Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore
-
WillyGilligan
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
Just goes to show people are vastly more interested in titillation and vicarious hatred than they are in accuracy, "fair reporting," or the documentation of an event or events. No matter what anyone may feel about Moore, Bush, or any of the issues involved, there is no question that this film is highly biased, intentionally inaccurate, and vague to the point of meaninglessness. It is in no way a documentary, nor is it fiction; it requires a new class of film: the Lie.
Having not seen the movie, I can't say too much-- but I'd say it certainly does make an honest attempt at factual demonstration. It may be spun out of all proportion, but it does make an attempt. The whole purpose of a documentary is to document certain real-world events for posterity; while Spiderman 2 may be watched by kids for years, Farenheit 9/11 will be debated in schools for decades to come.I understand how it entertains, but what does it document? It implies, suggests, and infers, but I've seen no evidence that it proves, supports, or otherwise factually demonstrates.
Look, even if the facts were distorted, that doesn't change the fact that the movie was a documentary. Take the famous lemmings movie, Disney's White Wilderness. Here is the snopes.com debunking of the lemming cliff-jump. People have known for years that the facts were badly distorted, yet as far as I know, the movie is still being taught in schools!
Just because you don't like what a person has to say-- or just because he gets his facts wrong-- does not change the fact that it is a documentary.
The point of a documentary is to present facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter and Moores film was FAR from it. This wasn't a documentary but a mudsling of monumental proportions. Period.
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
You're right, it's not a documentary. The film was not made, to use Cain's explanation, "to document certain real-world events for posterity." It was made to deliver a political message, to preach, to persuade, and to damage the President's image. This class of film already has a name. It is propaganda.It is in no way a documentary, nor is it fiction; it requires a new class of film: the Lie.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
-
FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
Oh, it does... it's the difference between "real facts" and "good facts". Propoganda always relies on "good facts"; which are always true up to a given value of truth.The film was not made, to use Cain's explanation, "to document certain real-world events for posterity." It was made to deliver a political message, to preach, to persuade, and to damage the President's image. This class of film already has a name. It is propaganda.
Moore is not only going for a message on this one. He's looking for a place in posterity with this movie, just like Disney was doing with White Wilderness. I think he wants it to be knows as The Movie That Brought Down a President.
I don't believe that's true. Almost none of the propaganda I have heard or read about relies on any truth at all. In fact, most - for instance - Communist propaganda relies on intentional deception - outright deception - and takes advantage of ignorance. Most anti-drug propaganda films were, until comparatively recently, also intentionally and blatantly deceptive. Iraq's Minister of Propaganda - I mean, the press or whatever - certainly spent a lot of time lying directly to his people, and I would consider that propaganda.Cain wrote:Propoganda always relies on "good facts"; which are always true up to a given value of truth.
Whether propaganda is more often deceptive or true, it is certainly not true that propaganda /always/ relies on good facts. Unless, of course, I misunderstand your definition of "good facts," which is quite possible, since I would not ascribe the quality of "being always true up to a given value of truth" to anything named "good facts." Then again, I don't think truth is particularly subjective, so...
That may explain some of our debates, then.Whether propaganda is more often deceptive or true, it is certainly not true that propaganda /always/ relies on good facts. Unless, of course, I misunderstand your definition of "good facts," which is quite possible, since I would not ascribe the quality of "being always true up to a given value of truth" to anything named "good facts." Then again, I don't think truth is particularly subjective, so...
Look, Michael More is taking the facts and spinning them his way. That's undeniable. Bush and Rove are doing the same thing. Heck, this trick is so old, it's got a name in advertising-- the numbers trick. You give people a lot of spun numbers to make your product look good.
Let's say I'm an advertising exec for a new toothpaste. I interview three dentists, and two of them say that my toothpaste is effective. I can then take those views, and say: "More dentists found Dent-O-Shine to be the best toothpaste. In fact, twice as many dentists gave it their highest rating!"
This is both deception and relying on ignorance, and relying on "good facts".
To bring this back onto topic, Moore is clearly relying on his goodfacts. So is Bush. Both of them, IMO, are resorting to sleazy tactics. I may not like Bush, but he does not have the lock on dirty pool.
Interesting thought. For a good chunk of the movie, however, Moore doesn't use facts of any kind, not "good facts," or "true facts" or any other kind of fact. He uses quite a lot of fiction.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
-
FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
It's not fiction, he uses suggestion. The facts he presents are facts in the true sense of the word, he has no choice but to use facts. It's the context in which he places those facts, and the connection he tries to make with other facts in which he crosses the boundary into suggestion. He tries to draw conclusions where (sometimes) there are no conclusions to be drawn.Marius wrote:Interesting thought. For a good chunk of the movie, however, Moore doesn't use facts of any kind, not "good facts," or "true facts" or any other kind of fact. He uses quite a lot of fiction.
-
WillyGilligan
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
How does he have no choice but to use facts? On the one hand, if he shows footage of someone doing something or saying something, then they probably did do or say those things. However, it's been asserted by some that have seen this movie and Bowling for Columbine (okay, it's on the internet, so it's not necessarily true) that he uses footage and gives flat out lies about when the footage was taken, Heston's "cold, dead hands" speech being the one I see referenced most often.
It is just as easy, sometimes even easier, to lie with a camera as it is to lie without one.
It is just as easy, sometimes even easier, to lie with a camera as it is to lie without one.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
-
WillyGilligan
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
But why do you need a seperate name for that? When you say good facts, it sounds like you're saying that he's telling the truth but only a certain section of the truth that supports his position, which is already called a half-truth. If he's flat out misusing footage to say something it doesn't, then it's a lie. Where does the new term become necessary?
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
No, they are not. Statements like, "All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true" are not facts in any sense of the word. That is an example of a lie. The statement that Saudis "own 7% of America," is a lie. Calling Katherine Harris, "the vote count woman" creates a fiction. Her office did not count votes.The facts he presents are facts in the true sense of the word
When he is using factual footage, he is most certainly not using merely suggestion. He is using deciet. He's not trying to draw conclusions where there are none to be found. He is drawing connections that are demonstrably false, and piecing together his movie specifically to lead others to believe that those conclusions are true. That's a lie. You can't pretend it's not a lie just because only half of his lie is in the narration, and the other half is in implication and in pictures. Clever editing to convince people of a falsehood is lying.
Last edited by Marius on Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
I could go on for weeks about the psychological pressures involved, but that'd bore most people here to tears. For now, let's accept that the term "good facts" is more popular in propaganda and advertising circles, since it doesn't have the negative connotations you'd get from "half-truth". Part of doing good propoganda is convincing yourself, after all.
-
WillyGilligan
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
I can accept that people "in the industry" use it, but can we not use it here? I think it's misleading and hinders communication.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
Marius wrote:That's a lie. You can't pretend it's not a lie just because only half of his lie is in the narration, and the other half is in implication and in pictures.
Want to earn a little extra money, Mooch?Time, July 19th, 2004, p. 42 wrote:"There's a lot of disagreement with my analysis of these facts or my opinion based on the facts. But," he insists, "there is not a single factual error in the movie. I'm thinking of offering a $10,000 reward for anyone that can find a single fact that's wrong."
