Daily Kos

View Story | 66 comments

  •  Yes, but (none / 0)

    That depends on which definition you use.

    For example, Dictionary.com defines documentary as:
       1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
       2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

    But I don't think it really matters.  Our language hasn't kept up with nuance.  Not to sound flip-floppish, but I agree that it is a documentary, but only in as much as today's media is journalism.  

    But the original point here is that if Liberals continue to admit that Moore is loose with the facts they are allowing Repubs to frame the debate in terms that keeps us on the defensive and where we ultimately can't win.  Of course Moore is loose with the facts, so is Fox.  

    •  2 kinds ... (none / 1)

      I think there are two main types of documentaries.
      1.  Those that present the facts in an objective way, without passing judgement (the objective lens type of documentary), and allowing the viewer to make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.
      2.  Those that presnt an opinion and back it up by facts, in a similar fashion that a prosecuter would present a case to a jury.  This alows let the viewer decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with the point of view of the creator.
      Moore obviously released a documentary of the 2nd type.  I don't think this second type is deceitful or dishonest.  It's not as if he's making things up.  He just presents things in a way that supports his premise. There may be some sensationalism, but then again who doesn't to a certain extent. It's not enough to make him lose credebility to someone who is unbiased going into the movie.

      I know Bush wanted to run the country like a business, but I never expected it would be a dot com.

      by avagias on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 09:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 66 comments