Are there any factual errors in Farenheit 911?

I suspect Moore is very careful in his research. Are the freepers finding anything that is factually wrong, or are they just disturbed by the message?

a large portion of the US public thinks that Michael Moore plays fast and loose with his facts. Most claims as such are based on that, and not the specifics of Farenheit that few people have.

You mean gun lovers, right?

When someone like Moore gets up and starts talking alot of people naturally want to dislike him.

through his Nader support..... Hopefully most are getting past that...

If anything, it's his Clark support.

However , From his history ,I've seen all of his movies
I really doubt there will be Errors of Facts .

n/t

Moore does employ a little "clever editing" at times to make his point. For example in Bowling remember when they show Charlton Heston making the cold dead hands speech right after showing the Columbine footage?

Now Moore didn't commit intellectual dishonesty nor did he lie or anything, but just the very appearance of a man proud to be holding up a firearm after watching a bunch of kids getting gunned down....you get the idea.

It's a rather poweful technique, but technically at least in my opinion it's not lying as that stupid Bowling for truth website would have you think. It's just a context put together in a way to make a strong point really hit home.

and the ones writing reviews at IMDB of the movie they didn't see are very critical of Moore's intellectual dishonesty.

99 percent of what Moore puts into 9/11 we at DU already know about... Knowledgeable DU'ers would know instantly if it was bullshit.

How can freepers find "factual fault" with a movie they have never seen? I though they hated France, did they sneak over there to see it at the Cannes festival?? Those sneaks.

:p

is there link you can share?

http://us.imdb.com/

The Internet Mobvie Database

FR has a thread going where they are alleging Nick Berg was the camera man that worked with Moore getting the footage in his movie about the prison abuse. Then they are alleging that Moore put the soldiers up to the abuse so that he could put it in his film.

Unbelievable

Hi,

.....and they call us crazy?! LOL...hope there enough tinfoil to go around that board.

Cheers,
Kim :tinfoilhat:

that they would take orders from a civilian?

of intellectual dishonesty"? Or do you mean "critical of his honesty" or "of his intellect"?

And they always mention that Moore is fat.

And rich--although they generally worship wealth.

aren't beyond criticism, nor is his use of them. I'm from Canada, for example, and I can tell you that we lock our doors up here. The important thing is that a Moore - that is, a leftist agent provocateur with a willingness to get in people's faces and stir the shit up - is an absolute necessity in this crazy world, and at a certain point it's the spirit of truth, or the greater, big picture truth if you like, that becomes important over and above hard but petty truths. (Returning to my earlier example, the very real differences between Canada and the US, exeplified by the attitudes toward gun control, is absolutely true, and using the made-up thing about unlocked doors is unimportant.)

That said, I hope he's been absolutely rigorous with the facts in the new film, just to avoid bullshit reactionary attack stuff that will just muddy the waters.

Good points, thanks.

Didn't like the way he came down on Kmart in "Bowling". Those kids could have gone to any sporting goods store and gotten ammo--but because Kmart was the "big corporation" Moore feels as though he has a license to go after them...

It will be too bad if he pursues a similar tack in "Fahrenheit", because in this case the facts are really all you need.

... if K-Mart wasn't involved. If those kids had gotten the guns from say an uncle, or some small time gun store, Moore probably would have taken the victims to the bullet manufacturer's main office. Like say Remington or something like that.

if you're saying Moore claiming "canadian's never lock their doors" is one of his "big lies."

I think that's the point. Freeper types will take small, minor "distortions" and blow them up into so-called "big lies", all the while ignoring the message or point that MM is trying to convey.

that the small mendacities for the sake of comedy won't, to a thinking person, get in the way of the big truths in Moore's films. But freeper types aren't known for their attention to the big picture, nor for their ability to sort out intellectual subtleties. So they'll focus on these little things and distract from what's important, as usual.

Therefore (getting - phew! - to my point), the ideal in Fahrenheit 9/11 would be: 1) important truths revealed or confirmed, 2) mirth and hilarity to bring in the punters, and 3) unimpeachable facts across the board. I'm confident we'll get the first two and at least most of the third. Seeing the trailer made me more excited than ever.

Thanks for the welcome as well!

. . many people don't lock their doors. Canada has far fewer large cities than the US and is more rural, I'd say. Of course, I'm only familiar with Alberta and BC. But if I lived in a country where gun crime was far lower than here, I'd be less worried about my doors. Wouldn't anybody. I think that was his point.

One is from the trailer and the congressman that gets asked if He wants to sign up his kids to go to IRAQ. That congressman claims that he told Moore that he already has two nephews in IRAQ but Moore edited that part out. No real claim of lying here, just a stab at Moore for being deceptive because Moore failed to get the approval of Right-wing standards and practices for the final editing of the film.

The other is that Moore's premise that it was with WhiteHouse approval that the Saudis, including some bin Ladens were evacauated right after 9/11 is factually wrong because they blame it on Richard Clarke and are using some strange sword swallowing comments that Clarke made in this article from "The Hill" where Clake claims that it was he and he alone who orderd, and approved of the evacuations. He takes full culpabilty and responsibility for it.

evacuated the Bin Ladens, I think Clarke qualifies as the White House.

And even if he didn't tell Bush personally, Bush is definitely responsible for such a significant act by one of his employees.

Things sort of develop a momentum. If one wants to look at the campaign to throw mud at Moore, it starts with "Roger and Me". Corporate PR departments try to make an antagonist seem less believable so they put out a dossier on Moore, most of it inaccurate, misleading and so forth, but enough to perhaps prevent some movie reviewers from embracing it, and some even attacking him with it from the misleading dossier (like Pauline Kael). Brown and Williamson did the same thing with Jeffrey Wigand, it's common. At the point when Roger and Me was released, Moore was a guy from Michigan deeply in hock in making his movie, and GM's PR department had plenty of resources to out-maneuver him.

Once this ball started rolling, any subsequent critic of Moore would call him a liar, misleading and so forth. That would be one attack, the other that now that he's made money (by EARNING it, not stealing it by profit like most rich people) he's out of touch with the average American and so forth.

Of course, one could just look at Judith Miller of the New York Times, or the lies the commissars on corporate television tell us every night and wonder why they can lie all the time, and he is held to a higher standard, but anyhow, it necessitates he has to be stringent with sourcing and so forth in a way others don't. I noticed "Dude, Where's My Country?" had tons of footnotes, which he talks about at the beginning.

The first book by Noam Chomsky I ever bought, Necessary Illusions (1989) is about 1/3 book and 2/3 footnotes. That's what happens after over 30 years of writing books attacked by the establishment I guess. In Chomsky's prolific authorship, very little has been found to be factually wrong, so they usually hit him with guilt by association - they associate him with holocaust deniers (even though he's Jewish and says the holocaust happened and was, of course, horrible), the Communist Party of Cambodia sometimes called the Khmer Rouge (because he did an analysis of reporting on Cambodia, in which he mentioned how the massive US bombing affected Cambodia negatively - as it did to six American students who protested the bombings and were killed for their troubles). Just a mud-throwing technique to try to dissuade people from reading him - accuse him of being an apologist for Hitler AND Pol Pot (there's an odd combo), and perhaps people will not bother hearing what he has to say.

Anyone who investigates this will see how it is just a campaign to discredit these people and their charges add up to nothing, but that's not the point, it's directed at people who won't bother to dig things up, and will just believe it. They're basically using propaganda techniques to make people think the truth is propaganda.

saying it is lies, a month ago, told husband, we will see. we know it all. we will see the truth the exaggerations or any lies. and if so i know that iw ill own it. there is more than enough educational unknown for much of the people to make it valid. but i am thinking moore is pretty good at presenting, he was in columbine though he used some numbers that werent just right. in whole it was pretty good

will be nothing like bush's commercials on kerry, that i am sure, or government numbers or presentation on going to war,..........lol lol

However, here's the report from behind enemy lines. I have heard that Moore used an editing technique in Bowling for Columbine that some would consider dishonest... During one of Heston's speeches, the film cuts to the audience at the NRA convention and the audio played during the crowd shots is technically what Heston was saying at that speech... Audio either from the same speech but at a different time, or from a different speech altogether, was played over the crowd pans, before Heston was shown speaking again. Supposedly if you transcribe what Heston says on Bowling for Columbine, and compare it with any of the transcripts of his speeches, he never said what Moore portrayed him to say in a continuous presentation. I have never done this myself, but if I had to speculate, it seems pretty likely that Moore did cut and paste to make Heston seem more inflammatory than he actually was.

Anyways, approximately 1 min 30 seconds into the trailer for F911, After Bush says "This is an impressive crowd; the have's, and the have mores." The scene cuts away from Bush and shows a guy opening a really big bottle of champaign, while the audio continues with Bush's voice saying "Some people call you the elite." and after this, it cuts back to Bush, where he says "I call you my base." It is possible that Bush never uttered this sentence, and it is spliced together like Heston was in Bowling for Columbine. I have no evidence to show that it was or wasn't.

*gasp*

What a horror!

If you edit something in such a way as to give the appearance that something else was intended at the time when in fact it wasnt, thats dishonest.

With all the shit going on in this administration, showing the ugly truth should be as easy as writing speeding tickets at the Indy 500. Theres no room for lies by the left IMO.

Film making--even (or especially) documentaries--is about dishonestly, creating effects, editing, and selective use of information to create an aesthetic object with a particular, personal perspective. Knowing "the truth" about the administration might be enough to hang it, but it might be miserable artistically.

Every choice in making a documentary film is an editorial choice.

Who was the French director who said he would make documentaries with no music, few cuts and a stationary camera because he criticized other flimmakers for using the camera to editorialize? It turned out to be a failure because he realized that every choice he made was an editorial choice, despite there being no continuity editing, narration, or score.

*

If you feel this way then you are saying that what Moore is doing is ok?

I believe you can tell the truth in a film and still get your point across. Some might call it "creative editing", others call it dishonesty.

Welcome to DU TryingToWarnYou. :bounce:

As a native San Antonian (and lifelong Spurs fan)as a student at AggieLand, I've passed near your wonderful metropllis on dozens of occasions, but I don't think I ever saw the town itself as the road from Bastrop to College Station actuallly drove through your twin City in the metroplis, Old Dime Box.

on edit: Make sure you make it over to the Texas Forum and say Hi!!

GWB* did utter this sentence. He said it at one of those correspondence dinners.

"I have no evidence to show that it was or wasn't."

Well, thanks for bringing it up anyway. Best of luck.

bzzzzt, try again.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thinking people will appreciate him for who he is & what he does.

The others will complain that he's fat. And that he's rich. Guess what--he's going to get even richer. I'll help!

As long as he pays his fair share in tax without accepting the tax cuts for the rich
he can make millions for all I care. I just hope he gives most of it to charity and lives
the humble life he portrays and demands of us.

Since when does he demand that we live a humble life?

why in the hell would he be working to put Kerry in office? Kerry has said he will repeal the * cuts for those making over $200,000.

BTW, when did the Dems demand a vow of poverty. Missed that one, I guess. :eyes:

cation for his kids.

People who do what he does should be richly rewarded by our society.

He doens't have to live humbly.

He needs to set an example that if you do the right thing and work hard you get rewarded.

I think Clinton sets the same example.

Tell us what he says about gun owners in it, hmmm?

violence in America.

Anyone is entitled to make their own argument.

Moore's was INCREDIBLY compelling.

He didn't pretend to presenting the only version of reality. I'm sure he'd welcom a debate. Where are the filmmakers presenting a competing argument (and making comments like yours isn't an argument about the causes of violence in America).

The main attack I've heard is that Moore is supposedly a hypocrite because he claims to be a champion of the common man but is a millionaire. There was also a recent editorial by Fred Barnes where Barnes claims that an exchange between him and Moore that Moore wrote about never happened. These are the only two I've heard of, however even if they were true the RW has no room to talk since all they do is lie.

I found two anti-Moore sites so far
www.Moorelies.com
www.Moorewatch.com

There isn't much I've found on those sites though I'll be looking at them more later, and see how many of their claims I can debunk.

And the only retorts I've seen come from right wingers.

Moore is not exactly known for toeing the line when it comes to facts.

As an example, Bowling For Columbine was an excellent parody and he showed that he is truly talented, but it was chock full of half truths and innuendo touted as fact. But at the end of the day, it was a worthwhile film when viewed as a parody of American gun culture.

While Im sure that F.911 will be as lax with the facts as BFC, I welcome the effort and the effect will hopefully be huge on the naive masses.

I look forward to seeing it soon.

the Heston thing was already mentioned.

And if you reach for that same warmed-over-bullshit "he didn't get the gun from the bank on the same day!" I'm going to scream.

Anyway, 2 down - so what else? Apparently its "chock full" - so tell us.

"it was a worthwhile film when viewed as a parody of American gun culture."

That makes no sense whatsoever. How is BFC a parody?

Do you know what parody means?

Since they're used in similar contexts.

parody: 1: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule. (Merriam-Webster)

satire: 1: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.(Merriam-Webster)

The latter definition would seem to fit BFC fairly enough.

BFC liberties with the truth are well documented. I'm not in the mood to beat that dead horse. But truly if this is first that you have heard about it, I encourage you to google it.

Unfortunatly some people worship at the feet of Moore so he can do no wrong. Moore could claim that Bush is alien from mars and some many people would believe it.

Likewise, some people hate him throughly, and believe that everything he says is 100% lie. For those people Moore could discuss the blueness of the sky, and they would dispute.

The truth is in the middle.

For me.. I refuse to let my hatred of Bush blind me to critics of others who question the thief in chief.

Moore is a talented guy, and even if he does bend the truth, what he is doing is overall a positive.

For whats its worth, I do hope that Moore leave behind his penchant for sensationalism and half truths, and just tells it like it is in 9/11. Here the truth needs no embellishment.

What a bunch of empty blather.

Dont bother investigating anything, just believe what you hear.

rather than toeing the correct thinking line.

accurate when it comes to researching history. I've done research in archives and even the documents found there can be called into question as to if they are accurate or merely a portrayal of what the author wanted to seem as factual. Moore is no different, he has an agenda just like everyone else, but in fairness I believe he does his best to make sure what he reports is as accurate as possible.

by the typical cadre. Just like the widely circulated report by an NRA ATTORNEY attacking Bowling for Columbine.

Who is "they"?

The Republicans who're running on 9/11 & "The War on Terror"?

Halliburton?

On Friday, June 25th, Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' will be released in various theatres across the nation.

How wide a distribution the film will have still remains to be seen.

It just might make it to theatres everywhere simply because of the publicity the movie has been receiving from it's Cannes' Palme d'Or award, and Michael Eisner's short-sighted bias in refusing to release the flick under the Disney Miramax subsidiary.

Regardless of how widely the film is distributed, democrats should make a statement with their pocket books by ensuring that EVERY SEAT IN EVERY THEATRE is filled on 'Fahernheit 9/11's' opening day.

Tell the Bush administration, and their neo(lithic)-conservative media whores, that their attempts at subverting our democracy have failed.

The goal, friends, is to have this movie set attendence records.

Mike, on his website www.michaelmoore.com, speculates that the film 'might' break attendence records for a documentary - but let's see if we can't break records for opening day attendence for ALL film genres.

Plan ahead - take friends & family with you - hype the flick at work, at your union meeting, or during your poker night, etc...

**If you think you can take part in this nationwide statement of protest against the facist dogs controlling America's media, visit all of the various message boards you log on to, and post a similar message as the one you are reading now.**


FRIDAY, JUNE 25 - "FAHRENHEIT 9/11"

Be there,
Eat popcorn,
Boo Bush.
-- OAD

Here we goooooooooooo... :nuke: