What Is Truth Anymore?

October 7, 2004 9:45 PM

Fahrenhype 911. We're going to destroy ourselves aren't we? A movie with appearances by Ann Coulter and Zell Miller takes aim at Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. It's slick, it's punchy and techno-contemporary. Is this a harbinger of not only the loss of America's middle class, but also our common ground?
posted by crasspastor (62 comments total)

Sweet! This is gonna be so good!
posted by bitpart at 9:51 PM on October 7, 2004

Oh snap. You have to buy it?
posted by bitpart at 9:51 PM on October 7, 2004

ITS RAINING APPLES MAFFAKAS
posted by Satapher at 9:57 PM on October 7, 2004

Need we more proof that the right is out of ideas?
posted by clevershark at 9:58 PM on October 7, 2004

Don't worry kids, those silly Americans will get sick of this crap sooner or later and will lapse back into the traditional isolationist political apathy we all know and love.
posted by Jimbob at 9:59 PM on October 7, 2004

I like the 'comments we've gotten section' labeled as "reviews" where "Michael Moore is the worst kind of American. He gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war."

How is that a "review" of the DVD Fahernhype 911?

Perhaps this is the review?

"I'm glad that you're making a movie to counterattack Micheal Moore's lies, but just to inform you lies to counterattack lies make you even worse."

And if you get the book you get a FRAME BY FRAME deconstruction of Fehrenheit 9/11. Guess some people underware got tightened up by Mr. Moore's movie.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:12 PM on October 7, 2004

As if we needed another "harbinger".

I wonder if the anti-mm hype isn't itself just hype. Isn't hype all there is anymore? Hype this and hype that. Hyping us all into some form of low-intensity battle. Why is this country being torn apart?

WTF? I hate it. There is a rational way about doing things.

In the Fhype trailer they refer to Bush I think but once. But they did refer to him, as in: Bush is the man for the "war on terror" or something to that effect. Moore makes no claims in his movie to support any position by any politician whatsoever. He does however allow for politicians to speak for themselves when they aren't aware that what they are doing and saying won't be recontectualized and summarily ethically impugned.

They call Moore a propagandist. Well fine. It's guilt by his association with the Democratic Party, as in being the Republicans opposition. Nothing more.

Moore supported Nader in 2000, declaring nary a difference between the Dems and the R's. Now his tune has changed.

As someone who voted for Nader myself, I think we've all "flip-flopped" a time or two. That's life.

Kerry+flipflops=Moore+sedition

These are all moves to silence any political opposition to the theocratic/corporate right. That's it.

As "flawed" as Moore and his films may be, are we not all flawed?

Certain cadres of the right have been seeding the miserable and disaffected minds of this country with the delusion that you as an American, have no flaws. Look at how powerful our way of stating our "case" is. This can only come from YOU! Your country.

Your country when its run by right-wing extremists of course, has no flaws. And that's the beauty!
posted by crasspastor at 10:12 PM on October 7, 2004

Wow, they sold me with a fattened up Ann and a heavily sedated Zell. That Michael Moore is a bad man. Shame on you, Michael Moore. Boo. George Bush has never made a mistake, ever, never, never, never, never. Saddam was thinking about making really nasty bombs that would kill only children and Saddam masturbated once to a pile of severed feet. George Bush is never wrong. George Bush is never wrong. And Dick Cheney is a really nice guy at heart. Got it.

Okay, what's next?
posted by fenriq at 10:21 PM on October 7, 2004

I love the log line: "You knew it was a lie... Now you'll know why!" In other words, we're not trying to convince anybody, we're just confirming baseless assumptions.
posted by muckster at 10:23 PM on October 7, 2004

Furthermore.

This country has NEVER been run by left-wing extremists ever. Pragmatists promptly labeled as the smear du jour of the day, yes. But nevertheless, reality exists, you make ammends. Politics! Who woulda' thunk?

You wanna disagree? Post away. But please do your research.

