Bulldrek v3.0

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:54 am**

So, many people accuse this man of misrepresenting facts, acting with bias,and outright lying. I am a liberal, but Moore annoys me, and I have been challenged by a real-world acquaintance to show exact instances where Moore lies/misrepresents in his films.

The best I have so far is:

The fact that his whole schtick with evil Charleton Heston in Bowling for Columbine was pretty much pointless, since the man is just a figurehead, terribly old, and suffering from Alzheimer's.

The chronology of the film suggests that the rally with the 'cold, dead hands' speech was to have taken place in reaction to Columbine, when it was in fact a pre-planned event which may have happened well before the shootings.

Anything else?

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:08 am**

Depending on how, uhm, rambunctious you want to get this article is an okay start. The guy writes for Vanity Fair, so, well take that for what its worth.

Of course for the straight poop nothing beats this site for a name.

Bowling for Truth is kind of funny. It even gives a break down on some of the scenes in his film. It dwelves pretty deeply into Moore's pretty dishonest editing of the interview.

Moores own replies to these sort of "attacks" (I'm not sure thats always a fair description, and it makes you automatically think of him in a defensive mode, but okay...) is pretty evasive in a lot of spots.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:11 am**

A series of Blogs and links that aren't too friendly to him...

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:18 am**

A Press Briefing that uses the words so many people forget:

MR. MCCLELLAN: I think you've seen over the last couple of months more and more people referring to Crawford and the ranch as the Western White House, including the media. In media reports it's been popping up. And I think it's natural, it really fits with where we are. And the President liked the idea, and this is a place that is his home and that he will continue to come to and continue to work from. He is the President 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and he is spending, as you are finding out, a good portion of the time here at his home working.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:19 am**

And there is a pretty good article in Newsweek, June 28 edition, that may help you.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:20 am**

Hmm he apparently did some work in Crawford. Why are people bugging about this?

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:31 am**

Paul: What specifically do you mean?

I noted in that Q&A that some of the reporters were acting like small children.

Q But apart from speculating on personnel matters, has the President -- do you know, has the President made a decision?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, he has.

Q Is it General Meyers?

MR. FLEISCHER: I am not going to speculate on who the President's decision is.

Q That's not speculation if you know.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President will --

Q You just don't want to tell us.

I mean seriously, what is wrong with reporters today? Do they have no sense of etiquette anymore?

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:44 am**

Surely the whole idea of reporting was to get at the objective 'truth', otherwise you're just regurgitating PR.

[But then again nothing is ever objective, people have personal and agendas and yadayadayada nevermind]

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:13 pm**

Surely the whole idea of reporting was to get at the objective 'truth', otherwise you're just regurgitating PR

Yes, but there is basic etiquette as well. Fleischer is obviously not the person to ask that question to. He can't answer, don't try and get him to. Even if you /must/ ask him, for some stupid reason, when he refuses (like you know he will) don't get all sulky and throw out things like "you just don't want to". Total lack of professionalism.

Plus, I'm a firm believer in the greater good. Truth is not always the best policy because people don't want to know the truth. To quote a famous movie, "They can't handle the Truth." There was a time when Journalists understood when you should and shouldn't break a story. They understood that sometimes it was better that the public be unaware of certain scandles. Example: It was known to a number of reporters that JFK was having an affair (or two, or three). However, because we were embroiled in some pretty serious situations (Cuban Missile Crisis) they sat on the story for the good of the Nation.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:38 pm**

MooCow wrote:Plus, I'm a firm believer in the greater good. Truth is not always the best policy because people don't want to know the truth. To quote a famous movie, "They can't handle the Truth." There was a time when Journalists understood when you should and shouldn't break a story. They understood that sometimes it was better that the public be unaware of certain scandles. Example: It was known to a number of reporters that JFK was having an affair (or two, or three). However, because we were embroiled in some pretty serious situations (Cuban Missile Crisis) they sat on the story for the good of the Nation.

Interesting... So Clinton (and any other president with a tangled personal life) should have been left alone then, is that what you're saying?

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:53 pm**

Well, yes. How does it help a country to have that much money and time wasted over personal matters unrelated to a leaders fitness to run the country?

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:00 pm**

Anyone catch this link amongst all the sites that discredit Moore?

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:01 pm**

Interesting... So Clinton (and any other president with a tangled personal life) should have been left alone then, is that what you're saying?

Much as I hate to say it, yes. I think the fact that he cheated on his wife makes him absolute scum. However, it really has no bearing on him as a President. I can make a very tenuous argument that his infidelity is an indicator that he may be unable to keep other oaths, but even I'll admit that saying "He cheated on his wife, next he'll sell state secrets to the commies" is just a tad absurd.

Because I hate him as a Man, I now tend to disagree with him as a President. That's dangerous.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:56 pm**

I'm not sure if it's on any of the links provided, but one of the senators who was in the video /did/ report having his nephew in Iraq. That, however, was conviently left out.

Also, the scene where the President was talking about war while golfing - his words were insinuated to be referring to the war in Iraq. However, in context of that interview, he was not speaking about the war in Iraq, but a completely different war going on in the world. That segment fit nicely, though, so it was used in reference to Iraq.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:55 pm**

MooCow wrote:
Interesting... So Clinton (and any other president with a tangled personal life) should have been left alone then, is that what you're saying?
Much as I hate to say it, yes. I think the fact that he cheated on his wife makes him absolute scum. However, it really has no bearing on him as a President. I can make a very tenuous argument that his infidelity is an indicator that he may be unable to keep other oaths, but even I'll admit that saying "He cheated on his wife, next he'll sell state secrets to the commies" is just a tad absurd.

Because I hate him as a Man, I now tend to disagree with him as a President. That's dangerous.

As a friend of mine would say, "Yeah, but he was cheating on Hillary. When you consider it that way, it's suddenly not so bad. You can't imagine a woman like Hillary Clinton giving blowjobs, so yer gonna get 'em wherever you can."

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:22 pm**

That's righteous, but he cheated with Monica. He was the most powerful man in the free world, and he cheated with Monica. I've been to DC, there's a lot cuter interns than Monica floating around.

Also, Clinton isn't the president who cheated on his wife, he's just the one who got caught.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:26 pm**

David Hardy's is probably the most comprehensive and well-researched. Basically, almost the entire Heston scene was spliced together and taken out of context to imply things that didn't happen.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:23 pm**

Thank you all. I'll be educating my victim later today.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:39 am**

MooCow wrote: they sat on the story for the good of the Nation.

Err...bollocks. More likely is that they were sat on, in order not to upset the great unwashed even more.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:26 am**

Err...bollocks. More likely is that they were sat on, in order not to upset the great unwashed even more

Ummm..... how is that any different from what I said?

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:04 am**

Intent? Just guessing.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:34 am**

Intent? Just guessing

Well sorta. As I indicated in my example with Clinton above, the great unwashed masses are stupid. They get upset at things they shouldn't, which erodes faith in their government, which then endangers national security.

Sometimes you have to hide the truth for everyone's best interest.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:43 am**

Intent?

Exactly. Making the decision yourself to not upset the balance by holding back a story, is a leetle different to a guvernmint telling you that running that story could negatively impact your current privileges.

There was a time when Journalists understood when you should and shouldn't break a story

Um, when? From this side of the fence, nothing can stop a journalist breaking a story unless you get an injunction out to stop them, that injunction is public knowledge and the story gets out anyway. Either that or you 'lean' on them. Offer them something better if they hold off for a bit, or third option, go into crisis management mode.

Obviously the power of your organisation, whatever that may be, will dictate how much leaning you can engage in wihout finding yourself in the middle of a issues management nightmare.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 12:10 pm**

Um, when?

When what?

Exactly. Making the decision yourself to not upset the balance by holding back a story, is a leetle different to a guvernmint telling you that running that story could negatively impact your current privileges.

Huh? I'm talking about national security. Sometimes stories should not be released to the public because they will endanger the public welfare.

It's obvious that we're looking at this from completely different priority sets. I think you are looking at it from the perspective of individual good, while I'm looking at it from the perspective of "good of society".

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 12:52 pm**

This is all getting rather confusing...

You said "There was a time when Journalists understood when you should and shouldn't break a story" . My question is when was that time? I don't think there was ever a time, I think it is more likely that [in this case] Governments dictated what could be published and when. I would say that the only reason a journalist would not run a well-grounded story, is when they were legally bound to keep their mouths shut, or were sweet talked into running some other angle. Eitherway, it was not a journalist's decision to not print, which is something you alluded to in an earlier post.

Or alternatively, you just print whatever [in this case] the government is telling you. In which case you are, as I already said, just peddling PR. Great for the government, not great for journalistic integrity.

And besides, in response to your thoughts on the Fleischer bit you quoted - Jeremy Paxman ran a famous interview with the then Home Secretary Michael Howard, where all he did was keep repeating the question "Did you threaten to overrule him?" a bazillion times. An answer that the Home Sec did not want to answer and has now gone down in the annuals of good journalism. It's hardly a childish stupid thing to do, when people want to know the answer.

[According to sources who knew Paxman, it turns out that in actual fact the producers didn't have the next item lined up properly so they told Paxman through his earpeice to keep asking questions. Apparently the man could only think of repeating the question that the Home Sec didn't want to answer, but any how, just some useless knowledge for you]

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:43 pm**

Eitherway, it was not a journalist's decision to not print, which is something you alluded to in an earlier post.

I disagree. There was a documentary done a few years ago that talked about journalism in the 20th century, and how it's changed. Several JFK era reporters were interviewed, and they said exactly what I did. They knew that JFK was having an affair, but they sat on the story because breaking it would have damaged the administration in a time when the US couldn't afford such division.

Could they have been lying to make themselves look good? Sure. We'll never know.

I would say that the only reason a journalist would not run a well-grounded story, is when they were legally bound to keep their mouths shut, or were sweet talked into running some other angle

Which is kinda my whole point. You can't trust journalists to know when they should and shouldn't print things.

Or alternatively, you just print whatever [in this case] the government is telling you. In which case you are, as I already said, just peddling PR. Great for the government, not great for journalistic integrity

I disagree. You are claiming that only two options exist, either you are a government shill or you report /everything/ you can. I think there is a middle ground where you weigh the "right" of the public to know with whether the public /should/ know.

For example, let's take a situation from popular television (extreme example). Let's say I'm a journalist, and I've discovered there is a nuclear bomb in the city. I know the government knows. I also know that there is no way the city can be evacuated before the bomb goes off. If I publish that story, I will create widespread panic which will hinder the government's ability to stop the bomb from going off.

Sitting on such a story is the right thing to do. The government should have to arrest me, or bribe me to keep me from doing the right thing.

It's hardly a childish stupid thing to do, when people want to know the answer

I want to know what the schematics for the Stealth Fighter are, so I guess that would make it ok for someone to publish them, right?

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:16 pm**

I believe there is a profound difference between the infidelity of a President and matters of national security. I believe the press should be free to print, and should print, the personal moral decisions of our leaders. I do not believe the press should be free to print, nor should print, state secrets which put the government and its constituents in clear and present danger.

If the President is dishonest, or breaks vows, or is of otherwise questionable moral character, the populace has a right to know, so that it may make informed decisions about that President's responsibilities. However, there is no compelling national interest in releasing the schematics of the Stealth bomber [which actually aren't as big a deal as, say, the materials involved, but it's an example].

Part of the price we pay for freedom of the press is the possibility that something like the nuclear bomb example you mentioned might come to pass. However, the risk of that eventuality - and nothing quite like that has ever happened - is radically outweighed by the benefits of a press which is free to print anything that isn't a matter of urgent national security. [Personally, I think the nuclear bomb example might fall under that category, but it's not - fortunately - my job to decide where freedom begins and ends.]

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:32 pm**

Twisted Sister wrote:Um, when? From this side of the fence, nothing can stop a journalist breaking a story unless you get an injunction out to stop them, that injunction is public knowledge and the story gets out anyway.

Unless you live over here in which case they can slap you with a D-Notice if it covers certain areas related to things like national security.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:41 pm**

There are other proscribed topics, as well, depending on which EU nation you're speaking of. One of the largest hot-buttons, obviously, is the Holocaust. Publishing - or speaking - certain details about the Holocaust which are contradictory to accepted portrayals is punishable by several years of jail time.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm**

That would be Germany IIRC. They've always been a bit twitchy about the whole far right/holocaust denial thing. I'm not sure if any other country's have similar legislation on the books. France and Germany say you aren't allowed to trade in Nazi memorabilia AFAIK.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:53 pm**

The legislation is fairly widespread even outside of Germany, though it's not often talked about. France has been particularly tetchy about people suggesting that fewer than 3 million Jews died in the Holocaust; saying so publicly can and will get you jail time. Most western European nations have similar legislation, although enforcement varies; it's not something the populace is generally aware of, however.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:12 pm**

Really? Hhmm. Makes me wonder what we have on our books about something like this.

Posted: **Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:17 am**

FlakJacket wrote:Unless you live over here in which case they can slap you with a D-Notice if it covers certain areas related to things like national security.

Huh. The way it was described to me by a British professor at school was that they could slap you with a D-Notice over anything; essentially the Queen saying "NO TALKING LITTLE MONKEY!" It seemed like there were no real limits on what could be censored, just that they chose not to do it very often.

Posted: **Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:56 am**

That's not really how it works. Rather than just quote verbatim large chunks of text, here's the DA-Notice Committee's site courtesy of the Internet Archive since they seem to be offline. Maybe they realised they were giving too much of the game away and 'Noticed themselves.

Posted: **Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:17 am**

FlakJacket wrote: Unless you live over here in which case they can slap you with a D-Notice if it covers certain areas related to things like national security.

Yeah, but even that isn't a total stamp down, from what I understand it's a very nicely worded "if you don't do what we want we're going to be really really cross". If you really really wanted to, you could go ahead and publish, although you may find yourself univited to all the cool parties, oh, and sued. But it still relies on self regulation though. But I suppose there is always the Official Secrets Act if you really want to play hardball. *ninja pose*

Wasn't it Piers Morgan who said "Publish and be damned"?

As a standard 'regulatory' body there is always the Press Complaints Commission, set up as a result of the UK media becoming fourth estate, by the fourth estate. But they have [or at least when I was at college, had,] no power to absolutely stop anything. I think it was the organisation's total lip service to UK media regulation that earned it the phrase "toothless tiger".

Posted: **Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:10 pm**

Sean Hannity wrote:This is anti America propaganda by Micheal Moore.

Posted: **Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:43 pm**

While I can dig what made Hannity say that, I don't know if I agree. Misguided? Yes. Exploitive? Definitely. Bush Bashing? Sure. Anti American? No, I don't buy that label.

Posted: **Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:50 pm**

Just stumbled across this nice long report.

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

Posted: **Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:38 pm**

Twisted Sister wrote:
Um, when? From this side of the fence, nothing can stop a journalist breaking a story unless you get an injunction out to stop them, that injunction is public knowledge and the story gets out anyway. Either that or you 'lean' on them. Offer them something better if they hold off for a bit, or third option, go into crisis management mode.

Obviously the power of your organisation, whatever that may be, will dictate how much leaning you can engage in wihout finding yourself in the middle of a issues management nightmare.

[/delete company name] is Evil!

Bulldrek v3.0

Discredit Michael Moore!

Discredit Michael Moore!