Fahrenheit 9/11 - what some people think

You almost reached the proper realization here.

Hitler could be made to look like saint --
and the same techniques could be used by someone, say...like Michael Moore to make Bush look like a jerk.

In both cases, the person making the MOVIE is the one who holds the power to determine how the subject is portrayed.

What you people are apparently forgetting is that when someone makes a movie or t.v. show, they sit for hours, days, months, putting in stuff they want and surgically removing anything they don't. In the end what you get is their vision of how they wanted someone or something portrayed. If I showed you video of Florida and edited out any sunny days, and left in my film only those days that it poured rain, guess what I could have an audience believing happens in Florida? It doesn't matter what the truth is if I carefully control what I show you!

Get it?

I'm not saying Bush is a saint, but it's pretty unintelligent and credulous to just go believing that some activist's portrayal of his enemy is an accurate and fair and factual depiction. You should approach this kind of thing at least half-skeptical, knowing that the source harbors a vicious hatred for the subject person.

-Jeffrey

 

You raised some interesting points Jeffrey. I agree that anyone can make someone look bad in a documentary but as far as I am aware this fact is obvious to anyone with a basic education. You may be underestimating the posters in this forum.

I also agree that the documentary was a one-sided, anti-bush arguement however it was never advertised as anything else. Bush has access to at least the same media power as Moore and therefore has plenty of opportunity to defend himself.

As far as looking at both sides of the coin...Personally I have seen/read over 200 hours of pro-war;pro-Bush news reports - not to mention the actual war! and I have no problem watching a 2 hour "mud-slinging" documentary which allowed me and millions of others access to a point of view we may not have had access otherwise.

As any good "journalist" also knows - attacking your readers will encourage them to take your opinion less seriously.

 

Jeffrey: alot of what you said was valid. I didn't like the way Moore presented the facts in F9/11 and I'm sure that many people will look at the manipulative nature of the film and disregard everything in it. However, there were still pearls of truth in the film and you shouldn't associate Moore with them. I applaude Moore for having the courage to stand up against the majority of Americans, but at the same time, I disagree many things he says, along with his methods of getting them across, and I think he is somewhat uninformed and maybe a little naive.

As for George W. Bush being a "clown," lazy, or incompetant, nothing could be further from the truth. Don't discount Bush as that in your mind because himself along with the rest of the Bush Administration and the people who control them know exactly what they are doing when they plaster Bush as such across the media. Just remember that the media is controlled, from Fox News, to CNN, to MTV. Nothing is there unless the people in control want it to be for the purpose of social manipulation.

If anyone would like to see an unbiased, non-political presentation of the facts regarding 9/11, I recommend going to the following link:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

Fromthewilderness.com has many well written pieces on 9/11, the CIA, the Drug War, and the global energy war, among other things.

 

Bjorky, I don't know where you claim to be seeing pro-Bush, pro-war news reports... Just about everything I see is journalists doing everything they possibly can to highlight what may be done wrong and nothing of what may be done right. And I live in the state where the President's brother is governor!

A 2-hour mud-fest is not the proper answer or antidote for new coverage you claim is biased in favor of Bush. Especially not when that mud-fest is nothing but a selectively chosen, cherry-picked string of non-stop "this guy is evil/corrupt/greedy/no-good...blah blah blah."

If the posters in this forum are not being underestimated, why does it seem that they are totally taken-in by this demagogue Michael Moore and come out of his movie as though they've been told who to vote for by Buddha himself? They act as though they've been enlightened, when all they've been is propagandized. And if they know they've been shown propaganda, they sure as hell don't exhibit it, because they act as though they believe every last word. That's not the behavior of someone who knows they've been shown something biased and slanted, that highlighted all the bad and declined, refused, to show any of the good.

For crying out loud, (although I haven't seen the movie) I have read several criticisms that say Moore juxtaposed "pre-war" footage of children in Iraq all happy la la la playing in playgrounds la la la and then </play Darth Vader's Theme> evil Bush comes in to invade the country and kill civilians and destroy cities -- as though Iraq was just a libertarian paradise with not a care in the world until the war! Is this responsible "documentary"? Hell, no! It's playing to emotion, which is NOT what you should use to make your ideological, political, economic, military, or electoral decisions. But Moore simply wants to show you so much of the bad stuff he can contrive that you'll be so incensed at Bush that you'll vote for the candidate Moore prefers.

How does it feel to be manipulated for his ends?

Blue skies,
-

 

You just destroyed most of your arguement.

 

Ok, I know that was a bit of a cheap shot.

 

While I do agree that the movie was one sided, and some of the things were a weeee bit tweaked - particularly the scene with the perfectly happy Iraqis; this is just as biased and one sided as the conservative media implying that the entire country consisted of terrorists or tourtured peoples. However, much of the information presented in the movie was old news to me (Bush's vacation days, Saudi connections, not all Iraqis love us, etc) and I agreed with his points. Personally, I like how honest Moore is about his bias, as all documenterists have bias but are rarely honest about it.

 

Well, I know of very few people, if any, who listen to news reports or read White House press releases, which are just as biased as anything out there, of course, and walk away saying, "Well, I know it's one-sided, but I'm gonna credit it for being the truth. Now I finally know the real story."

Contrast this with the fact that many people seem to be doing exactly that when walking out of Fahrenheit 911. They acknowledge that it is one-sided, biased, full of cheap shots, but they still act as though they've been handed the god's honest truth about things!

Don't you see the double standard? They're just believing what they want to believe.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

Of course it's biased - I brought that up in my last post. I came to the theater knowing of Michael Moore's bias. However, I'm a liberal too. I have heard most of the information given in the movie beforehand, and had already formed an opinion similar to Moore's. To his credit, the facts that he did present were much harder to poke holes through then Columbine, such as footage of Coni Rice boldly saying Iraq was not a threat to us back in 2001.

In all do respect Jeremy, it irks me that you are arguing against this movie without seeing it yourself. That's just like me saying Canada is a perfect place to live without living there myself.

 

David Icke was publically ridiculed and humiliated because of some experiences that he had at the beginning of the 1990's.

I get the impression that he now realises that he had a big public breakdown and no longer believes that a lot of his original "experiences" were actually real.

Regardless of his past, he speaks a lot of sense. It's virtually impossible to believe everything he says but most of his opinions are now backed up with cross-references to other sources.

He speaks his mind and doesn't care what anyone thinks of him, he says it's now impossible to ridicule him anymore as he's already been pulled down by the media as far as he can be.