fact check one two
July 13, 2004 6:05 AM   Subscribe

Read-a-long-a-Fahrenheit-9/11. Michael Moore posts six pages of quotes and links to back up his movie. And since he doesn't mind you downloading it, why not watch it on your computer and fact-check his ass as you go?
posted by reklaw (59 comments total)
 
Yeah - I have a 6 week old boy so I haven't been able to get out to the movies. I downloaded the movie last week and am trying to find a way to send Michael the $9.25 I would have paid for the movie. Otherwise, I'll just buy a ticket via Fandango and not go.
posted by bkdelong at 6:18 AM on July 13, 2004


Fahrenheit 9/11 film transcript
posted by roboto at 6:21 AM on July 13, 2004


In the interest of (ahem) fairness, here is what was posted on RNC.org, the Nine Lies of Fahrenheit 911. Presumably, this is what Moore was responding to.

One has to wonder about the sort of geniuses that actually go to that site. On an unrelated item, over 61% of respondents to the site believe that Kerry/Edwards is "more liberal" than Mondale/Ferraro was. Whatever you think of John Kerry, only a buffoon with no sense of historical perspective or literacy would believe that today's mainstream Democrats are "more liberal" than the standard bearers of 1984.
posted by psmealey at 6:30 AM on July 13, 2004


Since when was it necessary for Republicans to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 in order to criticize it?!

Besides, what really matters is what the movie didn't show... not once did we see the smiling faces of happy children while Bush read "My Pet Goat".
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:42 AM on July 13, 2004


Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn. (Spinsanity)

I wouldn't post yet another analysis of F-9/11 unless it was pretty unbiased and level-headed, which it seems this article is from the good folks at spinsanity. I hope it wasn't posted in the mega-sidebar thread.
posted by loquax at 6:45 AM on July 13, 2004


not once did we see the smiling faces of happy children while Bush read "My Pet Goat".

I believe this reflects a misunderstanding of reality. The extended excerpts I've seen of the "My Pet Goat" episode - show it was the children who were reading to Bush, not he they. The preznent was simply trying to follow along.
posted by Zoyd Wheeler at 7:26 AM on July 13, 2004


DIY audiobook.
posted by rory at 7:29 AM on July 13, 2004


well, all of these sources and facts or what-have-you don't change that the simple truth that moore is a little on the heavy side.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:38 AM on July 13, 2004


With all due respect, loquax, I don't think you can call that analysis unbiased. Spinsanity has an agenda. That's perfectly fine, but you can't hold them up as an example of journalistic impartiality.

I don't have time to comb through the arguments that they make right now. It's certainly possible that they have found some actual inconsistencies in the film (I'm prepared for the probability that there are some). But the fact that they are setting out to discredit Moore is evident from the first paragraph of the piece.
posted by Fenriss at 7:48 AM on July 13, 2004


PETA agrees with you, mcsweetie.
posted by psmealey at 7:48 AM on July 13, 2004


Moore isn't that smart. It's just that critical thought has gone sufficiently down hill (inside and outside Metafilter) that this film isn't viewed for the shit it is.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:57 AM on July 13, 2004


psmealey: just one problem. Unless you're a fastfood junk food junkie, a vegetarian diet is likely to make you gain weight rather than lose it. Too many carbs; not enought protein (at least for me).
posted by ParisParamus at 8:00 AM on July 13, 2004


Seen it yet, Paris?
posted by ghastlyfop at 8:00 AM on July 13, 2004


Fenriss, they are certainly biased against untruths and spin in the media. They do not have, as far as I can detect, a Republican/Democrat bias in the body of their work however. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say though. What is their agenda? Why can't you hold them up as an example of journalistic impartiality? Why is it evident that they are setting out to discredit Moore from the first paragraph of the piece? They seem to be backing up their accusations to me.
posted by loquax at 8:07 AM on July 13, 2004


I prefer commentary from those who did not read a book or see a film. They can be more nearly objective and not have minds a bit biased from the materials they are discussing.
posted by Postroad at 8:07 AM on July 13, 2004


Spinsanity has an agenda ... But the fact that they are setting out to discredit Moore is evident from the first paragraph of the piece.

I don't think either of those claims are true or supportable. First, what do you claim is the "agenda"? Is it a general opposition to liberals, or a personal vendetta against Michael Moore (for some unknown reason)? The former is clearly not true, given that the majority of Spinsanity's pieces have challenged claims made by the right/Republicans/conservatives. And I'm not sure why the latter would be true (maybe they, like PETA, wish he wasn't so fat?) In any case, the first paragraph does not show that they are "setting out to discredit" Moore. It shows merely that his track record is questionable -- a point that has been made by many people over the years -- even Moore supporters. I have no doubt that Spinsanity set out to agressively test the veracity of Moore's claims. That's not the same as "setting out to discredit" him. He's the one who made the movie, he's the one who challenged people to find flaws in the movie, and he's the one whose stated goal is to impact the U.S. presidential election. His ass deserves to be fact-checked. That the film doesn't hold up entirely doesn't mean his critics were just trying to discredit him.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:08 AM on July 13, 2004


the film is about a stinking piece of shit. it could hardly be anything but shit.
posted by quonsar at 8:08 AM on July 13, 2004


(Also, what loquax said more succinctly).
posted by pardonyou? at 8:09 AM on July 13, 2004


Paris, critical thought != your opinion.

What has gone down hill the the quality of political debate. Both sides have reduced their discourse to basic name calling. The problem comes with viewing issues as isolated problems to be solved, rather than looking at the larger web of issues and how they are connected.
posted by ambirex at 8:09 AM on July 13, 2004


George Monbiot -
When starving people find food, they don't worry too much about the ingredients. Michael Moore's film is crude and sometimes patronising. He puts words into people's mouths. He finishes their sentences for them. At times he is funny and moving, at others clumsy and incoherent. But I was shaken by it, and I applauded at the end. For Fahrenheit 9/11 asks the questions that should have been asked every day for the past four years. The success of his film testifies to the rest of the media's failure.
posted by Blue Stone at 8:11 AM on July 13, 2004


I actually saw it Sunday night and was very moved by it, to my own suprise. As someone who's never thought Moore was any kind of political heavyweight or visionary or even great filmmaker...well, I was still pretty moved. And I'm glad to have given it a chance, despite some of the more maudlin and manipulative segments. Take from that what you will.

I'm also in the midst of reading Dave Kopel's "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" (I don't know if that's been posted before).
posted by dhoyt at 8:18 AM on July 13, 2004


It's just that critical thought has gone sufficiently down hill (inside and outside Metafilter) that this film isn't viewed for the shit it is.

I'm going to sort-of agree with ParisParamus. Is F911 the best movie ever? No. However, we've gotten to the point where the state of journalism is so bad that people are willing to pay $10 to watch 2 hours of the coverage of the war that they're interested in. How else do you explain Fahrenheit 9/11, Control Room, and Outfoxed all coming out at the same time?

As far as Spinsanity, they're an interesting case. Their agenda is to be seen as the "voice of reason." So, sure, they're happy to deconstruct the obvious whoppers of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, but Michael Moore attracts their special wrath, because by attacking him for rather minor issues, they get to appear "balanced."
posted by deanc at 8:19 AM on July 13, 2004


See also the 50-some deceits of Michael Moore.
posted by jammer at 8:21 AM on July 13, 2004


Loquax: [Spinsanity] do not have, as far as I can detect, a Republican/Democrat bias in the body of their work however.

Curious... as I look at their front page right now (11:15am ET on 2004-07-13), only one of seven front-page articles is not an attack on "liberals"; that seventh article is the only third-party article on the page, and it attacks both Dems and R[ep]ubs.

Also -- and as a non-"liberal", you may not have noticed this -- there's a way some people have who are not self-identified as liberals of using the term "liberal", they generally use it in such a way that it's clear it's roughly synonymous with "satanist" or "pornographer." Spinsanity seem to use the term that way...
posted by lodurr at 8:21 AM on July 13, 2004


I generally avoid these political discussions but I am blown away that PP and Postroad are flaunting their ignorance on their sleeves!

Postroad: "I prefer commentary from those who did not read a book or see a film. They can be more nearly objective and not have minds a bit biased from the materials they are discussing."

Are you serious!
posted by untuckedshirts at 8:27 AM on July 13, 2004


dhoyt, I think that's an excellent observation, and one that I think Moore would do well to own up to. He should acknowledge that he ratcheted up the drama, because his primary goal was to affect the audience emotionally. He can still use his "everything you see on the screen is true" defense (because, obviously, videotape doesn't lie), but could also acknowledge that he's connecting the dots in one of many possible ways -- he happened to choose the way that is most damaging and dramatic. But why shouldn't he? If he's wrong, let Bush, et al. tell us why.

Instead (and I've seen/read dozens of interviews), he always adopts this clearly absurd "Everything is absolutely true. I've hired the best lawyers, and if you call me a liar I'll sue you" tack. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a good piece of propaganda that tells some essential truths (or asks some important questions). What's wrong is implying that the propaganda is unassailable.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:33 AM on July 13, 2004


Saw film and thought it was shit!
It was not a documentary. Definded by dictionary.com at least as :

Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

posted by kenaman at 8:36 AM on July 13, 2004


Yeah, lodurr pretty much makes my point. I've had about half a dozen occasions to look at spinsanity's front page, and it seems like there's always a derisive use of "liberal" on there somewhere. The sum total always appears to add up to a rightward slant. But I'm willing to accept that it's my lefty prospective that colors that.

And the first paragraph of the piece is a litany of accusations. I mean, how can you see it otherwise? I'm not suggesting that Michael Moore is by any means above reproach, but are you actually trying to say that this isn't a nearly 100% anti-Moore article?
posted by Fenriss at 8:39 AM on July 13, 2004


It was not a documentary.

Then there's the first definition you (obviously) ignored:

Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

I think that about sums F9/11 up.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:44 AM on July 13, 2004


untuckedshirts quoted Postroad:

Postroad: "I prefer commentary from those who did not read a book or see a film. They can be more nearly objective and not have minds a bit biased from the materials they are discussing."

And responded:

Are you serious!


A sarcasm detector? OHhhhh yeah... THAT would be useful!
posted by twiggy at 8:45 AM on July 13, 2004


Lodurr wrote: there's a way some people have who are not self-identified as liberals of using the term "liberal", they generally use it in such a way that it's clear it's roughly synonymous with "satanist" or "pornographer."

You're right Lodurr, there is a way that some people pronounce "liberal" in such a way as to make it an insult. There's also a way to pronounce "conservative" to make it rhyme with "baby-killer." But in the case of Spinsanity.org, you might want to read the About Us section of the site:

"Full disclosure: We all have been politically active in Democratic and progressive politics and disclose those affiliations below. We have strong personal views on politics and believe in participating in the political system, but we also share a commitment to the democratic values that motivate this site. Our pledge to our readers is that we will always be non-partisan, fair and civic-minded."
posted by UncleDave at 8:52 AM on July 13, 2004


kenaman, regardless of what you thought of the movie ( I'm glad someone who is criticizing it has actually... you know seen the movie ), he does present his opinions throughout the movie. But, somehow I think Ebert has a bit more background on what is a documentary than the author of dictionary.com's definition.

"Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not."
posted by ambirex at 8:53 AM on July 13, 2004


Is this the level of discourse we have attained in this country? I can't even tell if untuckedshirts is being sincere or not.

Back on topic, I saw the film, and like others, I thought it was an effective piece of propaganda, not really a documentary as kenaman points out. I may be more open to what Moore's point of view was is, as it jibes closer to my own world view than the writings of say, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter but the biggest casualty in all of this is the death of intellectual honesty (certainly not started by Moore, but he is a major contribter to it).

Seriously, are there any right-wingers honestly watch Fox News and say honestly that it's "fair and balanced"? Can liberals watch Fahrenheit 911 and say that it is an objective view of the events of the past four years? Can't we all just get along? Some of my more extreme liberal friends say that Moore is justified, as "they" have being doing this (slanting, editorializing, slamming) for years, and it's the only way that "we" have of fighting back. But, I can't help but wonder if this causes us to end up in a country that's ungovernable due to the lack of common vocabulary in our discourse, and elections are won merely through dirty tricks and misdirection.

When axe grinding is presented as truth, I think we're all in trouble.
posted by psmealey at 8:54 AM on July 13, 2004


It was not a documentary.

Man, you're sharp. Not like there's an organization, perhaps even an Academy, devoted to things such as Motion Pictures and the like, that actually says what a documentary film is.

Or we could just all be like Andrew Sullivan and declare that a documentary is anything that doesn't meet the criteria to make our argument work. That works too.

As far as the Spinsanity stuff goes, it's similar to the peculiar incident of Snopes' abject hatred of Moore for no discernable reason. I think the reason is that while right-wingers simply disagree with Moore, a lot of left-wingers have a huge ego complex directed towards the fact that an untrained, unschooled schlub like Moore has managed to sell more books then they ever did. I'm not saying Moore's a saint- I know several people who agree with him while still acknowledging his occasional ability to be a self-centered egotist, but when it comes to Moore, Democrats often "go green" in a different way.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:55 AM on July 13, 2004


Documentaries are essays on film, they're supposed to present an opinion. That's why they're not the six-o-clock news. (ignoring the state of the news media today)

Since I invented it I'd like to point out that trying to convince people that it's not a documentary is an example of the wingnut debate technique of shooting for the moon.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:05 AM on July 13, 2004


Documentaries are essays on film, they're supposed to present an opinion.

I think that's more or less true, as once you start editing anything you shoot -- no one would want to see an unedited film -- you are inserting a point of view. My personal standard for what makes a film a true documentary has always been "Hoop Dreams", where the documentarians took great pains not to personally interact with the subjects of the film, and stopped themselves from inserting value judgments along the way. Now, the scope of 911 is obviously much greater than the relatively tiny human interest story in "Hoop Dreams", but I have felt that when Moore consistently inserts himself into the various situations in the telling of the story, or that he starts out with an obvious slant and ignores that there might possibly be another side (or sides) to the story he is trying to tell, makes him more a propagandist than a documentarian. Do I agree with some of his conclusion? Yes, I do, I just happen to think that his gonzo and moreover prejudicial approach makes what he is trying to say less powerful. Just my 2 cents, however, as always.
posted by psmealey at 9:33 AM on July 13, 2004


No, no, no! It's a polemic! Is there a better version than whats fresh on supernova?
posted by Keyser Soze at 9:51 AM on July 13, 2004


Roger and Me kicks the ass of Fahrenheit, back, left, and sideways. It paints a more powerful and telling image of contemporary America,. As talented as I think Moore is, he will never be as good as when he started.
posted by PrinceValium at 9:56 AM on July 13, 2004


Honestly, I'm no big fan of Moore's, but I thought that Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine were superb works that entertained and kept my attention, even though I pretty much hated both for their content. F-9/11, on the other hand, didn't keep my attention at all, and didn't seem to be much more than some half-hearted effort that you might see late at night on the documentary channel. It just seemed boring, as if he knew that he didn't need to put a lot of though or effort into the presentation in order to accomplish his goals. Which is fine, except that how he won the palm d'or I'll never understand. Canadian Bacon deserved it more than 9/11 did. I can't believe that anyone could possibly have walked out of the movie convinced of anything other than their beliefs heading into it.
posted by loquax at 10:22 AM on July 13, 2004


What about the other litany of F9/11 innacuracies? Such as:

There's no way that John Ashcroft would be stupid enough to stand behind a podium with all the cameras on him and sing a song about an eagle.

Also, I was deeply offended that the actor who portrayed Bush in F9/11 made him look like such an idiot.
posted by deanc at 10:23 AM on July 13, 2004


From the link:
Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.

Mr. Bath's name came up in a different context in my mind.
BCCI and terrorist funding
BCCI and James Bath
BCCI and the Savings and Loan collapse

How many of YOU remembered BCCI?

Go down the rabbit hole that is the BCCI links and have tea with the mad hatter if you dare.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:39 AM on July 13, 2004


If you liked F911, I highly recommend Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War .. it avoids the emotional manipulations of Moores film while getting across the facts.
posted by stbalbach at 10:40 AM on July 13, 2004


News flash: Unless you're a CSPAN junkie fond of devoting all of your waking hours to watching a single camera in perpetuity, you cannot make an objective documentary. Impossible. When a filmmaker makes a cut, he makes a conscious decision to associate, whether it's Luis Bunuel adding dour voiceover to Land Without Bread, or Errol Morris's donut shop shenanigans in The Thin Blue Line, or Robert Flaherty truncating his footage in Nanook of the North, or Ross McElwee leaving the camera rolling to speak to it in Sherman's March. Each cut, whether it represent something political or a particularly sensibility, represents a subjective viewpoint.

To demand "objective" documentaries is to be bored to tears by Andy Warhol's endless film of the Empire State Building. It just doesn't fit the confines of human processing. None of the neocons complain when a book is edited and presented to the market place. They don't complain when a sitcom is edited so that the high points are timed for commercial breaks. And they don't complain when a recording artist arranges an album tracklist in a particular order.

So why should Michael Moore, or any documentary be different? Every piece of art (or, in this case, quasi-reporting) involves a conscious process of selection. Moore may be more prominently inserting his point of view, but that doesn't make his film any less a culmination of selections than the first caveman who decided to paint the buffalo in a jagged line rather than a straight one.
posted by ed at 11:05 AM on July 13, 2004 [1 favorite]


ed: exactly.
posted by soyjoy at 11:21 AM on July 13, 2004



Mr. Bath's name came up in a different context in my mind.


I remember BCCI (and I was only 12 at the time!), but Bath seems to be one of those people whose name comes up repeatedly in fiascos throughout history. Other examples would be people involved in the Bay of Pigs later showed up in Iran-Contra.
posted by drezdn at 11:25 AM on July 13, 2004


Ed, I don't know if what people should really be arguing for Michael Moore to start being objective. I mean, objectivity -as far as journalism's concerned- is pretty well a mythical concept. What people should be asking of Moore is to be factually accurate. Sure the images Moore showed in F-9/11 are indisputable, but much of the voiceover work was carefully written so as to side-step in the well-documented fallacies he was implying.

As someone who makes his living from fact checking, I take a lot of interest in this. And I know personally how easy it is to reword a factually incorrect statement so as to: a) shift the legal liability of the sentence or b) fudge the wrong parts by making them vague enough to be defensible. Michael Moore, I realize, is not a journalist. I wonder if everybody who sees F-9/11 understands that.
posted by UncleDave at 11:27 AM on July 13, 2004


Okay, on the fact-checking front, two random checks in Section One shows that Moore is fudging a bit.

The Telegraph, William Langley, "Revealed: what really went on...": CORRECT.

Boston Globe, 9/11/01, "U.S. to hunt down the attackers." INCORRECT. No mention of Andy Card running in the article. (Must explain why there's no link on Moore's page.)

Beyond this, there's the troubling problem of Moore, in some cases, failing to check more than one source. Three sources, at least, are a fact, Mike.
posted by ed at 11:54 AM on July 13, 2004


I saw F-9/11 on opening night. I'd say on balance I did not learn all the much new and in fact have learned a lot more in recent weeks that is far more damning of the administration that what was originally in the film. The 9-11 commission's finding that there was no terrorist link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda and the Senate report that the pre-war intelligence about WMD's was a worthless pile pretty much put the final nails in the coffin of our pre-war justifications much better than this film did.

My impressions of the film were that it was not as funny as previous Moore works but then again it's pretty hard to make war and terrorism funny. On the other hand it was far more viscerally emotional than I was expecting and I thought this was a welcome suprise.

Factually some of the points are a bit strained although the business conference on how to make money in Iraq was eye opening.

On balance I think it's a pretty good reflection of things that don't get major media play but are in fact more or less true.
posted by aaronscool at 12:09 PM on July 13, 2004


My personal standard for what makes a film a true documentary has always been "Hoop Dreams", where the documentarians took great pains not to personally interact with the subjects of the film

What, you mean except for the part where they paid their electric bill?

Whatever, I agree with the whole 'documentary is essay' argument. Documentaries that don't come out and say what they're trying to prove are the ones that creep me out. Moore has said multiple times that there are opinions in the film, and they are his, but the facts are unassailable. And so far he (with some help from Craig Unger) has managed to defend every credible attack on them.
posted by lumpenprole at 1:44 PM on July 13, 2004


I saw a clip of John Stewart's show where he asked Moore if he was "objective" and he laughed and said "of course not, my movie is based on fact but facts interpreted by me, in a way that represents MY point of view"... So he has already stated on the air that he doesn't pretend to be objective. As far as F9-11 not being a documentary, none of his movies are traditional documentaries because he's revolutionized the genre, he's a groundbreaker in that sense and that is precisely why he won the Oscar for BFC. Anyway, I personally haven't seen the movie yet because it hasn't come out in my country yet, but I will, probably more than once because I have a lot of friends here that are going to want to see it with me...
posted by sic at 1:57 PM on July 13, 2004


Three sources, at least, are a fact, Mike.

Great. So where are those WMDs? I can cite more than a dozen of the most impeccable journalistic sources in the country from the beginning of last year.

Only facts can make a fact.
posted by soyjoy at 2:37 PM on July 13, 2004


And only you can prevent forest fires a Bush victory.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:31 PM on July 13, 2004


All the President's Spin, by George W. Bush, the Media and the Truth - By Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan, the first book from the editors of the acclaimed nonpartisan website Spinsanity, unmasks the tactics of deception and media manipulation that George W. Bush has used to sell his agenda to the American people.
From his campaigns for tax cuts to the debate over war in Iraq, President Bush has employed an unprecedented onslaught of half-truths and strategically ambiguous language to twist and distort the facts. Fritz, Keefer, and Nyhan's powerful critique of Bush's record of policy deception explains why the media has failed to hold him accountable and demonstrates the threat these tactics pose to honest political debate.
This is the essential book for every citizen who wants to understand how George W. Bush has misled the nation and why, if left unchallenged, all the President's spin could soon become standard practice -- a devastating development for our democracy.
I'd say they are non-partisan: that's areal dig at Bush there .
posted by dash_slot- at 4:42 PM on July 13, 2004


Michael Moore, I realize, is not a journalist

like "documentary," it depends on which definition you use. i'd say that Michael Moore is a journalist. it's not his strong suit, but he tries.

fwiw, i generally agree with Loquax's review. i wanted something much better from the movie, especially in regard to corporate control of "post-war" Iraq.

it was alright. most of the important facts were there, it just wasn't focused. all that matters, however, is My Pet Goat. it will become the defining moment of his first and last term.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:52 PM on July 13, 2004


Nearly every day for the last umpteen years Bill O'Reilly has appeared on Fox News and presented facts and video clips and told his viewers what he thought they meant.

In interviews, O'Reilly strongly presses his point of view, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. He suggests links, and story lines, and motivations, that are not proven by any means, but seem to O'Reilly fair conclusions, or appropriate questions.

To many people, O'Reilly is a decent guy to listen to, whether you totally believe him or not. He helped make Fox News the No. 1 cable news channel by a mile.

Now some people, including many conservatives who enjoy Bill O'Reilly, are trying to discredit Moore for exhibiting the very same talents.

Fair and balanced?
posted by sacre_bleu at 7:23 PM on July 13, 2004




On the IMDB "trivia" section they had an interesting note I hadn't heard about:

Moore interviewed American contractor Nicholas Berg, who was later kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in Iraq, but removed the interview from the final cut. He said that the interview would not be released to the media and dealt privately with Berg's family.

You'd think if Moore really was the asshole that the right paints him to be, he would have kept the Berg stuff in the movie.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:22 PM on July 13, 2004



Now some people, including many conservatives who enjoy Bill O'Reilly, are trying to discredit Moore for exhibiting the very same talents.


Even more important to me is the fact that Moore is a filmmaker, if he bends the truth he only has a tangential effect on the world. On the other hand their seems to be less outrage over the president's distortions and mistruths than there is over a filmmaker.
posted by drezdn at 7:24 AM on July 14, 2004


Hey, while we're playing Who's Less Believable Than Michael Moore, how 'bout that Pete Townshend? After all, poor guy went to a lot of trouble to, er, fact-check his ass.
posted by soyjoy at 8:41 AM on July 14, 2004


« Older Comics   |   Where were they for you, Oolong? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments