Michael Moore

[AdmiralKanos]

OK, Michael Moore gets an inordinate amount of flame attention from certain people around here, and a lot of it seems to be based on "Bowling for Columbine", which is said to be a bullshit mockumentary based on numerous sources such as this one from National Review, cited by several people here.

My question is: do the errors and omissions mentioned in these attack-articles substantively alter the points Moore makes? I haven't seen this documentary, but I know evasive bullshit when I see it, and I see it when I read stuff like this being used as proof of major errors:

In fact, the two killers ditched bowling class on the day of the murders.

Who the fuck cares whether the Columbine shooters went to bowling class on the day of the killings? And this:

Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle.

Moore asks: "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" The banker's answer isn't shown.

He admits up-front that the need for a "background check" was shown in the film, and then whines that the full extent and complexity of that check was not shown, as if this proves that Moore was hiding something (according to the attack-article, Moore is trying to show that the bank might be courting robbery by giving him a gun, rather than just trying to show that America is wildly "gun-crazy", to use Moore's term, for being a place where you can get bank interest in the form of firearms). Doesn't any of this set off peoples' bullshit detectors? How about this?

The vast majority of hunters are also very safety-conscious. In 2000, for example, there were 91 fatal hunting accidents in all of North America, within a population of over 16 million hunters.

Yet Moore ignores all of this. Instead, he comically reports an incident in which some reckless hunters tied a gun to their dog to take a funny picture, and one of the hunters was shot. According to the police reports, the foolish hunters had only a still camera, but Bowling presents a fabricated video clip which purports to have been filmed by the hunter's friend.

Again, he does his damndest to make it seem as if facts are being fabricated (indeed, he actually compares it to the well-known joke documentary "Spinal Tap"). But by his own admission, the incident in question did take place, even if the dramatic re-enactment was not real footage (I've seen documentaries about the Middle Ages where we see video footage of medieval combat with a voice-over; are they "mockumentaries" as well?). Again, he attempts to attack what appears to be a mockery of cultural perversity by claiming that it's something else (an indictment of gun safety) and then screaming that Moore didn't present the facts fairly. How about this?

Similarly, the ideology of gun ownership and civil liberty is not presented by reference to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, or to legal scholars such as liberal Democrats Sanford Levinson or Larry Tribe. Instead, Moore goes to the Michigan Militia.

Again, how does any of this constitute false information? Is the author worried that people will think the Second Amendment was written by the Michigan Militia? Moore has an agenda; this much is clear. But I didn't see anything whatsoever in any of this National Review article's claims to support the notion that "Bowling for Columbine" is full of false information or should be regarded as a "mockumentary" in the vein of "Spinal Tap". Most of the criticisms seem to revolve around the inaccuracy of perceived innuendoes/implications of certain scenes.

Could someone explain to me why these attack-articles represent proof that Bowling for Columbine, billed as an attack on American "gun culture", represent proof that its facts are lies? Judging from the kinds of things he harps on, they seem an awful lot more like nitpicks and strawman distortions to me.

[Glocksman]

Judging from the kinds of things he harps on, they seem an awful lot more like nitpicks and strawman distortions to me.

The first rule of documentary filmmaking is get the facts straight.
Moore fails miserably in this simple rule.

You can recreate events for a documentary, but you cannot alter the sequence of events, setting or the timeframe, or it ceases to be a recreation. Moore did all of the above when making Bowling

It may seem like 'nitpicking, but if Moore frequently resorts to editing tricks and factual distortions, why should I trust any conclusions that he may make?

If Moore has to fabricate a speech (by splicing together film from 5 different parts of one Heston speech and adding footage from another one entirely) from Charlton Heston to make it appear as if the NRA was callous about the shootings at Columbine, what other lies and distortions are there in the film?

Plenty, according to David Hardy.

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Documentary or Fiction?

-David T. Hardy-

The first misconception to correct about Michael Moore's The Big One is that it is a documentary. It's not. Moore doesn't make those.

