Michael Moore - liberator or slanderer

[kal-el]

Is Michael Moore a Hero or a Hypocrite?

I view these types of people, including many tv commentators and authors, whether on the left or right as entertainers. They want their media to suceed. The best way to do this is to be controversial, extremely one sided, etc.

Exactly. I think that Michael Moore stretches the truth a little in his movies. It would be exactly the same if Rush Limbaugh made films.

 

[freethought6t9]

I would say that Rush is a whole lot worse than Moore. Once again, a whole team of New York Times fact checkers were uable to find a single falsehood. But here's a story I love about Rush;

At the time of Clintons ridiculous health care plan some organisation although I can't remember which it was decided to conduct a study. They asked a broad base of people who used different media sources some in depth questions about the plan, Rush's audience claimed to be the best-informed when they were in fact the least.

Moores film was highly partisan I agree, but he doesn't hold his fans in contempt the way Rush does, he doesn't fabricate, distort and lie, he stretches and attempts to make connections that aren't altogether obvious. Meanwhile Rush said that Cindy Sheehans story was nothing but forged documents while Moore allowed her to blog on his site. And on economic issues, corporate power, the war in Iraq and maybe even Bush, recent polls show the majority of Americans agree with him.

 

[kal-el]

Your're right, Rush is probably worse than Moore. Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite. For years he acted against drug defendents, pushing for strict punishments for offenses such as minor possesion of substances like marijuana. Then, the hypocrite that he is, attempts to buy tens of thousands of dollars of narcotics from his housekeeper. Why? Oh yeah, he's a drug abuser. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and damn good at what he does. He just spits out all the opinions of his conservative audience right back at them, so they can feel justified in their opinions because a guy on the radio agrees with them. Yep, that's some deep scholarship and political discourse right there - an uneducated opinionist on the radio spits out half-baked soundbites he already knows all his listeners agree with, and you all just lap it up with a smile. That's not discussion, it's just mental masturbation. He has little if any respect for his audience; you all are just a meal ticket for a bloated pill-popping media enterpriser.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

sence in the White House as the majority of Americans voted for him, at least the second time round, thats part of democracy, and I think its all too easy to blaim the media when it doesn't swing your way.

I am just telling it the way it is. 10 years ago there were 50 MNC's controling virtually all outlets of print, music, and tv. Today there are less than 10. Our mainstream media has been homgenized. Professional journalist know this all to well. When Rupert Murdoch bought Fox, he fired nearly all the journalists, and replaced them with specialized pundits. They don't do investigative journalism anymore. They just recieve the info via reuters, etc and report what they want. When it's time to look official, the bring on pundits to lend themselves credibility. Mainstream media today is a farce. That's a fact. To keep up with the Rupert's, CNN followed suit to boost profits by more than 300 million dollars. Reliable journalism goodbye!

Now, you've got get on the net and dig for information of you want to know the truth. That's something the public unfortunately does not have time to do. Nor do they even realize what is going on, because who is going to put it on the air prime time? Nobody. So, there they are. In the dark. Meanwhile, Bush slips into office, because no one was there to report to the masses the real story.

 

[kal-el]

That **** about Limbaugh being "factually correct" all the time is just stupid. The reason people think that is because nobody bothers to check. If you get online though, there are watchdog sites that keep track of the BS, and of course the Franken show, which is infotainment as well but infinately less stupid and at least honest about its political slant. All the conservative mouthpieces present themselves as non-biased or centrist. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, all of them, but gee whiz, what do you know, their entire fan base is conservative and so is nearly every comment out of their mouths. Yep, they definately don't have a conservative agenda . . . Anybody that buys that will buy anything these guys say. Why? Like I said before, it makes them feel good that some guy on the radio agrees with them. Nothing more, nothing less.

The point of mentioning Rush's drug addiction is that he's a huge hypocrite who just says things to gratify his audience. When Rush got busted did he stand up in court and say "Judge, I've been saying for a decade that all drug offenders ought to be locked up like wild animals, so please do the right thing and throw the book at me. Give me the maximum sentence plus ten." Nope, he plea bargained like a madman and hired some of the most expensive defense lawyers in the country to keep himself out of jail.

It's not about journalism, politics, or really anything topical, it's about selling radio ads. It sickens me that people turn to that mindless drivel for their news and interaction. You all are just lining up to let somebody else tell you what your opinions and ideals should be. If you seriously tune into Limbaugh or Hannity of any of those morons for your news and consider it to be a real discussion of issues, then you're just as dumb as they think you are.

Here's a thought - turn on the BBC world news instead, where it's just coverage of facts and events with no opinions and loud, quarrelsome sound bites. Try making up your own minds about events and politics. It's a lot more useful exercise without some swollen loudmouthed bullshit artist holding your hand for you. Then again I'm inclined to believe that people who listen to that nonsense like having someobdy else tell them what to think, so you may just find it disturbing . . .

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Here's a thought - turn on the BBC world news instead, where it's just coverage of facts and events with no opinions and loud, quarrelsome sound bites. Try making up your own minds about events and politics. It's a lot more useful exercise without some swollen loudmouthed bullshit artist holding your hand for you. Then again I'm inclined to believe that people who listen to that nonsense like having someobdy else tell them what to think, so you may just find it disturbing . . .

Yes, BBC is publicly funded. So, you don't get near the amount of "corporate" bias as you do here in the U.S. Notice, I said corporate bias. Yes, in spite of popular opinion "liberal-bias" is just a myth. It's true that more journalists tend to be on the "liberal" end of the spectrum, but when it comes down to it they are answering to the editors and execs that run the biz. If it doesn't fly with management, you very likely will not hear about it. Period.

 

[new coup for you]

have you ever read the New York Times

or the Philadelphia Inquirer

or the Boston Globe

or ANY major cities newspaper?

they're exceptionally liberal. and i'm ok with that, but no one can deny that they're blatantly slanted towards the left.

only the uneducated get their news from TV anyway.

 

[freethought6t9]

If you look at those publications you cited, and jounalists in general they are incredibly conservative on economic issues, how many have business sections? Every single one of them I bet, how many have labour sections? Not a one. Whats more important, unemployment or abortion, I report, you decide.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

have you ever read the New York Timesor the Philadelphia Inquireror the Boston Globe or ANY major cities newspaper? they're exceptionally liberal. and i'm ok with that, but no one can deny that they're blatantly slanted towards the left.
only the uneducated get their news from TV anyway.

Oh no, I see you pulled the "liberal bias" card. I hate to let in on this little secret, but it's a myth. Unless, you can prove your claim please do not make it. The reality is the mainstream media tends to be watered down to point where it's difficult to say if it's even taking a slant. In most cases it's just drivel. And I say that about the TV and all mainstream press.

If you really want a biased news source you've got to do a little digging. I know of some great news sources that are truly "liberal" in every sense of the word. But, the publications you mentioned... nah. That's primarily corporate bais you see there. It's modeled to maintain the status-quo and to not raise attention to serious matters. I'd like you to demonstrate how any of those publications truly differ, as the New York Times sets the agenda of just about every mainstream news outlet.

 

[new coup for you]

are you seriously saying that the New York Times- that the BOSTON GLOBE are conservative media outlets? BECAUSE THEY HAVE BUSINESS SECTIONS?!

Business sections are catch all economic news sections. and stock reports. labor sections?

If you dont beleive the Boston Globe is liberal there is nothing i can do to convince you. You simply deny all evidence to make reality conform to your understanding of it. Doublethink.

 

[freethought6t9]

Yes I am, the majority of Americans aren't owners they're workers, a labour section would do them much better. 50% of stock is owned by the top 1% of families, the other 50% is owned by the top 20% of families. There is simply no evidence to demonstrate a liberal bias;

"Orwell Rolls in His Grave"

"The Propaganda Model of News" by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky

"If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it" Joseph Goebbels

Just take a look at media ownership in the U.S., look at the facts, not conservative spin, stop watching Fox, Rupert Murdoch is an evil bastard, he doesn't give a crap about you.

 

[new coup for you]

have you ever read the New York Timesor the Philadelphia Inquireror the Boston Globe or ANY major cities newspaper? they're exceptionally liberal. and i'm ok with that, but no one can deny that they're blatantly slanted towards the left.
only the uneducated get their news from TV anyway.

Oh no, I see you pulled the "liberal bias" card. I hate to let in on this little secret, but it's a myth. Unless, you can prove your claim please do not make it. The reality is the mainstream media tends to be watered down to point where it's difficult to say if it's even taking a slant. In most cases it's just drivel. And I say that about the TV and all mainstream press.

If you really want a biased news source you've got to do a little digging. I know of some great news sources that are truly "liberal" in every sense of the word. But, the publications you mentioned... nah. That's primarily corporate bais you see there. It's modeled to maintain the status-quo and to not raise attention to serious matters. I'd like you to demonstrate how any of those publications truly differ, as the New York Times sets the agenda of just about every mainstream news outlet.

i did not "pull the bias card" because i'm not a partisan poltics drone like you are. i have opinions going both ways. and i love all of those papers, i read the Inquirer and the Times everyday. and for the most part view them as trustable sources of information.

almost every major revelation about Bushes blantant untruths have come from the New York Times. they're the lynchpin of any resistance of the neoconservative agenda.

apparently you only want to read news which is tailored to tell you only what you already know. or what you think you know. why not just write yoru own paper and then read it? that way no one will ever disagree with you.

it's ironic because in some ways i'm your political enemy but in someways i'm your agendas only chance for power- i loathe partisan politics and left/right Great Divider screaming matches over issues that dont really matter, but i'm the kind of centrist the democrats need to enlist if they ever want a return to power

 

[freethought6t9]

Centrism is killing the Democrats, they need to go right to the left on corporate power, welfare, healthcare and education. A true socialist agenda would get elected so fast it would make your head spin. It's the GOP who organise campaigns like the Swift Boat Vets and push polling not the DNC. They need to stop listening to Fox and get real on media anti-trust and campaign finance reform, they won't do this though, they can't.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

i did not "pull the bias card" because i'm not a partisan poltics drone like you are. i have opinions going both ways. and i love all of those papers, i read the Inquirer and the Times everyday. and for the most part view them as trustable sources of information.

almost every major revelation about Bushes blantant untruths have come from the New York Times. they're the lynchpin of any resistance of the neoconservative agenda.

apparently you only want to read news which is tailored to tell you only what you already know. or what you think you know. why not just write yoru own paper and then read it? that way no one will ever disagree with you.

it's ironic because in some ways i'm your political enemy but in someways i'm your agendas only chance for power- i loathe partisan politics and left/right Great Divider screaming matches over issues that dont really matter, but i'm the kind of centrist the democrats need to enlist if they ever want a return to power

I tend to be a "liberal-centrist", and to tell you the truth I hate playing the partisan game more than anyone. It's also really aggravating when someone yells "liberal-bias" because as I said before the mainstream media, including the several you mentioned are primarily status-quo publications. Yes, they contain some bias here and there. But to say it's "liberal-bias" is horse s h i t. Please just forget you ever heard the term, because you hinder the debate when you pull an untruthful cliche out of your hat, for whatever end.

 

[Martyr_Machine]

Let me put it this way: If Moore said that the sky was blue, there's a good chance i'd have to go outside and check.

 

[freethought6t9]

Examples please.

 

[SixStringHero]

"Moores film was highly partisan I agree, but he doesn't hold his fans in contempt the way Rush does, he doesn't fabricate, distort and lie"

^
Keep drinking the kool-aid.

59 Deceits, half-truths and fallacies doesn't count as fabrication, distortion, and lying in your eyes? I guess as long as the message agrees with your ideology it's not a lie no matter the source.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

"Moores film was highly partisan I agree, but he doesn't hold his fans in contempt the way Rush does, he doesn't fabricate, distort and lie"

^
Keep drinking the kool-aid.

59 Deceits, half-truths and fallacies doesn't count as fabrication, distortion, and lying in your eyes? I guess as long as the message agrees with your ideology it's not a lie no matter the source.

If you have issues with Moore, I sure hope you have issues with Bush. Otherwise, you're point is moot.

 

[cnredd]

If you have issues with Moore, I sure hope you have issues with Bush. Otherwise, you're point is moot.

OK...

Bush also makes political movies that bring him buckets of cash, while pushing a socialistic society that would refrain him from making said cash. He has also won awards at the Cannes Film Festival given to him from people who ingest his ideology without giving a sniff towards the deceit presented in his so-called "documentary".

Bush is also a registered Democrat in two states, is overweight, and likes to wear baseball hats...

Happy?:2wave:

 

[MSgt]

If Moore truly cared about injustice, he would refrain from feeding his face for two days and send his uneaten food to feed a small village in Africa instead.

He serves a dishonorable purpose. Does he go forward to feed the hungry? Does he go forward in defense of America? Does he go forward to fight for all people's rights in foreign lands? Does he construct anything? Does he heal other people's sicknesses? No. He merely sits back and criticizes noble deeds by picking apart anything that would enable him to put money into his bank account as he feeds off of the "blame hungry" masses.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

If Moore truly cared about injustice, he would refrain from feeding his face for two days and send his uneaten food to feed a small village in Africa instead.

He serves a dishonorable purpose. Does he go forward to feed the hungry? Does he go forward in defense of America? Does he go forward to fight for all people's rights in foreign lands? Does he construct anything? Does he heal other people's sicknesses? No. He merely sits back and criticizes noble deeds by picking apart anything that would enable him to put money into his bank account as he feeds off of the "blame hungry" masses.

I was not asking for your input, but thank you for your feedback!

If you have issues with Moore, I sure hope you have issues with Bush. Otherwise, you're point is moot.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

OK...

Bush also makes political movies that bring him buckets of cash, while pushing a socialistic society that would refrain him from making said cash. He has also won awards at the Cannes Film Festival given to him from people who ingest his ideology without giving a sniff towards the deceit presented in his so-called "documentary".

Bush is also a registered Democrat in two states, is overweight, and likes to wear baseball hats...

Happy?:2wave:

The question was not directed to you, but thank you for your time.

If you have issues with Moore, I sure hope you have issues with Bush. Otherwise, you're point is moot.

 

[cnredd]

The quesstion was not directed to you, but thank you for your time.

If you have issues with Moore, I sure hope you have issues with Bush. Otherwise, you're point is moot.

Then I suggest you discuss your inquiry with a private message or through e-mail...both available here...instead of a public forum...

 

[MSgt]

"I was not asking for your input, but thank you for your feedback!"


It's a good thing I wasn't talking to you then, jackass. Find someone else to be your friend.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

"I was not asking for your input, but thank you for your feedback!"

It's a good thing I wasn't talking to you then, jackass. Find someone else to be your friend.

Not looking for your friendship. But, thanks for the suggestion! :lol: