Moore Shananagans (Pun intended)

[Revisedsoul]

just another peice of evidence of moores bending of the truth

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590756

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I wonder what was on the real Dec. 19th 2001 paper then.

I wish Moore would be more careful with his showmanship.
All his points are at the very least debatably accurate, but he just has to throw in this sort of needlessly false detail every once and a while that undermines what would otherwise be a solid presentation.

It's like he's trying to sound less credible.

I mean, why invent a newspaper headline when dozens of real ones already exist?
Call me crazy, but it's like somone was trying the sabotage the project from the inside. :tinfoil hat:

Edit: Moore's defence is that the incorrect date was an accident, but he sees nothing wrong with changing the font and size of the article's title.

 

[Feath]

It's ridiculous, if you have a fair point, you shouldn't have to alter things to make your point, if your point is valid to make.

He did something similar with Bowling for Columbine, when he put two different political adds together and then added a misinforming headline.

 

[CptStern]

sounds like pointless nitpicking to me. I mean why do they only challege the circumstanstial evidence? Does it really matter when the headline was printed? It still made the paper, it's not like he's fabricating the headline just juicing it up for emphasis ...it's no different than when 60 minutes airs a segment on car safety; they'll rig an suv to flip just to prove their point that sometimes suv's tip.

Why not tackle the bigger issues in the film insted of nitpicking small insignificant points? My guess is that they believe that by picking at some of the ambigious facts in the movie the whole movie will be invalidated. Here's a list of facts that seem to be ignorned by conservative media

 

[Direwolf]

A) They're annoyed because it WASN'T a headline...it was elsewhere in the paper. In fact it was the title to a letter from the editor, not even from a real article.
B) It's not like they're out to ruin him. They're seeking compensatory damages of $1...the price of the paper.

 

[CptStern]

yes but they could get much more if they really had a leg to stand on ...I'm not discounting what was said but right now it's a one sided accusation on a minor point in the movie.

 

[Korgoth]

omg, its almost as bad as telling an entire nation (and its allies) that there is this real evil guy who can/will strike at any moment unprovoked with weapons of mass destruction then starting a war based off of sexed up intellegence memos to sway the already terror stricken peoples of this nation, then toppling an entire peoples towns, lively hoods, and pride. Also wounding maiming and killing many innocent bystanders along the way only to change your story around three or four different times to justify the falsehood you had already told (WMD, WMD programs, WMD related activities, he was a tryant, well he tried to kill me pappy) whooo, its a good thing somebody finally called this michael moore jackass out, this proves it moores is teh propagandistest liarz!1


i'll add this just incase...

 

[Direwolf]

See: every other Moore thread we've ever had.
For the record, being deceitful never helped anybody.

 

[Korgoth]

A) They're annoyed because it WASN'T a headline...it was elsewhere in the paper. In fact it was the title to a letter from the editor, not even from a real article.
B) It's not like they're out to ruin him. They're seeking compensatory damages of $1...the price of the paper.

I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic when you said "It's not like they're out to ruin him. They're seeking compensatory damages of $1...the price of the paper."

 

[Direwolf]

Sorta, but that amount is entirely true.

 

[nw909]

I bet Micheal Moore just had to sit on copyright infringment to bend it.

('cause he's fat, guys lol)

 

[outpost]

I bet Micheal Moore just had to sit on copyright infringment to bend it.

('cause he's fat, guys lol)

HYUAHAUAHHAHAUHAHAUAHUAHAUHAUAHHuaHAhua

I laughed........not really....

 

[CptStern]

See: every other Moore thread we've ever had.
For the record, being deceitful never helped anybody.

I have to agree here, we've discussed this to death in 50 other threads

 

[DreamThrall]

Nitpicking about stupid little details like this that nobody would have otherwised noticed only gives the rest of the movie more credence. Its like they can't find anything wrong with the meat of his argument, so they go after the little worthless crap.

 

[Direwolf]

Hehe...this ISN'T the result of some kind of far-reaching conspiracy. This little incident is just the paper being (rightfully) offended for having been misrepresented.

 

[Javert]

Several pointers:
a) old.
b) already countered by Moore. It WAS in the paper (ok, fine, not a headline).
c) the writer himself does not disagree with Moore's assessment.
d) Have you watched the movie?

 

[moz4rt]

i have posted this so many times and i'll do it again because it's so good. i watched the film last week and was starting to believe it. then i read this.

i think i'm becoming the master of copy-and-paste. i don't care. the more people read this, the better.

 

[Glo-Boy]

Oh WOW everyone! You've just TOTALLY overthrown EVERYTHING that Michael Moore stands for! I can't believe you dug up this piece of news! You've finally won! Wow!!!

 

[Korgoth]

i have posted this so many times and i'll do it again because it's so good. i watched the film last week and was starting to believe it. then i read this.

i think i'm becoming the master of copy-and-paste. i don't care. the more people read this, the better.

You saying we should trust this guy? Have you seen the rest of his page, he's a gun nut, of course he has problems with moore...(IE bowling for columbine)
If you expect us to trust him to be unbiased then you might as well have pointed us over to http://www.anncoulter.org/default.htm (to which I'd love to add that it has been proven that none of the veterans she is speaking of on her front page, were even on the same boat as kerry, and several have backed down saying what they've done was wrong... of course she doesn't mention this :upstare: )

And i also find it ironic that you would believe unknown mans written word over actuall video evidence of the claims moore is making in the film... Do you think he payed bush and co. to act in the movie haha!

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=25
I'll point you here, if you actually look it over you'll see he actually has some pretty credible references to back his claims up (IE 9/11 comission, various main stay news organizations, actual video footage of the said events etc. etc.)
Read also here
http://michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911facts/

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i have posted this so many times and i'll do it again because it's so good. i watched the film last week and was starting to believe it. then i read this.

i think i'm becoming the master of copy-and-paste. i don't care. the more people read this, the better.

I had a link to a non-partisan site that refutes almost all of those "59 deceits". I wish I could remember the address.

Basically, most of the "deceits" are just complaints that Moore didn't put many republican counter-points into the movie.

For example, #21:

21. The Bush administation dealt Carlyle a huge financial blow by canceling the Crusader missile, one of the few weapons cancelations in the Bush administration

So what? How is Moore deceitful for not putting this minor fact in his movie?Moore's point was that Carlyle profited massively from the war, and they did.

 

[moz4rt]

You saying we should trust this guy? Have you seen the rest of his page, he's a gun nut, of course he has problems with moore...(IE bowling for columbine)
If you expect us to trust him to be unbiased then you might as well have pointed us over to http://www.anncoulter.org/default.htm (to which I'd love to add that it has been proven that none of the veterans she is speaking of on her front page, were even on the same boat as kerry, and several have backed down saying what they've done was wrong... of course she doesn't mention this :upstare: )

And i also find it ironic that you would believe unknown mans written word over actuall video evidence of the claims moore is making in the film... Do you think he payed bush and co. to act in the movie haha!

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=25
I'll point you here, if you actually look it over you'll see he actually has some pretty credible references to back his claims up (IE 9/11 comission, various main stay news organizations, actual video footage of the said events etc. etc.)
Read also here
http://michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911facts/

i'm just showing you the other side of things man. of course some of moore's claims are factually based, but most of them are half-truths. it's funny how you can't accept it. and ann coulter is a nut, just like michael moore.

 

[Direwolf]

To be fair, Moore does "choose" to omit some fairly major facts during the movie. However, anyone who takes the film seriously will also likely find them while looking for more information anyway.

 

[Korgoth]

I could also argue that bill o' reily and the like "choose" to leave out major facts day in and day out with their programs but no one seems to be in a hizzy over that. And i can't believe it moz4rt, we both agree on something, ann coulter is a freaking nut

 

[Korgoth]

i'm just showing you the other side of things man. of course some of moore's claims are factually based, but most of them are half-truths. it's funny how you can't accept it. and ann coulter is a nut, just like michael moore.

I can accept moores half truths, if you would actually show me some that hold some merit, and i'd like to see you accept th bush administration's half truths (and i'm giving credit when I say half, they don't diserve that much) funny how you can't accept it... :x

 

[Direwolf]

Well isn't there such a thing as trusting neither? They're both wrong for saying what they do.
Moore can be called out on many of his major points, but it hardly ever pays to argue about them. A good example is the Carlyle group, whom Moore links to Bush. As an exercise in logic, many people have found that Moore is just as easily linked to the company as Bush is. Doesn't mean that he really is, but it doesn't mean that Bush is either.

 

[moz4rt]

And i can't believe it moz4rt, we both agree on something, ann coulter is a freaking nut

well, i'll be darned.

I can accept moores half truths, if you would actually show me some that hold some merit, and i'd like to see you accept th bush administration's half truths (and i'm giving credit when I say half, they don't diserve that much) funny how you can't accept it...

this whole thing with the newspaper is a perfect example of moore's half truths.

ok... here it goes... bush did make some mistakes and he may have bent some rules. i don't believe that he lied outright though- at least not to the extent that clinton did. saying that, i don't mean to justify bad behavior with more bad behavior. bush could have done things much differently.

 

[Direwolf]

I have to say: Moore should be an entirely seperate issue from Bush. Neither persons actions should act as justification or mitigation for the other's doings.

 

[moz4rt]

I have to say: Moore should be an entirely seperate issue from Bush. Neither persons actions should act as justification or mitigation for the other's doings.

i love you man

 

[CptStern]

I have to say: Moore should be an entirely seperate issue from Bush. Neither persons actions should act as justification or mitigation for the other's doings.

yes but the difference here is that when Moore lies people dont die

...that's all I'll say on the subject ..frankly I'm a little bored of this topic ...anyone want to tackle Noam Chomsky? Far more outspoken with far more illluminating facts

 

[Mechagodzilla]

...anyone want to tackle Noam Chomsky?

I'd like to tackle Noam Chomsky.

Rowr. :naughty:

But as a concluding point, I'd just like to say that if folks spent as much time analysing Bush's statements as they do Moore's, the world would be a happier place. IMO, of course.

 

[Champ]

sounds like pointless nitpicking to me. I mean why do they only challege the circumstanstial evidence? Does it really matter when the headline was printed? It still made the paper, it's not like he's fabricating the headline just juicing it up for emphasis ...it's no different than when 60 minutes airs a segment on car safety; they'll rig an suv to flip just to prove their point that sometimes suv's tip.

Why not tackle the bigger issues in the film insted of nitpicking small insignificant points? My guess is that they believe that by picking at some of the ambigious facts in the movie the whole movie will be invalidated. Here's a list of facts that seem to be ignorned by conservative media

Exactly. This is nitpicking at it's best. I'm going to see this movie on Thursday, and I simply can't wait!