michael moore - caught?
- Started
- Last post
- 21 Responses
- skel
I enjoyed the movie Bowling for Columbine, as did many people here on NT... which makes this article all the more awakening. Is it to be taken for truth?
http://andrewsullivan.com/main_a…
(I'll clip and paste it here if you want to burn your eyes out on this 2 inch column)
Less is Moore
Fact-checking a polemicistIt was the Observer's "Movie of the Week." The Independent's reviewer described it as "a bracing and timely exercise in dredging for the truth." The Cannes film festival gave it a Special Jury Prize, with the audience giving the film a 13 minute standing ovation. And the media hype continues. In fact, there has never been a more appropriate moment for the film-maker Michael Moore and his rants against America than now. "Bowling for Columbine," the "documentary" that is now being shown across Britain and the world, is a movie almost designed to slake the anti-American thirst, whetted by the war on terror. And from an American too! Not since Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer have we seen such a successful export of anti-Americanism, a phenomenon carefully cultivated by some on America's campuses and liberal urban enclaves. And like most American products, it sells very well.
The only problem with this scenario is that Michael Moore is a serial dissembler. His book, "Stupid White Men," was laced with inaccuracies and falsehoods. His movie is just as bad. It's worth looking at just a few of these falsehoods to see exactly what his agenda is.
The book first. Take two compelling notions advanced in "Stupid White Men." The journalist Ben Fritz went through the book with a fine tooth comb. In the book, Moore claims that five sixths of the U.S. defense budget went toward one plane. He also claims that two-thirds of president Bush's campaign finances came from 700 people. These claims are so ludicrous it says something about Moore's credibility that he even believed them himself. Both are easily refuted by a quick look at the publicly available Pentagon budget and the records of the Federal Elections Commission, which compiles all campaign contributions. (In fact, Bush's campaign was more dependent on small contributions than Gore's.) But if you are going to argue that Bush was selected by plutocrats and that the Pentagon wastes all its money, you've got to come up with some facts to support your case. So Moore just makes them up.
In "Bowling For Columbine," the entire premise of the title is false. In convoluted fashion, Moore tries to argue in the film that American gun culture is somehow related to American foreign policy. Even his most fawning critics concede he doesn't exactly make a logical connection between the two; and any historian of the Wild West would be a little mystified by the idea that American gun-culture sprang from post-war American global power. But never mind. The story Moore wants to tell is that the schoolkids who shot up Columbine high-school were so quintessentially American that they went bowling that morning; and that Columbine is also the location for a Lockheed Martin factory for "weapons of mass destruction." Hence "Bowling for Columbine." Neither of these assertions, alas, is true.
Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine has shown that, in fact, the two boys did not go bowling that morning. Early police reports to that effect turned out to be false. Moreover the Lockheed Martin factory near Columbine does not make "weapons of mass destruction," as argued in the movie. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. Moore shows a clip of giant rockets. Nice try, Michael.
Perhaps the most gripping scene in the movie is one where Moore simply turns up at a bank, North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Michigan, opens a bank account and gets a gun for his trouble. As he walks away, Moore chortles to the camera: "Here's my first question: do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" It would be if true. But in fact the bank in question only gives you a gun if you open long-term CDs, and then you have to go to a gun store to get the gun after a background check. The scene, according to Lyons, was staged.
A more obvious piece of mendacity comes when Moore shows a clip of the infamous Willie Horton ad. The political ad, deployed by Republicans in the campaign of 1988, featured grim footage of a prison turnstile where inmates came and went at will. It was designed to criticize Michael Dukakis's lenient furlough program for criminals. One such prisoner, an African-American called Willie Horton, raped a woman while on parole. But the Bush ad never mentioned Horton or specifically played the race card. (An independent ad, not sanctioned by Bush did.) So what does Moore do? He super- imposes on the Bush ad his own words - "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." - as if they were in the original. The point is to claim that Bush ran a racist appeal. Again: simply false.
Or take another headline claim in "Bowling for Columbine." Moore regurgitates the idea that the U.S. government gave the Taliban regime $245 million in aid in 2000 and 2001. This obviously seems to show American hypocrisy and double-standards in foreign policy. But again, this is untrue. Those funds went to charitable organizations completely independent of the Taliban regime to feed starving Afghans. Moreover, this nuance has been known for a long time. Yet Moore repeats it.
There's a place for satire; and there's plenty in America to satirize. There are a few occasions when Moore manages to do just that. But the rest is hateful junk. It isn't even in the service of some kind of coherent alternative. Moore decries America's gun culture, and yet concedes that gun control won't work. He equates Tony Blair and George Bush with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and yet never asks whether either bin Laden or Saddam would let him do the work he now does in democratic societies. He even manages in his roadshow to blame passengers on the airplanes that were downed on September 11 for their fate. The right words for this are depravity and mendacity. And for reasons that are obvious, that doesn't make me laugh.
- modulate0
I really wouldn't take anything that site is spewing as truth either. they seem to be fairly right wing, but in a more subtle fake educated way.
they are just trying to hate on Moore because he has the balls to call the NRA/USA out
- kpl0
both andrew sullivan and michael moore are two sides of the same coin. both are biased and make conclusions up before they get the evidence.
trust either at your own rish.
