I’m sure many of you are going to be quite upset about the title of this thread. There are a lot of talk about this new Michael Moore directed movie coming out. But I bet you didn’t know that there is another documentry movie coming out to counter Michael Moore’s story. Directed by Michael Wilson, this documentry is called Michael Moore Hates America coming out summer 2004.
*Contrary to its title, Michael Moore Hates America isn’t a hatchet job on the filmmaker. It’s a journey across the nation where we meet celebrities, scholars and average folks alike, and we find out whether the American Dream is still alive! In the process, we’ll look at Michael Moore’s claims about the country, its people, and our way of life.
**
I think that if anybody is going to watch the new movie Michael Moore is directing coming out should also go see this movie. There is no way to get the truth than to look at both sides of an issue. I am interrested in seeing what conclusions about Michael Moore that Michael Wilson is going to come out with.
Yeah I’ve never heard of this one yet. Is it going to be in theatres? Sounds interesting as well, although I’m not sure the title is that influential… they could’ve made it more geared towards the message they’re trying to get across…
David, I’ll watch it. But for what it’s worth, at least Michael Moore doesn’t title his films with something that directly and immediately attacks someone else. He does that IN the movie
When does this come out? I’ll be sure to go see it. Other points of view are always good.
First off, I’m a little bit doubtful of a movie that begins its description with, “Contrary to its title…”
I also couldn’t help but notice how the trailers opened up attacking Moore about his out of context quoting as they themselves proceded to dish out two minutes of quick little out-of-context audio clips that did nothing but support the author’s position.
Don’t get me wrong - I admit Bowling was quite misleading (read that page I linked to above). Its just that it seems to me that all this movie is trying to do is saying Michael Moore is an idiot by showing us clips of just those people satisfied with “the system” or whatever you want to call it.
Look, there are always going to be people satisfied with the way things are and there are always going to be people disatisfied with the way things are. If, however, you want to argue one of those sides, show me evidence; don’t just show me the opinions that are satisfied with the system. From the trailers, it seems like this movie is little more than out-of-context interviews with only people who support the author’s point of view.
The way to argue something is to address and refute the other sides argument. You’re not doing anything convincing by just talking about your position. Lets hope this movie has more than the trailers lead it on to have.
It looks like they’ve imitated the style of Michael Moore’s films without any of the relevance or humor that make them interesting and entertaining.
Also, Michael Moore questions and challenges America. The title of the film is little else but invective, lacking in professionalism, subtlety or propriety.
I find that Moore’s films are, at times, a bit transparent in their architecture and that he draws sweeping conclusions from too little evidence – however, I also imagined that it was implicitly understood that those films represent only one side of a story. I resent that others would insult my intelligence and try to shame me by suggesting that I am, in any way, party to someone who “hates America.”
Why not just get it over with and label him a terrorist? That must be the title of the sequel.
Judging from the trailers, it appears that this movie aims to discredit Michael Moore by perpetrating the shadier tactics that Moore has used in a few of his films. This does little to combat the points that Moore, Franken, and the other popular liberal voices (which pail in comparison to outspoken conservative or extremist religious figures). If I’m correct in my guess then this movie is nothing more than a “I’m going to give Moore a taste of his own medicine by editing the hell out of interviews to show how stupid this type of journalism is” movie. If that’s the case, then the movie is going to be a huge waste of my time. Of course, having not seen the film, I can’t be sure of this. If I run across it somewhere I’ll probably see it, but I won’t go out of my way to find it.
As has been brought up by my wise brother in more private conversations, the title itself is a libelous statement, and I think Michael Wilson should change it out of professional courtesy from one artist to another artist.
<edit>
I guess I’ll add that I believe that everyone should be entitled to make or view any movie that they wish to see. IMHO censorship shouldn’t be mandated by the MPAA or US government. If you don’t like a movie, tv show, radio show, newspaper, etc. then don’t watch/listen/read it. But when it comes to news I believe that the best way to grow as a person is by observing opinions contrary to your own, and then realizing that there are good and legitimate arguements for those opinions. I read my fair share of conservative publications. I would encourage everyone on these boards to stand up for your own beliefs, but also try to understand and respect the reasoning behind the opposing beliefs.
</edit>
<edit_2>
I guess I’ll also add for anyone new to these boards that I’m a fairly liberal person. Feel free to search my old posts on Iraq and other controversial issues. But having liberal tendancies hasn’t prevented me from making conservative friends with whom I can have respectful political debates with if the subjects of our conversations ever head towards politics or religion.
</edit_2>
This does little to combat the points that Moore, Franken, and the other popular liberal voices (which pail in comparison to outspoken conservative or extremist religious figures).
I hate politics its probably the least gracious of fields to get into. Though I do have to say that I was amazed at how friendly Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were recently but people ended up making that into a contraversy also.
I guess I’ll also add for anyone new to these boards that I’m a fairly liberal person. Feel free to search my old posts on Iraq and other controversial issues. But having liberal tendancies hasn’t prevented me from making conservative friends with whom I can have respectful political debates with if the subjects of our conversations ever head towards politics or religion.
This is a tangent, and I apologize for taking this thread off topic. Maybe this needs a thread of its own, but I’ll leave that up to moderators. You may hate politics and think it’s a very ungracious profession, but I think you would change your mind if you had a more in depth political experience. I could be wrong. You could be one of the many people in this country who doesn’t mind going with the flow, and you’re well within your right to do so. I find it very enjoyable to keep myself up to date with current events and politics. I also want to help technology education programs, and collaborative competitive project based learning programs (like FIRST) as best I can. Over the past few years I’ve developed political connections that will eventually allow me to better aid these and other programs that are very dear to me. I’m currently interning with the Democratic Staff of the House Science Committee, and I would definitely encourage anyone who has the slightest interest in politics to apply for an internship with their representative, senator, agency, or committee of their choice. I’ve only been on the job for a little over a week and I’ve been exposed to many wonderful experiences. Of course there is partisanship in politics, and there are shills for their respective parties, but there are also many good people who vote their opinion despite the stance of their party.
I find it very enjoyable to keep myself up to date with current events and politics.
Im not saying all politicans are ungracious. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120573,00.html
This is what Im talking about (Ignoring the spin.). It’s like that everywhere in the news. Moveon.org comparing Bush to Hitler. The people who have the most power act like obnoxious kids.
Most of the elite media bases all the news around their political ideas. The news is supposed to be objective fair and balanced. There is a big difference between editorials and analysts than factual and objective news. i.e. New York Times & LA Times. <— Full of spin.
“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he’s not a leader. He’s a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.”
That above quote is full of nothing but hatred. I don’t see Pelosi saying anything about how she thinks she can help with the problems she believes are present. If she is really concerned about what is going on, then she should give ideas of suggestions of possible solutions, not sit there and whine and cry like a little baby just because she doesn’t like who is in office.
Don’t ask for what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
Every media outlet has biases in its journalists, editors, and publishers. There’s no real way of getting around this other than to read many sources. I assume we’re pretty much on the same page with regard to this. The only thing we tend to disagree on is the degree of bias (and towards what political pole) in individual outlets.
This isn’t necessarily aimed at you, David. I just want to put this out on the table really quickly.
Nancy Pelosi is the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives. She represents a California district that is pretty much San Francisco. As a member of the House of Representatives she is charged with representing those people in her district, and as the Minority Leader she has the added responsibility of voicing usually the dissenting opinion in the House of Representatives and supporting the positions of her party. The people of San Francisco are pretty darned liberal, and I think she represents her constituent’s will quite well by opposing many Bush Administration policies. Also, since there are many other Democrats in the House of Representatives who oppose many Bush Administration policies she has every right as the Minority Leader to voice statements against the Bush Administration.
This kind of quote is not unique to Democrats, and improperly implies that Democratic lawmakers only bash the Bush Administration and Republican controlled legislature. This quote is quite possibly just a snippet from a press conference that contained program or policy proposals, but even if it was just a quick five-second interview that doesn’t mean that she hasn’t help draft proposed policy. Democrats have very constructive ideas on how to improve the economy, improve foreign relations, improve the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on. There are press conferences almost daily where Democrats lay out their proposed plans, and there are bills and amendments to bills offered almost daily by Democrats that are aimed at improving social programs and other issues. It isn’t appropriate to assume that one party intends on improving the country and the other is hell bent on destroying it. Everyone has their own ideas on how to fix programs and policies, and the only way to find out which ones work and which ones don’t is by testing them out.
Both parties propose their suggested fixes for problems, and both parties criticize the other’s suggestion. That’s how move from vague ideas to more focused and broadly acceptable ideas. Just like refining a design/strategy for a robot.
Do you dislike Pelosi criticizing Bush or do you dislike the journalism?
First of all that was not criticism. That was the equivalent of calling a person an idiot. Now if she had given some reasons why she doesn’t agree with his politics or why I wouldn’t. I just think that most people that are involved with the public need to be a bit more tactful and a bit more civilized when it comes to debate. Everyone is to blame. The only reason why I mentioned the media is because they made a big deal out of the event with Bush and Clinton. What’s the big deal. Even though they aren’t from the same party doesn’t mean they can’t get along. I also think this thread should be split up because it’s seriously off track. Im sorry.
Also, since there are many other Democrats in the House of Representatives who oppose many Bush Administration policies she has every right as the Minority Leader to voice statements against the Bush Administration.
I agree. It’s their job.
This kind of quote is not unique to Democrats, and improperly implies that Democratic lawmakers only bash the Bush Administration and Republican controlled legislature.
I agree. I just can’t think of anything off the top of my head. The only thing I could think of right now is Kerry and the whole ribbon issue.
As arguably the most powerful Democrat in national politics Nancy Pelosi has often undeniably legitimately criticized Bush policy. She (along with many other Democrats) has offered counter proposals to Bush policy. Just because FOX News quotes a harsh line in a much longer interview with a newspaper doesn’t mean that it wasn’t part of legitimate criticism. I shouldn’t have to tell everyone that FOX News is a fairly conservative media outlet.
I have to agree with you there, nearly every media outlet has a bias, the only variances are really the degrees of variance. I see that you cite the NY and LA Times as being full of spin, and I’m sure you would be quick to say the same about CNN. While, being a liberal, it’s my duty here to point out that Fox News is extremely biased, I’d have to say even moreso that CNN. Looking through Fox News’ programming (and I believe that they’re logo was your avatar for awhile), the only democrat they even have in there is Alan Colmes, and even then, he has to sit beside Sean Hannity, who is very conservative.
So really, both sides have great amounts of bias and spin in their reports. Thats why I like MSNBC so much, they are the most centered station for the most unbiased news. If you’re conservative, watch Scarborough Country, if you’re liberal, watch Countdown. And I really prefer Chris Matthews on Hardball, because I can’t really tell his political affiliation, he really just grills everyone on his show to get the facts.
PLEASE NOTE: This is not an attack on any individual, or really even any group of individuals. I’m just posting the “facts as I see them” (oxymoron for the topic )
While, being a liberal, it’s my duty here to point out that Fox News is extremely biased, I’d have to say even moreso that CNN. Looking through Fox News’ programming (and I believe that they’re logo was your avatar for awhile), the only democrat they even have in there is Alan Colmes, and even then, he has to sit beside Sean Hannity, who is very conservative.
Actually I’ve watched the Fox News enough to know that they do have a lot of democrats on. Usually they always have a Republican and a Democrat on for almost every news story so people would usually get both opinions. Though I’d agree with you the newscasters are usually biased though it usually ends up as the newscaster mainly being a moderator. I usually have my favorite liberal and conservative that I like to watch on fox. Ellis Henican is on Fox a lot.
I used to watch Fox News, but I haven’t tuned into them in that much for about a year, so there are a few new people I don’t really know. I just got fed up with Bill O’Reily. “No Spin Zone”? Yeah right…
I like Bill O’Reilly’s attitude, I think that’s what people hate the most about him… the few times I’ve watched his show (recently) it has seemed quite fair to me. He pretty much lays it out like it is, and of course people don’t like to hear the truth. :rolleyes:
I wouldn’t say that people don’t like to hear the truth. Bill O’Reilly, like virtually every other political magazine show host, skews the news or conducts his interviews to promote a specific message. Mathews, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Carville, Begala, Press, Carlson, Novak, and many others are all blatantly polarized reporters who try to fire up their base supporters and try to discredit their opponents using varying tactics. It’s pretty much a necessary precondition to have a stake in your articles or shows to become a political commentator. So, one person’s truth is another person’s quote out of context, or accidental/intentional misstatement of one’s position.
)