Slashdot Mirror

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).

Here you go (again):

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

• Hardylaw
• Moore lies
• Moore Watch

Do you think this will be Moore honest than his previous work?

I wonder whether this will be any "Moore" honest than his last film?

Do you mean a documentary or a "documentary"?

A genuine question for Moore fans: doesn't it bother you even slightly that Moore expects you not to independently verify what he presents as fact? You're supposed to be geeks, people who're capable of thinking "out of the box". And doesn't it bother you that Michael Moore is personally getting very, very rich out of September 11th?

Is it a "documentary" like Bowling for Columbine?

His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but let's just be clear about it. Up front.

Another good link is:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

And here is the rebuttal to his attempt to debunk the first set of claims.

Err.. Not really.

Um, Kalak, as a teacher I hope you have done some research on Bowling for Columbine and show it in the right context in the classroom. I personally find the movie distasteful as it is primarily concocted of lies. Read here a little about it or do some research yourself: www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and Michael Moore is well known for publishing accurate documentaries

> I would caution against taking anything Michael Moore says as valid.

So you think he made up everything in the movie? Did he fake all the news clippings? Are those even real people that appear on screen? It sounds like you've got a beef with him and his style (and I agree there are fair reasons to disagree with his style) and now you distrust everything he touches, just because he had something to do with it. Seems just as extreme as Mr. Moore himself.

I've read those and other discussions of Michael Moore's "creative" use of facts, that he leaves out certain details to make his point sound more shocking. Or in the case of the NRA/Charlton Heston scenes, he seems to have done more than just leave out a few facts in order to paint the picture the way he wants it. Hey, it's a fricking movie, and yes, it's plays itself like a documentary, leading us to believe that everything is true. But you know what, I think that when anybody tries to make a point about something controversial, the single easiest thing for the listener to do is find one or more details that were left out (intentionally or not) and use them to trash everything else that the person was trying to say. But what the hell is that? Who tries to make a convincing point about something, say abortion, and then offers up every single little reason why their own point is questionable, or slightly weak? Who says "Goddammit I'm right about this! Except for that thing over there, and these things here, and the fact that some other things happned last week, and..." That's not the way people work. I'm not trying to defend Michael Moore at all, but I totally have issues with people who single him out and blame him like he's the only one who ever does this. EVERYBODY does this. The difference is, Moore did it on the big screen in front of the entire world, so somehow he's the asshole for doing the same thing that the rest of the world does on a daily basis.

The point that the movie makes, that point that I agree with, and that many of the "Michael Moore is lying" web pages also agree with - our society is shaped very heavily by mainstream media, and we live in a society of fear. I don't give a shit what the NRA thinks, or what Moore says about the NRA, I don't think it's relevant.

From the first link you posted, see #9:

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck.

So tying all of this back to the conversation about blaming video games for violence in this country... the media feeds off fear, and the people feed off the media, and soon (well, already happened) society is shaped and molded by the constant fears and concerns that everybody has, with everyone worrying about every goddamn thing under the sun.

I would caution against using Bowling for Columbine as a source of inspiration, or taking anything Michael Moore says as valid. He's not entirely honest. He's actually quite dishonest and he has no respect for his audience. You can be honest with yourself about it or not...all the same to me.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.gunowners.org/opmooretb.htm

"Bowling for Columbine" is nothing more than Michael Moore
twisting the truth to fit his view of the world.

If you really want to get technical, the definition of truth starts with conformity to fact or actuality. If you pay attention to usage (the final arbiter of definitions), you realize that the things that are considered to be "truth" are those things which are not currently provable, and are therefore subjective. Examples of this are religion (check out truthforlife.com), and politics (we hold these Truths to be self-evident...).

One of the biggest abuses of this word is religion, where facts and evidence are non-existent. Even given the premise that these details about God's existence have a fixed and objective state, it is utterly, completely, and totally impossible to objectively demostrate the actual state of reality one way or the other. All arguements attempting to prove God's existence or qualities are either self referential (God exists because the Bible says so) or purely subjective (I have faith, therefore he is).

We very often use the word Truth when we want to convince the other side that our opinions are the only possible explaination, especially when our research is faulty, or when we don't want people to compare what we have to say against facts. A good example about this is the web page "Truth About Bowling (for Columbine)". While he does site a number of facts, the spin he puts on it is significantly different than the account given by Michael Moore himself. BOTH OF THESE ARE TRUTH. You get to pick which one you prefer, or build your own.

When it comes down to it, any time you see the word "truth" these days you have to assume that it means that someone wants you to swallow their version of things. To get something that better fits reality at large you have to pick the facts out of several accounts and build your own "truth".

Why is the knee-jerk reaction always to make a cute and snappy comeback, as opposed to spending five seconds Googling for some exmaples, and enlightening oneself (and everybody else) in a follow-up?

So I Googled, and found this . Personally, I like how Michael Moore fights for the little guy, and when I watched Bowling for Columbine, I didn't know about these inaccuracies and I enjoyed the film. I thought it was really well done. But then I heard of these inaccuracies later, and it kinda leaves a sour taste in my mouth that he got the Academy Award for the film.

Anyways, on to books. I don't really pay attention to when books come out, but the good books I read this year are:

The Code Book by Simon Singh (brilliant)
Euclid's Window by Leonard Mlodinow (non-technical, enjoyable)
Emergence: The Connected Lives of Cities, Ants, and Software by Steven Johnson (enlightening, but too biased at times)
The Night Is Large by Martin Gardner (this man knows about EVERYTHING)
Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken (hilarious, although obviously partial)
Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky (if you can't tolerate Franken, don't try this)

Note I prefer non-fiction ;) I think, of the books above, only Euclid's Window, Lies and the Lying Liars..., and Hegemony or Survival came out this year. They're all fairly recent, however, and worth a look.

- sm

Some of them (the kids didn't really go bowling that day!) are silly, but the cut and paste jobs on the Willie Horton ad, and particularly the shredding of Charlton Heston's words are utterly, flagrantly outside anything acceptable in documentaries. It is appalling that the documentary community and the Academy tolerated it.

When you don't tell the whole story for the intended purpose of decieving those who are watching (or reading), you are in effect lying.

I've read the criticisms of Bowling and its a pretty daming one at that.

I haven't been able to find Moore's response to that, but in the interests of objective research, I'd be happy to read it if you want to provide it.

although a link would have been nice on the part of the OP, it is well documented that Bowling For Columbine is ripe with inaccuracy and pure propaganda:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

this links gets posted every time people like you claim that there is no proof

"While I'm not condradicting you, I'd really like a list of things that are falsified. I've heard things are twisted, but I don't know of the purely falsified, outright lies."

here you go

While there are numerous debunkings, this seems to have the most info on one page.

There you go -- the reason `jasonbw' gave a description of the article which in no way resembled the article itself was not because he hadn't read the article. Oh, no, ladies and gentlemen -- the reason was that `they' had gone in and changed the article right after he read it.

I'd say anyone still reading can judge for themselves how credible a theory that is, so instead I'd like to review each of the ten points made by the article, to see if either of his two claims about the article (that it was ``all statistics'' or that ``all but two or three points were bullshit'') hold up:

In order, here are the article's ten points, as you can go read for yourself:

1. Point 1: Willie Horton
   Moore's Claim: That an ad George H W Bush ran in 1992 refered to Willie Horton by name
   Why it's a lie: To make this point, Moore, incredibly, splices together the ad Bush did run, which never mentioned Willie Horton, with a video from another group. But this isn't enough for Moore -- he then photoshops text of his own into the ad, so he can claim it says something it never said.
   Is it `statistical': No.
   Is it `bullshit': No, Moore has admitted that he spliced two videos together and added text of his own.
2. Point 2A: NRA Reaction to Columbine
   Moore's Claim: The NRA Scheduled a meeting in Colorado in response to Columbine, in which Charlton Heston gave the speech shown in the movie
   Why it's a lie: The meeting in Colorado was an annual shareholder's meeting required by law for the NRA to maintain non-profit status, and was scheduled months before Columbine. In response to Columbine, Heston ordered the meeting scaled back to the minimum size and length required by law, and gave a somber speech. However, Moore is up to his video-editing tricks again -- he edits together clips from several speeches given on other locations to create a different speech than the one Heston gave.
   Is it `statistical': No.
   Is it `bullshit': No, the article links the text of the speech from the movie and the full text as recorded by the news media at the time.
3. Point 2B: NRA Reaction to Mt. Morris shooting
   Moore's Claim: The NRA met in Flint Michigan ``48 hours'' after the shootings in Mt. Morris, Michigan
   Why it's a lie: The meeting in Michigan occurred as part of the presidential campaign eight months after the shooting. Moore takes the following sentence from a news report ``48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."'' and zooms the words ``48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead'' to cover the rest of the text, then reads the rest as ``Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally''.
   Is it `statistical': No.
   Is it `bullshit': No, the article shows the real text of the article and the zoomed version as used in the film.
4. Point 2C: Charlton Heston
   Moore's Claim: Charlton Heston, when interviewed by Moore, was insensitive to a shooting death Moore described
   Why it's a lie: A close look at stills of the scene in question show that Moore asking the question was filmed later, without Heston present, and then spliced in
   Is it `statistical': No.
   Is it `bullshit': No, the article links to the stills which show this
5. Point 3: NRA and KKK
   Moore's Claim: That the NRA was created by KKK members
   Why it's a lie: The NRA was created by Ullyses Grant, who had been one of the KKK's strongest opponents (he's the one who banned the Klan in 1871(, and it's early leaders were Grant and General Sheridan, who had routed pro-Klan officials from posts in So

Well, there we have it, ladies and gentlemen.

I welcome anyone reading this thread to go read the article for yourselves -- those of you who do will, of course, see immediately, that `jasonbw' has not read it, and is speaking from his posterior. :-)

You will also see a list of a large number of outright lies told by the film -- not `statistical' points, which Mr. `bw' may have `analyzed' or may handwave away, nor `inaccuaracies' which may have occurred by mistake (presumably, Mr. `bw' will not claim that one can `accidentally' photoshop a television ad to add text which one can then disagree with, or that such an action is a mere `inaccuracy').

I suppose one can argue honestly for the political claim which Moore is trying to make in this film. It clearly tells us something, however, that neither Mr. Moore, nore `jasonbw' are interested in doing so. :-)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you haven't actually read the article. The fact that you don't actually address any of the article's points makes this clear to begin with, and your mischaracterization of those points drives the point home:

Of the ten points in the article, one is statistical in nature, and that one is pointing out a statistical error on Moore's part (that Moore doesn't account for differences in population when comparing raw numbers of crimes in different countries, thus using numbers which say the opposite of what he claims they say).

But that one's a mistake on Moore's part (let's assume that, out of charity), a sign of Moore's ignorance about his own subject matter.

The other examples in the article, in which Moore blatantly edits film clips to put together sentences people never said, or photoshops text into ads which he claims other people ran are lies outright, by any definition of the word.

Or are you arguing that such lies -- which make up the bulk of the film -- are somehow `okay', because you agree with the point Moore is trying to make?

Well?

It's also, of course, a complete work of fiction, long since discredited.

that people belive Michael Moore's propaganda

not to mention that its just bad practice to use one single source to come to a conclusion on ANYTHING

(here is another website debunking Moore)

And after watching Bowling For Columbine, go read this. http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Flamebait on: By contrast, a lot of high-profile "conservatives" like to apply faith and demagoguery(sp?) to making themselves and people like themselves richer and more powerful. I doubt this is representative of members of the Republican Party as a whole, since I know a lot of self-professed Republicans who seem to be decent people, but for some reason they seem to be led around by the nose by those same conservative "leaders". Maybe that's why there's such an emphasis on "faith" - it makes it a lot easier for those conservative leaders when their followers have been conditioned to turn off their brains & blindly follow orders.

This is an interesting point. I disagree somewhat. I have found it weird that the conservative movement in general supports both your kind of "thinking" pundits (say National Review) and your kind of "unthinking, demagogue" pundits (uh, Rush Limbaugh comes to mind).

But I wouldn't say that self-styled republicans are "led" by people like Limbaugh, though -- it's probably more likely that they just like to hear him talking up views that they came to rationally in the first place.

This is, I assume, why democrats like people like Michael Moore, who while a total liar , is still well liked by a lot of self-styled liberals.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Your likely source for this accusation is "Bowling for Columbine". Why don't you find out the actual facts, not the twisted misrepresentation here.

Sounds to me like you've been listening to the great fiction writer, Michael Moore.

When the NRA went to Columbine to insult and abuse the locals after their tragedy,

That would be what's technically known as a lie.

A big one.

So tell me, did Michael Moore "lose his legitimacy" with you after reading that link?

Could this plan be as deceitful as Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine?

I agree that this was a pretty shameless "story", but your comparison to "Bowling For Columbine" is somewhat ironic, since Michael Moore is at least as manipulative as the mass media he decries.

Here is a list of gross inaccuracies in Bowling For Columbine

Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle. But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Read the truth about Bowling for Columbine. As much as folks would like to deify Michael Moore, he's a flat-out manipulator and liar (yes, just like the "evil" right wingers he attacks, there's nobody innocent in partisan political arenas).

I'm also not too proud of Canada when I see stuff like this.

I suppose there are some good points in it, but the fact that it's almost entirely fiction really puts me off.

I agree with some of the larger opinions Moore expresses, but the fact that he's a toss and the facts are very unreliable kills any credibility for me. The ending made me physically cringe.

Bowling for Columbine is not a documentary. It has some fiction in it. If Moore had wanted to tell the truth, he shouldn't have been editing speeches and dates.

You see why I say "left-leaning." I am aware that there are some who are much further left than NYT, which itself is to the left of center.

As far as Chomsky, I wouldn't believe anything he said (unless it was the mathematics of formal linguistics) because he is extremely far left and very biased. I hear his stuff all the time, and it is unadulterated BS rhetoric.

Of course, many liberals are fed up with the Dems like many conservatives are fed up with the Repubs. To make a party which can gain significant power, it must move towards the center, which is one of the good things about the two party system.

Re: Michael Moore's bowling for Columbine... I have a simple test. If my in-laws love it, it is left wing propaganda. They loved it. They even believed it! And bowling for Columbine, loaded with inaccurate editing and even, in one case, a phoney Bush ad (removed in the CD version), is pure baloney. His cutting and slicing of Charlton Heston's speech, for example, gave one completely false impressions. The Nazis also had outstanding propagandists that impressed people with their artistic ability, but that didn't mean that their stuff was right. See this for a few highlights of the nonsense in that "documentary."

I don't think you will find such a liberal movement, because you are farther left than you think. Many liberals have tried talk radio, and with the exception of liberal markets, they fail totally. There's a reason for that: they are to the left of center!

For people far to the left, there's always Indymedia.

As far as media control mechanisms and left wing propaganda, I was listening to Radio Moscow and Radio Havana in the '60s. I know propaganda when I hear it. What shocked me was that by the '80s, Radio Moscow was as close to the truth as CBS News!

BTW... as far as "real liberals" - the real liberals believed in most of what are now called "conservative" values in the US. They were displaced by the '60s radicals who were far to the left.

And yes, my blog is conservative. It's also got a lot of facts that you won't hear on NBC,CNN, or read in the New York Times. Not tin-foil conspiracy theory stuff (the right has plenty of those folks too), but just simple facts. Check it out.

It's not even a documentary.

You mean IS this media fear mongering?

From this page:

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools."

Don't take Bowling for Columbine as evidence of much anything: those of us who live out by Columbine know that Moore -- how to put this? -- oh, I know: lied .

More here.

Bowling for Columbine as a factual source of inforamtion? Please. I guess the Facts don't matter as long as it comes from Michael Moore's mouth.

I've rarely seen it where I was in the US. I've lived in California and rarely did I feel unsafe. Most of the time that type of crime is pretty well delineated into good areas and bad areas, and mostly from folks who are involved in illegal activities (e.g. drive into East Palo Alto at night...not smart...). In fact, back in Edmonton, Alberta, there is a lot of gang violence and a lot more home invasions than I ever remembered in the Bay Area.

As far as Michael Moore goes, I think some folks need a bit of a reality check.

Bowling for Columbine is a typical Moore propaganda piece, ripe with inaccuracies, out-of-context quotes, and unfair portrayals.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

You probably shouldn't put too much faith in Bowling for Columbine, especially where Heston and the NRA is concerned. I recommend doing some reading on the subject first.

Anyone taking what Michael Moore says at face value (or any sort of value, really) needs to be pulled out into the street and shot.

Michael Moore lies

Thank You, Come Again!

seeing Bowling for Columbine

Why? It's a great example of Hollywood Entertainment. It's just another example of the genre of the mockumentary (but not as good as This is Spinal Tap IMHO)