Fahrenheit 9/11...

[tyjet3]

Okay. So you think that the sources were staged? Back that up.

 

Moore does it in all his movies.... He twist stuff to make his point stronger....

 

Do you people not realize what he did to representative Kennedy!?!?! He completly removed factual information from that interview to make Kennedy look stupid... If that isn't corruption of information I don't know what is...

 

As I stated before... If he was making a documentory it would have showed on the discovery channel or something but it didn't because he was making a movie... BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

 

It's his job, he wants money!! You don't get money fom telling the truth, you get money from having an audience...

 

When will you people understand that he is just a currupt man yelling twisted facts so he can make money!!

[surian]

I don't necessarily agree that there is little greatness left in America. We have a lot going for us. I do however, think that this president is destroying our country.

[ImmortalSnafu]

That's what I meant Surian ;)

[sixtofive]

here is a great story for anyone who still thinks this man has any credibility:

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

[ImmortalSnafu]

That isn't a story it is an editorial.

[Eiade]

Moore does it in all his movies.... He twist stuff to make his point stronger....

 

But there are times when he isn't twisting anything. There are no staged sources. All of his sources are legit. For instance, Bush's military record, and his interviews with the democratic congress members, and some of the top people in the cabinet.

 

. . . did to representative Kennedy!?!?! . . . BIG DIFFERENCE!!! . . .

he wants money!! . . . can make money!!

 

Stop yelling. And go see the movie.

 

 

sixtofive: I still wouldn't trust any news source as there is an unbelievable amount of bias in news.

[sixtofive]

That isn't a story it is an editorial.

pardon me oh god of english, my mistake

 

On another note, I can't argue against the fact that there is a lot of bias in news

[ImmortalSnafu]

pardon me oh god of english, my mistake

Well you were flaunting it as if it were gold...

[surian]

Like I've said before, Mike does use some tricks in his movies to make people look dumber than they are, however, I have yet to see anyone come up and say that he has blatently LIED about any point in his movie. The thing with Rep. Kennedy is a point that has been brought up several times here and I'll conceed (sp?) to the point that he twisted it to make Kenenedy look foolish. However, that doesn't make his point less valid. His point was that the rich don't send their kids to war, it's the poor that end up fighting the wars that the political and social elite declair. It's not a new idea, it's been around since the first war ever made by man. Mike's slight of hand in his clip with Rep. Kennedy doesn't do anything to disprove this point.

 

One of my biggest gripes with Micheal Moore's movies is that he does just what I stated above, he gets really good facts and really persuasivly connects them together and then sets himself up for a beating by doing stupid things like include a clip with Rep. Kennedy that he cut in half in order to make his point. He shouldn't do things like that becasue it opens himself up for the kind of critisism we're seeing here. His points are valid and his facts are true, he just gets a little trigger happy when it comes to trying to be ironic in his films. And let's be clear on this: He was trying to be ironic when he talked to the senetors and representatives in Washington about signing up their kids for a tour of duty in Iraq. It would be one thing if he was serious about it and then cut out a piece of the film that made him look bad, but he wasn't. I feel embarased to have to do this but I'll explain it really clearly:

 

He was trying to be ironic in so far as we all know that no one is seriously going to sign up their kids to go to war in Iraq. In fact, they can't sign up their kids to do that becasue the kids need to do it themselves. It was an attempt at humor through the sheer idiocy of the idea. Therefore he never "twisted the truth" in his clip with Rep. Kennedy becasue there was no "truth" to twist, it wasn't about truth it was about trying to be funny and make a point at the same time. He could have also just drawn a cartoon of the whole thing and made the same point without actually talking to a real person. Get it?

 

Like I said, I wish he wouldn't do this because it opens him up to attacks when people inevidably find some hole to poke at. He did it a lot more in Bowling for Columbine than he did in F 9-11 and I'm glad that he refrained from it a little. But it's his style of making a point I guess, and sometimes it really works well.

 

I'm also going to say that it's not a valid point to say that he stages his interviews with people by telling them his questions and then saying "here's what I want you to say". This is STANDARD for making a documentary. The fact is, these people arn't saying anything they don't actually believe anyway. He just tells them as a director that he needs a clip with them where they say such-and-such so that he can make a point. The people would have said something like this anyway but in a movie or documentory you need to have some direction for the flow of ideas. He's not going to go up to Bill O'Reilly and say: "hey, I need you to say 'I'm a big idiot' so I can use it in my movie" because there is no way that Bill would say that. You don't go up to someone and interview them for a documentary without knowing what the person is going to say to you and what you are going to say to them. However, let's be clear here also, he doesn't give them a script and say "memorize these lines" either.

[tyjet3]

I still wouldn't trust any news source as there is an unbelievable amount of bias in news.

 

Ok... so you won't trust the news but you will trust a movie based off of news stories... ok, that make sense...