James Berardinelli

The Michael Moore production "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." The award of the documentary Oscar to a $4 million entertainment piece is unjust to the legitimate competitors, and sets a precedent which will encourage others to play loose with the truth.

Bowling makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking. Let's look at the evidence.

1. Lockheed-Martin and Nuclear Missiles. Bowling for Columbine contains a sequence filmed at the Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility, near Columbine. Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters. Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep."

After Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.

Moore's website has his response:

"[T]he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them). "

Nice try, Mike.

(1) that some are spy satellites which might be "used to direct the launching" (i.e., because they spot nukes being launched at the United States) is hardly what Moore was suggesting in the movie. Quote:

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

It's hard to envision a murderer making a moral equation between mass murder and a recon satellite, right?

(2) In fact, one of that plant's major projects was the ultimate in beating swords into plowshares: taking the Titan missiles which originally had carried nuclear warheads, and converting them to launch communications satellites and space exploration units.



2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling (and certainly the theme that has attracted most reviewers) is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of Heston and NRA arrogantly holding a protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links in next para.), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was a response to his being given the musket, a collector's piece, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.

Moore then goes to show Heston speaking in Denver. His second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."



B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Let's examine how Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other. He does this so smoothly that I didn't spot it. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who was kind enough to send me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [I can find no record of this at Flint; Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen just long enough for the viewer to skim the highlighted words and gather that Heston was asked about her and replied. Ah, the relevance.

Okay, you think, he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on. The image is visible so briefly that only highlighted text can be read.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and give the speech.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.).

This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there months or years later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.

Moore: Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally. As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.

The page is long gone, but I finally found a June 2000 usenet posting citing the "48 hours" webpage. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "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.""

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

Moore is a genius here. But if this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was a morning event and he "then went on to wherever we were going." In fact the rally was 6 - 7:30 PM and the last event of the tour.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

Moore's purpose here is to convince the viewer that Heston intentionally holds defiant protests in response to a firearms tragedy. Judging from reviews above, Moore succeeds. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Italics added: Click here for original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills, which could be put to a good purpose, are instead used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.



3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross. This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA. And viewers pick up just that message. "Throughout the film Moore mentions the history of the NRA and ties it closely with the history of white Americans' fear of African-Americans. He points out that the NRA was "coincidentally" founded in the same year that the KKK was founded." Source

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan.


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

.4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. After the event, the shooter's uncle went to jail. A few weeks later police busted his grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. These was not the nice but misunderstood family Moore portrays.


Links:1., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

5. The Taliban and American Aid. After discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001, and then shows aircraft hitting the twin towers to illustrate the result.


Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan. [Various numbers are given for the amount of the aid, incidentally, and some say several million went for clearing landmines.]

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates, but let's go with what Bowling uses.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them, but I kept trying. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. So far as I can find, Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low. (And that is just murder: if you add in accidents and suicides it becomes 12,888 for all, or about 1,207 for firearms.)

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history. If suicides and accidents are included, the numbers become 516 - 687.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23).

Going back 1997 (earliest year listed in the 2001 FBI report), I couldn't find Bowling's U.S. number anywhere.

After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctor's death certificates rather than police investigation, and give figures about 2,000 higher than FBI.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping on Moore. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.

8. Race. Moore does not directly state that Heston is a racist--he is the master of creating the false impression --but reviewers come away saying "Heston looks like an idiot, and a racist one at that" Source. "BTW, one thing the Heston interview did clear up, that man is shockingly racist." Source.

The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations. and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.

Heston got involved. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for key civil rights legislation in 1964. Source.

Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes). More on Heston.

Most of the viewers were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King speaking, people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses. Heston remembers what it was really like.

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."

10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.

After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

Or as he put it elsewhere, "then I learned that Canada has 7 million guns but they don't kill each other like we do. I thought, gosh, that's uncomfortably close to the NRA position: Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Bowling concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun nuts -- it has lots of those -- but because the Canadian mass media isn't into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is. (One problem).

Which leaves us to wonder why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press release. congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination.

Or does Bowling have a hidden punch line, and in the end the joke is on them?

One possible explanation: did Bowling begin as one movie, and end up as another?

Conclusion

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. To trash Heston, it even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and sequences images and carefully highlighted text to spin the viewer's mind to a wrong conclusion. If there is art in this movie, it is this art -- a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his readers: he plays them like a violin.

David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on a serious bill of rights documentary], to include the Second Amendment.

dthardy@mindspring.com

A few additions:

Wall Street Journal weighs in.

Some criticisms not given on this page.

Did Moore swipe most of his theme from a webpage?

Where Moore did have a point.

For those few who care about my motivation.

Equal time: emails critical of this page.

A brief reply to two responses I've received in emails:

Objectivity: (sample from email): "Your entire article is retarded. We're talking about making FILM. ALL film is subjective. Have you not even taken an entry level course in film before?"

Response: The point is not that Bowling is non-objective, or biased. The point is that it is intentionally deceptive.

Nothing is real: I've received several responses to the effect that the camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can be no truth or falsity. Sample: "tv and movies, newspapers or even documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth" ("truth" is subjective personal opinion/experience, which would be impossible to commit to videotape or celluloid)."


Response: This certainly has given me some insight into how some in the media view things! Can we agree upon one core premise: to deliberately deceive a viewer is wrong?

Talk basic ethics. Is that what you'd teach your children? Everything is subjective, truth and lies are ultimately the same, all that matters is whether you're good at it?

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

[Darth Wong]

Copying and pasting an entire article is a lazy man's way to pretend that he's debating, and one lazy turn deserves another: unless you're willing to make your own points, I won't bother reading whole long-winded articles you post.

Can you show me examples of factual errors which legitimately affect the point Moore is trying to make? Or is your argument truly that if he does anything dodgy, then his "credibility" is shot and you can dismiss the whole thing as a pack of lies?

[Glocksman]

Copying and pasting an entire article is a lazy man's way to pretend that he's debating

Yes, it is.

Can you show me examples of factual errors which legitimately affect the point Moore is trying to make?

One of Moore's claims is that violence in American society is a result of the white man's fear of blacks. He then goes on to try and make that point in the animated sequence

Things about that sequence:

It states the 2nd amendment as saying that 'white men' are guaranteed the right to bear arms.

The actual text of the amendment says 'the people', not white men.


The sequence also associates the NRA with the KKK by stating that the Klan was outlawed in 1871 and the NRA was founded in 1871. The visual that accompanies this is that of Klansmen taking off their robes and spinning a sign that says KKK to say NRA. It then insinuatesthat the NRA was responsible for the laws that banned blacks from gun ownership.

Later on, it shows an NRA member pouring gasoline on a cross.

The truth is that among the NRA's first presidents were Ulysses Grant and Philip Sheridan, who were enthusiatic enforcers of the anti Klan laws, not racists who conspired to disarm blacks.

Blacks also organized NRA chapters in order to obtain guns for self-defense during the 1950's and 60's.

The fast narration combined with the accompanying animation leaves the viewer with the distinct impression that the NRA is a racist organization and the successor to the Ku Klux Klan, and by extension is responsible for the violence in America.

But don't take my word for it, see it for yourself

A knowledgeable viewer will know that the NRA is not an extension of, or successor to, the KKK. But Moore isn't aiming at the knowledgeable viewer, or he never would have put that sequence together the way he did.

[Crown]

Bowling for Columbine was a 2 hour documantary, the person you have cited Glocksman has managed to refute 30min of it. Not really swaying my judgement here.

[Stuart Mackey]

OK, Michael Moore gets an inordinate amount of flame attention from certain people around here, and a lot of it seems to be based on "Bowling for Columbine", which is said to be a bullshit mockumentary based on numerous sources such as this one from National Review, cited by several people here.

