Daily Kos

View Story | 66 comments

  •  I could agree with you, except ... (4.00 / 2)

    ...that Michael Moore himself has made a very big deal about the fact-checking he did. Indeed, he's threatened - without his usual smile - legal action against those who accuse him of factual errors in F 9/11.
    "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:24:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not my point (none / 1)

      I'm not saying there are any factual errors.  I believe there are not.  The piont is that facts don't really matter.  

      F911 attacks Bush's character more than anything.  Facts are not needed to portray to people for who they are.  As you say yourself, the movie is most effictive because Bush is the main actor.  This whole charade about facts is just an effort to discredit the film, when in reality most people probably don't walk away thinking about facts.  They're left with the impression that Bush is not a leader and this war is not worth the cost.

      Liberals that perpetuate the notion that Moore is loose with the facts is not helpful to our cause.  It's not about the facts.

      by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:43:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  um... (none / 0)

        How do you portray someone as they are without using facts?  If the portrayal isn't factual, it isn't true or accurate.

        by kevincovey on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:43:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the delivery not the words (none / 1)

          Moore uses some nifty editing to emphasize Bush's true character.  For example, in the scenes of my pet goat and his announcement of the war, Moore slows down the footage thereby placing emphasis on Bush's insecurities.  These qualities are often missed in real-time, but ever so important.

          If we debate the merit of the film only on facts it's easily for the Repubs to claim that certain facts are left out, or that scenes are taken out of context.  Consider the "haves and have mores" clip.  Repubs claim that it was said at an event that is supposed to be funny.  Both claims are factual.  The Problem is that that sort of humor is disturbing to the "have nots".  

          by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:20:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry but this line ... (none / 1)

        ... The p[oi]nt is that facts don't really matter is just too Orwellian, too Rovian, too Limbaughian for my taste. That's more or less the argument Richard Perle and Ahmed Chalabi made about WMDs after the fact.

        I agree with you that Moore is an effective satirist who kick-punches his opponents in the most delightful way. The are-you-kidding look from the Congressman who is asked if he'd send his kid to fight in Iraq is worth the whole of F-9/11. If the only issue here was whether Moore is a great satirist who knows how to deflate the powers that be, then you'd get no argument from me.

        But this idea that Moore's presentation of the facts doesn't matter is bogus. They don't matter to those of us in the echo chamber, for sure. But so much of the praise at dKos for the movie has been built around the justifiable notion that it can be a helpful addition to our arsenal for defeating Bush in November. Since swing voters are the key target, and they could go either direction, it's important for us to be able to answer critics who claim Moore interpreted some facts inaccurately.

        If some swing voter at your workplace points out an alleged inaccuracy, and the only response you can make is: it's not about facts, the movie was merely satire - what effect do you think that argument will have on that voter's ballot box behavior?

        "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:56:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not always articulate in making a point (none / 0)

          But this idea that Moore's presentation of the facts doesn't matter is bogus.

          The Repubs want the debate to be about facts, because is distracts from debate about Bush.  I'm not saying we should concede any factual errors, there are none.  It was you who claimed he was a tad reckless in interpreting some of the facts.  Do you ever see many conservatives admitting that Fox is reckless in interpreting facts.  Noway.  I understand we're talking on a liberal blog and it doesn't really matter, but when talking with conservative friends I don't think we should concede so much.  We should answer critics assertions without compromise, but quickly shift the conversation to Bush.  The more time spent on debating the facts, the less time afforded to focus on Bush's incompetence.  "Why didn't Bush take action after learning of planes crashing into the tower?", "Isn't there a conflict of interest with Bush the presnit and his relationship to Saudis?", "Why aren't we seeing this war footage on the news?", etc, etc.

          by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:43:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed (none / 1)

      Here's an excerpt from his recent interview in Entertainment Wkly:

      And I also went and hired the former chief counsel and head of fact-checking at The New Yorker and then she brought in some fact-checkers. I said tear the movie apart and find something wrong with it. I've done this for my other movies, too. I've had virtually no lawsuits. Four books, not one lawsuit. ''Awful Truth,'' two seasons, zero lawsuits. ''TV Nation''? Two seasons, one lawsuit, we won it. ''Bowling for Columbine,'' no lawsuits until the Oklahoma City bombers' brother sued us -- remember when we go into the bedroom and the gun is under the pillow? A privacy thing. ''The Big One,'' no lawsuits.

      "It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting." --Bruce Springsteen

      by bunny on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:06:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually... (none / 0)

      Moore's invited those who accuse him of factual errors to sue him for libel. He claims that he has more than enough documents to back up every single one of his claims.

      Nice try, though.

      Pennacchio for Pennsylvania

      by RHunter on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:43:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Michael Moore told the New York Times ... (none / 0)

        "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force.  ...The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

        Nice try, though.

        "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:03:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 66 comments