Slashdot Mirror

Like Michael "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" Moore?

If you are suggesting the factual farce that is Bowling for Columbine as a source for your critical thinking on this subject, we can safely ignore your logic. And yes Doomdark, Terrorists are looking to use atomic material. And calling the one nation that allows the most foreign immigration "xenophobic" is plain stupid. If we feared and distrusted other countries as your surmise, we wouldn't welcome their citizens to our country in overwhelming numbers.

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."

That such a story was buried instead of followed up vigorously by the media speaks volumes of their priorities in war reporting.

Or, it could also speak volumes of the credibility, substantiability, etc. of that story. After all, anyone can make a documentary with little to no regard for any of the above.

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.

Yep. and Michael Moore sucks.

Excellent sig. Highly recommended reading.

It is a well-debunked myth that the US gave money to the Taliban before 9/11. See, for example:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html

The US gave money to NGOs (humanitarian organizations) working in Afghanistan, not to the Taliban. Before 9/11, only 3 countries even recognized the Taliban, and the US was not one of them.

As for the UNOCAL pipeline myth, while it is true that there were such negotiations, they did not involve the US government, and occurred in 1999 - you know, before Bush was in power:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

Jesus, people, try to check facts a little before you post, or mod.

The funny thing is, people were claiming that the war in Afghanistan was about oil, yet their only argument for that claim was that the US wanted this pipeline. Two years later, where's the pipeline?

Now people are claiming that the US invaded Iraq to get its oil. Yet oil production remains below pre-war levels, and the first shipment of oil did not go just to US firms, but was split with European firms as well (include France's TotalFinaElf).

Maybe, before you do that, you should inform yourself a little more about Michael Moore and his book.

Yes, Michael Moore has demonstrated quite a bit. Primarily his penchant for not letting the truth get in the way of his sensationalism.

But it's all OK. As he said on CNN when challenged on his (to put it mildly) inaccuracies: "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"

"Stupid White Men" is only worth reading if you're interested in the techniques that Michael Moore employs to *severely* distort the truth.

The Bubonic Plague started in China in the 1330's, actually. I wonder what would have happened if they'd spent some cash doing research on that "crazy backwoods disease" before it hit London in 1665?

I'm not going to touch the Moore side of things, I have several problems with his "documentary", and the contents thereof, and how it is presented.

Michael Moore is a loud mouth liar who is himself, the fear mongering media he encourages everyone to despise.

Moore isn't a liberal. He's "moore" likely to be a republican mole. He should move out of his 1.2 million dollar Manhattan apartment and get out of the country and away from the people he hates so much. Ofcourse he won't because Moore really doesn't care about what he preaches. Moore only cares about getting attention to feed his ego. Guess who once said "My biggest failing is that I have absolutely no ego"?

Truth about columbine:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=6841

http://www.atomiq.org/archives/000524.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html ?id=110003233

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816 ,436268,00.html

http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/michaelmoore/inde x.shtm

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000037.html

bolwing for columbine is chock full of errors, fabrications, and lies. moore is an absolute idiot. if you choose to agree with his political perspective, fine, he is certainly "entertaining". but as a source of information, he is not. for example, stupid white men is also full of more lies, etc.

...except that Robert Scheer was spewing bullshit, not truth.

Aren't documentaries supposed to avoid distortions and outright lies?

NPR's "On the Media" did a report on this "documentary". Summary: Moorse plays fast and loose with the facts.Check here in the "More Accurately" section.

Also, this site has a LOOOONG list of inaccuracies in the "documentary".

Just for accuracies sake.

-bk

This movie (as well as much of Moore's other output) has been discredited time and time again, even by writers on the left who agree with his basic opinions. By all reports it is staged, manipulated, and completely worthless as far as getting unbiased data about the gun-control debate.

See:
From Spinsanity
From LA Weekly
From the National Post
From the Weekly Standard
From The Globe and Mail

With Moore's propensity for fiction -- this is a man who declared that his writing satire overrides means that he need not be responsible for getting the details right, and who has a bad habit of exaggeration and promulgating unchecked accusations, at least according to Spinsanity -- it should indeed be treated as a spoiler.

Teach logic, critical thinking and statistical reasoning in schools. Teach about traditional propaganda techniques and the ways that biased sources distort truth -- not only by outright lies or mere fudging, but by the selection or omission of information. In other words, lead them to rational, analytical modes of thinking rather than the mere absorbtion of emotionally manipulative tripe that gets served as "news" these days, especially on TV.

Oh, and support media watchdogs like Spinsanity and their ilk -- groups that care about correctness, rather than transparently carrying out political vendettas.

No, that's just yet another liberal lie.

If you want non-partisan scrutiny of the media and politics, check out Spinsanity, a watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric from both sides. [Disclosure: I co-edit the site.]

Katz is right that the Internet is making it possible for people outside the mediasphere to scrutinize the media and culture, but he should look more in the direction of the political weblogs. Beyond the celebrity journalist bloggers, there's a new breed of critics coming up and having an impact. Will Vehrs' Punditwatch just got picked up on FoxNews.com, and we just signed a distribution agreement with Salon.com. Both are unimaginable without the Internet.

It wasn't as much a $48 million check, as it was a $43 million famine relief package distributed to United Nations relief agencies to feed millions of starving people in Afghanistan, and if you weren't an ignorant little sheep who lets other people do his thinking for him, you'd already know that.

2) The support mechanism for the site (products advertised, etc) have to be valuable enough that people will go for these as well.

Maintaining the character of a site, breathing life into it so that it is constantly alive, is WORK. Some folks burn out on this faster than others.

An example of this are sites like ubersoft, a comic strip which is decent, often excellent, but where the author sometime falls behind due to distractions or other details, or the well runs dry for a day or two.

In a website like slash, the number of stories submitted, comments posted daily typically is something like one percent of the active users that day. It also depends on the events of the day, etc. A very crude measure to be sure. of course, you can have someone just pumping out stories for a year or two, But you better have an edge, like spinsanity does, being located in DC, etc.

Then you should also read this!

Your author in not only an "avowed Marxist" waiting for the communist revolution,

he's dangerous " Peaceful protests are doomed to be ignored. Only a dose of destruction leads to real social change" and "Not only has there never been a revolution without violence, but there's never been meaningful social change without violence "

and his "facts" are really fiction!

You need to be more careful when you take the "filter" off of your news sources.

I don't have time to educate all the ignorant americans in the world. Open your eyes.

Ahhh, Finally a real challenge! Your author Ted Rall is an excellent writer, and makes a strong case. I had to do some tough research on this one.

I thought communism was dead, but he's an "avowed Marxist" and he says he's waiting for the communist revolution. Ok, kinda peculiar, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

He advocates violence. He says "Peaceful protests are doomed to be ignored. Only a dose of destruction leads to real social change" and "Not only has there never been a revolution without violence, but there's never been meaningful social change without violence"
Well, that doesn't make him wrong either, but it certainly makes him dangerous. Expecially since he's waiting for a communist revolution.

Nope, what makes him wrong is that his facts are really fiction. No joke. He "quotes" Central Asian expert Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban, except the book says nothing of the sort. I bet you don't believe me, well...

I found a website called spinsanity that goes after the idiots on BOTH sides. They soundly thrash Ann Coulter for labeling those who might be against the war "traitors", and they exposed the article you linked to.

In case you can't be bothered to follow the exposed link and read the article, here's a good piece debunking the article you linked to:

To understand just how weak Rall's case is, consider that he argued that the US has oppressed Afghanistan in his previous column , claiming that "[w]e've been at war with Afghanistan for years" and that "[t]his New War is merely an escalation of genocide by trade sanction." How the US could be both "at war with Afghanistan for years" and paying the salaries of Taliban government officials "[a]s recently as 1999" is never explained or even acknowledged.

So, unless you can support the Ted Rall article you linked to, and/or debunk my spinsanity.org article, then you missed again. I'll give you credit though, your link would have been a strong argument if Ted Rall wasn't full of crap. He almost had me fooled too.

I don't have time to educate all the ignorant americans in the world. Open your eyes.

Ahhh, Finally a real challenge! Your author Ted Rall is an excellent writer, and makes a strong case. I had to do some tough research on this one.

I thought communism was dead, but he's an "avowed Marxist" and he says he's waiting for the communist revolution. Ok, kinda peculiar, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

He advocates violence. He says "Peaceful protests are doomed to be ignored. Only a dose of destruction leads to real social change" and "Not only has there never been a revolution without violence, but there's never been meaningful social change without violence"
Well, that doesn't make him wrong either, but it certainly makes him dangerous. Expecially since he's waiting for a communist revolution.

Nope, what makes him wrong is that his facts are really fiction. No joke. He "quotes" Central Asian expert Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban, except the book says nothing of the sort. I bet you don't believe me, well...

I found a website called spinsanity that goes after the idiots on BOTH sides. They soundly thrash Ann Coulter for labeling those who might be against the war "traitors", and they exposed the article you linked to.

In case you can't be bothered to follow the exposed link and read the article, here's a good piece debunking the article you linked to:

To understand just how weak Rall's case is, consider that he argued that the US has oppressed Afghanistan in his previous column , claiming that "[w]e've been at war with Afghanistan for years" and that "[t]his New War is merely an escalation of genocide by trade sanction." How the US could be both "at war with Afghanistan for years" and paying the salaries of Taliban government officials "[a]s recently as 1999" is never explained or even acknowledged.

So, unless you can support the Ted Rall article you linked to, and/or debunk my spinsanity.org article, then you missed again. I'll give you credit though, your link would have been a strong argument if Ted Rall wasn't full of crap. He almost had me fooled too.

Call it another benefit of hypermedia.