing field.

  • After five years of making thoughtful and informed posts, I have some karma to burn. I'll regret having posted this when I see that "-5 Troll" beside it later today -- but I figure, a guy's got a right to let off some steam.

    I'll let you in on a little secret of mine. Liberal as I am, I enjoy tuning into Fox. I like reading the RNC's website. I have fun watching the masters of hypocrisy and intolerance. They say some mighty funny, outrageous things! I wouldn't want these crackpots in charge of my country, my legal system or even the corporations in which I own stock -- but that doesn't stop me from laughing at 'em. For every three logical things they say, they just have to throw in a zinger -- a racist slur, a completely inappropriate personal attack, a tremendous fallacy, a made-up statistic, or what have you. And I find that funny as all hell!

    To all of the Bill O'Reillys [fair.org] of the world, for the Rush Limbaughs [rushlimbaughonline.com], the Ed Gillespies [dailykos.com] and the Zell Millers [blog.com], I would like to say: nyeah nyeah nyeah, we have our own pundits now!

    (I apologize that all of those links are to biased sources; I tried to find more impartial sources for my quotes, but "unbiased" news sources tend to shy away from reporting on the more outrageous things our politicians and public figures say, because they would quickly gain a reputation for being biased for having done so.)

    Yes, now we progressives have our own crackpot figures who make completely unfounded statements with fallacies you could drive a truck through. They twist words, edit footage and tinker until the truth looks juuuuuuust right. Like their regressive counterparts, they're darned good at it. I honestly enjoy them as entertainment, I do.

    Aside from giving me great insight into Bush's and Cheney's motivations (money) and Bush's personality (insecure, attention-seeking jock who aims to please his parent figures), Fahrenheit 9/11 was funny, tragic, moving, a reminder of all we lost that day and all we've lost since: collective innocence, blissful ignorance of the effects of our actions abroad, good men in uniform, personal freedoms. Looking through the bull puckey about Saudi air travel privileges, tuning out the anti-war propaganda, I sat in the theater and saw a decent movie.

    But this movie did not sway my political position any more than watching The O'Reilly Factor would. This is because Michael Moore, like all the rest of the pundits, makes entertainment. He tries to deliver a political message, but the message is almost always choked by his own hyperbole and willingness to sacrifice the truth in order to inspire outrage in his viewers.

    If the intent of releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 ahead of time is to sway the minds of voters, I am afraid the stunt will backfire horribly. Most of the nation is already set in stone as to who they will vote for. The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes." By definition, these people are independent, and like to think about their decisions before making them. They like to check their facts, and they are not easily swayed by appeals to sentimentality. If these people are forced to approach Fahrenheit 9/11 as a run-on political advertisement, they will rebel. They will scoff at the inaccuracies and ignore the redeeming social and political message of the movie. And that just might sway them enough to vote for the other side . . .

    Just a thought.
  • More Moore, not less (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evilpenguin (18720) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:45PM (#10192671)
    To me, what we need is more Michael Moores, not fewer. Passionate people comitted to advocacy are what we need. Impassioned, biased as hell, clamoring for attention, screaming for justice. The problem is we have focus-group tested messages, campaigns designed to offend the fewest, messages targeted to motivate specific hot button issues and worse, specific fears, and we have journalists who would rather report simple polls than question policies.

    In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.

    Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.

    We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.

    FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.

    Do likewise!

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss

Working...