We gotchyer ideologues in office now. It may seem great now. But it won't be for long. Polarization must always come to an end. Nobody wins and nobody's innocence survives. And again, that's the beauty!
posted by crasspastor at 10:31 PM on October 7, 2004

In other words, we're not trying to convince anybody, we're just confirming baseless assumptions.

Which is all fine and good, because MM only preaches to the choir as well. I don't know why the right is so concerned, because it's not like there's scores of Repubs watching F9/11 (the original) and saying, "Hey, that scruffy man is right! I'm not going to vote for Bush anymore!" As the "reviews" on the site attest, them folks haven't even seen Moore's film.

Sounds like them's skeerd to me.
posted by terceiro at 10:49 PM on October 7, 2004

You gotta hand it to these folks, they worked the system so well that their movie was on store shelves the same day as F9/11, and they named it so video stores had to put them side-by-side like the above shot of my video store yesterday.

That's fucking brilliant marketing and delivery right there, even if they're a bunch of windbags that don't deserve to be dignified with a response.
posted by mathowie at 11:09 PM on October 7, 2004

You know, now that I see Michael Moore's eyes up-close, I realize that he is a dishonest person with suspicious motives. Thank you, dipshit reactionaries!
posted by squirrel at 11:17 PM on October 7, 2004

hype is the new hype.

Or so I hear.
posted by delmoi at 11:22 PM on October 7, 2004

By the way, is anyone else out there oddly certan that John Kerry will win the election? I mean, all the anylitical evidence seems to point to a close race, and yet I find myself stone cold certan that Kerry will win.
posted by delmoi at 11:23 PM on October 7, 2004

I like how Ron Silver is called "one of America's great actors".

Also, is this the worst-coded webpage ever? In Firefox there's blue lines across the page. In Opera there's the words "ection year dynamite" coming out of the left side of the page.
posted by donth at 11:26 PM on October 7, 2004

By no means do I think this film should be stopped from being distributed, but do you think the name and branding could create market confusion? In which case there could be an injunction against its distribution.
posted by ambirex at 11:30 PM on October 7, 2004

By the way, is anyone else out there oddly certan that John Kerry will win the election?

I wouldn't call myself stone cold certain, but if someone held a gun to my head and told me my life depended on it, I'm placing my bets on the K-dawg.
posted by rafter at 11:47 PM on October 7, 2004

What, no mention of Fahrenhype 911's little cousin, Celcius 41.11?
posted by gluechunk at 11:47 PM on October 7, 2004

> By the way, is anyone else out there oddly certan that John Kerry will win the election?

The Democrats seem to think so. I dont know how much stock there is to the "silent new voters" theory, but if those who registered out of "bush hate" vote for Kerry in certain states and if Kerry can keep even with Bush then there's a good chance (assuming new voters are going for kerry) Kerry will win. Of course, its a long way to November 2nd.

High registration figures do not necessarily mean high turnout on election day. People who agree to fill out a form when buttonholed in the street or at home by activists do not always take the trouble to go out to vote. But Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, said he expected a better turnout than in the past two elections.

"The question for the last 20 or 30 years has not been registration but motivation," he said. "And we're probably seeing the most motivation since 1968, with the lightning-rod nature of the Bush presidency ... My expectation of turnout is it will go significantly up to 58% to 60%, 118 million to 121 million voters, from 54% in 2000."

The Democrats are convinced a large turnout will be in Mr Kerry's favour. The party has broken records this year in raising $260m, $180m more than 2000, tapping liberal anger at the Bush administration, and has put much of that windfall into voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.

"The Democratic base is bigger and in better shape than it's ever been," said Terry McCauliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

"At this time in 2000, we didn't make any calls [to potential voters]. This time, we're making a million calls a week."

Mr McCauliffe said the party, together with liberal activist groups like America Coming Together (ACT), had registered 5 million new voters this year, and claimed that many of them were "under the radar" of the pollsters.

source
posted by skallas at 11:49 PM on October 7, 2004

I want to see it, and the rest of you should be careful about basing assumptions on a recorded clip and a website. Your starting to sound like them.
posted by Keyser Soze at 12:01 AM on October 8, 2004

Also, is this the worst-coded webpage ever? In Firefox there's blue lines across the page.

ok, so i'm not alone there. I decided to turn off images to see if the lines went away and the whole fucking page dissapeared. goddamn imagemap.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:06 AM on October 8, 2004

>Your starting to sound like them.