My question is: do the errors and omissions mentioned in these attack-articles substantively alter the points Moore makes? I haven't seen this documentary, but I know evasive bullshit when I see it, and I see it when I read stuff like this being used as proof of major errors:

That article is interesting in what it does not address about the film, in reading it agian {and I did see the film] it seems more like strawman based on nitpicks rather than the overall point of Moore's film, that there is something wrong with American socierty.

[Glocksman]

Bowling for Columbine was a 2 hour documantary, the person you have cited Glocksman has managed to refute 30min of it. Not really swaying my judgement here.

If he refuted a quarter of the film, why should anyone assume that the rest of it is any more truthful?
Moore had a point that the US is a more violent society. I'm not disagreeing with that conclusion. A simple look at the crime rates would prove that.
I disagree with his portrayal of the NRA and racism being the cause of that violence.

He also had a point about media exploitation of people's fear. Does the constant repetition of violent news images affect people's perceptions?

If you went by the show COPS, you'd think that all blacks were criminals due to their being arrested in disproportionate numbers.

He failed to deeply explore television's impact on the 'culture of fear' and how it contributes to violence

In the end, it raises a couple of questions but offers no answers.

[Darth Wong]

One of Moore's claims is that violence in American society is a result of the white man's fear of blacks. He then goes on to try and make that point in the animated sequence

Actually, the animated sequence you linked to makes the claim that the white man in America is afraid of everything, even other white men. And it is a ridiculous cartoon sequence with a grinning, talking bullet who uses a southern accent; no one could possibly take that part of the documentary too seriously.

It states the 2nd amendment as saying that 'white men' are guaranteed the right to bear arms.

The actual text of the amendment says 'the people', not white men.

The talking bullet grins and says "so they passed the second amendment, which said every white man could keep his gun." I think you're trying pretty hard to look for factual errors, but none of this is substantial. After all, it is actually accurate in the sense that constitutional rights were not believed to apply to black men at the time.

The sequence also associates the NRA with the KKK by stating that the Klan was outlawed in 1871 and the NRA was founded in 1871. The visual that accompanies this is that of Klansmen taking off their robes and spinning a sign that says KKK to say NRA. It then insinuatesthat the NRA was responsible for the laws that banned blacks from gun ownership.

It actually states up-front that it's just a coincidence, but a very convenient one, and the fact remains that blacks were specifically barred from gun ownership while whites were not.

The fast narration combined with the accompanying animation leaves the viewer with the distinct impression that the NRA is a racist organization and the successor to the Ku Klux Klan, and by extension is responsible for the violence in America.

As I said before, most of the criticisms centre on vague innuendoes and impressions, not actual factual errors.

But don't take my word for it, see it for yourself

I appreciate this information; much better than the copy-and-paste job. But I still don't see evidence of substantial factual error or deception, just innuendo or nitpicks.

A knowledgeable viewer will know that the NRA is not an extension of, or successor to, the KKK. But Moore isn't aiming at the knowledgeable viewer, or he never would have put that sequence together the way he did.

It says right there that there's no direct connection and that it's just a convenient coincidence; you feel this is inaccurate? Are you suggesting that the NRA membership was not racist because not everyone in the group was a slaver? Others would have disagreed:

Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers.
In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law "was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers in this State....The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers....The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied...". Watson v. Stone,148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69).

Considering the era, it would have been quite a fantastic anomaly if the NRA's bulk membership was NOT racist.

Again, I'm not hearing much in the way of substantive criticism of the documentary's accuracy. Mostly anger at innuendo.

[Darth Wong]

I disagree with his portrayal of the NRA and racism being the cause of that violence.

He explicitly says that the NRA is the cause of violence, as opposed to a symptom or an indicator? Or is this more objectionable innuendo?

He failed to deeply explore television's impact on the 'culture of fear' and how it contributes to violence

In the end, it raises a couple of questions but offers no answers.

That is a much more mild indictment of the documentary than the "it's full of lies" rants that I've heard. I would have no problem if that was the only thing people were saying about it. But instead, I'm hearing people scream that it should be regarded in the same vein as "Spinal Tap".

[Glocksman]

He explicitly says that the NRA is the cause of violence, as opposed to a symptom or an indicator? Or is this more objectionable innuendo?

In the movie, it's innuendo. Moore deals in impressions, as Hardy put it.
That sequence is cleverly put together so as to tie the NRA in with the Klan by association. Does he come right out and say it? No. Does he imply it? In my opinion he does. But your opinion may vary.

On his website, he comes out and says just what he thinks about guns and the NRA and trumpets his support of, and from, anti-gun groups.

You hit the nail on the head when you said it was anger at innuendo.
My problem is that people are buying into that innuendo and accepting it as fact.

[Glocksman]

But instead, I'm hearing people scream that it should be regarded in the same vein as "Spinal Tap".

Kopel may have went over the top with that comparison, but MM is stretching the definition of 'documentary' to the breaking point.

From dictionary.com:

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

He certainly editoralizes in the movie. He also inserts fictional material into the film when he edits Heston's speech.

It's a brilliant piece of filmmaking, but it's not a documentary and it should be viewed with the same critical eye that you'd use on any other movie that looks at social issues.

Instead, a lot of people see the word 'documentary' and assume that everything in it is true.

[Crown]

That article is interesting in what it does not address about the film, in reading it agian {and I did see the film] it seems more like strawman based on nitpicks rather than the overall point of Moore's film, that there is something wrong with American socierty.

^ What he said ^.

[Stuart Mackey]

That article is interesting in what it does not address about the film, in reading it agian {and I did see the film] it seems more like strawman based on nitpicks rather than the overall point of Moore's film, that there is something wrong with American socierty.

^ What he said ^.

Yes..I suppose it is..I think I need more caffine...

[Glocksman]

Yes..I suppose it is..I think I need more caffine...

I have to get to bed. It's 5 AM here.

That article is interesting in what it does not address about the film, in reading it agian {and I did see the film] it seems more like strawman based on nitpicks rather than the overall point of Moore's film, that there is something wrong with American socierty.

Perhaps it's the differing perspectives of an American gun owner vs. that of non-Americans, but I know from reading his books that Kopel agrees with the conclusion that there is something more violent about American society.

What we disagree with Moore on is his stance on guns and the shading and innuendo he uses to attack the NRA.

[Robert Treder]

The animated bit about black people making white people scared was fairly historically inaccurate, but on the whole, I found the movie to be very good. As Darth Wong points out, much of the criticism levied against it is in the form of nitpicks and strawmen.
Of course the movie is light-hearted and comical in many places, and of course Moore chose some extreme examples in some cases, but I found Moore's point not to be "all gun owners are crazy cocksuckers" but rather, "the American gun culture produces some crazy mofos, and people rarely think twice about this".

For me, the most powerful bit of information communicated in the movie was the contrast between the number of American gun deaths/year vs. those of other first world nations. I would love for someone to explain to me how Moore falsified or skewed that. No matter how much you evade, there's a large disparity between the numbers. And if you try to say that there's nothing wrong with having that many gun deaths, I'll be first in line to kick you in the balls (or punch you in the boob if you're of the female persuasion).

[Crown]

What we disagree with Moore on is his stance on guns and the shading and innuendo he uses to attack the NRA.

I am assuming that you did actually watch the movie, so pardon me if I say something which you perhaps missed. Moore, while dripping with inuendo, did paint the 'gun culture' of the US as being perhaps one of the reasons, but he certainly did not make it the only reason. Recall when he was drawing parallels between America and Canada, and the fact that gun ownership in Candaa vs America was roughly equal (I am leaning towards Canada as actually having a higher gun per person, but I could very well be wrong)?

The underlining fact is that guns could not simply be the only answer. He did the whole bit, music (punk rock), violent video games, the collapse of the nuclear family etc. The result was that America was hardly the leader in all the fields and yet when compared to other countries who had a higher % of X, America was still clearly more violent.

The message that I took from the movie, is there is something ridiculous about pointing to one thing and saying; Aha! That's it! Hence the name of the documentary Bowling for Columbine. Moore states that while all the usual suspects have been totered out and paraded as the cause for this regretful incident, why hadn't bowling? Wasn't that just as a plausible/inplausible answer?

While Moore certainly did take some violent stabs at the 'gun culture' isn't that at least partially understandable since the main instrument of the violent acts occur with the gun? He wasn't saying that guns and guns alone were to blame, he was saying the irresponsible selling and marketing of guns in K-Marts and Banks, certainly didn't help the situation.

Take what you will about the movie, like I said before a discredit of 30min in a 2hour documentary, based only on the gun issue, is a distortion of the over all argument the movie presented and the burning question it tried to answer. That being, what the hell is wrong with American society that makes it that violent, and guns clearly cannot be the only answer.

[Vympel]

I thought the whole fear culture bit was pretty good- killer bees, rattle snakes, black people etc etc

[Stormbringer]

My question is: do the errors and omissions mentioned in these attack-articles substantively alter the points Moore makes?

It doesn't alter his veiws, which are partially right. It does call in to question serious question Moore's motives and credibility. It also, should, under Oscar rules disqualify Bowling for Columbine for winning the Oscar nomination.

[Glocksman]

For me, the most powerful bit of information communicated in the movie was the contrast between the number of American gun deaths/year vs. those of other first world nations. I would love for someone to explain to me how Moore falsified or skewed that.

Moore had the correct gun homicide numbers for Australia and Canada.
Where did he get his US figures from? IIRC, he said around 11,000. The FBI 2001 UCR lists 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999.

Comparing raw numbers is misleading in and of itself because of the huge population gap between the US and Australia, for example.

Now, our homicide rate is certainly higher (5.6 versus a 1.6 in Australia, for example). But it also varies wildly by area. New Hampshire has a low murder rate and has liberal gun laws. Maryland has stringent gun laws, yet the Baltimore Sun has a murder calendar.

Gun deaths don't tell the entire story either. Look up the UCR and you'll find that around 40% of US homicides were committed with a weapon other than a firearm (the number fluctuates somewhat from year to year).

We kill more without guns (both in absolute numbers and in rate) than most 'First World' countries do.

Moore is correct when he proposes that the US is a more violent place.

But let's break down the US numbers a bit more:

By Race:

All data comes from the Centers for Disease Control

2000, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
White, , Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95

Number of Deaths: 4,806
Population: 226,251,833
Crude Rate: 2.12
Age-Adjusted Rate: 2.14



2000, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Black, , Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95

Number of Deaths: 5,699
Population: 35,303,751
Crude Rate: 16.14
Age-Adjusted Rate: 14.83



2000, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Am Indian/AK Native, , Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95

Number of Deaths: 86
Population: 2,436,153
Crude Rate: 3.53
Age-Adjusted Rate: 3.19



2000, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Asian/Pac Islander, , Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95

Number of Deaths: 210
Population: 11,273,262
Crude Rate: 1.86
Age-Adjusted Rate: 1.81



2000, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Other Races, , Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95

Number of Deaths: 296
Population: 13,709,415
Crude Rate: 2.16
Age-Adjusted Rate: 2.05




If you refine the data further by age, you will find that 15-24 year old black males have the highest firearm homicide rate in the US with a figure of 76.52. Their total violence related death (firearm and non firearm) is 100.43


IMHO, the breakdown of the black family is responsible in large part for these numbers. Black crime didn't start to climb to where it is today until the family structure fell apart.

And the glorification of violence and crime in the 'hip-hop/rap' culture doesn't help either.

[Joe]

For me, the most powerful bit of information communicated in the movie was the contrast between the number of American gun deaths/year vs. those of other first world nations. I would love for someone to explain to me how Moore falsified or skewed that. No matter how much you evade, there's a large disparity between the numbers. And if you try to say that there's nothing wrong with having that many gun deaths, I'll be first in line to kick you in the balls (or punch you in the boob if you're of the female persuasion).

There was nothing falsified persay about this, but the fact that Moore failed to acknowledge improvements in the rate of gun violence over the years makes it a half-truth. It's still far from perfect, but it has been getting better.

And yeah, I realize that a lot of the points made here are valid, but goddamn, this guy had to fabricate shit to get his point across. That's certainly worthy of some degree of condemnation.

[Glocksman]

I would love for someone to explain to me how Moore falsified or skewed that. No matter how much you evade, there's a large disparity between the numbers.

Oh, there's evasion all right, but it's Moore who's doing it.

He uses statistics without naming a source and in a movie that allegedly focuses on violence, fear, and homicide in general, he uses gun homicide only statistics to paint a misleading picture of just how more violent the US in comparison to other western nations.

Let's look at the statistics from Interpol for the year 2000.
All statistics come from Interpol

Australia: 693 homicides. Population: 19,153,840. Rate: 3.62
Belgium: 278 homicides. Population: 10,239,087. Rate: 2.72
Canada: 1308 homicides. Population: 30,750,087. Rate: 4.25
France: 2166 homicides. Population: 58,518,748. Rate: 3.70
Germany: 2770 homicides. Population: 82,163,475. Rate: 3.37
Japan: 1391 homicides. Population: 126,919,288. Rate: 1.10
Switzerland: 162 homicides. Population: 7,206,100. Rate: 2.25
UK (England & Wales): 766 homicides. Population: 52,427,906. Rate: 1.46
UK (Scotland): 681 homicides. Population: 5,119,200. Rate: 13.30
UK (N. Ireland): 168 homicides. Population: 1,697,800. Rate: 9.90
USA: 15,586 homicides. Population: 281,421,900. Rate: 5.54

Now that we have an honest set of numbers, let's refine the US figure further using CDC data for the same year.

All data comes from the Centers for Disease Control

2000, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
White, , Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95

Number of Deaths: 8,339
Population: 226,251,833
Crude Rate: 3.69
Age-Adjusted Rate: 3.69



2000, United States
Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Black, , Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X85-Y09, Y87.1
Number of Deaths:7,867
Population: 35,303,751
Crude Rate: 22.28
Age-Adjusted Rate: 20.98


The Interpol total homicide numbers paint a different picture than Moore does by using gun homicide only numbers. Yes, the US is more violent, but not the hundreds of times more so that you would think by using his 'statistics'.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Bowling for Columbine was a 2 hour documantary, the person you have cited Glocksman has managed to refute 30min of it. Not really swaying my judgement here.

How the fuck is a film 1/4 false a documentary?

[Stormbringer]

How the fuck is a film 1/4 false a documentary?

When it's a liberal propoganda film

[Joe]

Bowling for Columbine was a 2 hour documantary, the person you have cited Glocksman has managed to refute 30min of it. Not really swaying my judgement here.

How the fuck is a film 1/4 false a documentary?

THANK YOU, Thrawn.

[The Dark]

I'll admit I haven't seen the movie, nor am I terribly interested in seeing it (all I've seen is the cartoon). That said, Moore is in my opinion treading a fine line between journalistic license and flat-out lying.


The cartoon itself is probably on the legitimate side of that line. It does not overtly say anything that is untrue, though the innuendo and suggestion are designed to unconsciously convince the watcher that the KKK and NRA are somehow related. It's in a gray ethical area, but it is legal.

The Lockheed Martin plant line is a flat-out lie. I know some people who work at the Columbine plant; one of the children went to Columbine High School. That plant does not build nuclear capable missiles. The Titan and Atlas rockets there are used solely for satellites, and are incapable of carrying any current nuclear warhead. Lockheed Martin could most likely legally sue over that portion of the documentary were it not for the fact that all plants (AFAIK) work on some projects that the government does not allow disclosed (sensor systems, targeting lasers, stuff like that). That portion of the documentary is unethical, as it is a blatant lie.