Here's a picture of him being interviewed at the convention.
Posted on 07/27/2004 6:49:55 AM PDT by aculeus
There's more McCarthy than Murrow in the work of Michael Moore. Michael Moore has won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and may win an Oscar for the kind of work that got Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelly fired.
Trying to track the unproven innuendoes and conspiracies in a Michael Moore film or book is as futile as trying to count the flatulence jokes in one by Adam Sandler. Some journalists and critics have acted as if his wrenching of facts is no more serious than a movie continuity problem, like showing a 1963 Chevy in 1956 Santa Monica.
A documentary film doesn't have to be fair and balanced, to coin a phrase. But it ought to make an attempt to be accurate. It can certainly be pointed and opinionated. But it should not knowingly misrepresent the truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Drudge has a photo on his site of Michael Moore sitting in a presidential box at the Dem Convention with Jimmy Carter.
In spite of all the Hollywood ass-kissing thrown Moore's way recently, his BFC Oscar speech shenanigans should keep him off the stage at next year's awards ceremonies.
Chariots of The Gods, Oliver Stone's JFK, Nostradamus(the film in 1977 that had me convinced along with my girlfriend who I went to see it with, that we were going to all die before the week ran out. I mean Orson Wells wouldn't lie to me?), and Moore's Farenheit 911 are similar.
Here's a picture of him being interviewed at the convention.
I agree with the sentiment, but unless Sandler's last three movies were called "Two Straight Hours of Flatulence Jokes" parts 1,2 and 3, this is way off. Counting Moore's "fact" droppings is more like counting the nasal tones in a Lifetime marathon of "The Nanny."
An excellent column by Simon, but wouldn't it have been more direct of him to simply state that Moore is just a huge (literally and figuratively) liar? Saying he ignores facts or misstates is begging the question.
Somehow, I doubt that they applied the same standard to The Clinton Chronicles).
I'm listening to Eleanor Clift on Laura Ingraham's show, saying that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a film of "great sensitivity."
BARF!
Important paragraphs from the article reflecting on a new danger to our troops - the damage to their emotional stability, and ability to continue to be a strong fighting force, to believe that America supports their work:
Mr. Moore tries hard to identify himself with U.S. troops and their concerns. But he spends an awful lot of effort depicting them as dupes and brutes. At one point in "Fahrenheit 9/11," someone off-camera prods a U.S. soldier into singing a favorite hip-hop song with profane lyrics. Mr. Moore then runs the soldier's voice over combat footage, to make it seem as if the soldier were insensitively singing along with the destruction.
In another scene, U.S. soldiers make savage jokes about the awkward effects of rigor mortis on one part of the corpse of an Iraqi soldier. I do not doubt the authenticity of those pictures. But I also have no particular reason to trust it. A few basic details, like where and when the video was shot, are considered traditional reporting techniques (especially after the front-page photos of British soldiers brutalizing Iraqi prisoners turned out to be frauds). A few other basic facts might have informed the audience. Was the Iraqi killed in battle? By a suicide bomb? Moore says the U.S. soldiers are good boys turned coarse in an immoral war. But I have also heard those kind of ugly and anxious jokes about corpses from overstressed emergency room physicians.
:
>Drudge has a photo on his site of Michael Moore sitting in >a presidential box at the Dem Convention with Jimmy Carter.
You know the party is grasping at straws when they put this uneducated dumba** in the same level as a former president. Or is it that the former president is at the level of Michael Moore?
I've started working door-to-door voter surveys for the Bush campaign. I get asked a lot of questions. I was just thinking about how I would answer, "Why are you a Republican?"
Because Democrats pander to fear and ignorance in the voting public and that's bad for America.
Jimmy and Michael are perfect examples.
bttt
I'm impressed that Scott Simon wrote this.
BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.