How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"(BARF)

MichaelMoore.Com ^ | Not Given | Michael Moore

[EsclavoDeCristo]

With the unexpected and overwhelming success of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men," the fiction that has been written or spoken about me and my work has reached a whole new level of storytelling. It's no longer about making some simple errors or calling me "Roger" Moore. It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them – and, then, stop listening to me.

Oh, that it would be so easy!

Fortunately, they are so wound up in their anger and hatred that they have ended up discrediting themselves.

Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief – and more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year – then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me. Fine. That's okay. I knew that before I got into this and I ain't whining about it now.

I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice – that's how they got to be so powerful.

So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat fucking piece of shit") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore hates America!").

I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control–has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.

So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of the woodwork.

And that's what happened. I saw another one of these lunatics, this time on MSNBC. A guy named John Lofton. He went on and on about how my movie is all made up. The anchor on MSNBC never challenged him on his lies and never told the viewers who he really was – a right wing crazy who believes Bush is too liberal. He was once an advisor to Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign, and was a direct-mail writer for Jesse Helms. Writing in opposition to Hate Crime bills in the conservative Washington Times (where he was a columnist from '83 to '89), Lofton explained:

[EsclavoDeCristo]

CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

Oh no, not GUN WEEK!!!!!!!!!! I guess that automatically makes him bias. If they put someone from Men's Health Mag on there would their opinion be biased too since Moore is a "plus sized" fella?

[KellyAdmirer]

These are not nice people and they don't play nice – that's how they got to be so powerful.

Perfectly sums up Michael Moore himself.

[inquest]

Wow, not just liars, but lying liars. They say that those are the worst kind. (but they could have been lying)

[kevkrom]

Note how Moore doesn't offer facts to back up his case -- he just calls those who oppose him nasty names. I'd expect better from an 8-year-old.

[coloradan]

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

This is an "Attack the Messenger" logical fallacy. Whether he's contributing editor of Gun Week or not, doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on his claims about lies in BFC.

Of course all gun grabbers have is logical fallacies, and MM is no exception.

[dirtboy]

CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive. Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

Notice that Moore doesn't refute what the guy said, he just questions his motives. Classic propaganda technique.

[Weimdog]

Funny how the fat bastard doesn't even acknowledge the Fred Barnes piece in the Weekly Standard which calls Moore the lying liar -

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

[txlurker]

I truly hate this man.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Moore is Professor Harold Hill without the style, class, talent, or even band uniforms at the end.

[HighWheeler]

With all of Michael Moore's million$, he is still fat, ugly, stupid, repulsive and uneducated. I submit this as Proof that money can't help change a person from being a dedicated loser.

[MarkeyD]

I went to the page and it appears he did try to back it up. But who knows if they were in fact facts, or just more of his lies.

[dufekin]

Gotta have some pictures:

So, how can I get an account at that bank? I need more bang for my buck--both literally and figuratively. And yes, I'm talking both hunting and banking here.

[Teplukin]

I agree 100%. He heightens my dislike of liberals, and of fat people as well.

If we could get rid of liberals and fatsos, America would be so much a more pleasant place

[DrNo]

Stupid White Man: An Autobiography, by Michael Moore.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Monkey boy throws crap.
No proof they lied, though tubby
Says that they did. Ha!

Please FReepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

[Badeye]

All I know for sure is that since "Bowling for Columbine" debuted, both Gun Sales and NRA membership are way up.

[beelzepug]

Paragraph six says it all.

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

My favorite lie about Michael Moore is this misconception that he's overweight.

[antiRepublicrat]

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination.

I thought the film had a good premise: Exactly why do we love our guns and why do we kill each other with guns so much? That's a valid question to ask and definitely deserves to be explored. Liking Moore's old TV Nation show, I saw this movie thinking I'd like it, but then I did research on several statements and representations in the movie and found out they were lies.

THAT'S why I don't like the movie, not because of some political agenda. It's really sad, because a more honest producer/director could have done some good work with that premise.

But I do have to give him a little credit. He helped debunk the "More guns equals more gun violence" myth with the Canada piece, and the question of news broadcasts constantly putting violence up in prime time is a good one.

[antiRepublicrat]

Notice that Moore doesn't refute what the guy said, he just questions his motives. Classic propaganda technique.

You have to read the whole article. He successfully refutes the question of the gun at the bank, but I don't know why anyone questioned him on that in the first place. Quick research shows that is completely possible. But he does a poor job of defending his Denver Heston speech and Lockheed Martin pieces, and doesn't even go into some of the more glaring errors.