Michael Moore?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:54 pm

It seems to me that if we are really upset about conservative news sources distorting the news, it is the height of hypocrisy to cheer on someone on the left that is doing the exact same thing (only more in line with your personal views). Aren't they all simply annoying/counterproductive? That's why I haven't seen 911 yet, and why I can't stomach watching any news program that is clearly slanted (I can't even handle Dennis Miller anymore, and he really used to be a funny guy).

There seem to be a lot of variance as to what is a conservative/liberal media outlet based on one's own views. To me, if both sides attack a news outlet as being partisan to the other side, that must mean it is doing a good job. MSNBC must fall into that camp, as I know conservatives consider it liberal, and now iaafan is calling it conservative (the first time I have heard that, actually), so it must be pretty balanced.

When did Chris Matthews become considered a conservative? He was a speechwriter for Carter and has worked for Democratic/liberal/progressive causes his whole life, including a lot of years on the SF Chronicle (not a hotbed of conservative thinking).

O'Reilly -- annoying, I agree, along with Hannity (and the token liberal Colmes who doesn't even seem to try), Rush, Savage, Dr. (Evil) Laura, and most of the rest of the talking heads crew.

Reading multiple newspapers, magazines and books and cutting past the short attention span, shallow thinking medium of television is probably the best approach to getting the whole story on an issue.

I'm just really happy that California isn't a heavily contested state in this current election process, so we will be spared the hours and hours of moronic political TV ads aimed at people who are apparently easily influenced by shiny things and scary words, and are too lazy to think.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:13 pm

BAC. (and this is a scary thought) I agree with that entire post. (and I'm sure we've voted for different candidates several times) I'd blame it on Brain Cell Loss due to drinking but, I haven't had a drink since the Hill Climb 2 weeks ago.

Look on the bright side iaa you can watch CNN 24/7 I'm sure they will make you happy.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 1:08 pm

I would say that anyone who uses television as a primary news source doesn't know enough about what's going on to be qualified to vote. A sampling of newspapers can still get you pretty well informed, particularly if you add a few foreign papers to the sample.

Business interests are threatening to eliminate journalism from the traditional media.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:34 pm

Yes, that's a real good point Velochat. Unfortunately an inordinate amount of people get their info from the TV and therein lies the problem with Faux News Channel. Even if we were to combine all media we'd still missed out on the egg splattering against the President's limo on his way to the inauguration. How did they keep that one under wraps? I've haven't talked to anyone who saw that. You'd think the Sat. Night Live News would've had that, at least.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:59 pm

iaafan: Can you please expand upon the "egg splattering" media conspiracy? Who threw the egg, or what happened to lead to egg on limo? Was it truly newsworthy? Why would anyone care about said egg? Did Arafat throw it, or was it Chirac? Do you really think that the media as a whole is biased in favor of conservatives, or is Fox News an outlier? If it is the exception, then isn't that okay, under the same theory that you put forth that says that Michael Moore is good because he is offering another perspective that wouldn't otherwise be heard? I'm just trying to get a feel for your point of view. So far, I'm a little confused (not a new thing, by any means).

It is sounding more and more like people who do get their political news from TV get it from the Daily Show more than almost any other show. That has to be a good sign for left-leaning people. Of course, maybe that's bad, because it is popular and biased, but that would only bother people on the right, so maybe it's okay. Again, I'm confused. I need a nap.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:53 am

I don't know who threw the egg, but the simple fact that Bush's limo got egged on the way to his inauguration is news worthy. What meaning you want to take from that is up to the viewer of the event. I just find it odd that I never heard about it or saw it, maybe you did see it.
My definition of reporting news is that a report is filed with the facts of what the reporter saw and with no commentary. This is rarely what Faux News does. Faux News reminds me more of a sports radio show where the host (Papa Joe Chevalier) tries to incite her/his listeners to get them to call in.
My opinion is that Faux and NBC are both conservative networks. It's kind of hard to stack The Comedy Channel, home of John Stewart's Daily Show against them.
My point, as is the case with many others, is that fair-and-balanced as Faux advertises isn't there. Maybe Faux should hire Michael Moore and give him an hour to counter O'Reilly. When the two appeared together at the Dem. convention, it seemed like they countered each other quite well.
I think objective of Faux is to confuse people.
I just want the news from whatever source, but I find myself wading through opinion and bias at every turn.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:36 pm

I have honestly not heard anyone else accuse NBC of being overtly conservative. I'll have to pay more attention going-forward.

As to the egg thing, why would anyone cover that? Should we reward every person who commits an act of vandalism in this country with fame? If someone spray painted something about the President on a wall near the White House, I would not expect that to make national news either. It seems like that is one instance where not covering the incident is the right answer -- there is nothing newsworthy about petty vandalism, even if commited near the President. The fact that some people don't like Bush is already established, and the knowledge that some are ignorant enough to egg his limo is simply information that doesn't add anything to the national debate. I don't think that omission in the news was a symptom of anything more than reasonable reporting by the news networks.

WolfPtCat · Post by **WolfPtCat** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:45 am

I recently watched Michael Moore's previous offering "Bowling for Columbine". It was the most schitzofrenic movie I have ever seen. It was all over the place. Part Gun-control advocacy film, part media bashing, part F*-the-man-I-hate-whittie(oh wait I am whittie). It gave meaning to the saying "Keep throwing $hit at a wall and hope something sticks." There were a few interesting statements and opinions. I would never pay money to see any of his work.

argh! · Post by **argh!** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:55 pm

this thread has been an interesting read. i have seen the film (long ago) and on one level, i really enjoyed it, but on another level, it was scary. there really is NO excuse for w's behavior after hearing the second plane hit the world trade center on 9/11, and to try to whitewash the sad fact of the immediate response of a "world leader" to the tragedy really takes a lot out of geog's attempts at taking the film down a peg. also, as ci-tay points out, there are numerous other occassions where bush acted in an inane manner during events that require complete seriousness (ie announcing to the nation you are sending it's youth to war). and that is not acceptable, at least in my opinion.

also, i've got to wonder what's up with you bac? you usually do a great job of supporting your contentions about this or that subject with fact (or in lieu of that, a published opinion by an 'expert' of some sort), but here your arguments seem to be devoid of all but hearsay, and wishy-washy statements about how it is ok to have an opinion on the film without having seeing it, disguised by the veil of claiming that people are stating an opinion on moore, not the flick (which they haven't seen).

anyway, i tend to agree with my lil' lady the CD, who after the film said that she couldn't see how anyone could hate bush, because he clearly is something of a victim of his environment, and has merely done what is expected in that environment - parlaying connections and wealth into getting the best job you can, no matter how unequipped you might be to have it.

flame away, fellas!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:47 am

argh!: I'm a little behind on my board posting lately. Thanks for qualified kind words. I can't really post any more on the Moore topic than I already have except that to say that people shouldn't have an opinion on the film itself if they haven't seen it. However, people can certainly form an opinion as to whether or not they think it is important for them to see the film based on their existing knowledge of Moore himself and his methods.

As for me, I'm sick of Moore and his shrill approach to public debate, which I think is based on distorting facts (as he did in his past films that I have seen, and the roughly 20 film reviews I have read about 911 -- even ones who loved the film and its message -- all strongly suggest he uses the same methods in this one) and going for cheap shots.

That being said, he's not alone in these methods. One can't listen to right wing commentators without noticing how similar their methods are.

When someone who is hard to the right tells me that I "have to" read the new Ann Coulter book, I smile and politely work through the topic until there's a chance to move on to something else. When someone hard to the left tells me that I "have to" see 911, I listen to what they have to say, and then move on to the next topic. They're both the same thing in my mind.

I keep seeing Moore on Bill Maher and other outlets, so my exposure to his opinions isn't waning quite yet, but he still seems to be about as devoid of nuance as the people he is criticizing (who definitely aren't my favorite people in the world, either).

I can't come up with any support for any of this -- it's all 100% opinion.

911 is on my Netflix list -- I'll see it eventually. I just make it the theater so rarely, and there are so many great films that I want to see, that it just doesn't make the cut.

I guess I did manage to come up with more to say....

Michael Moore?

Bowling For Columbine