Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

1st Review in for "Farenheit 911"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 12:44 PM
Original message
1st Review in for "Farenheit 911"
Tons of Freepers bash the reviewer,but its really getting me excited.I can not wait to see this!


http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=17496
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Link isn't working for me.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RummyTheDummy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your link doesn't seem to work
But it could be me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm always amazed at the abundance of wingers at that site..
..you would think that guys who were so into the creative arts and film would be more liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
romantico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It IS the correct link
I never have trouble but something tells me the Freepers are flooding the place.This usually NEVER happens.Heres the link to the homepage if you want to click onto the story.

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. They are plants, I go there all the time and the freepers never know shit
about movies. They are just there to bash Harry, who is a proud liberal democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrChupon Donating Member (140 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I think its the layout
Its that horrible butchering of HTML, I dont see how any person with a sense of art and aesthetics could put up with it. But it shows up again and again attracting amateurish right wingers. I'm not calling for flash animations everywhere, just some sensible text and links, without 40 different font size changes... Yeesh.

But seriously, look at Drudge, AICN, NewsMax and the NY Post, and try and tell me with a straight face that there is a sense of art there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Michael Moore is not god.
If it's factual, well referenced and intellectually honest (not always Moores strong suit) I will love it. But until I see it myself, I reserve judgment. I know that though I agree with Moore's politics, his books are riddled with factual errors that I feel undermind his credibility. I hope that with a a subject as serious as this one, he is a little more careful with the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. EARL SCRUGGS is God.
:smoke:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. No, Stephen Sondheim is God! LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. I'm gonna have to agree with that! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. No, Bill Monroe is GOD. Earl Scruggs is a merley the Arch-Angel.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Infidels. Philistines. Blasphemers. Heretics.
Britney Spears will lip-sync to you all in Hell (with a banjo on her knee)!!!

:silly:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Room101 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. What factual errors ?
Please provide a link so I can check it out. It's like saying I have a really funny story then not telling it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Good point. The people talking about Moore's factual errors are usually
the ones making the factual errors. Unfortunately, a lot of Liberals repeat this meme enough to make it seem true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. Umm.. they are pretty well documented.
With the success of "Roger and Me" also came a critical rap: That he took liberties with the truth, fiddling with the chronology, for greater dramatic effect. But that criticism doesn't seem to have made an impression on Moore, and that's nowhere more apparent than in "Stupid White Men." In it, readers are told that 10 million people left the welfare rolls during the '90s, brutally kicked off by Bill Clinton. He writes that five-sixths of the defense budget in 2001 went toward building a single type of plane and that the recent recession is nothing more than a fabrication by the wealthy to keep down the working classes. And readers who uncritically accept those "facts" -- along with a number of other egregious and sloppy distortions -- will be duped. Good satire also should be grounded in fact. Regrettably, Moore gets his facts wrong again and again and again, and a simple check of the sources he cites shows that lazy research is often to blame.

Consider, for instance, his claim that "two-thirds of came from just over seven hundred individuals." Given the $2,000 federal limit on individual donations, this claim is obviously false. To back it up, he cites the Center for Responsive Politics Web site (opensecrets.org) and an August 2000 article from the New York Times. As opensecrets.org clearly indicates, however, only 52.6 percent of Bush's total $193 million in campaign funds came from individuals. The Times article Moore references actually states that 739 people gave two-thirds of the soft money raised by the Republican Party (which uses its money for "party-building" activities that support all GOP candidates, not just Bush) in the 2000 election cycle as of June of that year. Whether out of malice or laziness, Moore conflates the party's soft money with Bush's campaign funds.

This pattern -- the very sources Moore cites proving him wrong -- continues throughout the book.

In a discussion of Pentagon spending, he refers to the "$250 billion the Pentagon plans to spend in 2001 to build 2800 new Joint Strike Fighter planes" and states that "the proposed increase in monies for the Pentagon over the next four years is $1.6 trillion." To back this up, he refers to the Web site of the peace activist group Council for a Livable World. CLW's own analysis of the 2001 budget, however, shows that $250 billion is the total multiyear cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program, not the amount spent in one year. $1.6 trillion, meanwhile, was the total amount of money requested by the Pentagon at the time for 2001-2005. It covers five years, not four, and is a total budget request, not a "proposed increase" over previously requested budget levels. It shouldn't even take this much research, however, to determine that out of the total defense budget request of $305.4 billion in 2001, $250 billion was never intended to go toward one type of plane, nor that an increase of $400 billion per year in military spending was never proposed.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

Moore's myriad mistakes

By Bryan Keefer
October 16, 2003

Michael Moore makes at least 17 factual errors or misrepresentations in his latest book, Dude, Where's My Country?, ranging from stating disputed information as fact to repeating a media myth to twisting his own sources. As a companion to our article about Moore's mistakes in Dude and his history of such distortions, here is a list of all the errors that we found in the book:

Page xiii: Moore claims that News Corp, the parent of HarperCollins, which published Stupid White Men, "dumped in some bookstores with no advertising, no reviews, and the offer of a three-city tour: Arlington! Denver! Somewhere in Jersey! In other words, the book was sent to the gallows for a quick and painless death." Yet in a February 5, 2002 letter on his web site, Moore stated that "HarperCollins is doing their best to get the book out there - but now, even they have run into resistance, with some bookstores telling them that they are not interested in having me come to their stores on the book tour" because of the controversial nature of the book. Later in the letter, he added that "I'll be hitting a couple dozen cities on the book tour, and I'll probably add a few more (if you'd like me to come to your town, let me or HarperCollins know!)." And directly contradicting his assertion in Dude, Moore wrote in a February 13 letter that his tour "initially included only three cities: New York, L.A., and Denver." Clearly, he is spinning the publicity campaign for his own book.

Page 9: Moore, writing about the connections between the Carlyle Group (a private investment firm with a politically powerful board of directors including George H. W. Bush Sr.) and the Bin Ladens, states that "After September 11, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this strange coincidence. Your first response, Bush, was to ignore it, hoping, I guess, that the story would go away. Your father and his buddies at Carlyle did not renounce the Bin Laden investment. Your army of pundits went into spin control... And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of the 'good' Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding." Moore is distorting the timeline of when that information came out: He cites Al Jazeera (no date) and two articles published before September 11, 2001 (the articles date from Feb. 28, 2001 and March 1, 2001), not after.

Pages 15 and 16: Moore asserts that Osama Bin Laden requires dialysis for a kidney condition. Moore continues by asking "how could have really pulled this off while his skin was turning green?" In fact, as one of Moore's own sources (a January 19, 2002 New York Times article) notes, the nature and severity of Bin Laden's health problems is in dispute. The Times quotes an unnamed official who says that "While there have been a lot of rumors about the status of his health, we do not have evidence to support that he has had kidney failure or is on dialysis." Yet another of Moore's sources, an Associated Press article of March 25, 2000, notes that in spite of questions about his health, "it has been business as usual for Bin Laden," and cites an unnammed Western intelligence official stating that "He is still operating an enormous terrorist network around the world."

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html


I took both of these books and read them and then compared what was written to the contradictory information and source provided to point out his mistakes, and I found it fairly credible and pretty convincing. In fact, its not really debated by most people that Moore plays kidn of fast and loose with his fact finding, because he feels so passionately about the "broader points" and I agree with him on the broader points.


Then this from the guardian:
Arguably worse, Moore has been accused of serious inaccuracies of fact, which you can find detailed on a liberal website called Spinsanity. I won't go into them here but I was interested in Moore's response when he was tackled on CNN not so long ago about these errors. The presenter Lou Dobbs asked him about the accusations. Part of the transcript goes like this:

Moore: I think they found some guy named Dan was named Dave, and there was another thing. But you know, look, this is a book of political humour. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know.

Dobbs: Glaring inaccuracies?

Moore: No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know.

Dobbs: That does give one licence. I think you may have given all of us a loophole.

Moore: When Jonathan Swift said that what the Irish do is eat their young - in other words, that's what the British were proposing during the famine - I think that, you know, you have to understand satire.

You certainly do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1088...

I don't feel the need to go on. His history of inaccuracies is not in real serous dispute. The only question is does it rise to the level of undermining his overall value, and I'm not sure that it does or doesn't. When I want his new movie though, I'm going to remember to keep my brain on and question everything I hear, not just be a passive cheerleader fawning over somone who says the kinds of things I want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. I'm curious too
Looking forward to knowing more about these numerous errors that are always talked about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. More, plus the ones above:
Michael Moore, the left-wing documentary film-maker received the kid-glove treatment on a recent Sixty Minutes profile on CBS. Bob Simon reported the piece, and it came just days after Moore's latest film, "Bowling for Columbine," received an Academy Award nomination for best documentary. Simon called it the clear favorite to win the award. He described it as a film that poses a question: "Why do so many Americans kill each other with guns?," and states that "America has a love affair with guns." Moore suggests it is because of fear. "We are afraid of the other ," Moore tells Simon.

Simon ignored the fact that the film was frought with inaccuracies, dishonesty, and a bleak view of America's history. Some of the inaccuracies are minor, though instructive. For example, the title of the film referred to what Moore described as a fact that the Columbine massacre killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had gone bowling the morning of their mass murder rampage in 1999. But according to Daniel Lyons of Forbes magazine, the police say they had skipped their bowling class that day.

Moore's point was that one could make a link between bowling and the ensuing murderous rampage, as being just as likely a cause of their actions as other possible contributing factors mentioned in the media, such as their affinity for violent video games and the nihilistic music of the singer and pseudo philosopher, Marilyn Manson, who Moore treats with great respect in an interview for the documentary.

In another instance, Moore uses the famous Willie Horton ad from the 1988 presidential campaign, to argue how racial symbols are used to create fear among white Americans. But to make his point, he alters the ad with a caption that didn't exist, naming Willie Horton, which wasn't done in the ad, and saying he murdered someone while out on furlough, which he didn't. He did, however, rape a woman.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A406_0_2_0_C /


Here's a partial transcript of an interview with Moore conducted by Lou Dobbs,

DOBBS: Salon.com just took you to task on this book, pointing out glaring inaccuracies, which -- what in the world...
MOORE: Some of these, I think they found some guy named Dan was named Dave, and there was another thing. But you know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know.
DOBBS: Glaring inaccuracies?
MOORE: No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know.
DOBBS: That does give one license. I think you may have given all of us a loophole.
MOORE: When Jonathan Swift said that what the Irish do is eat their young, in other words, that's what the British were proposing during the famine, I think that, you know, you have to understand satire.
DOBBS: It was metaphorical. And when you say that president...
MOORE: Well, your point was that Salon and others are like liberals, so why would they -- actually, the only attacks on the book have come from liberals.
DOBBS: Is that right?
MOORE: Yes.
DOBBS: Perhaps that's because, again, just dealing with what they know.
MOORE: Yes, maybe. Or maybe they're just -- some people get a little jealous. That's what you do. "How come he's on TV? He's on Lou Dobbs! What's going on?"
DOBBS: And it's selling well?
MOORE: It's been the No. 1 book in the country for the last month. How is that, at a time when supposedly there's 80 percent approval ratings for George W. Bush?
DOBBS: That's pretty good. And that's the next question I had for you. A couple things...
MOORE: That's my question for you. Why do you think it is? I don't have the answer.
DOBBS: Well, I will hardly pretend to be an expert.
MOORE: How could this be the No. 1 book? It's selling more than Grisham and Clancy right now, at a time when supposedly everybody's behind Bush. And this is nothing but a scathing attack on who he is, what he stands for and what he's done to the country.
DOBBS: Filled with glaring inaccuracies.
MOORE: Filled with glaring, comedic inaccuracies. And actually written by sweatshop workers in Honduras. Has that been pointed out yet? I think we might as well reveal all right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Room101 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. I will save the links and compare them soon - nt
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. WTF IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE?
Todd is God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Is that "The Todd" from scrubs? :D
Show Todd some love...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-04 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. there is no God but Todd
Rundgren (in case this was ever unclear. if it was, hie thee to a nunnery or something)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. KEEP TRYING if the link doesn't work ...
I kept reloading the page and I finally got it. It looks like their site is being overloaded.

By the way, it sounds like it's going to be a great movie! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. www.aintitcool.com, www.aintitcoolnews.com
Good alternate links if the primary doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deportivoI Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. Problems
I cant open the site
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
16. Funny how the responses can review a movie
they haven't seen.

No prejudice there, no sir!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. Show me a response that has done that....
Certianly mine haven't. Mine says I will keep an open mind, and says nothing about what I think of the actuall movie, since I haven't seen it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Oops! I didn't mean you.
I meant the responses to the review on the ain't it cool site.

Sorry for the confusion. Your point about Moore is well taken. He can play "fast and loose" sometimes.

Thanks for helping me clarify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
17. How about a snip.
Since I can't access it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Here 'tis.
"Harry,

Can't reveal my source but they saw Moore's FAHRENHEIT 911 the other night. Let's just say it was for legal reasons and leave it at that. The review? Brilliant. Hilarious. And creepy freakin' scary! Like THE NIGHTSTALKER with Moore as Kolchak ( ...for the kids out there that don't get the reference CLICK HERE!!!) only the vampire cover-up isn't in Vegas, it's the White House. Bush will burn in hell for this and the evidence of his blood-sucking corporate-worship is all there in the movie. A flip-flopping liar and incompetent leader, Bush and his corrupt administration are revealed in all their inglorious ugliness. Moore goes into the history of the Bush family and the long ties to the Saudi royalty and their oil empire (nothing new here, Republican Kevin Phillips documents it as well in his book, "AMERICAN DYNASTY") to set up how these bastards have sold America down a river of oil. If you've seen BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE you'll understand that Moore can make you laugh and cry at the same time and this film is going to deliver lots of entertainment mixed with the politics and history. FAHRENHEIT 911 is going to be released despite a brutal fight from the Bush-toadies at Disney and in the media. But hey, I think the resulting publicity will drive more people into the theaters to see it. Let's hope.

If you use this, just use my usual nomme de plume, "Bones"."

The other links won't work, since this is not yet in the reviews section. Only the top one works...just be patient.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC