Bulldrek v3.0

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:14 am**

Spiderman 2 also had a bigger advertising budget, and a larger merchandising push. We don't see Michael Moore toys being handed out at Burger King, now, do we?

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:15 am**

But we do see Micheal Moore there! <rimshot>

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:22 am**

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:24 pm**

Just goes to show people are vastly more interested in titillation and vicarious hatred than they are in accuracy, "fair reporting," or the documentation of an event or events. No matter what anyone may feel about Moore, Bush, or any of the issues involved, there is no question that this film is highly biased, intentionally inaccurate, and vague to the point of meaninglessness. It is in no way a documentary, nor is it fiction; it requires a new class of film: the Lie.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:27 pm**

It's not a lie, it's docutainment.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:28 pm**

I understand how it entertains, but what does it document? It implies, suggests, and infers, but I've seen no evidence that it proves, supports, or otherwise factually demonstrates.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:11 pm**

I understand how it entertains, but what does it document? It implies, suggests, and infers, but I've seen no evidence that it proves, supports, or otherwise factually demonstrates.

Having not seen the movie, I can't say too much-- but I'd say it certainly does make an honest attempt at factual demonstration. It may be spun out of all proportion, but it does make an attempt. The whole purpose of a documentary is to document certain real-world events for posterity; while Spiderman 2 may be watched by kids for years, Farenheit 9/11 will be debated in schools for decades to come.

Look, even if the facts were distorted, that doesn't change the fact that the movie was a documentary. Take the famous lemmings movie, Disney's White Wilderness. Here is the snopes.com debunking of the lemming cliff-jump. People have known for years that the facts were badly distorted, yet as far as I know, the movie is still being taught in schools!

Just because you don't like what a person has to say-- or just because he gets his facts wrong-- does not change the fact that it is a documentary.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:36 pm**

The point of a documentary is to present facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter and Moores film was FAR from it. This wasn't a documentary but a mudsling of monumental proportions. Period.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:54 pm**

I'm surprised no one has compared Moore to Upton Sinclair yet.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:26 pm**

It is in no way a documentary, nor is it fiction; it requires a new class of film: the Lie.

You're right, it's not a documentary. The film was not made, to use Cain's explanation, "to document certain real-world events for posterity." It was made to deliver a political message, to preach, to persuade, and to damage the President's image. This class of film already has a name. It is propaganda.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:33 pm**

Cain wrote:I'd say it certainly does make an honest attempt at factual demonstration.

I would highly recommend you watch the movie, then, because it does absolutely no such thing.

Posted: **Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:34 pm**

WillyGilligan wrote:But we do see Micheal Moore there! <rimshot>

<vc = Alex Trebek>Beep. I'm sorry, but the answers must be in form of question, and you're incorrect as well. The question is: What is Super Size Me.</vc>

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:14 am**

The film was not made, to use Cain's explanation, "to document certain real-world events for posterity." It was made to deliver a political message, to preach, to persuade, and to damage the President's image. This class of film already has a name. It is propaganda.

Oh, it does... it's the difference between "real facts" and "good facts". Propoganda always relies on "good facts"; which are always true up to a given value of truth.

Moore is not only going for a message on this one. He's looking for a place in posterity with this movie, just like Disney was doing with White Wilderness. I think he wants it to be knows as The Movie That Brought Down a President.

Posted: **Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:57 pm**

I saw Fahrenheit, here's my opinion on it.

Posted: **Sat Aug 07, 2004 4:12 pm**

Cain wrote:Propoganda always relies on "good facts"; which are always true up to a given value of truth.

I don't believe that's true. Almost none of the propaganda I have heard or read about relies on any truth at all. In fact, most - for instance - Communist propaganda relies on intentional deception - outright deception - and takes advantage of ignorance. Most anti-drug propaganda films were, until comparatively recently, also intentionally and blatantly deceptive. Iraq's Minister of Propaganda - I mean, the press or whatever - certainly spent a lot of time lying directly to his people, and I would consider that propaganda.

Whether propaganda is more often deceptive or true, it is certainly not true that propaganda /always/ relies on good facts. Unless, of course, I misunderstand your definition of "good facts," which is quite possible, since I would not ascribe the quality of "being always true up to a given value of truth" to anything named "good facts." Then again, I don't think truth is particularly subjective, so...

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 3:24 am**

Whether propaganda is more often deceptive or true, it is certainly not true that propaganda /always/ relies on good facts. Unless, of course, I misunderstand your definition of "good facts," which is quite possible, since I would not ascribe the quality of "being always true up to a given value of truth" to anything named "good facts." Then again, I don't think truth is particularly subjective, so...

That may explain some of our debates, then.

Look, Michael More is taking the facts and spinning them his way. That's undeniable. Bush and Rove are doing the same thing. Heck, this trick is so old, it's got a name in advertising-- the numbers trick. You give people a lot of spun numbers to make your product look good.

Let's say I'm an advertising exec for a new toothpaste. I interview three dentists, and two of them say that my toothpaste is effective. I can then take those views, and say: "More dentists found Dent-O-Shine to be the best toothpaste. In fact, twice as many dentists gave it their highest rating!"

This is both deception and relying on ignorance, and relying on "good facts".

To bring this back onto topic, Moore is clearly relying on his goodfacts. So is Bush. Both of them, IMO, are resorting to sleazy tactics. I may not like Bush, but he does not have the lock on dirty pool.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 3:33 am**

Interesting thought. For a good chunk of the movie, however, Moore doesn't use facts of any kind, not "good facts," or "true facts" or any other kind of fact. He uses quite a lot of fiction.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 3:51 am**

without having seen the movie-- and not caring enough to spend eight bucks to fix that-- I can't really comment. However, I'll wager he uses just enough truth throughout to make things look good. It might fall apart under deeper analysis, but that's not what propoganda is meant for.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:09 am**

Our life is full of propaganda!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Everything is spinning...spinning...twirly whirly...

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:13 am**

Marius wrote:Interesting thought. For a good chunk of the movie, however, Moore doesn't use facts of any kind, not "good facts," or "true facts" or any other kind of fact. He uses quite a lot of fiction.

It's not fiction, he uses suggestion. The facts he presents are facts in the true sense of the word, he has no choice but to use facts. It's the context in which he places those facts, and the connection he tries to make with other facts in which he crosses the boundary into suggestion. He tries to draw conclusions where (sometimes) there are no conclusions to be drawn.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:21 am**

How does he have no choice but to use facts? On the one hand, if he shows footage of someone doing something or saying something, then they probably did do or say those things. However, it's been asserted by some that have seen this movie and Bowling for Columbine (okay, it's on the internet, so it's not necessarily true) that he uses footage and gives flat out lies about when the footage was taken, Heston's "cold, dead hands" speech being the one I see referenced most often.

It is just as easy, sometimes even easier, to lie with a camera as it is to lie without one.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:25 am**

Thus, "good facts" as opposed to "real facts".

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:47 am**

But why do you need a seperate name for that? When you say good facts, it sounds like you're saying that he's telling the truth but only a certain section of the truth that supports his position, which is already called a half-truth. If he's flat out misusing footage to say something it doesn't, then it's a lie. Where does the new term become necessary?

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:55 am**

The facts he presents are facts in the true sense of the word

No, they are not. Statements like, "All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true" are not facts in any sense of the word. That is an example of a lie. The statement that Saudis "own 7% of America," is a lie. Calling Katherine Harris, "the vote count woman" creates a fiction. Her office did not count votes.

When he is using factual footage, he is most certainly not using merely suggestion. He is using deciet. He's not trying to draw conclusions where there are none to be found. He is drawing connections that are demonstrably false, and piecing together his movie specifically to lead others to believe that those conclusions are true. That's a lie. You can't pretend it's not a lie just because only half of his lie is in the narration, and the other half is in implication and in pictures. Clever editing to convince people of a falsehood is lying.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:03 am**

I could go on for weeks about the psychological pressures involved, but that'd bore most people here to tears. For now, let's accept that the term "good facts" is more popular in propaganda and advertising circles, since it doesn't have the negative connotations you'd get from "half-truth". Part of doing good propoganda is convincing yourself, after all.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:12 am**

I can accept that people "in the industry" use it, but can we not use it here? I think it's misleading and hinders communication.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2004 8:46 am**

Marius wrote:That's a lie. You can't pretend it's not a lie just because only half of his lie is in the narration, and the other half is in implication and in pictures.

That's a good point.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:21 am**

Marius wrote:That's a lie. You can't pretend it's not a lie just because only half of his lie is in the narration, and the other half is in implication and in pictures.

Time, July 19th, 2004, p. 42 wrote:"There's a lot of disagreement with my analysis of these facts or my opinion based on the facts. But," he insists, "there is not a single factual error in the movie. I'm thinking of offering a $10,000 reward for anyone that can find a single fact that's wrong."

Want to earn a little extra money, Mooch?

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:42 am**

Nice wordplay. If it's wrong, it's not a fact.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:57 am**

Time, July 19th, 2004, p. 42 wrote:He also hired the former chief of fact checking at the New Yorker magazine to comb the film for inaccuracies.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:28 am**

Shame he couldn't get the one from the New York Times.

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:12 pm**

I enjoyed reading this again.

Bulldrek v3.0

Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore