[Stratocaster]

Hi, everybody. I'm brand new to this site and as a proud Canuck, like what I see.

I wanted to pass on a link I read only yesterday - I found it a shocking eye-opener. I had previously enjoyed Moore's film, "Bowling for Columbine," but it looks like he used the same kind of deceitful media tricks to hammer home his point that he actually decries in his film. Check this out:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

As you can see, all the points in this article are factually supported.

Michael Moore is making movies to further his own personal agenda - I'm ashamed of myself that I didn't realize I was being manipulated to such an extent when I first saw the movie. He is not promoting any good cause if he is using factually incorrect information to brainwash his audience, and it doesn't matter if he states he's biased up front. It's Hollywood trickery, and no documentary.

-A

[Rev_Blair]

Hardy is pro-gun lawyer proud that he descended from outlaws.

[Stratocaster]

I don't care. The facts regarding the film stand as what they are. This man's personal bias doesn't make them any less legitimate. Moore could have made a much more credible film had he stuck with more legitimate methods. Why couldn't his ideas stand on their own merit without the manipulations and edits? Why use figures that are completely out of context?

You have to regard this objectively. Heck, even though I was enjoying the movie, when i was watching the Heston interview sequence, I thought to myself, "hey, how come that clock on the wall suddenly jumped? That reminds me of that Simpson's episode."

[Rev_Blair]

The point is that this can be done to virtually every documentary ever made, Stratocaster. Left or right, pro or con. These fools are attacking Moore because he's hit a nerve...he's beating them at their own game.

The really funny thing is that most people understand what Moore is doing. It isn't hard journalism, it's an op-ed column. It's no different than op-ed columns from any place else, but he's put it into a format that people like. He is to the left what Fox is to the right, and it scares the hell out of the Bushites. The result is that they've decided to make him a target. There's a whole cottage industry of going after Michael Moore because he scares the hell out of people like Hardy...people who know exactly how effective these techniques are because they've been using them for decades.

Think about the over-all theme of Columbine...it's a movie to promote gun control. It is no more or less biased, uses no more or less tricks, than the NRA does when promoting the need for people to own handguns and assault weapons.

[Stratocaster]

I don't know - I disagree with you there when you said, "most people know what Moore is doing." You might, but what about the average Joe out there? I was average Joe, and I walked out of the theatre thinking, "Holy crap, what a scary place the US is. Guns: bad, Heston: Jerk."

People believe what they see, and it bothers me that something offered up for public consumption like this is accepted pretty much as a truthful portrayal of what goes on in the States because the film appears to be a documentary to the casual person in the audience. You say that people aren't interpreting it as "hard journalism," but everybody I ask about it accept it that way without thinking about it.

Just because he's using the same tactics as his opposition doesn't make it right. If he wants to aspire to noble ideas, why did he have to lie and misrepresent?

This next part is a little off the main theme, but you said Columbine was about gun control, but Moore himself deviates from his own theme after an "examination" of Canada (oh yeah, everybody up here keeps their doors unlocked) and ends up pointing his finger at the media, so the viewer ends up a bit confused about what he's trying to say.

[Rev_Blair]

Maybe I over-estimate people...maybe they really are all unthinking idiots. I don't think so though. I think most people realise that there is a difference between what Michael Moore does and what Linda McQuaig and David Corn do and a difference between them and the BBC. I certainly hope so.

The US experiment is proof that guns, when uncontrolled, are bad. That isn't to say that guns are bad, but there is no reason why somebody needs an assault weapon and no reason not to control such ownership much more tightly than the US does.

Chuck Heston, as head of the NRA, was a jerk. He backed everything from plastic guns to the availability of cop killer bullets. Only a jerk would do that. He also, when he came to Canada to make a speech, made it clear that thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied here. Only an ignorant jerk would think that.

$1:

Just because he's using the same tactics as his opposition doesn't make it right. If he wants to aspire to noble ideas, why did he have to lie and misrepresent?

That's always been part of his schtick. He's not lying, he is misrepresenting only in minor (and accepted for his genre) ways. It's a styler designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason. It is something he saw the other side doing and copied. That's part of what made it funny and likely why he was more popular in Canada than the US for so long...we got it.

$1:

This next part is a little off the main theme, but you said Columbine was about gun control, but Moore himself deviates from his own theme after an "examination" of Canada (oh yeah, everybody up here keeps their doors unlocked) and ends up pointing his finger at the media, so the viewer ends up a bit confused about what he's trying to say.

Most Canadians don't lock their doors when they are at home though. If you watch that segment, that is what he's getting at. Not that people leave their houses open and go out, but that when they are home they aren't so afraid of the outside world that they keep their doors locked. Moore's take on it is a little over the top (that schtick again), but he's making a point about the differences between our two cultures.

Moore does point his finger at the media in the end. A lot of people from both sides of the political spectrum point to the media as promoting sex and violence and drugs and booze and gas guzzlers and gays and untraditional families and just about everything else. There is a fair bit of evidence to back them up...media exposure does have an effect...but that doesn't explain (in fact it contradicts) the differences between Canada and the US.

If Moore wants to give a simple answer though, the one about the media is it. It's the answer we are used to hearing, and it's the answer with the most data behind it. Few, if any, who have actually collected that data would say that it was the single answer, but oddly enough the media has convinced us that it's the right one.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/

They have a good section on Michael Moores deceit. I am in no way saying that I support Bush and Michael Moore is a "big liberal" yada yada you know the deal, just that he is dishonest and distorts facts. That site also has good sections on Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and so on. I would have to say it's one of the most bipartisan sites I've come accross. They also cover issues of the Iraq war and other topics. Great site for people wishing to look up media distortions and bias.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

Maybe I over-estimate people...maybe they really are all unthinking idiots. I don't think so though. I think most people realise that there is a difference between what Michael Moore does and what Linda McQuaig and David Corn do and a difference between them and the BBC. I certainly hope so.

The US experiment is proof that guns, when uncontrolled, are bad. That isn't to say that guns are bad, but there is no reason why somebody needs an assault weapon and no reason not to control such ownership much more tightly than the US does.

Chuck Heston, as head of the NRA, was a jerk. He backed everything from plastic guns to the availability of cop killer bullets. Only a jerk would do that. He also, when he came to Canada to make a speech, made it clear that thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied here. Only an ignorant jerk would think that.

$1:

Just because he's using the same tactics as his opposition doesn't make it right. If he wants to aspire to noble ideas, why did he have to lie and misrepresent?

That's always been part of his schtick. He's not lying, he is misrepresenting only in minor (and accepted for his genre) ways. It's a styler designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason. It is something he saw the other side doing and copied. That's part of what made it funny and likely why he was more popular in Canada than the US for so long...we got it.

$1:

This next part is a little off the main theme, but you said Columbine was about gun control, but Moore himself deviates from his own theme after an "examination" of Canada (oh yeah, everybody up here keeps their doors unlocked) and ends up pointing his finger at the media, so the viewer ends up a bit confused about what he's trying to say.

Most Canadians don't lock their doors when they are at home though. If you watch that segment, that is what he's getting at. Not that people leave their houses open and go out, but that when they are home they aren't so afraid of the outside world that they keep their doors locked. Moore's take on it is a little over the top (that schtick again), but he's making a point about the differences between our two cultures.

Moore does point his finger at the media in the end. A lot of people from both sides of the political spectrum point to the media as promoting sex and violence and drugs and booze and gas guzzlers and gays and untraditional families and just about everything else. There is a fair bit of evidence to back them up...media exposure does have an effect...but that doesn't explain (in fact it contradicts) the differences between Canada and the US.

If Moore wants to give a simple answer though, the one about the media is it. It's the answer we are used to hearing, and it's the answer with the most data behind it. Few, if any, who have actually collected that data would say that it was the single answer, but oddly enough the media has convinced us that it's the right one.

If you notice, Moore went around to peoples house's during the day time. I leave my door unlocked during the daytime all the time. Also, the house's he went to didn't exactly seem to be in the worst neighborhood. Maybe if he had gone to some lower class shithole neighborhoods, at midnight, the situation would have been different? Most of my Canadian friends always look the door at night, considering that is a time when anyone is most open to robbery, and Canada, just like the US, does have robberies. It's not that I'm extremely scared, it's just a precaution so that I don't, for whatever reason, wake up the next day and have my hard earned stuff stolen. But to repeat, I never lock my door during the daytime unless I am not going to be home. When Michael Moore went around, for all we know most of the people's houses were still occupied. I just think it's a stupid point to put accross because people in Russia, or France, or the UK might keep their doors locked all the time, and it's more of a thing which people do to protect their possesions when they can't be around them, because the US, Canada, France, and the UK all have robberies.

[Twila]

$1:

People believe what they see, and it bothers me that something offered up for public consumption like this is accepted pretty much as a truthful portrayal of what goes on in the States because the film appears to be a documentary to the casual person in the audience. You say that people aren't interpreting it as "hard journalism," but everybody I ask about it accept it that way without thinking about it.

The alternative is to dumb things down so that everybody can get it.

That doesn't seem like a good option.

It should be up to the person watching it to do the research and come to their own conclusions.

[Stratocaster]

Rev_Blair:

I think you do over-estimate the average audience, and I think there is a middle ground between an "unthinking idiot" and a sophisticated, informed viewer like yourself who is aware of what is shown on the BBC (I don't have the BBC for instance, why would I know what's on it?). Most people are in between: they haven't dedicated much thought one way or another, and probably apt to accept what they see as the truth because Columbine looks a lot like the "Nature of Things" documentaries we watched on TV as kids. Not that it is unbiased either, but maybe you understand what I mean here. He might be making a point in an entertaining fashion using "accepted" methods for the genre, but I'm not very familiar with documentaries, so I believed in more of that than I should have.

Also, yes, Moore was lying, because some of the things he presented as facts (murder numbers, etc.) weren't accurate. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though and just assume he made a mistake, but still.

I wish there was a news source where the pure, unvarnished truth presenting all angles objectively was available to read. Even if what Moore does is the same as Fox, that doesn't make it any better to me. I feel let down, duped, and I'll be much less likely to enjoy future work by this guy without remembering how I was manipulated before. Is this a good way to further your cause?

-A

[Rev_Blair]

$1:

They have a good section on Michael Moores deceit. I am in no way saying that I support Bush and Michael Moore is a "big liberal" yada yada you know the deal, just that he is dishonest and distorts facts. That site also has good sections on Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and so on.

See...he's beating them at their own game.

$1:

I think you do over-estimate the average audience, and I think there is a middle ground between an "unthinking idiot" and a sophisticated, informed viewer like yourself who is aware of what is shown on the BBC (I don't have the BBC for instance, why would I know what's on it?).

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. Everybody knows that various factions of politics spin things. The right does it a lot more effectively than the left lately and that's why they go after Moore so hard. He's the guy on the left that spins as well as the right does.

$1:

Also, yes, Moore was lying, because some of the things he presented as facts (murder numbers, etc.) weren't accurate. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though and just assume he made a mistake, but still.

You will find that the data Moore used was accurate. If you find his sources, you will find that Moore never changed a thing. Somebody using a different source may have data, also accurate.

Nobody presenting something like this uses raw data because nobody can understand raw data except statisticians. The result is that somebody interprets the raw numbers, puts them in an understandable form, and then somebody else interprets that, picking the parts that make their point, and uses that.

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. CD Howe and the Fraser Institute are right-wing (pretty far right too) think tanks. That's never mentioned in the story though. On the other hand if you find a story using the Tommy Douglas Institute as a source you will find the story says, "The Tommy Douglas Institute, a left-wing think-tank..." even though most Canadians know who Tommy Douglas was.

All Moore is doing is running some spin. It's what a lot of people do, but he's really good at it. That's not because of the data or even the way he spins it though...that just makes him like everybody else. It's because he's entertaining as hell.

[xerxes]

$1:

I wish there was a news source where the pure, unvarnished truth presenting all angles objectively was available to read. Even if what Moore does is the same as Fox, that doesn't make it any better to me. I feel let down, duped, and I'll be much less likely to enjoy future work by this guy without remembering how I was manipulated before. Is this a good way to further your cause?

A noble lament, but as unattainable as a decent politician. The problem with news reporting and the like the fact that there are always a large number of facts that are relevant to each story. Naturally, not all can be included. As a result, each news anchor or journalist must make decisions as to what they want to include. Because everyone has their own personal biases as to what is relevant, biases inevitably show through and some people are better at controlling their biases than others. The thing about bias is to recognize it and balance it with what you know or what you believe.

[Rev_Blair]

I read something the other day...it wasn't very long, maybe 600 or 800 words...but the guy had at least three sources for every point he made and seemed completely unbiased. It was dull as hell, I doubt anybody would have read it if they didn't have to, but it also very confusing because there was no central theme to it and some of the points completely contradicted other points.

In the end I just went and looked up some of the writer's sources and used those instead.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

They have a good section on Michael Moores deceit. I am in no way saying that I support Bush and Michael Moore is a "big liberal" yada yada you know the deal, just that he is dishonest and distorts facts. That site also has good sections on Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and so on.

See...he's beating them at their own game.

$1:

I think you do over-estimate the average audience, and I think there is a middle ground between an "unthinking idiot" and a sophisticated, informed viewer like yourself who is aware of what is shown on the BBC (I don't have the BBC for instance, why would I know what's on it?).

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. Everybody knows that various factions of politics spin things. The right does it a lot more effectively than the left lately and that's why they go after Moore so hard. He's the guy on the left that spins as well as the right does.

$1:

Also, yes, Moore was lying, because some of the things he presented as facts (murder numbers, etc.) weren't accurate. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though and just assume he made a mistake, but still.

You will find that the data Moore used was accurate. If you find his sources, you will find that Moore never changed a thing. Somebody using a different source may have data, also accurate.

Nobody presenting something like this uses raw data because nobody can understand raw data except statisticians. The result is that somebody interprets the raw numbers, puts them in an understandable form, and then somebody else interprets that, picking the parts that make their point, and uses that.

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. CD Howe and the Fraser Institute are right-wing (pretty far right too) think tanks. That's never mentioned in the story though. On the other hand if you find a story using the Tommy Douglas Institute as a source you will find the story says, "The Tommy Douglas Institute, a left-wing think-tank..." even though most Canadians know who Tommy Douglas was.

All Moore is doing is running some spin. It's what a lot of people do, but he's really good at it. That's not because of the data or even the way he spins it though...that just makes him like everybody else. It's because he's entertaining as hell.

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

[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.