- kpl0
that is, if you have a rish.
- exador0
quoting andrew sullivan, and Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine to discredit Moore doesn't hold to much water.....
kpl is right of course, these guys and moore are more or less 2 sides of the same coin...
however, that being said...
i tend to lean more to the moore side (the left i guess you'd call it) than the right side.....
the fact of the matter is this, between big business and gun culture, Moore was trying to make a point..
something stinks.and he was right.
it does.
in my opinion, moore is what i would consider a great american.
someone that has the balls to stand up, even when its unpopular, and say "this is total bullshit"if only there were more like him.
- unknown0
Ah, Andrew Sullivan.
Say no more.
- one24th0
"I really wouldn't take anything that site is spewing as truth either. they seem to be fairly right wing"
And of course being 'right wing' automaticly means you spew lies. Just for the record I'm not on the 'right wing', I'm a libertarian comfortably removed from the knee jerk totalitarian right and left. http://www.lp.org
"they are just trying to hate on Moore because he has the balls to call the NRA/USA out "
no they (he) is pointing out that Moore's facts um, aren't factual.
- monNom0
"And of course being 'right wing' automaticly means you spew lies. Just for the record I'm not on the 'right wing', I'm a libertarian comfortably removed from the knee jerk totalitarian right and left. www.lp.org "
actually, libertarians (in the LP.org sense) are right wing.
libertarian(lp.org) is to social-anarchist as conservative is to liberal and as fascist is to communist.
there's a definite distinction in the amount of authority the government has within these ideologies, but they both sit on either the left or the right with respect to economic issues.
try this test out, it's pretty interesting.
- boog0
A true Libertarian would come at the far bottom of that chart. I come bang on the middle at the bottom, which makes me the stereotypical 'perfect Libertarian.'
Libertarians are not far-right or far-left by definition. After all, libertarians strongly believe in charity, and not just a total free for all economy.
- monNom0
that's the differentiation between LP.org "libertarian" and libertarian as a point on the 'political compas' (to borrow a term)
The policies LP advocates are not "perfect libertarian" policies, but lean towards the right wing.
either way, I think a completely libertarian society would fall apart quite quickly.
think "the road warrior".
- breeding0
obviously both sides are taking the same set of facts and spinning them their own way. Take everything you hear with a grain of salt. Why do you think the president and most politicians have whole teams of people to spin the facts for them?
- laostudio0
Michael Moore is a big gasbag! He's been called on facts many times before this. But he's funny as hell. He's a big, funny entertainer. He makes funny movies. But he's certainly not taken seriously as a political commentator. Sullivan's mistake is even bothering to write about him within that framework.
- barnburner0
Seems to be that a lot of people do in fact take Moore seriously.
Getting into a debate about whether or not one side spews lies about the other side to disprove their opponent is another story entierly.
Keeping with the title of this post however, it is pretty well known that a lot of what Moore says is heavily slanted and "set up" to justify his agenda. Truth be known, Moore is essentially full of shit, and it does indeed make him more and more like the people he despises.
- monNom0
I disagree. He's getting his message across, and opening some eyes.
Does it really matter if the bank schene was set up or not? there's still a problem with guns (apperently) and that kind of over the top absurdity ought to raise a few eyebrows.
The fact of the matter is, aswell as being a political activist, he's telling a story. it's an age old tradition when telling a story to tweek information and make things larger than life to get your point across, and to entertain.
Everything should be taken with a grain of salt, especially from a film designed to entertain as much as provoke thought.
IT'S NOT THE NEWS afterall.
some people are blowing this a bit out of proportion I think.
- kpl0
the problem with moore is that he doesn't make rational arguments. ie, arguments that use purely logic. he relies on fear, ridicule, suspicion, and all those negative feelings that leads to the dark side of the force.
nothing wrong with using emotional appeals in entertainment. it's emotional appeals in politics that concern me.
- neeko0
whether or not moore's movie was entirely factual, he points out a lot of valid points. knitpicking is a silly attempt to discredit him. he may not present the truth in its enntirty, but hes no worse than the news we see every day, and i personally thank him for giving some pbliciy to the other side of the coin.
and lockheed martin may not have been producing military products at the time, but they do.
- gradiate0
That political compass test is very interesting thanks for that.
on the moore front I found the movie thought provoking though as always i found that moore missed some oppurtunties. He had times when he could of pushed people or structured his questions better. I just dont think he's that intelligent. Louis theroux though a much more light hearted interviewer asks those questions and constantly pushes people. when he visited the survilaists in north america he just stood back and let them make themselves look stupid. not only good tv but though provoking stuff.
- propa0
Libertarian Left
who knew.
As for Moore, the US gun culture is idiotic.
- unknown0
bump 2
- hahakid0
either way, even if it was true it doesn't erase the image in my mind of Charlton Heston holding a rifle over his head shouting "out of my cold dead hands!" to a cheering crowd of scary fucking freakos in suits..
- CL0
this is one of the most poorly written and unconvincing articles i have read in quite some time. it goes without saying that miss sullivan has missed the boat on this one. if you know anything about documentaries, you would know that the director will take certain liberties with information in order to make a stronger argument that is overwhelming in its basic truth....the U.S culture of guns and right wing ass wiping is very much alive.