CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1433
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:21 pm
 


Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
$1:
I wouldn't excuse spin whether it's fox news, or michael moore. We need more people who don't distort...


...but you spin things all the time, Johnny. You may not do it on purpose, you may not realise that you do it, but you do. Everybody does.

Everytime you decide to post or start a thread, you are creating spin. There's a reason why you chose to post or start a thread. There's a point of view you are coming from. There are a certain set of facts you, because of the sources you prefer, are familiar with.

A good journalist will do their best to mitigate that, but most press outlets have a certain set of sources they want reporters to use on certain issues, most editors have certain pet peeves or projects, most advertising departments have customers they don't want to lose.


What things do I spin? Are you saying I do spins like this:

Pages 111-112: Moore lists a number of examples of what he implies are abuses of the Patriot Act. He writes, "To date, there are at least thirty-four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act - and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal complaints. Many of these people were just minding their own business, or seeking to partake in our free society. Consider these examples." The examples he cites, however, have nothing to do with Patriot Act or the FBI. He lists an anti-globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American" material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way to Prague. None of the incidents he lists happened as a result of the Patriot Act, however, nor did any of them involve the FBI as Moore implies (the French journalists were detained for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own sources note).

Or:

Page 160: Moore notes that the 2003 Bush tax cut will likely reduce revenue to the states. Attacking the cut, he implies that the cuts led to early school closings in Oregon: "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." Oregon, however, passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. In addition, one of Moore's own sources (a June 8, 2003 article in the New York Times Magazine) notes that the situation is far more complicated than Moore makes it out to be: Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending.

Or:

Page 180: Moore claims that "The overwhelming support for the war in Iraq came only after the war began. Before the war, the majority of Americans said that we should not be invading Iraq unless we have the backing of all of our allies and the United Nations" (he provides no source for the claim). In fact, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted on March 17, which asked "Would you support or oppose the United States going to war with Iraq?" showed 71 percent in favor (59 percent were in favor one week earlier). Another Washington Post/ABC News poll taken Feburary 9 found 66 percent in favor of taking action against Iraq; when those who said they supported such action were asked if they would still support it without the backing of the United Nations, total support fell to 50 percent, with 47 percent opposed.

Or:

Page 110: During his criticism of the proposed Terrorism Information Awareness project, Moore claims that "There is usually very little in the way of an electronic or paper trail when it comes to terrorists. They lay low and pay cash. You and me, we leave trails everywhere - credit cards, cell phones, medical records, online; everything we do. Who is really being watched here?" Moore evidently forgot about the credit cards used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, which authorities used after the attacks to help retrace their steps.

And finally:

Page 82: Criticizing Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations last February, Moore mocks his claim that "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Moore writes, "Just days earlier, Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein, Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit." In context, he makes appear as though Powell had included the same suspect evidence he had called "bullshit" in the speech he eventually gave. However, the US News & World Report article that Moore cites details the process by which Powell winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable presenting. The article concludes: "And plenty was cut [from Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

You might say I spin things in my point of view, but Moore is just plain doing sloppy journalism and spinning out of control, not to mention almost flat our lying(I don't know if it's intentional). I think there's a different between spinning things, and lying to make a story better.


Few more

--Page 43 (and all of chapter 2): Moore uses fake quotes as chapter headings, implying that Bush (or administration officials) said things they never said. The most problematic is "#3 Whopper with Bacon: 'Iraq has ties to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda!'" (page 53) He quotes Bush repeatedly stating that "We know [Saddam] has ties to Al Qaeda" - but provides no source suggesting the administration tied Saddam to Bin Laden personally.

--Page 58: Moore claims that the U.S. "oversaw the assassination of [Congo leader Patrice] Lumumba" in 1961. However, according to a July, 2000 US News & World Report article, Lumumba was actually killed by Belgian operatives (though, as that article makes clear, the CIA apparently did have its own plot to assassinate him).

--Page 67: Moore claims that, in building the famous Maginot Line, France "built the bunkers facing the wrong way and Germans were deep into France before you could say 'garcon, stinky cheese, please!'" In fact, the Maginot Line was built with many of the heavy weapons facing back and to the flanks of the line, to allow the bunkers to support each other, and the German invasion avoided it entirely, coming through the Ardennes north of the line.

--Page 69: Moore misrepresents US contributions to the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq as "trade." He writes, "There were claims that the French were only opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi dictator." Most of the money, however, was used to purchase food and other UN-approved humanitarian aid; the rest went to pay war reparations and adminisratuve fees for the program. (For details on the program, see this report to Congress.)

--Page 9: Moore, writing about the connections between the Carlyle Group (a private investment firm with a politically powerful board of directors including George H. W. Bush Sr.) and the Bin Ladens, states that "After September 11, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this strange coincidence. Your first response, [President] Bush, was to ignore it, hoping, I guess, that the story would go away. Your father and his buddies at Carlyle did not renounce the Bin Laden investment. Your army of pundits went into spin control... And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of the 'good' Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding." Moore is distorting the timeline of when that information came out: He cites Al Jazeera (no date) and two articles published before September 11, 2001 (the articles date from Feb. 28, 2001 and March 1, 2001), not after.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:36 pm
 


$1:
Anybody who has the internet has access to the BBC's journalism. They are recognised all over the world for the quality of that journalism.

If I am over-estimating the average audience, then we might as well shut out the lights because our species is doomed. You don't have to be overly informed to understand that things like this are spun.


This is another set of pretty black-and-white statements, Rev. The species isn't "doomed" if most people don't read the BBC. You think just because we have access to it, we read it? Your insinuation that everyone who doesn't is an idiot is insulting and self-centred. Do a survey of people in your workplace to find out who reads ANY news report, never mind the BBC. You'll find most people might scan the local dailies for items of interest, and that's IT. I just walked around my office (a professional one) to see who reads what, and nobody cited the BBC. Many said they don't read the news at all. The number one paper: the Ottawa Citizen (I'm in Ottawa). From this, I conclude that they read and believe what is put in front of their noses. And a lot of them were pretty glad Fox news was on the way. Yippie.

I strongly resist the idea that the the general public is aware of BBC-quality news, or put much thought into how much things are spun. In fact, in this regard, you contradict yourself when you say this:

$1:
An example of this that affects hard news, Stratocaster, is the Canadian press habit of getting data from CD Howe and the Fraser Institute. How many times have you seen or heard the phrase, "According to the Fraser Institute..." in a news story? People tend to take that as hard data, but it isn't.


No, they don't take it as hard data, because they would "know" it was spun, 'cause everybody reads the BBC, right?

If Moore is simply doing what everybody else does....oh well. I'm certainly never going to believe anything he says or suggests in the future. Even if he's skilled, he's not *that* good. After I watched the movie, I felt that a lot of things just didn't seem right about it, and that's when I started reading exposés like the one I linked about it.

Incidentally, I only saw the movie very recently, if you're wondering why I'm realizing these things now.

It's very irritating to have to dig so hard to find out what the real facts are.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:38 pm
 


JohnnyB, to be fair, the "spin" argument in this thread was regarding the movie, "Bowling for Columbine," not any of the other Moore examples you cited.

-A


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 102
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:55 pm
 


He's not called a journalist.

In fact, if anything he's called an entrepaneaur who's very well aware what side his bread is buttered. He is also called SYNTHETIC for all the reasons stated above not the least of which is his ability to twist, mangle and manoeuvre facts to his capitalist objective; mainly that of selling his synthetic crap to gullible members of the far left who are all too eager to lend this biggie size mammal legitimacy by swallowing everything he throws at them during his many walks to the bank depository.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:18 pm
 


Johnny if you wrote a book, I could take it apart the same way whoever you are quoting takes Moore's apart. Trust me...I've done it before. I've done it with political speeches and I've done it with op-eds. I've done it with things that were presented as pure hard journalism and I've done it with reports from think tanks too.

$1:
This is another set of pretty black-and-white statements, Rev. The species isn't "doomed" if most people don't read the BBC.


Except that's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

$1:
You think just because we have access to it, we read it?


I think most people are aware of the BBC's reputation.

$1:
Do a survey of people in your workplace to find out who reads ANY news report, never mind the BBC.


I work out of my house. I can ask the dogs, but they aren't big readers.

I could ask everybody I deal with, I guess. Most of the people I work with are involved in news and/or politics to some extent, so it wouldn't exactly be an unbiased survey though.

I suspect yours wasn't exactly a wide cross-section of society either though, Stratocaster. You surveyed a group of people all involved in the same company, hired by the same HR department or boss, of a similar economic and education status.

$1:
You'll find most people might scan the local dailies for items of interest, and that's IT.


I find most people read at least one paper a day, subscribe to a couple of magazines (usually special interest), get some news from radio (usually top forty stations without in-depth stories), and some news from television (usually CBC). If they are interested in a particular story they will research it on the internet.

I can think of very few people who aren't aware of the BBC's reputation, don't know that BBC World has a daily broadcast on NewsWorld and/or PBS.

$1:
I strongly resist the idea that the the general public is aware of BBC-quality news, or put much thought into how much things are spun.


Go sit in a bar and talk politics with strangers (kind of an extreme sport, but alweays fun), you're certainly in the town for it. People know things are spun. Most feel they are being lied to. They may not understand how exactly, but they know on some level that it's happening.

$1:
No, they don't take it as hard data, because they would "know" it was spun, 'cause everybody reads the BBC, right?


But they do take it as hard data, they assume the reporter is the one with the spin or that the politicians haven't done their homework. It never occurs to them that the reporter is quoting the Fraser Institute because that's the source the publisher, after consulting with the advertising department, told the editor to get his reporters to use. They know it's spun, but they don't understand how or how extensively.

$1:
If Moore is simply doing what everybody else does....oh well. I'm certainly never going to believe anything he says or suggests in the future.


Good, just remember to apply that to everything.

$1:
It's very irritating to have to dig so hard to find out what the real facts are.


Naw, that's the fun part. :lol:


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:56 pm
 


Rev:

$1:
I think most people are aware of the BBC's reputation.


I know it as the UK's main network. I basically know it exists, but not much else. I don't read their stuff, and don't work in news/politics. The people I asked in my office had heard of it, but like I said, don't read it either. As for a cross section of people I work with, they comprise people ranging in ages from 22-67, holding degrees in economics, history, film, accounting, commerce, English, geography, and many others, just to name a few (it's an odd office, I know - government), and men and women. I think I had a pretty fair cross section here. In fact, more than fair - these are educated people who -in your estimation, I imagine- could reasonably be expected to read some of the BBC's stuff, and they just don't. And I bet if I asked the guy cleaning the bathroom or the guys downstairs replacing the sidewalk out front, "Hey, do you read the BBC?" I might have gotten more than a couple of blank stares. My point in all this is, your assumption of people's awareness of the media don't ring true to me at all, and you admitted yourself that your friends are those involved in many types of media, so you really don't have a common man's grasp of what people know and are reading - and what they might be influenced by.

$1:
I can think of very few people who aren't aware of the BBC's reputation, don't know that BBC World has a daily broadcast on NewsWorld and/or PBS.


I really don't think so. You're saying almost everybody knows that the BBC broadcasts on Newsworld daily? Again, I think your professional bias is at work here. I don't even watch the news. My obligations permit me to take in the news daily on websites only, and I don't have time to read 'em all.

Either way though, both of us are saying what we think with nothing to support it. I don't have a professional survey, but at least I asked around.

$1:
But they do take it as hard data, they assume the reporter is the one with the spin or that the politicians haven't done their homework. It never occurs to them that the reporter is quoting the Fraser Institute because that's the source the publisher, after consulting with the advertising department, told the editor to get his reporters to use. They know it's spun, but they don't understand how or how extensively.


Fair enough, then.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:31 pm
 


Ah, a government office. No offence...my father spent his career with the federal government, including 3 years in Ottawa; and I have other aquaintances and relatives who work for the government too. Government employees seem to focus on the news that affects their departments directly and one or two hobbies though. I'm not sure why...maybe it's being surrounded by red tape all day every day.

It is possible that I am wrong though. Like I said, most of the people I talk to on a regular basis right now are pretty involved in politics and media. When i was working in the photo industry most people seemed pretty well informed though, and even when I was in construction people knew at least a bit of what was going on. Again the BBC was generally recognised as having a reputation for fine journalism.

Look at it another way...CBC is the most accessed web site in Canada (maybe even North America but that may have changed). That shows that a lot of people are interested in the content there...mostly news.

Overall I find most of the people I meet fairly well-informed and well aware that things are being spun.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1433
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:49 pm
 


Stratocaster Stratocaster:
JohnnyB, to be fair, the "spin" argument in this thread was regarding the movie, "Bowling for Columbine," not any of the other Moore examples you cited.

-A


Yes, but just the fact that someone can take examples from tons of his works shows that he didn't just mess up on Bowling for Columbine, and that he has a history of journalistic mess ups.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1433
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:51 pm
 


vic_ticious vic_ticious:
He's not called a journalist.

In fact, if anything he's called an entrepaneaur who's very well aware what side his bread is buttered. He is also called SYNTHETIC for all the reasons stated above not the least of which is his ability to twist, mangle and manoeuvre facts to his capitalist objective; mainly that of selling his synthetic crap to gullible members of the far left who are all too eager to lend this biggie size mammal legitimacy by swallowing everything he throws at them during his many walks to the bank depository.


Same can be said about Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:11 pm
 


$1:
Yes, but just the fact that someone can take examples from tons of his works shows that he didn't just mess up on Bowling for Columbine, and that he has a history of journalistic mess ups.


Again though...you could do that with anyone, especially when it comes to books and movies because they take a long time to get to market. Facts change over time. New information comes out, people change their stories, old information gets discredited. That's the way it is.

It's kind of funny...Peter C Neuman was on the local call-in show today. Peter, if you've read his stuff, is pretty right wing. He's also pretty meticulous when it comes to research. Some Reform/Alliance guy called in and started freaking out because of something that was written several years ago...yelling about facts and how Neuman hadn't done his homework and all the rest. The guy had two points, that the Liberal wasn't gone after hard enough and the Reform guy, or maybe somebody in Mulroney's government, had been gone after too hard.

Neuman just waited for the guy to finish, then agreed with him and pointed out that he had used the best information available at the time. The caller seemed kind of embarrassed, but never apologised. Then they started talking about Greek sailor's hats.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1433
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:01 pm
 


Yes, I'm not coming down on every journalist who might use information that goes dated, I'm just saying that if you look at alot of Michael Moores stuff, some of it isn't based on fact, but conspiracy theories.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:54 pm
 


But he's not a journalist. He's an activist, he's a spin doctor, he's an entertainer. He's very good at it. If he sucked at it you never would have heard of him.

It's kind of like this, Johnny...I know quite a few people that either work construction or have in the past. They despise Bob Vila because he doesn't seem to know what the hell he's doing, but he's rich and famous and they aren't. What they don't understand is that Bob's job isn't to swing a hammer effectively, it's to make sure that when you ask your wife for a new saw for x-mas she gets you one that says Craftsman on it. That's Bob's job, and he's good at it.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:01 am
 


Dare I wade into this?

I'm of two minds about Moore. On one hand I recognize that he's not a journalist any more than Ashlee Simpson is a singer (heh). He's a commodity and he sells. His movies are entertainment, not documentaries.

On the other hand, I think the since he presents his movies in a deliberately documentary style, then he has some moral obligation to provide accurate data. But that's merely an opinion on my part based upon what that genre of media means to me.

I think if I had to pick the single biggest factor leading to the kafuffle surrounding Moore, it would be the Cannes award he won for 'Best Film' for Farenheit 9/11. Not that the award in itself was bad in any way, but the press tagline that showed up all over the place was 'first documentary to win since Jacques Cousteau's The Silent World'. I think since the press started pounding 9/11 out as a documentary, people began regarding it as such and lent a much larger amount of credence to its content. Don't get me wrong, Moore isn't innocent in this. There's no doubt that he intended it to be taken as a documentary, the press just became an unintended ally.

I may be a little off track, I'm not trying to talk about 9/11, but I do believe that the Canne's award suddenly boosted the perceived credibility of all his works, both past and present, and perhaps created an unrealistic expectation of journalistic integrity.

However, regardless of how Moore wanted his movie percieved, ragardless of who helped him either wittingly or not, I believe that the onus is always, always on the individual to think critically about information that is presented to him or her.

Much like how we are all responsbile for what we eat, we are all also responsible for what we mentally digest.

S'my 2 cents...

Oh, and Rev? Your avatar is really distracting to us mental midgets.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:30 am
 


It took me a while to get used to my avatar too, but I like it. Fat Basturd made it for me.

I thought it was great when Moore won at Cannes. He more or less brought the documentary back into the mainstream all by himself. The thing is that people confuse the documentary format with news. It usually fits into that category, but that's far from a defining feature.

Cousteau's "Silent World" wasn't news either...it was a nature film. I wonder how many of the facts in that have changed over the years? I wonder if marine biologists sit around ripping apart Cousteau's films? Probably not, because he got it mostly right.

That's something else about Moore's work...he gets it mostly right. It's important to remember that. The Bush family does have close ties to the Saudis, they do share business dealings with the bin Ladens, there was something extremely fucked up with 9-11 that has never been explained, the Patriot Act does trample rights and freedoms, the Iraq war is illegal, war crimes have been committed there by US troops.

You can sift through it piece by piece and pick out each and every inaccuracy no matter how slight or severe, but the big facts not only remain but have been independently proven by people who are professional journalists.

That goes for all of Moore's work. General Motors did screw an entire town so he made Roger and Me. Gun violence is a major problem in the US so he made Columbine. There is something not right about 9-11 and George Bush did start an illegal war in Iraq for no reason. The same goes for his TV series. The same goes for his books. Moore, in the end, tells the truth. He uses a lot of spin, and he's very good at self-promotion, but in the end he tells the truth.

That makes the right so mad all they can do is criticise him for getting rich and being fat.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:33 am
 


Rev, you betray your inward-looking bias. I knew without even looking that the CBC wouldn't even be close to the number 1 website in North America. Think about that for a second...can you imagine a Californian checking out CBC's website? The top-5 today, from Amazon's site, are:

1. NBC News and MSNBC News
2. Google
3. Microsoft Corporation
4. AOL Anywhere
5. Amazon.com

At least the top site isn't porno.

Heatsink, that's all I'm trying to get across - I think Moore's work is being promoted as a legitimate documentary (read almost any of the reviews - these guys sure believe it: www.rottentomatoes.com), when in reality this movie should be interpreted with a heavy dose of salt along with their popcorn...and that I don't think people know it.

-A


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.