[Galvasean]

Originally Posted by AlmightyCushion

Used to be a fan of his films until I started reading up about them. I've since realised he makes very biased and misleading "documentaries".

I'm the very same. Used to love his documentaries because they told me exactly what I wanted to hear (Buck Fush!!!). Unfortunately there is very little truth hidden amongst the hyperbole and outright distortions of the truth.

Originally Posted by Sad Professor

I'm not Moore's biggest fan either, but I hate the "he's so biased" line of criticism. So what? Everyone is biased. Everyone! I worry about people who think otherwise. You should be more concerned about documentaries that pretend to be objective because they are more likely to fool you. At least Moore's biases are clear for all to see. He's not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be. He isn't trying to make the definitive documentary about any of his subjects. He's offers a particular perspective which he attempts to back up with facts. There's nothing wrong with this. The quality of the facts he uses and whether they prove his argument is all that matters.

He backs up his opinions with outright lies though. That's no good. He doesn't even try to be honest or look at facts from a certain perspective. He just makes things up and deliberately misleads.
It's not right and I say that as a liberal who would agree with Moore's topics (at least on paper).

[Sad Professor]

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Moore. I was responding to the "he's biased" line of criticism. I study history and if i wrote "this source is biased" in an essay, my lecturer would underline it and want to know WTF I was talking about. Bias should be assumed of everything you read or watch. It doesn't matter if it's the BBC or Robert Fisk, they all have opinions, they are all biased. Some of them are just better at hiding it.

As I said, Moore's bias doesn't bother me. However, the sensationalist nature of his work does. He is more concerned with entertaining people than informing them. But on the other hand, his work is about trying to provoke. If one of his documentaries encouraged you to read more about the subject then he did something right. A lot of people read a book or watch a documentary on the history channel and think they have all the facts. They don't.

And technically his work probably does fit the definition of propaganda. However, most people use propaganda as a negative term to refer to something that they believe is wrong. In other words, it's only propaganda if you don't like it. In fact, propaganda is anything that has an agenda that use certain techniques to try and persuade you. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you know it's propaganda. And in my view, Moore's biases are there for all to see.

[Rabidlamb]

Originally Posted by boneyarsebogman

While they were entertaining, some were just very gimmicky, like Sicko. However, I found his best to be Capitalism: A Love Story.

It was alright but then I watched Inside Job & you realise how it should have been done.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inside_job_2010/

[Penn]

Originally Posted by Rabidlamb

It was alright but then I watched Inside Job & you realise how it should have been done.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inside_job_2010/

Inside Job is fantastic. Watched it again about two weeks ago. No silly stunts, no twisting facts, not even really trying to make it exciting or building up to anything... Just a straight-up "This is what happened. These are interviews we did about it. This story is interesting enough on it's own."

[montreal2011]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Lebowski

Moore once documented an oft-forgotten war, lest we forget:

YouTube links are ok, Google owns YouTube, and Google Video still has videos , so this link should be ok! http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...77915928383709

[catbear]

It's a pity there wasn't this type of discussion back in the mid 00s, any time I criticised his work as being polemic dressed as fact i was accused of supporting whatever Moore was attacking.

[sbsquarepants]

Originally Posted by Mickeroo

Its not that he doesn't give the other viewpoint, its that he lies and edits the movies in a fashion support his own viewpoint this is very different to just presenting his own viewpoint. They're not documentaries, they're propoganda films.

All "documentary" films are propaganda, some just more so than others. The very fact that someone bothered to make a film about any given subject is proof they have a point to make about it. I don't see why people get so upset about this, you make your mind up by looking at both sides of an argument - there's no law to say they have to be presented to you in one neat, easily digested bundle. When you've made your mind up - you're biased, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Sad Professor

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Moore. I was responding to the "he's biased" line of criticism. I study history and if i wrote "this source is biased" in an essay, my lecturer would underline it and want to know WTF I was talking about. Bias should be assumed of everything you read or watch. It doesn't matter if it's the BBC or Robert Fisk, they all have opinions, they are all biased. Some of them are just better at hiding it.
.

Absolutely. I'm not defending him either bu fact is there is no such thing as an unbiased reporter. Most of the best journalism in the world, stems from bias - not the lack thereof. If the journalist/filmaker or whoever wasn't biased one way or the other they probably couldn't be arsed investigating or reporting!
Anyone who thinks that anything another human being has taken the time and effort to record for the world to see, then hasn't slanted that thing to suit their own viewpoint/beliefs, is deluding themselves.
A point of view has to be, by it's very definition, biased. Bias does not necessarily equate to dishonesty.

I will admit that moore does go in for the kill in all of his films, and has a tendency to hammer his point home, but i still find them both informative and entertaining, a rare enough feat to achieve. I've never assumed his films were gospel, so i was never all that shocked to find out they weren't. Believing a film maker is akin to believing a politician, they'll both "bend the facts" to suit themselves. Some will be subtle some will downwright lie through their teeth. It's up to each individual to sift through and make sense of what they see and hear.

[Phony Scott]

Biased is not the word I would use to describe what Michael Moore does, but he has an agenda in each of his films and in that agenda he works by the ideal that the ends always justify the means; for example, his handling of the editing in 'Bowling for Columbine' was brilliant, but questionable. I remember seeing a subsequent documentary which showed how he manipulated two different speeches at two different NRA rallies and completely changed the context of the speeches to meet his own ends. To me, that's just blatantly deceiving the audience.

[duckworth]

This isn't the BBC - he has no obligation to impartiality. What a boring format the documentary would be if they were all unbiased. He's making his point in as direct a way as possible - this is a good thing in my opinion.

And on facts - people who think his distortion of fact is a bad thing (and you're into a whole philosophical debate whether ANY film can be without distortion of facts), there are plenty of people who disagree.

Somebody mentioned Werner Herzog - Herzog is famous for ignoring facts. In one of his most famous documentaries, Little Dieter want to Fly, the main guy goes around continually opening his car doors - making him look a bit mental. It turns out Herzog got the guy to act it out, it didn't happen by chance.

Now the argument behind this is - a) it actually DID happen in the past, and they are just showing it here to suit the medium of the film - and b) This distortion of fact is committed to serve the real truth of the film, and make its key point clearer.

Moore does the same - he shapes the film to make his point clearer and more direct.

I have no problem with this. It's not the 9 o'clock news.

[Denerick]

People are confusing bias and manipulation. I like bias - I actively seek it out. Thats why I read the Guardian and the economist - one left of center newspaper and one right of center weekly magazine. The problem isn't bias. The problem is that Moore treats the viewer with contempt, actively distorts the facts in order to promote his own cause. He also deliberately skews cause and effect; presenting the effect before the cause is commonplace in his work. The line between promotion of one's ideas and propaganda can be very small indeed at times, but Moore is a particularly wily individual. I enjoyed many of his films when I was younger (As someone already said - he's great when you're 16 and haven't developed a capacity to think critically) but nowadays whenever I come across any of his work I get intensely annoyed.

If you're looking for a good documentary maker then watch Louis Theroux. He seeks out the crazies but nearly always finds the best side of them. He makes survivalist nutters in Idaho seem likable as individual human beings for example... Moore is a part of the political problem if you ask me, and symptomatic of an age where people don't care so much about the truth, but about their version of the truth.*

*We could get all postmodern and challenge the notion of objective truth, but the point is that we don't get any more enlightened by consuming propaganda as fact or polemic as argument.

[Denerick]

Originally Posted by Sad Professor

As I said, Moore's bias doesn't bother me. However, the sensationalist nature of his work does. He is more concerned with entertaining people than informing them. But on the other hand, his work is about trying to provoke. If one of his documentaries encouraged you to read more about the subject then he did something right. A lot of people read a book or watch a documentary on the history channel and think they have all the facts. They don't.

Ah, but which book will they read? I'd wager that the net effect of his propaganda is the deepening polarisation of the individuals in question. Politics shouldn't be a matter of belief or disbelief, it should be a constant battle of equally valid arguments, the most worthy argument should eventually convince the person of its rightness. Moore adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge IMO.

[Standman]

I always find that people tend to like documentaries that go along with their pre-conceived notions about the subject, then hold up the documentary as some kind of evidence when really they are nothing more than entertainment.

[sbsquarepants]

Originally Posted by Denerick

If you're looking for a good documentary maker then watch Louis Theroux. He seeks out the crazies but nearly always finds the best side of them. He makes survivalist nutters in Idaho seem likable as individual human beings for example... Moore is a part of the political problem if you ask me, and symptomatic of an age where people don't care so much about the truth, but about their version of the truth.*

Could agree more about Louis Theroux, who is in to my mind the best documentary maker working today. Again though, it's just entertainment with a learning slant. You shouldn't really consider watching a film to somehow deliver an education!
As for this being an age when people care for their version of the truth...was there ever a different age, will their ever be a different age? People as a group have generally never been all that objective, i don't imagine they ever will be either.

Originally Posted by Denerick

Ah, but which book will they read? I'd wager that the net effect of his propaganda is the deepening polarisation of the individuals in question. Politics shouldn't be a matter of belief or disbelief, it should be a constant battle of equally valid arguments, the most worthy argument should eventually convince the person of its rightness. Moore adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge IMO.

You have to remember Moore makes his films for American audiences. Politics anywhere is not like you describe but particularly not in America where it is driven by hysteria, dodgy ideology, religious nuts on all sides, commies and muslims under the bed etc.
Have you ever watched an American "news" channel? It's laughable looking at it from a European point of view, but that's all they see. Moore offers a counter view that the majority of average Americans just would not be exposed to. I'm not talking about MIT graduates, i'm talking about the Joe Soaps, 3 quarters of whom don't even have a passport, who are fed on a diet of god bless America, down with anything remotely socialist cos it's evil and so on. For all their wealth and power, they are not an educated or worldly nation, they are very insular and in a lot of cases down right backwards (intelligent design anybody?). Moore very much does add to the sum of their knowledge, maybe not to yours, but certainly theirs.