But there's a large difference between slant and bias and lies, distortions, and fabrications. He *made shit up* for this "documentary," and Hollywood doesn't seem to care.
However, there are people who're agitating to get Moore's Oscar revoked. (http://www.revoketheoscar.com/)
I agree that all documentaries have a slant. But I hope all documentaries aren't as deliberately inaccurate as the web page claims this one is.
I don't particularly mind stuff like fudging on what a particular Lockheed Martin plant makes, but I think stuff like saying the NRA held a rally in a community immediately after a shooting, when in fact Heston was not in the community until 9 months later, is wrong.
If an opinion is worthwhile, then there are facts to back it up, and it's not necessary to rely on lying.
Well, at least I wish that were true.
People who I think are very smart keep trying to convince me otherwise, though. I've heard stuff like "Well, since the right wing has Rush Limbaugh, I'm glad the left wing has Michael Moore to compensate."
[rant]
Personally, I think this attitude that the truth doesn't matter as much as the spin is precisely one of the reasons that US President Bush and his cronies think it's perfectly all right to lie through their teeth about their reasons for invading Iraq. I hate it.
No need to apologize for the rant. I feel similarly about Michael Moore.
IMO, lying like this inevitably hurts the side that the lie is told on behalf of. Because when the truth is exposed, people will suspect the rest of the argument, thus discrediting everything else one says.
If one can't make one's argument without resorting to lies, then maybe one ought to choose a different argument...
Nitpick: firecat says in the original post that she hadn't confirmed the site's calims for accuracy. So, it wouldn't be "lying" but rather "alleged lying" unless you have done the fact-checking.
True, I haven't confirmed that site either. Maybe I should've said "Lying like Moore is accused of" Then again, I've read enough reports of similar lies and unverified claims perpetrated by Michael Moore in Angry White Men (reported in Salon.com -- hardly a right-wing site upset with his ideology) that I find such accusatons against Bowling for Columbine wholly plausible. That's another problem with telling lies; the boy who cries wolf analogy makes it that much harder to believe his veracity.
Gak. I wish someone would tell Michael Moore that the "Left" doesn't need someone to lie and distort like Limbaugh and Coutler does on the "Right". Not to mention the fact that there's quite a few people on the "Left" who *are* gun owners and find his tirade annoying at best.
Moore likes his image of a "everyday" blue collar type, the truth is he could care less about the blue collar if it allows him to rub elbows with the rich and famous. I saw "Bowling for Columbine", researched some of his claims, and people are right, it shouldn't have gotten a documentary award, since it's mostly fiction.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
flashfire, posted in
no subject
no subject
However, there are people who're agitating to get Moore's Oscar revoked. (http://www.revoketheoscar.com/)
Re:
no subject
I don't particularly mind stuff like fudging on what a particular Lockheed Martin plant makes, but I think stuff like saying the NRA held a rally in a community immediately after a shooting, when in fact Heston was not in the community until 9 months later, is wrong.
If an opinion is worthwhile, then there are facts to back it up, and it's not necessary to rely on lying.
Well, at least I wish that were true.
People who I think are very smart keep trying to convince me otherwise, though. I've heard stuff like "Well, since the right wing has Rush Limbaugh, I'm glad the left wing has Michael Moore to compensate."
[rant]
Personally, I think this attitude that the truth doesn't matter as much as the spin is precisely one of the reasons that US President Bush and his cronies think it's perfectly all right to lie through their teeth about their reasons for invading Iraq. I hate it.
[/rant]
Sorry for the rant - it's not directed at you.
no subject
IMO, lying like this inevitably hurts the side that the lie is told on behalf of. Because when the truth is exposed, people will suspect the rest of the argument, thus discrediting everything else one says.
If one can't make one's argument without resorting to lies, then maybe one ought to choose a different argument...
no subject
no subject
Nitpick:
no subject
no subject
Moore likes his image of a "everyday" blue collar type, the truth is he could care less about the blue collar if it allows him to rub elbows with the rich and famous. I saw "Bowling for Columbine", researched some of his claims, and people are right, it shouldn't have gotten a documentary award, since it's mostly fiction.