[mathking]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Saying that his documentries are informative and truthful is like saying that we never landed on the moon.


I wonder that that millionare is going to do with all that money he made from the F9/11 movie to help the "poor" people in this country he always talks about.....

Well, a 1 minute google search found this

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0702-07.htm

Says that 60% of the profits are going to charaties.

And then CNN has a story

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/02/new...heit_charities/

The 60% of the net profits going to charity is actually from Disney's share of the profits, not from Michael Moore's own money. He actually did make that much (relative to the normal take of a director/producer of a $100 million plus grossing movie) on the movie. On the other hand, he actually does give quite a bit of money and his own time to organizations which help the poor and to other causes.

I am not sure what the quotation marks around poor were supposed to signify, but I am hoping not a disdain for there actually being poor people who need help. There are actually quite a few poor people in this country.

I completely agree that Mr. Moore's movies are not balanced and objective. They are editorials. This does not necessarily mean they are not also documentaries. Being a documentary just means presenting facts. There is really nothing about making a documentary that requires objectivity. In fact many if not most documentaries are attempts to prove a point and are inherently editorial in nature.

I don't particularly care for his style of political persuasion, though I do think he has a lot of talent for humor and makes movies that people like to watch. If you are going to use humor to "go for the jugular" I think satire is better medium.