Michael Moore is not serious political commentary

[DrNewton]

"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups."

This guy's stuff is the definition of propoganda. His film are always deceptive, (he even goes as far as switching up newpaper quotes, using out of context footage, and lying to the people he interviews), and he does this to push his agenda. I'm not even sure he genuinely believes half the crap he says. How could one person be 100% left wing? Probably to sell millions of dollars worth of junk politics. Don't believe that?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

If you want to be left wing, fine. Even 100%. That is usually a good sign that you've failed to put any thought into whatever political philosophy you have, and just read talking points from the DNC's website, but okay. Atleast quote someonne reputable. It's better to take a less extreme position and be truthful, than to take the most extreme position possible and lie about it fifty-nine (or more) times in a two hour period.

[CigaretteBeer]

I enjoy having a crispy corndog and ice cold lemonade on sunny afternoons.

[Hard To Explain]

IBTFVP

(fuckingvegan post)

[nice weather]

I've waited so long to re-post this.

[DrNewton]

I've waited so long to re-post this.

Obvious? Not to all of the members of this forum.

michale mmore wrote a book called stupid white men i think the men in that book are the "whitey" antwauns tat is reffering to. you cant possibly think hes racsist yet skateboarding as a career on teams with plenty of white folks on them.

   

Expand Quote

You are such a gullible piece of shit. Yeah, Moore wrote him a silly little $12,000 check, but what do you think that film is going to gross? Moore has swindled the public out of something like $200,000,000 now, with his OUTRIGHT LIES IN EVERY FUCKING SEGMENT.

[close]

Name some of those lies?

Feel free to take your stupid graphic and get the fuck out of my thread.

[Vlade Divac]

I heard Sicko was downloadable for free, but I didn't see it on his site. Anybody got a link?

[keeper of the lair]

^

http://www.plentyofvids.com/player.php?link=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2526970685450320610&hl=en-CA&pagetitle=Sicko

[grimcity]

Propaganda isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It all depends on how much of the content involved in it is true or not... skateboard ads are propaganda to a degree (especially if the company is firmly branded), as are any forms of media you ingest that have some sort of opinion attached to them (or at least try to form yours).

Hell, even documentaries are propaganda... and I'm not referring to Michael Moore's work either, I'm talking about films that noone would doubt deserve the title of documentary. Example: if you ever find yourself watching a documentary on the mating rituals of the common garden mole, ask yourself when you ever gave a shit about moles before watching the show. The documentary itself is propaganda that has the sole purpose of making you interested in an animal that you might not otherwise ever think about.

I haven't seen Moore's latest film, but I've seen all his stuff going back to his old TV show (TV Nation). I think he includes some documentary-style approaches in bits, but he takes an active role in his films that make him a participant rather than an observer/narrator. He's an observer/activist/narrating commentator.

On one hand, I can accept the fact that his work could be viewed as propaganda, but I tend to look at his work more as an opinion-editorial type of coverage. He allows his world view to shape his films, and he states his opinions without apology.

One other thing I might add is that his work isn't shoved in anyone's face... people have to proactively pay to see his movies (or download them if they want to). So even if you think it's propaganda at its worst, you still have to accept that it's free market propaganda that people choose to consume (versus something like White House propaganda that's tax payer funded).

I do think Moore does serious political commentary, especially considering that politics are subjective and conditional.

[Sleazy]

your assuming that because something is propoganda means that it's not a valid point which is not the case

by your definition, any political message is propganda and in my opinion the weakest kind of political propoganda is the kind that has it's basis in semantics, like your argument. if you think that his arguments are weak, then why not attack those arguments instead of stating the obvious and hoping that a negative connotation can do the work for you (essentiallly name calling). unless your only hoping to get your message across to jr. high students you should instead explain how tight the insurance system is in american and why it isn't unjust, how tight coporations are and how fairly they treat their employees and all then explain all the valid justifications for the war in iraq and how tight bush is. that might actually be interesting if you could pull it off. hell you could probably even make a movie that people would watch if you could do that, but i guess then it would be propogand and no longer valid...

[DrNewton]

Propaganda isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It all depends on how much of the content involved in it is true or not... skateboard ads are propaganda to a degree (especially if the company is firmly branded), as are any forms of media you ingest that have some sort of opinion attached to them (or at least try to form yours).

Hell, even documentaries are propaganda... and I'm not referring to Michael Moore's work either, I'm talking about films that noone would doubt deserve the title of documentary. Example: if you ever find yourself watching a documentary on the mating rituals of the common garden mole, ask yourself when you ever gave a shit about moles before watching the show. The documentary itself is propaganda that has the sole purpose of making you interested in an animal that you might not otherwise ever think about.

I haven't seen Moore's latest film, but I've seen all his stuff going back to his old TV show (TV Nation). I think he includes some documentary-style approaches in bits, but he takes an active role in his films that make him a participant rather than an observer/narrator. He's an observer/activist/narrating commentator.

On one hand, I can accept the fact that his work could be viewed as propaganda, but I tend to look at his work more as an opinion-editorial type of coverage. He allows his world view to shape his films, and he states his opinions without apology.

One other thing I might add is that his work isn't shoved in anyone's face... people have to proactively pay to see his movies (or download them if they want to). So even if you think it's propaganda at its worst, you still have to accept that it's free market propaganda that people choose to consume (versus something like White House propaganda that's tax payer funded).

I do think Moore does serious political commentary, especially considering that politics are subjective and conditional.

The point is that he lies to support his claims.

If I said "Bill Clinton rapes children" would you take that seriously?

Moore pretty much does the same thing, but the public that chooses to consume his garbage turns a blind eye.

[grimcity]

Well like Sleazy said, it depends on the point being discussed, and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated, he tends to cover a shitload of subtopics in his films... so if he were to say:

A: Republicans eat newborn puppies
B: The Earth is round
C: George Bush is a man working for peace

...I'd probably take issue with point C, as A and B are demonstratively true.

[DrNewton]

your assuming that because something is propoganda means that it's not a valid point which is not the case

by your definition, any political message is propganda and in my opinion the weakest kind of political propoganda is the kind that has it's basis in semantics, like your argument. if you think that his arguments are weak, then why not attack those arguments instead of stating the obvious and hoping that a negative connotation can do the work for you (essentiallly name calling). unless your only hoping to get your message across to jr. high students you should instead explain how tight the insurance system is in american and why it isn't unjust, how tight coporations are and how fairly they treat their employees and all then explain all the valid justifications for the war in iraq and how tight bush is. that might actually be interesting if you could pull it off. hell you could probably even make a movie that people would watch if you could do that, but i guess then it would be propogand and no longer valid...

Correction: I am saying the propoganda is no longer valid when it contains deception/lies.

It is propoganda, as opposed to well thought out, impatial political commentary. He basically takes the most left position possible, tells a few lies about it, adds in some humor, and puts it out as a film. People then see this and believe it.

[DrNewton]

and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated,

Wait, you disagree with me, even though you don't know anything about the topic at all? 

[grimcity]

impartial political commentary

That in and of itself is nearly impossible to find, and I don't mean in the Fox news or Air America sort of way. Just a reporter's understanding of what politics (as a whole) is affects that way they present policies or political events. There may be a few news outlets that just do play-by-play narrations on the happenings in DC, but by and large, there's always some partiality to political coverage, even if that partiality is something as simple as the journalist's understanding of the process. Just sayin'.

[grimcity]

Expand Quote

and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated,

[close]

Wait, you disagree with me, even though you don't know anything about the topic at all? 

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you on is the assumption that propaganda is a bad thing by default. I'm not making any claims to the validity of anything that Moore has said.

[DrNewton]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated,

[close]

Wait, you disagree with me, even though you don't know anything about the topic at all? 

[close]

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you on is the assumption that propaganda is a bad thing by default. I'm not making any claims to the validity of anything that Moore has said.

Alright. I'll clear this up for you all.

1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
2. Michael Moore's films are propoganda.
3. Michael Moore's stuff is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.

[grimcity]

1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.

Most political commentary is full of partiality, bias, and opinion. That's what commentary is... it's an explanation, an analysis, and in many cases a spin on a certain political view. I don't know where you get that it doesn't "require thought" though. Even if you think every word that Moore says is a lie, it still wouldn't make sense to say that it's not actual thought. Opening a beer requires thought.

2. Michael Moore's films are propoganda.

I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, propaganda in and of itself is a neutral term... because something is proaganda does not immediately make it villainous (I'm not making a claim on Sicko either way as I haven't seen it or researched where his lies might be).

3. Michael Moore's stuff is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.

Again, how you can say that Moore isn't engaging in actual thought doesn't make any sense to me... and again, political commentary is subjective as hell. I think Rush Limbaugh is one of the biggest liars in the world, but I don't deny that he makes serious political commentary.
On agendas: agendas, like propaganda, are not inherently bad. Like the mole-mating documentary example I illustrated earlier... documentaries have an agenda, even if it's something as simple as making the viewer gain interest in moles.
On being impartial: he's not a news reporter, nor is he a news journalist. To my knowledge, he's never claimed to be anything more than a film maker. He's free to be an opinionist, and he's free to use film to express his opinion. If he were an anchorman or a government official, I'd use that impartial/agenda argument against him, but that's not who or what he is. 

[Sleazy]

1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.

i completely disagree with this definition.

why don't you put some specifics on the table so this argument could move from semantics to politics.

what is it specifically about moores message that you take issue with.

i definitely prefer his style of political attacks to yours at this point as at least he puts some logic and substance behind it.

so put something up and i'm sure people would be happy to debate with you on the issue

[DrNewton]

Expand Quote

1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.

[close]

Most political commentary is full of partiality, bias, and opinion. That's what commentary is... it's an explanation, an analysis, and in many cases a spin on a certain political view. I don't know where you get that it doesn't "require thought" though. Even if you think every word that Moore says is a lie, it still wouldn't make sense to say that it's not actual thought. Opening a beer requires thought.

Expand Quote

2. Michael Moore's films are propoganda.

[close]

I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, propaganda in and of itself is a neutral term... because something is proaganda does not immediately make it villainous (I'm not making a claim on Sicko either way as I haven't seen it or researched where his lies might be).

Expand Quote

3. Michael Moore's stuff is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.

[close]

Again, how you can say that Moore isn't engaging in actual thought doesn't make any sense to me... and again, political commentary is subjective as hell. I think Rush Limbaugh is one of the biggest liars in the world, but I don't deny that he makes serious political commentary.
On agendas: agendas, like propaganda, are not inherently bad. Like the mole-mating documentary example I illustrated earlier... documentaries have an agenda, even if it's something as simple as making the viewer gain interest in moles.
On being impartial: he's not a news reporter, nor is he a news journalist. To my knowledge, he's never claimed to be anything more than a film maker. He's free to be an opinionist, and he's free to use film to express his opinion. If he were an anchorman or a government official, I'd use that impartial/agenda argument against him, but that's not who or what he is. 

When I look at an issue, I just to think about it from all sides. Take gay marriage:
 
Conservative side: human race will die
Liberal side: gay rights  
Then whatever other factors....

Then, I think. "Hmmm.... not many people are gay. Plus gays would be gay without marriage..."
After a little more thought, I end up with the belief that the government should have no say in whom or what a person decides to marry.

That's what I mean by thought.

If Michael Moore followed a similar process, his position would not be left on every single issue. And since he does not reasonably come to positions using facts, I do not take anything he says seriously.

[grimcity]

You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?

[DrNewton]

You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?

No, it's normal to tend to be left or right, or whatever.

But when you are on one side or the other, completely, every single time, you don't think. You are just following that side.

[grimcity]

Do you know that Moore is on the left of every single issue, or just the ones he makes movies about?

[plastic bench nerd]

You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?

grim, i really like youre new avatar!

[grimcity]

Expand Quote

You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?

[close]

grim, i really like youre new avatar!

Covaaaaaahs baby, covaaaaaahs!

[DrNewton]

Any issue he is vocal on he is also left on. That is my only frame of reference, but, given the broad frame of reference that I do have, it is safe to assume he is left on every issue.

[Sleazy]

so what political commentary do you look to when your looking for the real deal?

[Sleazy]

Take gay marriage:
 
Conservative side: human race will die
Liberal side: gay rights  
Then whatever other factors....

Then, I think. "Hmmm.... not many people are gay. Plus gays would be gay without marriage..."
After a little more thought, I end up with the belief that the government should have no say in whom or what a person decides to marry.

That's what I mean by thought.

so your definition of thought, is to look at existing opinions and find the one that fits best for you? interesting, that's not how i would define independent thought...

if you think in terms of liberal or conservative, then you are not an independent thinker.

[DrNewton]

Any commentary that reasonably goes with a side, using real facts, and is not always one side or the other.

If you can be deceptive, lie, and take any position no matter how ridiculous, then nothing is invalid.

[friershier]

Documentaries can had a slant to them and attempt to change people's opinion.  Anyway you're an idiot if you think there is anyone who goes to a michael moore movie and expects to see a completely unbiased picture which is not going to attempt to influence the way they see issues.

[Sleazy]

then nothing is invalid.

so if everything is valid, then why are you against it?


grammer pwn aside, can you talk to specifics? what are the lies that you are so worked up about. the research i did, on conservative sites, about his movie about the war pointed to some exagurations with the coalition of the willing and things like that. is that what's got you all hyped up?