Maybe some people are sick of giving the right in the guise of Anne Coulter and Zell Miller another chance. Do we ignore their past, their bias, their statements? How many more chances do they get? In my book they are written off. Period.

Man, look at these "reviews." They people have dismissed themselves.

As far as sounding like "them." Fuck yeah. All the ponderous essays in Harpers and NPR news bites tend to equal losing all three branches of the government. The Democrats have a lot to learn about campaigning, getting the message out, keeping people interested, etc from the GOP. A lot of good this new found "anti-bush religion" is going to do when the left goes its own way after a Kerry win and the GOP is as tight as ever. Hell, Bush could be back in the Oval Office in '08.
posted by skallas at 12:08 AM on October 8, 2004

Keyser: This is an argument of imbalance. Moore's movie was meant to balance. It was meant to place into our consciousness the existence of an opposition. This is natural! Opposition is natural. We have to get used to that again.

We have to enjoy the acts of bringing politics back into balance. If we do not, then we slip into extremism. So I agree. See the movie dammit. Nothing should ever quiet the meanderings of any mind. But be aware that you will always have opposition, and even they deserve respect. But what happens when they no longer respect you for your loyal opposition?

The movie I've been watching for the last four years vs the two hours I spent in June at the theater watching Moore's brainfart is quite enough thank you. I don't like where this is headed one bit, but here we go anyway.

These are insane, wam, bam, left, right times. We need to begin meeting in the middle very soon. Seriously.
posted by crasspastor at 12:14 AM on October 8, 2004

Also, is this the worst-coded webpage ever? In Firefox there's blue lines across the page. In Opera there's the words "ection year dynamite" coming out of the left side of the page.

'cos, yeah, if anything is going to beat those republicans, it's the low quality of their markup. freak, haven't these people read zeldman? what kind of americans *are* they?

Maybe some people are sick of giving the right in the guise of Anne Coulter and Zell Miller another chance. Do we ignore their past, their bias, their statements? How many more chances do they get? In my book they are written off. Period.

Maybe some people are sick of giving the terrorist left in the guise of Michael Moore and Al Franken another chance. Do we ignore their past, their bias, their statements? How many more chances do they get? In my book they are written off. Period.

I'm just sayin'. Not that I think Moore is anywhere near the equivalent of the Coultergeist, or that Miller makes anywhere near as much sense as Franken, but the rhetoric works both ways and it's therefore as trustworthy as a switchblade in a knife fight on an ice rink. Or something.
posted by namespan at 1:00 AM on October 8, 2004

Regarding the "Will Kerry win?" question... Only if *everyone* in America who wants Kerry, or doesn't want Bush, gets out and votes. Not voting is voting for Bush.
posted by krisjohn at 1:07 AM on October 8, 2004

I don't think it's anywhere near a slamdunk for Kerry. For all the fervor in the Democratic efforts to get out their voters, the Republicans are just as fervent, and completely unrestrained by such niceties as ethics or honesty in their campaigning. These are the guys that tell you that voting for Kerry could get us attacked by terrorists again, or that voting for Kerry means the Bible will be banned. The conservative media machine didn't just go to sleep the last four years.
posted by RylandDotNet at 1:54 AM on October 8, 2004

I ordered a copy.

Looks like good stuff.
posted by Addiction at 1:56 AM on October 8, 2004

Need we more proof that the right is out of ideas?

What do you mean by this?

Moore makes no claims in his movie to support any position by any politician whatsoever.

Well, he does imply that bi-partisan failures are solely those of the Republicans. While making no specific claim to support any position is of no consequence, I’d agree in that I cannot think of an instance of Moore directly promoting the Democrats (or anyone else) but in what is effectively a two horse race; rubbishing the other side will probably do just as well.

They call Moore a propagandist. Well fine. It's guilt by his association with the Democratic Party, as in being the Republicans opposition. Nothing more.

To be honest, I think it is certainly something additional to guilt by association – if such a thing is even the case – a valid reason Moore could be labelled a propagandist is because he uses the media to one-sidedly oppose a specific ideal.

In other words, we're not trying to convince anybody, we're just confirming baseless assumptions.
+
You know, now that I see Michael Moore's eyes up-close, I realize that he is a dishonest person with suspicious motives. Thank you, dipshit reactionaries!

Portraying Moore’s eyes in a sinister fashion is not the strongest argument of those who oppose him. Neither is the tag line of the film, consequentially, pointing out the weakness of these factors is not enough to refute such arguments; neither is verbally abusing those who make them.

I find myself stone cold certan that Kerry will win.

Strange, I have a very uneasy, instinctive feeling he will loose – I very much hope your instincts trump mine on this issue though.

Maybe some people are sick of giving the right in the guise of Anne Coulter and Zell Miller another chance. Do we ignore their past, their bias, their statements? How many more chances do they get? In my book they are written off. Period.

Unfortunately, it isn’t enough to point to someone’s past in order to successfully refute their current position. Of course, it is within your liberty to write them off on such grounds – there is no law against argumentum ad hominem.
posted by ed\26h at 2:40 AM on October 8, 2004

Question is - how much did Ed Koch get paid to be in this? That man is a serious annoyance.
posted by RubberHen at 2:46 AM on October 8, 2004

Damn. I was going to go to Amazon and order both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenhype 9/11 just to confuse the oh-so-clever Amazon suggestion engine, but they haven't got Fahrenhype.

Also, that trailer seems a lot like all the other anti F9/11 things I've seen. I don't recall F9/11 saying that there was no terrorist threat, or that Saddam was a prince. Those claims are probably very well refuted in Fahrenhype, but they weren't made by Moore, so what does it matter?

I imagine the film is very slick, with well-spoken interviews designed to appeal to the target demographic. But I doubt it can really cast a whole lot of doubt of the facts Moore presents, which are well-researched. You can argue about the way he presents them all you like, but they aren't lies.

I'll still probably buy it. But I just got a knock-off DVD from Thailand of F9/11 so I may wait a little while to get the proper one.
posted by sycophant at 4:01 AM on October 8, 2004

Sycophant:

Imagine I were to say “I can only thank good fortune that today Sycophant actually hasn’t been smoking crack”. I would have intentionally tried to mislead people into thinking that your not being on crack is an unusual occurrence – that most days you are on crack. Let’s say you reply to me by saying “Hang-on – that’s not right; I never smoke crack and never have”. I’m sure you agree it would be quite unreasonable of me to then attack you with “I never said you were a crackhead, so what does it matter? What I said was a fact. You can argue about the way I present it all you like, but it wasn’t a lie”.

The semantics of weather Moore’s film contains lies or merely deceptions or intestinally misleads is not really the important issue. It is possible to create a false impression without strictly lying, but to say that because of this, this film and other refutations of F 9/11 “don’t matter” would not seem very fair.
posted by ed\26h at 4:33 AM on October 8, 2004

I find myself stone cold certan that Kerry will win.

Strange, I have a very uneasy, instinctive feeling he will loose – I very much hope your instincts trump mine on this issue though.

I mourn the death of decent spelling.

Also, I thought 'Michael Moore Hates America' was going to be the big anti-F911 movie. Guess I was wrong.
posted by reklaw at 4:36 AM on October 8, 2004

I’ve got to add; especially with regards to spelling – this wouldn’t have been the first time I’ve been mislead by my intestines.
posted by ed\26h at 4:40 AM on October 8, 2004

As a Canadian on the sideline watching the game of U.S. politics I can say it has gone to an all time low. It seems the right wingers lack the credibility that the left has and Fahrenhype 911 is just reactionary hype to MM.
posted by disgruntled at 5:10 AM on October 8, 2004

looks to me like the difference between a disney original and a half-assed sequel. one hits the theaters and lots of people go see it, the other is called a "classic" bit is released straight to video. so... your guess as to which film was given more time, thought and research to produce? yeah. that's what i thought too.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:13 AM on October 8, 2004

next up: Diet Coke Me
wherein Ann Coulter starves to death after living on nothing but Diet Coke for a week

I would pay to see that actually
posted by mr.marx at 5:21 AM on October 8, 2004

All this accomplishes is to give more attention to Moore's documentary. Ann Coulter has to know that -- her whole career is premised on the idea that she makes money whether people love her or hate her, as long as they talk about her.
posted by rcade at 5:33 AM on October 8, 2004

An Observation as Pointless as this Movie, but at least a Little More Amusing: I only yesterday learned that one anagram for "Ann Coulter" is "Rectal Noun." I've read in the past about her whorish rise to popular infamy, and that always makes me smile when I see her horsey face and bottle-blond hair on TV. But now I can think to myself, "Hey! Rectal Noun!" too - and boy, does that make me laugh!

(Prediction: this piece of shit may "sell" a gazillion copies, yet strangely, know one you know will actually own one, nor will you ever have the opportunity to see it... Not that you'd want to... In the end, it will have about .05% the sales of Farenheit 911.)
posted by JollyWanker at 5:41 AM on October 8, 2004

A movie with appearances by Ann Coulter and Zell Miller ...

If only the rest of that sentence were "... and produced by Vivid Video."

I'd never ask for anything else, ever again.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:43 AM on October 8, 2004

I watched Farenheit 911 for the first time this week. After all the hype and the rage the right-wing directs at Michael Moore for being a "traitor" I was expecting to hear some really shocking things. I didn't. It's not that I didn't think the movie was well done (although his last one was much better), just that there weren't many things in it that I didn't remember seeing on the news. Maybe some of the details of the Bush and Bin Laden family connections... or his business connections with the Saudis...

I suspect a lot of people who haven't seen it yet because they were told it was full of "lies" would actually watch it and think: "Oh, well yeah, I knew that."

I just went over to Michael Moore's website, and he's got sources for all the major points he made in the film. It's all links to news articles at CNN, ABC, etc

What's the deal?
posted by Stuart_R at 5:46 AM on October 8, 2004

Umm. Isn't it a little late? Fahrenheit 9/11 has grossed $119.078 million already.

I took Moore at his word and, uh, "acquired" the movie soon after I saw it in the theater. I showed it and gave out copies to anyone who was interested. Just one example: I showed it to our family dentist, a lifelong republican and ex-military. He was pretty shocked, and afterwards, he told me there was no way he was going to vote for GWB this year. I made a copy for him to show to his wife, and another for the office receptionist. (I live in Ohio BTW).
posted by Otis at 5:54 AM on October 8, 2004

Here's one of the "reviews" they actually included on their site:

To the Producers, and entire crew of "Farenhype 911", a sincere, heart-felt THANK YOU for producing this film. I have not seen Michael Moore's version of the facts as I prefer not to put myself in the position of getting so upset. I DO plan on purchasing your DVD. Probably several, in fact, to circulate to my friends and family. God bless you!!!
posted by Stuart_R at 5:57 AM on October 8, 2004

looks to me like the difference between a disney original and a half-assed sequel. one hits the theaters and lots of people go see it, the other is called a "classic" bit is released straight to video. so... your guess as to which film was given more time, thought and research to produce?

Are you saying that because a good Disney film can be told from a bad one by the fact that one is popular at the theatre and the other goes straight to video; it follows that this film will have been given less thought, research and production time than Moore’s?


While it may be an entertaining pastime to use pejorative terms to describe the looks, motivations, lack-of-natural-hair-colour and/or soda-preferences of a woman who speaks in this film let’s not imagine that this in any way questions the validity or affects the truth value of her statements – let alone those of others in the film.

I just went over to Michael Moore's website, and he's got sources for all the major points he made in the film. It's all links to news articles at CNN, ABC, etc. What's the deal?

Well, some of the objections are that while Moore cites a number of sources to support his claims, these are often ones that were never in dispute and those that are have been ignored.

Here's one of the "reviews" they actually included on their site

Yes. We now have evidence of someone who opposes Moore writing a positive review of a film they haven’t seen. We also have evidence, above, of someone who supports Moore calling a film they haven’t seen a “piece of shit”. So I don’t suppose we’re any better off for that.
posted by ed\26h at 6:47 AM on October 8, 2004

By the way, for those who are curious to watch it without buying it, you can get it through Netflix, should you happen to have an account.
posted by dryad at 7:01 AM on October 8, 2004

Well, some of the objections are that while Moore cites a number of sources to support his claims, these are often ones that were never in dispute and those that are have been ignored.

So... there are other sources that say the Bush family and the Bin Laden family did not have extensive ties? That George Bush didn't take a lot of vacation time before 911? Many politicians have kids in the Army serving in Iraq?

The Farenhype site is kinda crapppy. On Moore's site you can read his facts and sources. On Farenhype all you get is ra-ra reviews from people happy someone is making a movie critical of another movie they never saw in the first place.
posted by Stuart_R at 7:02 AM on October 8, 2004

So is Ray Bradbury going to threaten to sue them too?
posted by crawl at 7:03 AM on October 8, 2004

After all the whining the right did about Al Franken only being successful because he invoked Rush Limbaugh's name in a book title, it's amazing to see so many right-wingers using Michael Moore's name and success as their own platform. My favorite was the kid who made a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America" and then said in interviews the movie isn't really about Michael Moore. Ummm.... okay, then.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:14 AM on October 8, 2004

Dick Morris (narrator and producer of this film) is just as much an opportunist as Moore. Looks like he's found himself a few new whores.
posted by whatnot at 7:24 AM on October 8, 2004

...and produced by Vivid Video.

Octobersurprise, that's the funniest thing I've seen all week. Thanks!
posted by spacewrench at 7:28 AM on October 8, 2004

but do you think the name and branding could create market confusion?

No more so than the porn version: FahrenHOT, 911 Eager Beavers
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:44 AM on October 8, 2004

house of bush, etc
posted by mr.marx at 7:49 AM on October 8, 2004

Stuart_R: Well, before I can get to that, can you clarify for me in what way could a source show that such a connection didn’t exist, how much vacation do you consider “a lot” and what quantity of politicians with children serving in Iraq qualify as “many”?
posted by ed\26h at 7:49 AM on October 8, 2004

ed, I don't disagree.

It's been a while since I have watched F9/11, but I am more of the opinion that Moore uses a lot of hyperbole in his presenting of the facts, both in F9/11 and Bowling for Columbine.

The gist of Fahrenheit, as I understand it, is that there were questionable relationships between the Bushes and the Saudi's that bankroll Al Quida. That the war in Iraq was based on lies and misinformation, and that before 9/11 Bush was not taking an active interest in terrorism.

My take on most of these things is they are right. I don't think it is intentionally malicious on the part of Bush or his administration, and I certainly don't think they delibrately let 9/11 happen. However I do believe that there are motives involved that are not clear and not in the public interest. This is what I took from Fahrenheit 9/11.

The anti-F9/11 hype that counters this takes a lot of what Moore said way beyond a reasonable intepretation. Some of the most vocal anti-Moore voices are from people who haven't even seen his films.

Michael Moore makes films that are designed to create a strong response. They are factual, but present a specific view point. I don't think he lies, and I don't think he deliberately sets out to deceive, but I do think he presents things in ways that will get the strongest reactions.

I will buy Fahrenhype at some point, because I am interested to hear the response. But from the trailer, it seems to be fairly off-the-mark.

Now, where did I leave my crack pipe?
posted by sycophant at 8:21 AM on October 8, 2004

Don't miss the "deal" of buying a ten-pack. Instead of buying ten individual copies for $149.90 total, you get ten for $149.99 total:

http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?PAGE=STATICPAGE&PAGE_ID=2196
posted by jonah at 8:27 AM on October 8, 2004

Oh and ed, in response to you response to Stuart R...

1) At least one source that can refute the various sources Moore cites about the Bush family ties.

2) 42% of the Eight months between his inaugeration and September 11. Some 90 days, in eight months. That's a lot in anyone's books.

