Fatass may lose his Oscar

[Master of Ossus]

Mike, first of all, the speech with Charlton Heston CLEARLY crossed the line between portraying facts and altering them.

Could someone please explain how, then? Everyone keeps repeating this claim, without backing it up.

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

This is, quite obviously, not my work. However, I am writing an editorial about the film, alongside one of my colleagues. We have checked the transcript against the film, and it is accurate. We have also checked the transcripts of Hestons' speeches, and they are accurately reported by this site.

Having said that, look at the sequence when Moore is talking about the Colombine Shooters. He claims that they had not violated any laws when purchasing their firearms, when in fact they are believed to have broken more than 20 Colorado and Federal laws regarding the possession of firearms.

I was not aware of this. If it's true, then it's more serious. So why is everyone harping on bullshit like the placement of a clip from a Heston speech?

I don't know. This is one of the statements that the Littleton Police sent us, when I requested information regarding their firearms codes, following a "60 Minutes" special detailing what happened during the shooting.

They didn't even ATTEND the bowling class that they were alleged to have attended WITHIN THE TITLE OF THE FILM. Moreover, Moore claimed that the Lockheed-Martin plant in Denver built ICBM's, when in fact it was converting ICBM's to be used in commercial satellite-launching endeavors.

Nitpicks, since they aren't particularly important to the underlying argument.

I think that this is substantially more than a nitpick. This is how Moore set up his entire argument.

The scene in which Moore draws a connection between the KKK and the NRA by showing that the NRA was founded in the same year that the KKK was legally outlawed (it had been committing violent crimes long before then), was frankly ludicrous in its dishonest impressions (and the purpose of a documentary is to GIVE PEOPLE THE RIGHT IMPRESSION),

I saw that portion of the film. You are exaggerating.

\

How am I exaggerating?

Does the film attempt to connect the KKK and the NRA by showing that the NRA was founded the same year that the KKK was outlawed? Yes. Is this a legitimate connection? Yes. It should also be noted that during this same cartoon sequence, the figure representing the NRA member assists the KKK-robed character in burning a cross.

and the presentation of Moore purchasing a firearm in a Canadian Walmart in a staged or illegal scene was also dishonest in the extreme.

When did he purchase a firearm in a Canadian Wal-mart?

When he was showing Canada to be a good place to buy guns, since the people there did not have the violent mentalities that they have in America. This is the scene where he says something to the effect of "Look at how an American (Moore) could buy ammunition in a Canadian store."

[Darth Wong]

In a roundabout way he says it:
"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?'"

An obviously rhetorical peacenik question about a society which prides itself on its military prowess. You are stretching this pretty far.

Backpedaling? I don't see myself as backpedaling, considering that I am taking the same stance that I have since the argument started, without rehashing any words I previuosly stated or contradicting myself...

You claimed that the entire argument of the whole documentary falls apart when you knock out that "cornerstone", then you backpedalled to just that PART of the argument.

[Master of Ossus]

You are exaggerating. Moore did indeed take quotes out of context. I agree that this has been clearly established. However, to argue that the result somehow says something completely contrary to Heston's intent is bullshit. Heston is certainly famous for his "cold dead hands" line, and the basic intent of his speech was simply to say that the NRA is not an invading force, but rather, an indigenous political movement. That basic meaning is still present in the edited version.

This goes beyond that, though. Moore was trying to show that the "Cold dead hands" speech was in Denver by showing the protesting crowd outside of the conference center, and then showing Heston's "Cold dead hands" speech, and THEN cutting BACK to the crowd gathered in protest of the NRA meeting. That is clearly taking the quote out of context, particularly since he hadn't even said it at the time of the tragedy.

[Sea Skimmer]

Either that, or it is a careless error, and failure to achieve perfection is not grounds for revocation of an Oscar. One must show that the errors in a documentary are so monumental or ubiquitous that they destroy its point, and what I'm seeing are nitpicks, style over substance attacks, etc.

As I recall, he later tried to defend it by claiming that the satellites controlling ICBM launch where put up with those boosters. Even that's a real stretch since the early warning birds went up using the evil space shuttle.

[Hamel]

The SD.net branch of Michael Moore Hater club just pulled a massive Hamel with the style over substance fallacies

[Darth Wong]

This is, quite obviously, not my work. However, I am writing an editorial about the film, alongside one of my colleagues. We have checked the transcript against the film, and it is accurate. We have also checked the transcripts of Hestons' speeches, and they are accurately reported by this site.

I have examined it as well. The basic meaning of Heston's speech is intact, is it not? So why the outrage over this point?

I don't know. This is one of the statements that the Littleton Police sent us, when I requested information regarding their firearms codes, following a "60 Minutes" special detailing what happened during the shooting.

That would be far more relevant to the point than screaming about Heston. A quote out of context is only considered a serious offense if it substantially changes the meaning of that quote. In this case, Heston's basic point remained intact; the NRA members live there, they aren't invaders, and they aren't going anywhere no matter what the mayor says. How did the edited version change this basic argument?

I think that this is substantially more than a nitpick. This is how Moore set up his entire argument.

His "entire argument" is based on the type of missiles made at the plant?

I saw that portion of the film. You are exaggerating.

How am I exaggerating?

Does the film attempt to connect the KKK and the NRA by showing that the NRA was founded the same year that the KKK was outlawed? Yes. Is this a legitimate connection? Yes. It should also be noted that during this same cartoon sequence, the figure representing the NRA member assists the KKK-robed character in burning a cross.

The facts are correct; the goofy behaviour of the cartoon characters is not. However, you neglect to mention that the behaviour of the cartoon characters is outright clownish throughout the whole sequence and cannot possibly be taken seriously.

When he was showing Canada to be a good place to buy guns, since the people there did not have the violent mentalities that they have in America. This is the scene where he says something to the effect of "Look at how an American (Moore) could buy ammunition in a Canadian store."

Can he? I would have to check Canadian firearms regulations; I know there are a lot of rules regulating the purchase of firearms themselves, but I don't know about the ammo.

[Glocksman]

I conclude that the substantial meaning has not been altered, although it certainly sounds more eloquent and less bullying in its full version.

What the editing does is give the viewer the impression (again, Moore excels in creating impressions) that Heston is being both insensitive and belligerent when he exclaims 'Don't come here? We're already here'.


I grant you that Heston said the words, but the editing changed the context that the words were said in.

In the unedited speech, Heston explains why 'we're already here'.

Saying 'we're already here' in the context of explaining that NRA members are part of, and live in, the community is much different than the impression that you would draw from Moore's edited speech.

The impression that Moore creates with his editing is that Heston is saying 'fuck you' to Denver and that the NRA doesn't give a damn about what happened.

[Nathan F]

You are exaggerating. Moore did indeed take quotes out of context. I agree that this has been clearly established. However, to argue that the result somehow says something completely contrary to Heston's intent is bullshit. Heston is certainly famous for his "cold dead hands" line, and the basic intent of his speech was simply to say that the NRA is not an invading force, but rather, an indigenous political movement. That basic meaning is still present in the edited version.

The basic meaning was still intact. But it is construed to show the NRA, and Mr. Heston in particular, as being completely callous to the act. It fails to say ANYTHING about the NRA cancelling events and festivies in the wake of this, and heavily suggests that the NRA was doign this in DEFIANCE of the tragedy at Columbine.

True, the basic meaning of the speech wasn't change, but the intent definitely was. The meaning was as you said it was. Moore made the intent sound like one of callous defiance and spitting on those who were affected by the Columbine shootings.

[Darth Wong]

As I recall, he later tried to defend it by claiming that the satellites controlling ICBM launch where put up with those boosters. Even that's a real stretch since the early warning birds went up using the evil space shuttle.

I agree that his defense of the error was more egregious than the error itself.

[irishmick79]

You are exaggerating. Moore did indeed take quotes out of context. I agree that this has been clearly established. However, to argue that the result somehow says something completely contrary to Heston's intent is bullshit. Heston is certainly famous for his "cold dead hands" line, and the basic intent of his speech was simply to say that the NRA is not an invading force, but rather, an indigenous political movement. That basic meaning is still present in the edited version.

If somebody didn't know the full text of Heston's speech, that somebody could certainly get the idea that the NRA was being viewed as an invading force, and the "Cold, dead hands" line is clearly edited in to be viewed as provocative. Moore subtly tries to prod the viewer into thinking that the NRA was callous and uncaring towards the columbine community with his edit, and he did nothing to show that Heston did not wish to convey that message at all. That, my friend, is highly misleading to say the least. You cannot possibly justify that kind of conduct in a serious documentary by the director.

[Nathan F]

In a roundabout way he says it:
"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?'"

An obviously rhetorical peacenik question about a society which prides itself on its military prowess. You are stretching this pretty far.

Possibly I am. But it makes the point that Moore isn't past lying to make an argument

Backpedaling? I don't see myself as backpedaling, considering that I am taking the same stance that I have since the argument started, without rehashing any words I previuosly stated or contradicting myself...

You claimed that the entire argument of the whole documentary falls apart when you knock out that "cornerstone", then you backpedalled to just that PART of the argument.

[/quote]
I never said such a thing. I said, quote, that ANYTHING BASED ON THAT ARGUMENT FALLS APART. That is all I EVER intended to say. Anyone who wants can go back and read it.

[Darth Wong]

OK, let's summarize your arguments (and I will try to be fair rather than combative):

Point 1: The meaning of Heston's speech has not been substantially changed through the edits, but it is strongly implied that it was made in response to Columbine, when it was not.

Point 2: It was claimed that the Columbine shooters broke no laws when purchasing their firearms when in fact they did. If this is the case, I do not understand why people are harping on the Heston speech since this is a far more serious error. Could someone please elaborate on this point?

Point 3: The reference to the bowling club is incorrect and misleading. However, I fail to see how the "bowling" part is important, even if it does happen to be in the title.

Point 4: The claim that the Lockheed-Martin plant produced offensive missiles is clearly wrong, and his attempt to justify it is bullshit. I agree with this, although I don't see how it affects the underlying social argument about a society which takes such pride in its military prowess and hardware.

Is this a fair summary?

[Master of Ossus]

That would be far more relevant to the point than screaming about Heston. A quote out of context is only considered a serious offense if it substantially changes the meaning of that quote. In this case, Heston's basic point remained intact; the NRA members live there, they aren't invaders, and they aren't going anywhere no matter what the mayor says. How did the edited version change this basic argument?

The edited version made the speech seem to be a gesture of defiance towards the crowd, as opposed to one of sympathy.

I think that this is substantially more than a nitpick. This is how Moore set up his entire argument.

His "entire argument" is based on the type of missiles made at the plant?

I believe that I said that referring to the fact that the two gunmen did not attend their bowling class at the HS on the day that they began shooting. Yes, Moore does use that as a point from which to begin his alleged documentary.

The facts are correct; the goofy behaviour of the cartoon characters is not. However, you neglect to mention that the behaviour of the cartoon characters is outright clownish throughout the whole sequence and cannot possibly be taken seriously.

I think that it can be. It is drawing a connection between the KKK and the NRA. Here's the kicker. The KKK did NOT "Become a terrorist group" in 1871 (when the NRA was founded). According to ALL definitions, it was ALREADY a terrorist organization, because it had already been involved in financing and organizing terrorist actions (ie. lynchings). It was OUTLAWED in 1871, but it had already been a terrorist group for some time. Moreover, the film does show the sequence in an effort to draw a connection between the two groups. Remember that the job of a documentary is to inform the poeple, and part of that is giving people the correct impressions. That portion of the film does not do so.

When he was showing Canada to be a good place to buy guns, since the people there did not have the violent mentalities that they have in America. This is the scene where he says something to the effect of "Look at how an American (Moore) could buy ammunition in a Canadian store."

Can he? I would have to check Canadian firearms regulations; I know there are a lot of rules regulating the purchase of firearms themselves, but I don't know about the ammo.

http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/mooreguns141102

[Nathan F]

OK, let's summarize your arguments (and I will try to be fair rather than combative):

Point 1: The meaning of Heston's speech has not been substantially changed through the edits, but it is strongly implied that it was made in response to Columbine, when it was not.

That will suffice, agreed.

Point 2: It was claimed that the Columbine shooters broke no laws when purchasing their firearms when in fact they did. If this is the case, I do not understand why people are harping on the Heston speech since this is a far more serious error. Could someone please elaborate on this point?

The point of him misconstruing Heston's speech is one of the things that illustrates how he isn't afraid to bend the truth to his needs. But, I agree, that is a more serious error.

Point 3: The reference to the bowling club is incorrect and misleading. However, I fail to see how the "bowling" part is important, even if it does happen to be in the title.

Agreed, and, I have always kind of wondered the same thing. But, I will have to wait and watch the movie to see...

Point 4: The claim that the Lockheed-Martin plant produced offensive missiles is clearly wrong, and his attempt to justify it is bullshit. I agree with this, although I don't see how it affects the underlying social argument about a society which takes such pride in its military prowess and hardware.

That will suffice as well.

Is this a fair summary?

Sounds good to me.

[Master of Ossus]

OK, let's summarize your arguments (and I will try to be fair rather than combative):

Point 1: The meaning of Heston's speech has not been substantially changed through the edits, but it is strongly implied that it was made in response to Columbine, when it was not.

True. I see this implication as being incorrectly misleading, as the purpose of a documentary is to inform.

Point 2: It was claimed that the Columbine shooters broke no laws when purchasing their firearms when in fact they did. If this is the case, I do not understand why people are harping on the Heston speech since this is a far more serious error. Could someone please elaborate on this point?

I don't know what else you want me to say. I researched this for my editorial. I called the police in Littlerock, and asked them about the firearms codes that the two youths violated. They told me that the kids HAD broken numerous gun-ownership laws (over twenty, counting both state and Federal violations). Moore claims that they "are not believed to have broken" any such laws when purchasing their weapons, during the film. That is a serious error, since ANY check on the matter would have led him to the same conclusions that I reached.

Point 3: The reference to the bowling club is incorrect and misleading. However, I fail to see how the "bowling" part is important, even if it does happen to be in the title.

Moore claims that they went to their bowling class, when in fact they had not. That is another factual error.

Point 4: The claim that the Lockheed-Martin plant produced offensive missiles is clearly wrong, and his attempt to justify it is bullshit. I agree with this, although I don't see how it affects the underlying social argument about a society which takes such pride in its military prowess and hardware.

It's ANOTHER factual error that he could have easily checked on. I find it irrelevant that it was not the focus of his argument. The focus of THIS argument is not to determine the validity of Moore's conclusions, but the validity of his film as a documentary. These documented factual errors are CLEARLY in violation of the rules for a documentary.

Is this a fair summary?

I would also point out that he did not properly represent Canadian gun-laws, when making the film, by showing him purchase ammunition at a Canadian Walmart.

[Darth Wong]

The edited version made the speech seem to be a gesture of defiance towards the crowd, as opposed to one of sympathy.

The speech wasn't a gesture of defiance toward those who would protest his presence? I saw the original version and it certainly seemed that way to me.

I believe that I said that referring to the fact that the two gunmen did not attend their bowling class at the HS on the day that they began shooting. Yes, Moore does use that as a point from which to begin his alleged documentary.

I fail to see how the bowling class is particularly important, except as an easy target for critics. How is his argument predicated upon the bowling class?

I think that it can be. It is drawing a connection between the KKK and the NRA. Here's the kicker. The KKK did NOT "Become a terrorist group" in 1871 (when the NRA was founded). According to ALL definitions, it was ALREADY a terrorist organization, because it had already been involved in financing and organizing terrorist actions (ie. lynchings). It was OUTLAWED in 1871, but it had already been a terrorist group for some time. Moreover, the film does show the sequence in an effort to draw a connection between the two groups. Remember that the job of a documentary is to inform the poeple, and part of that is giving people the correct impressions. That portion of the film does not do so.

True enough, but by depicting ridiculous cartoon people in an obviously exaggerated sequence, it seems like an obvious comedic interlude to me. I can't imagine someone looking at that and taking the actions of the cartoon characters to be completely realistic. As for the connection, would you be surprised if many members of the KKK also happened to be members of the NRA? That is the only connection which I would personally draw from that sequence, and I don't see how it's unrealistic.

http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/mooreguns141102

Fascinating! That part strikes me as very strange; why would a gun-control liberal attempt to portray Canada as having more lax gun laws than it does?

[irishmick79]

Point 1: The meaning of Heston's speech has not been substantially changed through the edits, but it is strongly implied that it was made in response to Columbine, when it was not.

The meaning of Heston's speech WAS changed by the edit. In the Moore version, Heston appears to be standing defiantly in an anti-NRA community shouting, "a bunch of kids died? Who cares! We're gun owners! GIVE EM' HELL!"

While in the transcript of of Heston's speech, he's actually is saying, "We've got as much right as anybody to be here. We want so show our support and mourn with the victims of this tragedy."

By splicing in the "Cold Dead Hands" line, Moore is trying to prod the viewer into thinking that the NRA is part of the reason that the columbine shooters were able to get away with what they did. After all, the NRA fights gun legislation that keeps hands out of "Bad People," right? If the NRA didn't want things like columbine to happen, they shouldn't be so opposed to gun control, right? That's the impression Moore is trying to give with that line, even though that might not necessarily be the case. It really just adds to the distortion of the fact that the littleton shooters broke several laws already, and tries to indicate that the NRA helped made Columbine possible. It's a classic political cheap shot.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know what else you want me to say. I researched this for my editorial. I called the police in Littlerock, and asked them about the firearms codes that the two youths violated. They told me that the kids HAD broken numerous gun-ownership laws (over twenty, counting both state and Federal violations). Moore claims that they "are not believed to have broken" any such laws when purchasing their weapons, during the film. That is a serious error, since ANY check on the matter would have led him to the same conclusions that I reached.

OK, this is indeed a serious error, then. Disregarding the question of why some of his other critics have concentrated on less serious errors when this one was available, I agree that it is a definite indictment of his methods.

I would also point out that he did not properly represent Canadian gun-laws, when making the film, by showing him purchase ammunition at a Canadian Walmart.

Agreed.

So now, we appear to have two serious factual errors which cut directly to the heart of his arguments. Personally, if I was out to discredit the man, I would be attacking these points instead of that Heston speech nonsense and the cartoon sequence.

[Crown]

I hestitate joining this 'debate' simply because I saw the movie four months ago (actuall it's closer to five now), and a few of the 'points' made by people are a little fuzzy in my mind. But I remembered the FAQ page on the official Bowling for Columbine website.

Source

Point 3: The reference to the bowling club is incorrect and misleading. However, I fail to see how the "bowling" part is important, even if it does happen to be in the title.

Q. Why is the movie called "Bowling for Columbine"?
A. First off, let me make it clear that this is not a bowling movie. Bowling fans will be disappointed if they come expecting to see a number of exciting bowling maneuvers.

It is also not a movie about the Columbine tragedy, although that sad event is revisited briefly in the film.

The title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were supposed to be in bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders. At least five witnesses, including their teacher, told the police that they saw one or both boys that morning at the bowling alley for their first hour class. Some school and law enforcement officials later maintained that the two boys skipped that class that morning yet no other witness has come forward to say they saw Eric and Dylan anywhere else that morning.

One reason the film is called "Bowling For Columbine" is that, after the massacre, all the pundits and experts started blaming all the usual suspects that are wheeled out for blame whenever a school shooting occurs-evil rock music (in this case Marilyn Manson), violent video games, and bad parenting.

My point is that those scapegoats make about as much sense as blaming bowling. After all, Eric and Dylan were bowlers, they took bowling class at Columbine-was bowling responsible for their evil deeds? If they bowled that morning, did the bowling trigger their desire to commit mass murder? Or, if they skipped their bowling class that morning, did that bring on the massacre? Had they bowled, that may have altered their mood and prevented them from picking up their guns. As you can see, this is all nonsense, just as it is nonsense to blame Marilyn Manson.

The title suggests other metaphors for the state of the nation which are best left to the viewers and their imagination.

And this fits perfectly with the way I remembered the movie. It mentioned that they were in a bowling club at school, and in file footage when the police were asked what the boys were doing in the morning of the shootings they responded 'aparently they were bowling', which Moore specifically stated in the movie was later denied.

Point 4: The claim that the Lockheed-Martin plant produced offensive missiles is clearly wrong, and his attempt to justify it is bullshit. I agree with this, although I don't see how it affects the underlying social argument about a society which takes such pride in its military prowess and hardware.

Q. How did you convince Lockheed to let you in their missile factory in Littleton?
A. Well, first of all, the Lockheed PR people would disagree with your use of the term, "missile." They now call their Titan and Atlas missiles on which nuclear warheads were once (and still are but in less numbers) attached, "rockets." That’s because the 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).

Lockheed Martin is the largest defense contractor in the United States. They gave us the MX missile and are now heavily involved in developing the nutty Star Wars missile defense shield. They have five facilities in and around the Littleton and Denver area and they are the #1 private employer in the school district that contains Columbine High School.

How did I get their permission to film there? I threatened them with bombing, of course.

Make up your own minds.

[Glocksman]

Personally, if I was out to discredit the man, I would be attacking these points instead of that Heston speech nonsense and the cartoon sequence.

What's the #1 organization in the US that you think of when the phrase 'gun rights' is mentioned?

The NRA.

When Moore takes his shots at the NRA, he's attacking the organization that, depending upon your point of view, either:

(a) Defends the rights of law abiding gun owners.

-or-

(b) Prevents common sense legislation from being passed to control these dangerous weapons.

I personally subscribe to (a), therefore when Moore attacks Heston and the NRA I respond to those attacks.


And as far as the cartoon sequence goes, I think you're underestimating the power of the visuals. The narrator says one thing in the cross burning sequence while the visual shows the Klansmen pulling off their robes and spinning the KKK sign to read NRA and then going on to help light the cross.

That part tells me that Moore is going beyond what you got out of the sequence and is trying to portray the NRA as a racist organization.

It may be a cartoon, but cartoons are no longer the stuff of Saturday morning kiddie entertainment.

[Master of Ossus]

The edited version made the speech seem to be a gesture of defiance towards the crowd, as opposed to one of sympathy.

The speech wasn't a gesture of defiance toward those who would protest his presence? I saw the original version and it certainly seemed that way to me.

I don't think so. I think it was a statement of sympathy and shared grief. I think that Heston's speech was saying that NRA members were sharing in the pain and suffering of the people in Littlerock in wake of the tragedy.

I believe that I said that referring to the fact that the two gunmen did not attend their bowling class at the HS on the day that they began shooting. Yes, Moore does use that as a point from which to begin his alleged documentary.

I fail to see how the bowling class is particularly important, except as an easy target for critics. How is his argument predicated upon the bowling class?

I still see that as being of secondary importance. His argument is not what is being attacked--his FACTS are what are getting him in trouble.

I think that it can be. It is drawing a connection between the KKK and the NRA. Here's the kicker. The KKK did NOT "Become a terrorist group" in 1871 (when the NRA was founded). According to ALL definitions, it was ALREADY a terrorist organization, because it had already been involved in financing and organizing terrorist actions (ie. lynchings). It was OUTLAWED in 1871, but it had already been a terrorist group for some time. Moreover, the film does show the sequence in an effort to draw a connection between the two groups. Remember that the job of a documentary is to inform the poeple, and part of that is giving people the correct impressions. That portion of the film does not do so.

True enough, but by depicting ridiculous cartoon people in an obviously exaggerated sequence, it seems like an obvious comedic interlude to me. I can't imagine someone looking at that and taking the actions of the cartoon characters to be completely realistic. As for the connection, would you be surprised if many members of the KKK also happened to be members of the NRA? That is the only connection which I would personally draw from that sequence, and I don't see how it's unrealistic.

Actually, President Grant (who signed the order outlawing the KKK) later became the president of the NRA. In fact, most of the NRA's early presidents had served in the Union Army during the Civil War. The connection between the KKK and the NRA has become much more easy to draw in recent years, but during 1871 the two were diametrically opposed on a number of important issues, including policies on firearms.

http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/mooreguns141102

Fascinating! That part strikes me as very strange; why would a gun-control liberal attempt to portray Canada as having more lax gun laws than it does?

I have no idea why he would portray Canada as having more lax gun laws than it actually does. The website that I referred you to earlier (that compared the two transcripts) suggested that it was because he was admitting that the NRA was correct in saying that "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people." It actually made a reasonably convincing argument. I think that Moore's film was more criticizing American culture than guns themselves.

[Colonel Olrik]

But, when you allow the innuendo and distortion into a documentary, does the documentary not become simply a piece of propaganda then? Where do you draw the line?

Propaganda is notorious for not only ajusting facts to match its views, but also for inventing them when they don't exist. Make an appointement with the former iraqi information minister for details.

If a documentary presents only true facts in a way favourable to the authors view, it's not propaganda, it's taking a side by not being 100% objective. Something you'll find in most or all news agencies everywhere.

[Nathan F]

I am currently watching this movie.

Lemme tell ya, if you want to see a load of bull crap, go watch it.

It uses constant innuendo that gun owners are crazed maniacs, as a nice long anti-war rant scene (Which includes a butt load of half truths), the previously mentioned missile scene is as bad as it was made out to be, and there is a new part that includes a nice lie. He tells of a B-52 on the grounds of the Air Force Academy, saying that it has a plaque 'proudly telling of how it took part in the killing of Vietnamese citizens.' The plaque tells that the plane on display took part in Operation Linebacker, if I recall correctly, as I have seen it myself. It most assuredely says nothing about bragging about the killing of civilians.

Then comes the gun laws. He says the guns were all legally purchased at gun shows. They might have been. But he fails to say that they weren't purchased by the killers, and if they had been, they were far from legally purchased.

And THEN comes the spewing of the crap on Heston. He then cuts to the tape of Heston's 'From my cold, dead hands' speech (which, might I add, was taped the year before, iirc), and says 'that just 10 days later, the NRA held a gun rally in Denver'. Nope, wrong again. Not a gun rally. It was the annual business meeting of the NRA. He then cuts to the part about the letter from the mayor askign them not to come there. Of course, he cuts out the part that includes the apology and expression of grief.

When I get done, I will give another report of some highlights. I suggest you find the movie and watch it yourself though.

[Coyote]

People are a fucking hoot. When Michael Moore presents some steaming turd that is full of "misleading innuendo" it is defended since it is not an "all-out lie" even though the conclusions that an unfamiliar person will get from it are erroneous-- thus making it serve the purpose of a lie...

...so what, then, is your beef with Fox News? They present news with an admittedly more-to-the-right stance... they present what happened but there may be some "misleading innuendo" there, too.

Michael Moore presented things in such a way that a person unfamiliar with the debate will walk away with a "particular point of view". He deliberately left out certain contextual or background information that would allow the person a more fair and accurate abilty to judge for him or her self. Anyone who defends that kind of slant reporting bias is as good as a Fundie.

[Master of Ossus]

People are a fucking hoot. When Michael Moore presents some steaming turd that is full of "misleading innuendo" it is defended since it is not an "all-out lie" even though the conclusions that an unfamiliar person will get from it are erroneous-- thus making it serve the purpose of a lie...

...so what, then, is your beef with Fox News? They present news with an admittedly more-to-the-right stance... they present what happened but there may be some "misleading innuendo" there, too.

Michael Moore presented things in such a way that a person unfamiliar with the debate will walk away with a "particular point of view". He deliberately left out certain contextual or background information that would allow the person a more fair and accurate abilty to judge for him or her self. Anyone who defends that kind of slant reporting bias is as good as a Fundie.

Fox News is a news agency. It has certain moral and legal obligations to report stories accurately and quickly to the people whom they serve. Granted, I think that those extend into documentary films, and thus should also govern BFC and other series, but the point is the same. Fox sometimes ignores its requirements to confirm stories, Moore obviously has barely researched what he's talking about.