Farenheit 9/11

[m20gull]

I have no intention of seeing it because I hate lazy journalism. It's laudable that someone (anyone) is able to put an alternative view to the political mainstream and a fine feature of American free speech and democracy that it is out there.

But please Mr Moore make sure facts are presented as facts and opinions as opinions. And make sure those facts are true and complete. Panorama is a good example of lazy journalism where a few anecdotes are collected with some opinions and presented as scary facts. Panorama is not now on my viewing schedule.

It can't have surprised anyone that America was going to finish what it (with UN blessing) started in Iraq. Just think how much they have been spending on the Deny Flight operations and the whole Gulf operation in the intervening 10 years.

America IS the only global superpower with a commitment to democracy and free speech. And now it seems to be prepared to spend money to prove it.

 

[readingstockport]

That would be democracy and free speech except in countries such as Venezuela where they directly intervened last year in an attempt to get a democratically elected government they didn't like overthrown.

America couldn't give 2 shits for democracy and free speech, America has a commitment to America and thats all.

You can argue there is nothing wrong with that, and I may even agree with you to an extent, but don't pretend that America cares for freedom.

Remember which current vice-president and which current defence secretary of which global superpower visited and did business with a certain Mr Hussein under the presidency of which father of that superpower's current president.

 

[Rangdo]

I have no intention of seeing it because I hate lazy journalism. It's laudable that someone (anyone) is able to put an alternative view to the political mainstream and a fine feature of American free speech and democracy that it is out there.

But please Mr Moore make sure facts are presented as facts and opinions as opinions. And make sure those facts are true and complete. Panorama is a good example of lazy journalism where a few anecdotes are collected with some opinions and presented as scary facts. Panorama is not now on my viewing schedule.

It can't have surprised anyone that America was going to finish what it (with UN blessing) started in Iraq. Just think how much they have been spending on the Deny Flight operations and the whole Gulf operation in the intervening 10 years.

America IS the only global superpower with a commitment to democracy and free speech. And now it seems to be prepared to spend money to prove it.

Or spend money to make money?
How can you call it lazy journalism and that the facts aren't complete when you haven't seen it?
The whole point is that you watch it as one side of the argument and weigh it up against the others before making your decision. I think it was a very good film and although it was biased it showed and told things that I otherwise would have known nothing about.

 

[fatbadger]

I have no intention of seeing it because I hate lazy journalism. It's laudable that someone (anyone) is able to put an alternative view to the political mainstream and a fine feature of American free speech and democracy that it is out there.

But please Mr Moore make sure facts are presented as facts and opinions as opinions. And make sure those facts are true and complete. Panorama is a good example of lazy journalism where a few anecdotes are collected with some opinions and presented as scary facts. Panorama is not now on my viewing schedule.

You seem to be labouring under a few misconceptions. For example, you apparently believe that:-

1) there is such a thing as objective truth, which can be presented as such.

2) Michael Moore has covered up the fact that his film is partisan.

And as for your thoroughly naive view of the US State's commitment to democracy...

 

[m20gull]

told things that I otherwise would have known nothing about.

But how do you know they're true when some simple facts are overlooked or wrong?

 

[m20gull]

You seem to be labouring under a few misconceptions. For example, you apparently believe that:-

1) there is such a thing as objective truth, which can be presented as such.

2) Michael Moore has covered up the fact that his film is partisan.

And as for your thoroughly naive view of the US State's commitment to democracy...

1) some things are true. A coalition of 30 countires did invade Iraq with the intention of regime change, for whatever reason.

2)I expect a Michael Moore film to be partisan. But if his opinions are to be credible they need to be presented based on facts, true and complete.

The US is committed to its view of democracy, and it is the only superpower with the money and the commitment. That does not make it right or perfect.

 

[m20gull]

How can you call it lazy journalism and that the facts aren't complete when you haven't seen it?

Based on reviews, posts on here and previous experience.

 

[Rangdo]

But how do you know they're true when some simple facts are overlooked or wrong?

You're neglecting to tell me what these facts are and how you even know they're in the film since you haven't seen it?
It's a very strange stance to take since you could say that about any journalism. I'm sure the BBC don't get it 100% right all the time (Hutton?)

 

[Rangdo]

Based on reviews, posts on here and previous experience.

So you're basing your opinion on those of other people and things that have happened in the past? Interesting.

 

[CAFC Matt]

Not sure if I want to see this. Don't usually like fuilms like this but the attention it has got in the media kinda leans me to just goign to see what it is like.

 

[Rangdo]

Not sure if I want to see this. Don't usually like fuilms like this but the attention it has got in the media kinda leans me to just goign to see what it is like.

It's very good. Well worth watching just to see a different side.
I didn't think it was as good as Bowling for Columbine. It was a bit more like a propoganda film.

 

[CAFC Matt]

It's very good. Well worth watching just to see a different side.
I didn't think it was as good as Bowling for Columbine. It was a bit more like a propoganda film.

Immight pop along and see it then. Just out of curiousity

 

[m20gull]

the BBC don't get it 100% right all the time (Hutton?)

No they do not. Their news service is riddled with bias and distortion. They are one of the worst offenders.

How do I detemine this? By taking in data from all sources, looking for consistency between sources and with previous data, identifying consistent bias and obvious misrepresentation.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Moore is a self righteous, fat bastard who installs as much if not more propoganda than Bush.

I particularlry like the Iraqi boy, pre war, flying his kite without a care in the world happy and content under the rule of that nice man Mr Hussein.

Wanker.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

AD - just because someone has a different opinion to you it does not need they have their head in the sand.

Or shall I just agree with everything you say from now on to make you happy.

 

[Brovion]

I haven't seen it but I don't think Moore didn't set out to be objective, it's a polemic aimed at presenting another view other than "The USA is great and always right"..

 

[Rangdo]

No they do not. Their news service is riddled with bias and distortion. They are one of the worst offenders.

How do I detemine this? By taking in data from all sources, looking for consistency between sources and with previous data, identifying consistent bias and obvious misrepresentation.

Yes but you've just said you're not going to go and see it and hence are not taking in data from all sources and cannot possibly look for consistency in something you haven't seen.

I have already said in previous posts that its biased but I'm basing my judgement on having actually watched it. I'm still waiting for you to tell me which information in the film was incorrect or overlooked, which should be interesting since you could only possibly base this on trailers or what other people have said.

So tell us whose journalism we can trust then?

 

[m20gull]

Rangdo

You admit it's biased. Other posts on here have highlighted inaccuracies. That just makes the film one person's opinion dressed as facts. I don't want bias, I want objectivity.

I would not go and watch a film made by the US government either. They also have their own opinion to puff.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Its pretty damn obvious where Moore is coming from. I remember him ranting on at the oscars in 2003 when he pick up a trophy so hes been gunning for Bush for 3 years. He feeds as much propoganda with Iraqi civilains of the war on film. I wonder if he did a piece on Iraqi's murdered, raped and stoned to death under his rule or a piece on the 5000 women, children, men gassed in Kurdistan.

I thought not.

 

[m20gull]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm