i adore michael moore. of course he is biased, but he is also awesome. i love all of his movies, and his books, and i'm proud that someone like him is getting the truth out to all of this country. peace erin
How are moore's films biased? He shows you real footage,documents,quotes... Yeah thats why alot of times during interviews,some of those pricks will just get up and walk away,they can't handle the truth!If moore is lieing then why are they so afraid of the questions he asks?
The fact that a film is a documentary doesn't mean it isn't biased. It doesn't even mean it is telling the truth. PS: Anyone interested in seeing allegedly misleading/innacurate statements in Farenheit 9/11 can read this: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
The way I view Michael Moore is this: he's just like Woody Allen's character Alvy Singer in "Annie Hall". He's "a bigot, but for the Left", which I like, 'cause I'm a bigot for the Left, too.
I like him because I agree with him on many things, and because after hearing all the right-wing props day in and day out, it's good to hear some left wing propaganda every so often. Plus, that man looks like a giant teddy bear to me. I just wanna hug him.
hi.. moore is biased, yet if he has footage from the media and it's called "fear tactics".. then what do you call the 6 o'clock new and the same at 11:30? the only difference is tha what he shows has more to do with fixing a problem, than just showing them, hes enticing people to sdo something about the goverments flaws.. and if none of it were true, then why did the bush administration try banning his movie by pushing (I think its disney,) his production company.. anyways.. telling them not to show it in the U.S or else. . . kind of thing... oh well.. we all have our opinions, and I too, as turtlefriend jsut said, think hes a big teddy bear... just one who looks pointy for some reason.... (nice signature btw turtlefirend:H) M-M
Matt Lauer: Don't you think you should check your facts a little better before you present them? Michael Moore: Gee, if you guys had done that, you could have prevented a war.
editing, for one. He also questions people in a manner that makes it hard for them to diasagree and not look like an ass. I like Michael Moore, and his films. He is extreme and biased, no question about it. So long as you know that going in, whats the problem? I don't take everything he says as gospel, but his views are a refreshing neutralizer to people such as Rush Limbaugh.
Being shot seems a little harsh. But he was out of line; he ought to save that shit for his movies and editorials.
F. 9/11 was such a whitewash. If you want to see a REAL 9/11 film, check out Road to Tyranny http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/911roadtotyr.html
F-9/11 was not what I hoped for. Would have been more effective if they focused more on history of Iraq. If they did, people would have known: 1. When the Shah (King) of Iran was overthrown by the people, the americans got really pissed cuz it hurt their oil interests. Hence: 2. They armed Saddam with the latest toys so that he could attack Iran, no matter if he killed thousands of minority kurdish people or that over a 100,000 civilians were killed on both sides. Dictators are America's best friends, easier to work with, just like Bush Jr. said. 3. When Saddam invaded Kuwait and interfered with American oil interests, there was hell to pay. It didn't matter that over a 100,000 american troops from desertstorm are dead cuz of exposure to depleted uranium bombs in the desert, thanks to the USAF. They were mostly just poor people anyway, so no worries. 4, How depleted uranium shells by USAF for the next 10 years killed over a 100,000 iraqi civialians, and thanks to sanctions to "hurt" saddam, the people were the ones who suffered and died. Was made even worse when the USAF bombed non-military targets during peace time in the hope that Iraqi civilians would rise up against saddam. Instead, over 100,000 people died cuz there was no acess to clean water, medical supplies etc. THat's just the tip of the iceberg. Don't get me started on South America. Would America have dared to attack if Iraq did have WMD? Probably not. And I seriously doubt they would spend billions of dollars just to "liberate" Iraq. Heck, I dont see them liberating North Korea or China, countries with no oil and plenty of WMD.
Isn't all media biased? Isn't the point of a documentary to encourge free thought and discussion? Isn't that precisely what Micheal Moore does in his films/books by presenting the complete 'other side' of the arguement? Also for the person who mentioned earlier that his behaviour at the Oscars that year was inexcuseable - I never could understand why his speech caused such an uproar when Adrian Brody (Best Actor) said something quite similar but no one ever mentioned it again. I do not know Mr Moore personally, but I like to think that I am a fairly intelligent person and I beleive that the purpose of his work is to entice thought - to help people expand their horizons, weight up the arguements presented to them and make their own informed decisions on any given topic. As for his interview with Chartlon Heston - I think it was pure genius! Journalism students the world over should be shown that clip for effective interviewing techniques! As, for apologising for Americans at Cannes - that is a little harsh....not all americans supported this pointless war! Remember - No body WINS a war!
