more farenheit 9/11

[RCraigRobinson]

I just read that Nick Berg had been interviewed for 20 mins before leaving for Iraq by Moore's crew and that the footage is not in the film but Moore gave the footage to the family. Also read that the Weinstein brothers have managed to buy rights and plan to distribute the film claiming any proceeds which would go to Disney will be donated to charity.
Given the already interesting debate here about this film, I will be glad to see it and watch what happens in here.

-rcr

[krunky]

I have never seen a Moore movie nor read any of his books - but I understand that he has a disturbing tendency to overplay his hand with facts that can be verified to be slightly other than what Moore claims, but I guess hyperbole is not exactly a crime. The few short essays of his I have read seemed reasonably pithy in my view, just a hint of entertaining anecdote here and there to move things along.

But with so much at stake this year of all years, and so little having been reported by the more accessible media channels, I think I have to make an exception this time and actually go see Moore's documentary. I just hope he stuck well to the facts, because he can likely do more damage with the simple truth than by exaggerating the situation. The neocons and their puppet must go (and possibly be brought up on various charges), but I'd personally like to get them for things that can be well documented and proven.

On the other hand, the neocons and the head puppet are very well protected by issues of "national security" and "executive privilege" so I don't want to set a standard that Moore could never meet. If he can prove enough of it that I can smell the smoke, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that there is also a fire.

[Doc]

I'm with you on this one Krunky. I tend to agree with Moore on many points, but he often shoots himself in the foot by overplaying his hand (can I mix any more metaphors?). This gets really frustrating, because some people dismiss his entire message because of the hyperbole, even when there is a great deal of accuracy in what he says or portrays (as in Roger and Me).

However, if this film is what it seems to be, Moore won't have to say a lot. I just hope people will judge it on it's own merit, instead of instantly embracing it or dismissing it becasue of the filmaker.

[Michael Moorcock]

It's probably fair to say that Moore's a propagandist rather than a true documentary maker. In that sense, he's a fair balance to the propagandists onthe other side.

[DeeCrowSeer]

It's probably fair to say that Moore's a propagandist rather than a true documentary maker. In that sense, he's a fair balance to the propagandists on the other side.

Absolutely, but it's still a shame. I grew up watching TV Nation and his other shows, and it was a bit of disappointment to find out how much he "fudges" some of his facts. But as Doc says, there is still a lot of truth in what he says, and he does at least make the effort to put himself out there in the metaphorical cross-hairs.

D...

[Doc]

Absolutely, but it's still a shame. I grew up watching TV Nation and his other shows, and it was a bit of disappointment to find out how much he "fudges" some of his facts. But as Doc says, there is still a lot of truth in what he says, and he does at least make the effort to put himself out there in the metaphorical cross-hairs.

He's an interesting person, regardless of what you think about his politics. I'm not sure if he's a total narcissist or a glutton for punishment (or maybe a bit of both). Sometimes he seems to revel in his own inaccuracy when he's fudging,or at least when he's caught, and he seems to embrace all of his hyberbole as a counter to other hyperbole--maybe his own version of two wrongs make a right?

He does have guts to say some relatively unpopular things at crucial times. More importantly, I think that some of the things he has said in the past really needed to be said at that time, but maybe not like he said them.

Having said that, I'm a bit uncomfortable with some people who seem to have ordained him as the primary spokesperson for the American left.

[Michael Moorcock]

I prefer our local heroes -- Molly Ivens and Jim Hightower. But I agree
Moore functions well as an opposition voice (especially since there seems to be little opposition in Congress). However, two lies don't make the truth, even if they help us look for it.

[L'Etranger]

Having said that, I'm a bit uncomfortable with some people who seem to have ordained him as the primary spokesperson for the American left.

Oh, sure, but come on, American Left, where is another effective spokesman?

Winona Laduke any time, but WHO knows her?

A voice from Europe

[Doc]

I prefer our local heroes -- Molly Ivens and Jim Hightower. But I agree
Moore functions well as an opposition voice (especially since there seems to be little opposition in Congress). However, two lies don't make the truth, even if they help us look for it.

I appreciate that I've rarely read anything from Ivens that seems like pointless ranting (which to me is the print equivalent of "if I talk louder than you I win.") The writing is usually pretty measured and thoughtful, but still containing a good kick in the ass. I hope people nationally pay attention to the two of them the way they do around here.

I agree with you about the lack of an oppositional voice in Congress. This is especially true in the House, which has quicly turned into W's personal "yes" squad, compliments of Tom DeLay. I have a little more faith in the Senate (although not too much more), where old voices like Byrd's and Kennedy's have too much power to be completely shut out, regardless of the Senate's partisan composition.

LE, you raise an interesting question. Flaws and all he gets more press than anyone else on the left. Effective, I'm not sure. Visible, certainly.

[L'Etranger]

In my humble opinion:
yes, effective. As we are living in times when politicians are "sold" to the public in video-clip style "visible" equates "effective". And any form of media presence is obviously the key.
Not saying how long the effect lasts, though ...

[Doc]

Not saying how long the effect lasts, though ...

There's the problem. I'm beginning to think that people's attention spans are about the same as the fruit fly's, especially media-saturated types. For example, the US has changed the rationale for going to war in Iraq, but I've heard many people in the media say something to the effect of "we can't talk about that anymore, because that story is dead." Really?

That complacency scares me as much as revisions to history.

By the way, I didn't bring up the war to politicize this thread and make it about that. It was simply a good example and the first that came to my head.

[Bill]

Doc, don't apologize; regardless of what one's position is on the war, to say that the story is "dead" is shocking to me. It is probably the most important series of events in the world right now.

I'm starting to think that the phrase "attention span" is becoming an oxymoron.

[Anonymous]

The Fahrenheit trailer is up. Here is the link http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/

I found the trailer to be funny but I wonder if Moore distortes facts.

[Dead-Air]

Moore's "Facts"

I tend to agree with pretty much everything I've read here with regard to Michael Moore. I like the guy's work, I agree with his politics at least most of the time, and yet I take everything he says or writes with a grain of salt.

That said, I think this new movie will stick closer to verifiable facts than most, as the book which precedes it Dude Where's My Country did so a great deal more than previous efforts (including the runaway best-seller Stupid White Men which made som majorly unverifiable claims about Mad Cow disease among other things). DWMC took pretty much the same angle as the movie is puported to on the Bush-Saudi/Bin Laden connections and the War in Iraq, and it backed it up with footnotes (something he doesn't do so much in his other books) quoting sources such as The Wallstreet Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. Of course "conservatives" (I really hate the terms liberal and conservative because they hardly accurately describe the political agendas connected with them) will cry that the media is controlled by the Left, but anyone who looks at who advertises in those publications should be able to tell the truth.

As for Moore being the acknowledged voice of the "American Left", I think he still is second to his old boss Ralph Nader in that role, though Nader's ego is losing him a big chunk of his support base. Politically, I find it hard to argue with much that Ralph says, and yet his manner of centering it all around himself has made me pretty much give up on him.

[Doc]

Re: Moore's "Facts"

As for Moore being the acknowledged voice of the "American Left", I think he still is second to his old boss Ralph Nader in that role, though Nader's ego is losing him a big chunk of his support base. Politically, I find it hard to argue with much that Ralph says, and yet his manner of centering it all around himself has made me pretty much give up on him.

Anyone who would want to run for President has to have a huge ego. I won't fault Nader for it any more than anyone else who is driven to hold the office. Most of the talk about Nader's narcissism is driven by Democrats, who miss his biggest point. He feels alientated by the two party system in America, and he has no voice except for himself. A common enemy does not always make groups allies, which many Democrats seem to assume. If the left of the party hadn't run away from positions like Nader's, and marginalized those who hold similar ones, they wouldn't have him to trouble them in November. Kucinich fought the good fight within the Democratic party and look what it got him. At least Nader will make some people address issues that they may conveniently ignore otherwise, especially those that the media and some politicians have somehow deemed irrelevant. .

This position is relatively easy for me. I've said before that I can vote for Nader without a conflicted conscience, because I live in Texas, where Bush will win no matter what happens. For what it's worth, I might, even though I prefer to vote Green.