--

A solution for Michael Moore

He tried offering $10000 to anyone to disprove just one fact in Farenheit 9/11.

He tried getting an army of lawyers to go over it with a fine tooth comb.

That worked, but not quite well enough. People still said he played hard and fast with the truth.

The attack dogs (say, these guys: moorewatch.com or CNN) instead claim that you've IMPLIED things that were untrue. They publish this along with a ton of ad hominem attacks and plenty of facts which are perfectly true, twisting the truth as they do it.

You still get a good number of people like Dennis Forbes who believe it, so you have to figure out some other way of counteracting it.

My idea: he should get a bunch of random people off the street. Get them to watch clips from the next film or read portions of the book, and ask them questions about it. If more than half go away with the impression that something is false which isn't then it doesn't go in the movie. Publish the results so that when the attack dogs say "you meant to imply THIS and THIS is wrong", he can say "actually more than half the people who watched our film came away with the correct impression".

Honestly, it's an awful lot of effort dedicated to fact checking out what is essentially true, but there are a lot of well resourced people who hate him which makes it necessary.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 6:24pm
I kind of got that impression from the movie also.  I will be honest I didn't like 911.  I though the early Bush days were interesting.  The shot of Bush in the classroom reading the book.

I don't think the "implication" that the administration several months into the presidency somehow cooked up a scheme to allow the 911 attack to occur so that the administration could go to war with Iraq.  ...cooked up this scheme (7 months after sworn into office) so that he could be considered the worst president in history.

With that being said, (and I might have to watch it again), I don't think any of the content was false.  Moore showed actual soldiers, actual photographs from early Bush days.  Actual fighter jets.  Kind of hard to claim it was false.  But there are a lot of insinuations.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 16th, 2007 6:30pm
"If more than half go away with the impression that something is false which isn't then it doesn't go in the movie."

The problem with that is that that goal is to create impressions especially where there are predispositions or inclinations that defy the truth.

F911 was slanted. Unfortunately the near-sighted and stubborn just stick their heads in the sand or change the subject when confronted with direct contradictions to their perceived realities.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 16th, 2007 6:31pm
You Can't Fix Stupid.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 16th, 2007 6:31pm
Everytime I reread my posts, I think I really need to write a "Berlin/Rick Bot to English" translator, firefox plugin.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 16th, 2007 6:33pm
>I kind of got that impression from the movie also.

I'd class you as one of the people along with Dennis Forbes who has had their perceptions pre-colored. Sorry.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 6:37pm
"I kind of got that impression from the movie also."

"I'd class you as one of the people along with Dennis Forbes who has had their perceptions pre-colored. Sorry."

I got the impression that Moore's facts in the movie are factual but there is a slant sometimes is a little cooky?
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 16th, 2007 6:39pm
>I got the impression that Moore's facts in the movie are
>factual but there is a slant sometimes is a little cooky?

I thought that you were saying that you believed that the movie was designed to give false impressions without actually lying.

It is biased, yes (this is a claim he made several times), but that's not the same thing as lying.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 6:45pm
>F911 was slanted. Unfortunately the near-sighted and
>stubborn just stick their heads in the sand or change the
>subject when confronted with direct contradictions to their
>perceived realities.

I believe that if you do it enough then most people are reasonable enough to change their opinion (the DF types).

There are a few who simply can't because they've been indoctrinated since childhood and had their thought processes melded into such a way that they can't ever perceive the world correctly (fundies for instance).

The best you can do about them it to minimize the damage they can do and, where possible, catch them when they're young and educate them.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 6:53pm
The OP has an interesting idea and +1 to the relentless DF bashing.
Permalink change some shit forever! 
July 16th, 2007 10:20pm
I think it's hilarious that Colm takes the stance "if you disagree with what I think, you're wrong" and doesn't see the humor in it.

"My idea: he should get a bunch of random people off the street. Get them to watch clips from the next film or read portions of the book, and ask them questions about it. If more than half go away with the impression that something is false which isn't then it doesn't go in the movie."

Wait, so if you grab a bunch of random folks, show them the video, and they all come away saying "yeah, that makes sense" then that supports what the movie is trying to say, no matter what any silly fact checkers may say about it later?

You just justified Fox News.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 16th, 2007 11:35pm
>I think it's hilarious that Colm takes the stance "if you
>disagree with what I think, you're wrong" and doesn't see
>the humor in it.

It's not so hilarious that you actually believe that's what I think. Because you're a smart guy and should know better.

>Wait, so if you grab a bunch of random folks, show them the
>video, and they all come away saying "yeah, that makes
>sense" then that supports what the movie is trying to say,
>no matter what any silly fact checkers may say about it
>later?

No, you show them a clip from the movie and ask them a FACTUAL question, e.g. "Did the clip imply that in Toronto nobody locks their doors?". If over half of them say yes, you cut the movie so it DOESN'T give that impression any more.

And yes, there have been some suckers who came away from the movie, discrediting most of it because even though the film didn't make that claim, they assumed that it did.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 17th, 2007 12:31am
The book was full of lies; presumably the offer only applied to the film.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 17th, 2007 12:53am
The 'slant' of F911 was all the imaginary connections between its different factual elements.

I am not fond of the facts whether presented in a slanted manner or as disconnected truths.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 17th, 2007 10:44am
An artist understands not only the facts he presents his audience but also that there's overall emotional impact of his work. If Moore doesn't want to acknowledge that F911 made people feel that certain things were true, then he is an inauthentic or an unaware artist.
Permalink Send private email strawdog sobriquet 
July 17th, 2007 10:54am
I think the intent was to make those things seem true.

It isn't as though he had to struggle real hard to draw those imaginary lines.

Given the facts, how much arrangement/presentation really had to go into them to ellicit that effect?

This is why the facts are ignored.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 17th, 2007 3:11pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics