O'Reily

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-06-25 05:18am

Did anyone get a chance to read the new article posted on Foxnews by Bill dealing with Michael Moore? I didn't get a chance to do so yet, but what do yo u think if you do?

IF you are interested of course....

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-06-25 05:56am

Link please? I've got no idea where to go from Fox's homepage, arsiest user interface I've seen from a news org.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-06-25 07:01am

Here ya go kids...

The Evolution of Michael Moore
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jun 24, 2004

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And what's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

MM vs BO

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-25 09:33am

O'LIE-ly must have written this after polishing his two Peabody Awards. Check out mediamatters.org.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-06-25 10:14am

Pot. Kettle. Black.

O'Reilly and Moore are two sides of the same partisan coin and they're both annoying assholes.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-25 10:28am

Elfdart wrote:O'LIE-ly must have written this after polishing his two Peabody Awards. Check out mediamatters.org.

Irelevant. Moore himself is now calling this an op-ed piece.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-06-25 11:51am

Whatever, the fact remains the the Bin Laden's were cleared to fly because of their wealthy status and connections alone. The fact is, there are countless "joe schmoes" out there who WERE grounded even though they also posed no threat to the nation.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-06-25 11:56am

Funny. O'Reilly adresses solely Moore's first half of the film which adresses many pre Iraqi invasion conspiracy theries. Yet no spin zone O'Reilly does not even mention the second half of the film which deals with the invasion. Hmmmmmm.....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-25 12:19pm

For O'Reilly of all people to decry the use of "propaganda" is high comedy.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-06-25 12:27pm

O'Reilly's particularly annoying in that he is always bitching about not only the same generalised agendas, but the same specific individuals and groups.

I don't care about the ACLU or The New York Times for the 245,947,293rd time, Bill.

Oh, and he recently pressed them on how he "proved" the Al-Queda-Iraq links and reporting that the 9/11 commission agreed with him (what?) on "the Factor" a week or so ago.

Has spinsanity called bullshit yet?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-25 12:32pm

O'Reilly didn't see the second half of the movie because he repotedly had other business. He maintains that he did not walk out. He has said on the air that he will see the second half.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-25 12:37pm

A fat left wing blowhard vs. a gaunt right wing blowhard. Hooray.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-06-25 12:43pm

You know, the worst about O'reilly is a least Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., etc. admit openly they're right-wing, conservatives.

O'reilly actually entertains that he's moderate. What actual left-wing agendas does he have? Sorry, but occasionally pointing out right-wing politicians' corruption doesn't make you moderate.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-25 12:45pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You know, the worst about O'reilly is a least Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., etc. admit openly they're right-wing, conservatives.

O'reilly actually entertains that he's moderate. What actual left-wing agendas does he have? Sorry, but occasionally pointing out right-wing politicians' corruption doesn't make you moderate.

He's opposed to the death penalty, last time I checked.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-06-25 01:10pm

Axis Kast wrote:O'Reilly didn't see the second half of the movie because he repotedly had other business. He maintains that he did not walk out. He has said on the air that he will see the second half.

So in other words he criticized something without seeing the whole thing? Nice.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-06-25 02:22pm

I like him, but then again I don't like everything he says. He does tend to cut people off a lot, but he is a pretty average caster. I guess no news station and its faculty is truely neutral. There will always be some bias.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-06-25 02:27pm

So in other words he criticized something without seeing the whole thing? Nice.

Kast said he only attacked the first half of hte film. That is probably because that is the ony part he saw.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-25 08:17pm

Stravo wrote:Funny. O'Reilly adresses solely Moore's first half of the film which adresses many pre Iraqi invasion conspiracy theries. Yet no spin zone O'Reilly does not even mention the second half of the film which deals with the invasion. Hmmmmmm.....

To be fair, he claims he hasn't watched it.

However, he did bring up a legitimate point, which is Moore's changing claims about the accuracy of his films. He's done this several times, and seems to alter his own views on what his films are intended to be whenever it suits his purpose.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-25 11:45pm

Calling a piece an Op-Ed instead of straight journalism does NOT mean that standards of ethics are different. It's just as unacceptable for an editorial writer to make things up as it is for reporters. So when Moore says his movie is an editorial, he's not admitting that he's bullshitting, he's admitting that his movie is biased.