3) Less 1% is not many. Four members of congress have children in the military. Only one went to Iraq.

Moores facts and cites are not just the non-disputed ones, it's all of them.
posted by sycophant at 8:32 AM on October 8, 2004

ed\26h: The point you seem to be missing is that it makes no sense for someone to make a big deal about the "lies" in Moore's movie, because he's not presenting much in the way of controversial information.

He's mostly taking a bunch of stuff that's obviously true (lots of American soldiers are dying, Saddam wasn't behind 9/11, no WMDs were found) and packaging it in a way that makes the argument that the Bush administration has been incompetent. It's an opinion piece whose main question is: Are American soldiers dying for something that is worth it?
posted by straight at 8:40 AM on October 8, 2004

sycophant, straight, why do you hate Diet Coke so much?
posted by squirrel at 9:23 AM on October 8, 2004

i'm with otis. originally, i didn't think it would change anyone's mind, but i've met two people who said that Fahrenheit 9/11 affected their vote for president.

you can't forget about uninformed some people are. some of them even watch the evening news. some of them like tax cuts.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:49 AM on October 8, 2004

squirrel, it's all about the aftertaste.
posted by sycophant at 5:29 PM on October 8, 2004

Propaganda

Counter-propaganda

Nothing new to see here.
posted by zerofoks at 10:56 PM on October 8, 2004

At least one source that can refute the various sources Moore cites about the Bush family ties.

I assume by this you mean sources refuting those Moore cites as showing Bush ties to the Bin Ladens. I would indeed have a difficult time providing such a source to refute Moore’s claims – not because Moore’s case is so watertight in this regard – but because he does not actually provide a source showing this link in the first place. What he does do is show that a friend of Bush’s, James Bath, invested in Arbusto Energy and also that James Bath was a financial representative for Salem Bin Laden. What I think we are supposed to infer from this is that out of gratitude for this investment Bush either flew members of the Bin Laden family out of the US while making sure they were not questioned about the events of September 11th, intentionally let Osama Bin Laden escape during the invasion of Afghanistan, or both. In actual fact there is nothing to suggest that Bush would have felt committed to granting such large favours for a (not even substantial) investment some 20 years prior, that Bush even knew from where the money had originated or that the money James Bath did invest even had come from Salem Bin Laden to begin with. Moore’s sources are great for showing links between Bush and Bath and Bath and Salem Bin Laden and Salem Bin Laden and Osama Bin Laden but anything cross-linking this chain is pure speculation.

42% of the Eight months between his inaugeration and September 11. Some 90 days, in eight months. That's a lot in anyone's books.

Well, it appears you’re laying claim to the conclusion here; as you say, I doubt anyone would object to the idea that the above amount of vacation is “a lot” and certainly too much. What is in question though is whether, in citing this figure, Moore is not intentionally presenting a distorted or even utterly false version of the facts. The times Moore included in this calculation are questionable – weekends for instance – and simply because Bush may have been at Camp David* at such-and-such a time, this does not mean he was “on vacation”; there is no reason to think he wasn’t working just as hard as he could have been at the White House.

Less 1% is not many. Four members of congress have children in the military. Only one went to Iraq.

Even though I don’t know whether or not Moore’s figure is significantly lower than a statistically representative average, (and why it would be relevant even if it were) again, it is the figure itself that is in question.

The point you seem to be missing is that it makes no sense for someone to make a big deal about the "lies" in Moore's movie, because he's not presenting much in the way of controversial information.

I have to admit to not being too sure as to what you are saying here. You seem to be suggesting that it is nonsensical to attempt to publicise a refutation to the misleading or false assertions in this film as the ideas it presents which are actually accurate, are uncontroversial. To state that this film never pretends to be anything other than an opinion piece is highly dubious – it presents itself as a documentary. Millions have seen it and million believe exactly what they have seen. I do not see why it is in any way nonsensical to attempt to correct false impressions that have been presented to the public.

* = Oooh, mince.
posted by ed\26h at 2:57 AM on October 11, 2004