Michael Moore

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-04-13 11:13pm

Durran Korr wrote:
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.

IIRC, Moore did say that reporting of cirme increased by X% while there was a substantial decrease of crime by Y% so no he did not fail to point out there was an improvement.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-04-13 11:23pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:
Crown wrote: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?

From what I remember (saw the movie 4 months ago) and from what the article Glocksman has posted, all the person has managed to refute is the assumptions the veiwer might have made while watching the movie, not the facts of the movie (homicide rates excluded, Glocksman has posted more on this). Did Moore use a healthy dose of editing and cut and paste? Yes. Was it misleading? Perhaps. Was it false? Hard to answer.

The article critisises Heston's 'from my cold dead hands' statement, for pointing out that it wasn't even after Columbine. Fair enough, but where did Moore specifically say that Heston said that at the rally after the incident? Nowhere. This is an assumption, one perhaps heavily influenced by Moore's editing, but not an outright lie.

My point is; it seems a lot of people are out attacking the movie for some kind of need to dis-credit it so that they wont be forced to ask themselves the difficult questions the movie raises. Like I said 1/4 of the movie refuted leaves 3 whole fucking quarters left that is staring you right in the face. I don't buy what I hear from the media whole heartedly, and I certainly didn't buy everything Moore said whole heartedly either. That is why from my point of view 1/4 is not a refutement of the entire movie, it is a refutement of just that one quarter!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-13 11:48pm

Moore's hardly the only one to ask the question and is frankly the least reliable people to do it. He's based his work on shoddy information (if not out right falsifying it) and misleading the veiwers and readers. He's nothing more than a headline grabbing, demagouge.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-13 11:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:Moore's hardly the only one to ask the question and is frankly the least reliable people to do it. He's based his work on shoddy information (if not out right falsifying it) and misleading the veiwers and readers. He's nothing more than a headline grabbing, demagouge.

None of which proves he's lying. Look up "ad-hominem".

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-04-13 11:54pm

Stormbringer wrote:Moore's hardly the only one to ask the question and is frankly the least reliable people to do it. He's based his work on shoddy information (if not out right falsifying it) and misleading the veiwers and readers. He's nothing more than a headline grabbing, demagouge.

Again attacking Moore, is not a rebuttle of the entire movie its self, do you get that this is poor debating? If you don't like Moore, fine, but to make the link; Moore I don't like = entire movie is bullshit, is an erroneuous assumption.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-14 12:16am

Crown wrote:

it seems a lot of people are out attacking the movie for some kind of need to dis-credit it so that they wont be forced to ask themselves the difficult questions the movie raises.

Moore failed to raise the most difficult question of all that arises out of even a cursory analysis of US murder statistics.
Why do blacks (specifically young black men) murder themselves far, far out of proportion to the rest of the population?
If you subtract the black murder rate from the US homicide statistics, it's within range of other western countries (3.69, between Australia's and France's)
Is it racism? Breakdown of the family? Extreme poverty? The 'gangsta' culture? Drug wars?

Moore utterly fails to address this question.
In fact, given these statistics, Moore's book title (and rant in London on) Stupid White Men is ironic indeed.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-04-14 12:49am

Glocksman wrote:Moore failed to raise the most difficult question of all that arises out of even a cursory analysis of US murder statistics.
Why do blacks (specifically young black men) murder themselves far, far out of proportion to the rest of the population?
If you subtract the black murder rate from the US homicide statistics, it's within range of other western countries (3.69, between Australia's and France's)
Is it racism? Breakdown of the family? Extreme poverty? The 'gangsta' culture? Drug wars?

Moore utterly fails to address this question.
In fact, given these statistics, Moore's book title (and rant in London on) Stupid White Men is ironic indeed.

That's a whole different movie, and one that doesn't, and can't exist right now because nobody knows the answers to those questions (at least no one that I'm aware of, if someone exists, I'd love to meet and hear from him or her).

You can't criticize the movie based on your belief that it should have been a different movie dealing with different issues. The point of the movie was this: The United States is under the grip of a culture of fear perpetuated by politicians and corporations that has caused us to be more paranoid, more violent, more willing to accept lies from politicians, and more willing to consume certain goods. It also offered a sobering look at our society's fascination with firearms and offered some insights as to why much of the world hates us (I'm sure you all know which video clip I'm talking about, the one with "What a Wonderful World" playing in the background).

I read "The Truth about Bowling" carefully, and while it nitpicked about times and dates at which Charlton Heston was present, or what a plaque in a museum said, it offered no criticism, effective or otherwise, on the main thrust or either of the two tangential thrusts of the movie.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-04-14 12:49am

[liberal]So what if he quotes apparently false statistics and creatively edits speeches to make it sound like the person said what he wants them to? You have to refute every single second of the movie, or you don't count! Waah! Waaah![/liberal]

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 12:52am

Darth Wong wrote:None of which proves he's lying. Look up "ad-hominem".

I'm not saying he's lying. I'm saying his work has things that are flat out wrong (whether through poor fact checking or lying I don't know) but that and his extremely deceptive presentation of his analysis.

He raises good points but his analysis is riddled with flat out wrong information and deliberate distortions of the truth.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-14 12:53am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:[liberal]So what if he quotes apparently false statistics and creatively edits speeches to make it sound like the person said what he wants them to? You have to refute every single second of the movie, or you don't count! Waah! Waaah![/liberal]

[Moron]So what if you can't make a dent in his basic points or deal with the larger issues he raises? You can always use ad-hominem attacks and nitpicks to dismiss everything he says and then hope the whole thing will go away so you can continue sticking your head in the sand! Waah! Waah![/Moron]

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-14 12:54am

Stormbringer wrote:He raises good points but his analysis is riddled with flat out wrong information and deliberate distortions of the truth.

And yet, when challenged to provide examples of this "flat out wrong information", the room grows mysteriously silent, except for the chirping of crickets and the occasional invocation of misleading innuendo (oh, and of course, nitpicks which don't affect the main points; we must never forget the all-important nitpicks ... oh wait a minute, was that an oxymoron?).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 01:05am

Darth Wong wrote:And yet, when challenged to provide examples of this "flat out wrong information", the room grows mysteriously silent, except for the chirping of crickets and the occasional invocation of misleading innuendo (oh, and of course, nitpicks which don't affect the main points; we must never forget the all-important nitpicks ... oh wait a minute, was that an oxymoron?).

The Lochheed missle issue and NRA convention would be wrong. His homicide numbers are also of by several thousand and he uses statistics which distort the picture (using totals in comparison to countries with much smaller populations).

The fact is he might or might not be lying. The fact is his analysis is based on things that are wrong and distortions of the truth.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-04-14 01:08am

Okay, who here is attacking Bowling for Columbine and has not seen it? It will make it easier to address your points. Also I am arguing from memory (not the best position to be in), and Moore certainly did not leave out the 'black question' entirely either. I will have to get my hands on the DVD or a transcript of the movie to make more valid arguments of what the movie did and didn't address...

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-14 01:09am

Precisely; it is my impression he did the same in Dumb White Men. His figures associated with campiagn contrabutions were particularly off, I heard.

I'll try to find the source.

Point being, he's a baffoon with an agenda. A Medieval jester of politics who's rantings and comical shows might have a grain of truth in their spirit, but may by and large be bullshit or just attention whoring.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-14 01:10am

And yet, when challenged to provide examples of this "flat out wrong information", the room grows mysteriously silent, except for the chirping of crickets and the occasional invocation of misleading innuendo (oh, and of course, nitpicks which don't affect the main points; we must never forget the all-important nitpicks ... oh wait a minute, was that an oxymoron?).

So when he uses gun homicide numbers to make it appear as if the US has a murder rate 29 times that of Germany instead of the true 1.64 times greater, that's a nitpick?

Hell, Canada's murder rate is only 1.3 times greater than the US, not the 67 times greater that you would think from watching Bowling.

This film is billed as a look at the US's violent society, not as an attack on guns. So why does he attack the NRA with clever innuendo and use misleading statistics to paint a picture of the USA as a much more violent society than it really is?

Moore is a master at using clever film editing, sarcasm, implied guilt by association, and innuendo to attack those he disagrees with without ever coming right out and saying it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 01:12am

I saw it a long time ago and didn't pay incredible attention to it.

Like I've said, he raised some good questions but his analysis of it was poor. There are plenty of commentators that have adressed the same issues he has and have a lot better (and more honest and accurate) analysis of it.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-14 01:13am

Also I am arguing from memory (not the best position to be in), and Moore certainly did not leave out the 'black question' entirely either

Indeed. I saw it last November and am doing the same as you.
Any errors I make in what took place in the film are mine alone.

And I agree he didn't leave it out entirely, but he didn't address the question head on either. Instead he chose to focus on other issues tangential to the question.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-14 01:26am

Glocksman wrote:So when he uses gun homicide numbers to make it appear as if the US has a murder rate 29 times that of Germany instead of the true 1.64 times greater, that's a nitpick?

Hell, Canada's murder rate is only 1.3 times greater than the US, not the 67 times greater that you would think from watching Bowling.

You said some reasonable things earlier, but now you're just playing games, Glocksman. He reports the total number of murders in Canada vs the US; the fact that he does not spell out for the viewer that Canada's population is smaller is a piss-poor excuse to claim that he's trying to grossly exaggerate the murder rate disparity. And BTW, your stats are bullshit. The American murder rate according to the FBI UCR for 2001 is 5.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. The Canadian murder rate according to StatsCan is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for the same year. On what planet is 5.6 just 1.67 times 1.8? The fact is that the American murder rate is triple the Canadian murder rate even after accounting for the difference in population, and that's with the same TV, the same movies, the same videogames, and a very similar rate of gun ownership. If that doesn't indicate a serious problem with your culture in your mind, feel free to continue shoving your head in the sand.

This film is billed as a look at the US's violent society, not as an attack on guns. So why does he attack the NRA with clever innuendo and use misleading statistics to paint a picture of the USA as a much more violent society than it really is?

Because a criticism of the USA's gun culture is an unavoidable component in any discussion of a generally violent society. In Canada, most people who own guns say they use them for hunting. In the US, a huge contingent of people who own guns say they use them to defend themselves from various boogeymen; evil bad guys, the government, etc. That is no small cultural distinction.

Moore is a master at using clever film editing, sarcasm, implied guilt by association, and innuendo to attack those he disagrees with without ever coming right out and saying it.

Sounds an awful lot like his critics. Once again, I have seen no evidence that he is actually selling lies, as everyone claims.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-14 01:29am

The "questions he raised" have been asked to death for years. He just put a pushy liberal spin on them while editing stuff to support his agenda.

Nothing new from the fat falsifier in my opinion, and I saw the damn thing about two months ago.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 01:36am

Darth Wong wrote:Sounds an awful lot like his critics. Once again, I have seen no evidence that he is actually selling lies, as everyone claims.

That's because his critics have a legitimate point. He might not being lying when what he says doesn't gibe with the facts but if it is just poor research it betrays a fundamental carelessness on his part. Given his less than ethical portrayal a lot of his critics don't buy that is mere carelessness.

The reason he's dimissed is he's either an extremely sloppy documentarian or a liar with an agenda. He's simply not reliable thanks to the fact he has gotten things flat out wrong.

There's no legitimate point he's made that isn't backed up by a better and more trustworthy researcher/commentator.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-14 01:40am

Stormbringer wrote:The reason he's dimissed is he's either an extremely sloppy documentarian or a liar with an agenda. He's simply not reliable thanks to the fact he has gotten things flat out wrong.

And for the second time, when challenged to point out examples of these "flat out wrong" facts, all I get is nitpicks or innuendo. I said this right from the get-go; is there some kind of reading comprehension problem here?

"Oh no, the date is wrong on a speech! The WHOLE FUCKING DOCUMENTARY IS FULL OF LIES AND ALL HIS POINTS ARE WRONG AND HE'S A BIG FAT LIAR!!!!!!"

There's no legitimate point he's made that isn't backed up by a better and more trustworthy researcher/commentator.

Doesn't make his points invalid.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-14 01:40am

And BTW, your stats are bullshit. The American murder rate according to the FBI UCR for 2001 is 5.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. The Canadian murder rate according to StatsCan is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for the same year.

I used Interpol data for the year 2000. The US murder rate for 2000 is 5.5 from the FBI and 5.51 for the same year from Interpol.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statisti ... adList.asp

Look it up for yourself.

Interpol's statistics don't match Statscan's for either 2000 or 2001.
Why not? They match the UCR for both 2000 and 2001. If Interpol's stats are incorrect for Canada, that invalidates my earlier conclusion about Canada.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-14 01:42am

Glocksman wrote:Interpol's statistics don't match Statscan's for either 2000 or 2001. Why not? They match the UCR for both 2000 and 2001.

Ask Interpol. They have less access to the source data than StatsCan does, so there's no reason to assume that their data is more accurate.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 01:44am

And for the second time, when challenged to point out examples of these "flat out wrong" facts, all I get is nitpicks or innuendo. I said this right from the get-go; is there some kind of reading comprehension problem here?

"Oh no, the date is wrong on a speech! The WHOLE FUCKING DOCUMENTARY IS FULL OF LIES AND ALL HIS POINTS ARE WRONG AND HE'S A BIG FAT LIAR!!!!!!"

Actually the fact that he's wrong or lying on a number of points and some of the central to his presentation does make him very unreliable. I can't prove that he lied merely that he has facts flat out wrong. And half his argument is based on inuendo rather than facts so I think he's at best unreliable.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 01:45am

Darth Wong wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Interpol's statistics don't match Statscan's for either 2000 or 2001. Why not? They match the UCR for both 2000 and 2001.
Ask Interpol. They have less access to the source data than StatsCan does, so there's no reason to assume that their data is more accurate.

What is StatsCan and what are there statistics if I might add?