Do you have a positive or negative view of MICHAEL MOORE and WHY...

[Ikari]

I don't really like him at all. He's a very polarizing propaganda artist the likes of Hannity and Beck. More annoying than anything else.

 

[Ockham]

It's dumb to criticize someone for manipulating information - especially on this board where EVERYONE of us manipulate information for our political purposes.

Moore makes millions of dollars off his manipulations. Not dumb at all - in fact, very pertinent.

The idiotic thing is that people here are threatening violence over free speech and comparing him to brutal dictators who have killed millions of people.

Quite true - they give him too much credit. He's the crusty skid mark... and not "the ****" people thought him to be.

If douchebaggery over politics is the same as murder, then every tear Glenn Beck sheds kills at least 20,000,000 people.

Yeah and Paul Krugman must have killed at least a Billion in his extended stay.

You decide especially the next time you post images about shooting people or want to drown someone in a pool of crocodiles.

Oh come now... is a target used for the express purpose of using one's 2nd amendment rights now a "threat"? I mean, he makes a helluva target paper given his bloated size.

And by the way, I hadn't voted until now. And I went positive (I would have chosen neutral) because I hold him in much higher esteem now compared the people on this board who threaten to kill those they disagree with.

Well good for you! I hope I pushed you over to vote positive. It can't look like everyone hates the man... Go out and rent all his movies this week and give him a few sheckles in royalty's too. Hope I helped! :wave:

 

[Mensch]

Prove to me where Moore supports totalitarianism. You assert it without actual evidence and instead with a leap of logic that doesn't pass muster. That technique is very similar to right-wing goofball websites. Thus the accusation that you are quoting them.

You base your assertion without providing a fact behind it. He supports socialism, therefore he supports totalitarianism. Wrong. You could have just as easily said: he supports socialism, therefore he supports democratic socialism, such as in France, Norway, or other nations whose systems he has expressed a liking for.

You didn't do that. You created a logical fallacy, failed to provide a fact to back your assertion or belief, and are therefore even more guilty of Moore of propaganda.

To dislike him is one thing (and utterly fair) - to say he supports Hitler and Pol Pot is utterly useless hyperbole.

He supports Castro just like Oliver Stone supports Hugo Chavez. When you're commending socialistic systems ruled by dictators, why is it such a stretch to drop the names of other dictators (OK forget Hitler) in making a comparison?

Just as a side note I don't think any student of history can deny the influence of marxist socialism on Western Europe. Many of these western european countries have only recently shed their totalitarian systems.

 

[Mensch]

I like Moore's films, they're extremely well done. The propaganda point is kind of overblown... but mostly, comparing all propaganda to Nazi propaganda is dumb. The United States also produced propaganda... Dr. Seuss drew American propaganda in the early 1940s. You never hear somebody say: Michael Moore's films are propaganda. You know who else produced great propaganda? DR. SEUSS! Moore's best films examine an issue in an interesting manner and offer a heaping dose of pathos that sometimes simplifies aspects of the issue to the point where they are misrepresented. But in films like Roger and Me, it's done so for the purpose of being entertaining and not to be dishonest.



I think that's ridiculous. Do you really not understand the difference between socialism and fascism?

1)
I do not deny the existence of war propaganda. This thread is not about American war propaganda during WW2. This is about propaganda TODAY. Unfortunately, we all acknowledge the propaganda of yesterday. Moore's propaganda is seen as almost absolute truth.
2)
Yes, I know very well the difference between socialism and fascism. Do you? Do you know how similar they are? Have you actually read anything in regards to Mussolini's economic policies? Do you know why Hitler and Stalin were so much alike? Do you know why the Nazi party contained (at various times) the words "worker's party" and "national SOCIALIST?" The differences between the totalitarian communist countries and the totalitarian fascist countries are quite limited in comparison to their similarities.

 

[Mensch]

It's dumb to criticize someone for manipulating information - especially on this board where EVERYONE of us manipulate information for our political purposes.

The idiotic thing is that people here are threatening violence over free speech and comparing him to brutal dictators who have killed millions of people.

If douchebaggery over politics is the same as murder, then every tear Glenn Beck sheds kills at least 20,000,000 people.

And I've seen more threats of violence from people on this board than I've ever heard from Michael Moore. Thus, I wonder who is closer to a brutal dictator. Someone who exaggerates in his documentaries or someone who would threaten to kill someone because of their political beliefs?

You decide especially the next time you post images about shooting people or want to drown someone in a pool of crocodiles.

___

And by the way, I hadn't voted until now. And I went positive (I would have chosen neutral) because I hold him in much higher esteem now compared the people on this board who threaten to kill those they disagree with.

Lighten up. You got so worked up that you failed to realize the joke posted by a very liberal poster in regards to Moore being thrown into a pool of crocidles.

 

[Mustachio]

1)
I do not deny the existence of war propaganda. This thread is not about American war propaganda during WW2. This is about propaganda TODAY. Unfortunately, we all acknowledge the propaganda of yesterday. Moore's propaganda is seen as almost absolute truth.
2)
Yes, I know very well the difference between socialism and fascism. Do you? Do you know how similar they are? Have you actually read anything in regards to Mussolini's economic policies? Do you know why Hitler and Stalin were so much alike? Do you know why the Nazi party contained (at various times) the words "worker's party" and "national SOCIALIST?" The differences between the totalitarian communist countries and the totalitarian fascist countries are quite limited in comparison to their similarities.

1. I understand why you are annoyed by people who interpret Moore's films as the absolute truth. I understand why people are annoyed that Moore insists that everything he says is the absolute truth and reinforces that flawed notion when his fans express it. But people are responsible for their own handle on the truth or lack thereof, and Moore's job as a director is to make a film that moves and entertains people. Again, though, I see where you and many others are coming from.
2. Socialism is absolutely nothing like fascism. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say because you states that socialism and fascism are similar and then you say that communist totalitariansm and fascist totalitarianism have very little in common... did I read that wrong? I'm a bit confused by the point you're trying to make.

I think I may not have stated my point very well, either. What I was trying to say is this: Michael Moore is very consistent with his themes, which are about holding wealthy and powerful people accountable for their corruption (with a bias leaning left as we all know) and prohibiting corporations, special interests, and the media from taking the reigns over public policies ranging from gun control to health care and foreign policy. He wants the federal government to keep these sectors in check and believes they have failed to do so and it has been harmful to millions of Americans. Equating this approach to endorsing totalitarianism is more disingenuous than anything Moore has ever accused his opponents of.

 

[American]

Well, I don't appreciate Limbaugh anymore than I appreciate Moore. I think both are somewhat conspiracy theorists. I have a larger problem with Moore because his entertainment leads to people making drastic mistakes at the voting booths. Limbaugh advances a chauvinistic form of radical capitalism while Moore advances the sacrifice of individual rights over collective control. As I said earlier: totalitarianism.

Limbaugh doesn't promote conspiracies.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What is your overall opinion of Michael Moore, his work, and why?

On one hand, I don't care for his documentaries because they are obviously biased. On the other hand, he does bring up issues that others do not talk about, which I think is a good thing, even if does manhandle them in his movies.

 

[Kali]

Michael Moore is worse than Glenn Beck. I hold a negative view of Moore.

Worse than Beck? How so?

 

[Manc Skipper]

... Many of these western european countries have only recently shed their totalitarian systems.

Which many would that be? And how long ago was "recently?"

 

[spud_meister]

Yes, I know very well the difference between socialism and fascism. Do you? Do you know how similar they are? Have you actually read anything in regards to Mussolini's economic policies? Do you know why Hitler and Stalin were so much alike? Do you know why the Nazi party contained (at various times) the words "worker's party" and "national SOCIALIST?" The differences between the totalitarian communist countries and the totalitarian fascist countries are quite limited in comparison to their similarities.

Mussolini created Facism as direct opposition to Communism, he advocated a strong social class system, he even stated that Facism should be called Corporatism "because it is a merger of state and corporate power”.
Communism seeks to abolish social classes, it seeks to abolish corporate power, it was only with the corruptions in both ideologies that the similarites existed.

 

[Helvidius]

From what I have seen from this website, it looks pretty legit.

MOOREWATCH - Watching Michael Moore's every move

I am not a fan of Mr. Moore

 

[hazlnut]

What is your overall opinion of Michael Moore, his work, and why?

He's a very talented documentary filmmaker. I don't always agree with his point of view, but he's combined propaganda and satire in a very unique way -- making himself the anti-hero. His films are part expose/investigation and part political cartoon--making fun of his opposition.

As a media professional and a fan of great documentary filmmakers like Wiseman and Morris, I appreciate Moore's work for what it is--propaganda, or a non-fiction film designed to sway your point of view. You take it with a grain of salt.

Bowling for Columbine is his best work, a brilliant piece on American Gun Culture. It wasn't an anti-gun piece, more a portrait of America at the end of the 90's, stubborn, passionate, often too proud for our own good... James Nichols bedroom to Charolton Heston's game room, so well done.

Sicko was also extremely well done. -- People too often take his points as absolutes and instead just thought-provoking questions.

Capitalism was flawed but still better than most political stuff out there.

There was one really good documentary about Michael Moore--it was honest enough to show both sides, his critics and his admirers, what he does well and why people like him, and how he plays fast and loose with the timing of events and framing of an argument. Like an attorney making his closing argument, Moore presents the best evidence to help his case and leaves out the rest. Grain of salt, just like fox news.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Worse than Beck? How so?

Michael Moore is a lot more clever than Beck, in the end though, they both do things to appeal to their target audience in malicious ways.

Moore comes to a conclusion and then finds evidence to support it.
It's a bit of conformation bias with a mix of white and black propaganda.

He rarely, if ever, includes information that puts his favored policies in a negative light.
That's called lying by omission.

If anyone thinks his work is either a documentary or truthful, you have been duped.
Documentaries are investigative and do not purposefully intend to put something in a bad light.
They are meant to show what is, not what the creator wants it to be.

In my opinion he is a scum bag of the highest order, at least Beck has openly stated that his show is for entertainment only.

 

[Orion]

I find him highly biased, but like with most people, there is some truth to the things he says. I approach him with a critical eye in everything he says though.

 

[LizardofOz]

From what I have seen from this website, it looks pretty legit.

MOOREWATCH - Watching Michael Moore's every move

I am not a fan of Mr. Moore

Did you know Michael Moore paid the guy that runs that money so that his wife could get surgery that his insurance couldn't cover, because Moore was afraid that the site would go down and he loves to read it?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

He's the left's version of Ann Coulter. I just watched Capitalism: A Love Story and couldn't even pick out his arguments, and this coming from a communist. I can't stand him.

 

[Mustachio]

If anyone thinks his work is either a documentary or truthful, you have been duped.
Documentaries are investigative and do not purposefully intend to put something in a bad light.
They are meant to show what is, not what the creator wants it to be.

It's not really true that documentaries don't purposefully intend to put something in a bad light. Look at The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris. It's a documentary that's meant to skewer the Texas justice system for wrongly convicting a man of a crime he didn't commit. It's regarded as one of the greatest documentaries ever made and actually resulted in the conviction being overturned.

Capturing the Friedmans is another example of a great documentary that attacks the justice system for wrongly convicting people accused of child molestation. The film argues that the facts are unclear and the son, who was sent to prison for ten years, was innocent of all charges. The reality of the situation is that the circumstances surrounding the case were not as clear cut in favor of the defendents as portrayed in the film. It's still great.

Whether or not documentarians have an obligation to be impartial is disputed, but one thing that's clear is that when they are impartial, they are less entertaining. You can't blame Moore for trying to make entertaining films, but your complaint about him insisting to portray the straight facts is a valid one.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's not really true that documentaries don't purposefully intend to put something in a bad light. Look at The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris. It's a documentary that's meant to skewer the Texas justice system for wrongly convicting a man of a crime he didn't commit. It's regarded as one of the greatest documentaries ever made and actually resulted in the conviction being overturned.

Capturing the Friedmans is another example of a great documentary that attacks the justice system for wrongly convicting people accused of child molestation. The film argues that the facts are unclear and the son, who was sent to prison for ten years, was innocent of all charges. The reality of the situation is that the circumstances surrounding the case were not as clear cut in favor of the defendents as portrayed in the film. It's still great.

Whether or not documentarians have an obligation to be impartial is disputed, but one thing that's clear is that when they are impartial, they are less entertaining. You can't blame Moore for trying to make entertaining films, but your complaint about him insisting to portray the straight facts is a valid one.

The definition of documentary is,

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Notice number 2.
Now you can document anything but in order to remain legitimate and fair, you must include all known factual information.
Moore does not do this.

He specifically paints one side as good and the other as bad.
It's obvious and his films are not documentaries, they are political films.

I bet dollars to donuts that if Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc made a fictional documentary, as Moore does.
No one, except the most partisan, would take it as serious objective information.

I can't believe people don't see through this load of crap.

Edit add: I understand he wants them to be entertaining in order to make a buck but they shouldn't be called documentaries.
That terms implies that the information is objective to some degree, which it isn't.
He makes political films, that's it.

 

[Camlon]

I hold a negative view about Micheal Moore, because he is uninformed and very often distorts the truth or even lies. The problem is, a lot of people believe him, especially in many people in Europe think Moore describes America in accurate way. Also many Americans end up thinking that everything is so much better in Europe, which isn't true at all.

For instance when he went to Cuba, was sent to a hospital for foreigners and was given first class treatment. In real Cuba, the health care is terrible, but a lot of people got fooled into thinking that the average Cuban get the same treatment as Moore did.

YouTube - ‪Michael Moore in Norway‬‎
Also, since I'm originally from Norway, I can tell many of the lies of the clip in Norway.
1. He didn't go to Norway , because it was too good to be true.
- Actually he didn't go there because Norway is an oil country, and that would discredit him.

2. Buy you a car if you have trouble using public transportation.
- Nope, what in reality happens is that you can get some voucher for a few taxi trips per year if you have trouble using public transportation and can't use a car. Anyway, who can use a car, but can't use public transportation?

3. Rank number 1 in HDI, hence they are in the top of literacy, education, health care
- Bull****, in health care WHO does not give Norway very high ranking. Education, Norway is below average in every single international survey and is not doing well at all. Actually HDI has only three factors that distingush western countries, retirement age, GDP per capita, and school enrolment which is totally irrelevant for western countries. And since Norway does better in GDP per capita (because of oil) and school enrolment, then Norway is number 1 in HDI.

4. They are ahead of the rest of the world in renewable energies.
- Not really, Norway does have a lot of hydropower, but that is just luck with the geographics and low population. But other than that, most European countries are doing much better.

5. Oh.. and I love how he is so happy about the prison camp. I don't know about you, but I would like to punish the criminals as well. Also, I'm sure that place is not as fun in the winter and when it is raining. I mean the average weather over on the west coast is around 18C in the summer and 2C in the winter and it rains all the time. Evidently all of his pictures were from sunny warm days in Norway.

Also he didn't mention.
1. Police protection is very weak, even when you know the suspect and have evidence, it is very common for police to dismiss you case. Actually there is an unwritten rule that they do not take cases worth less than 20000 dollars. Yes, the murder rate is pretty low, but not lowest, but other types of crime isn't. Actually the number of criminal reports in the capital Oslo, is 4 times as high as New York. It's not as peaceful as it might sound like.
2. Long health care lines, also for important stuff like cancer, similar to every single country that has public health care system. Doesn't mean that US shouldn't have a public health care system, but it's not perfect.
3. The broken education system
4. The high taxes.
5. And the high living standards might have something to do with all of the oil.

It's very clear that Moore distorts facts, and he only presents the what's is good about social democratic systems and bad about the American system.

 

[Camlon]

I hold a negative view about Micheal Moore, because he is uninformed and very often distorts the truth or even lies. The problem is, a lot of people believe him, especially in many people in Europe think Moore describes America in accurate way. Also many Americans end up thinking that everything is so much better in Europe, which isn't true at all.

For instance when he went to Cuba, was sent to a hospital for foreigners and was given first class treatment. In real Cuba, the health care is terrible, but a lot of people got fooled into thinking that the average Cuban get the same treatment as Moore did.

YouTube - ‪Michael Moore in Norway‬‎
Also, since I'm originally from Norway, I can tell many of the lies of the clip in Norway.
1. He didn't go to Norway , because it was too good to be true.
- Actually he didn't go there because Norway is an oil country, and that would discredit him.

2. Buy you a car if you have trouble using public transportation.
- Nope, what in reality happens is that you can a voucher of a few taxi trips per year if you have trouble using public transportation and can't use a car. Anyway, who can use a car, but can't use public transportation?

3. Rank number 1 in HDI, hence they are in the top of literacy, education, health care
- Bull****, in health care WHO does not give Norway very high ranking. Education, Norway is below average in every single international survey and is not doing well at all. Actually HDI has only three factors that distingush western countries, retirement age, GDP per capita, and school enrolment which is totally irrelevant for western countries. And since Norway does better in GDP per capita (because of oil) and school enrolment, then Norway is number 1 in HDI.

4. They are ahead of the rest of the world in renewable energies.
- Not really, Norway does have a lot of hydropower, but that is just luck with the geographics and low population. But other than that, most European countries are doing much better.

5. Oh.. and I love how he is so happy about the prison camp. I don't know about you, but I would like to punish the criminals as well. Also, I'm sure that place is not as fun in the winter and when it is raining. I mean the average weather over on the west coast is around 18C in the summer and 2C in the winter and it rains all the time. Evidently all of his pictures were from sunny warm days in Norway.

Also he didn't mention.
1. Police protection is very weak, even when you know the suspect and have evidence, it is very common for police to dismiss you case. Actually there is an unwritten rule that they do not take cases worth less than 20000 dollars.
2. Long health care lines, also for important stuff like cancer, similar to every single country that has public health care system. Doesn't mean that US shouldn't have a public health care system, but it's not perfect.
3. The broken education system
4. The high taxes.
5. And the high living standards might have something to do with all of the oil.

It's very clear that Moore distorts facts, and he only presents the what's is good about social democratic systems and bad about the American system.

 

[Fiddytree]

Sound and Fury is an example of a documentary that can admired, even with its limitation. It approached the controversy from perhaps one angle more than another, but gave a damn good shake at the other angle. Then, years later, the creators made a follow-up film, which may have turned the conclusion of the first film upside down.

 

[chickie]

I think he's a disgusting fat ass, America-hating, terrorist-coddling traitor whose 15 minutes are WAY over.

 

[Kali]

I think he's a disgusting fat ass, America-hating, terrorist-coddling traitor whose 15 minutes are WAY over.

Based on this thread and the fact that people are still talking about him? His 15 mins are far from over. I cannot wait for his next work of brilliance to come out.

 

[Mensch]

Which many would that be? And how long ago was "recently?"

For starters, Spain was a totalitarian state up until the 1970s. Unified Germany was only a free, independent state since the 1990s. France, IMHO, was borderline totalitarian with de Gaulle in power.