Michael Moore is.....

gazzer

on Question Time on BBC1 tonight. It is coming from Miami.

RE*AC*TOR

thanks, must remember to watch that....

Optikus

Cool.. cheers for that, should be interesting.

Hobbes

More details here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/3954967.stm

Intresting list of people.

Tiriel

anyone watch it?

RE*AC*TOR

yeah, i saw it, decent enough debate, all sides catered for. The audience were a bit rowdy though, and prone to shouting and booing. Moore was his usual self and made some good points. He accused Littlejohn of being in america too long, because he interrupted Moore, Moore saying it was the Jerry Springer influence. Moore was, however, guilty of interrupting others as well. All the guests made decent points, whether you agree with them or not. Roll on Tuesday...

Tiriel

sounds good thanks! yeah, wonder if there will be any controversy over votes.. Not sure what to make of Moore anymore, I dunno.. guess u can't just see one side of a story right?! he does kind of make the whole thing more interesting, just a pity there has been so much around recently about how correct he is.. but at end of the day.. I still like him

Ivan

Cork_girl wrote:

sounds good thanks! yeah, wonder if there will be any controversy over votes.. Not sure what to make of Moore anymore, I dunno.. guess u can't just see one side of a story right?! he does kind of make the whole thing more interesting, just a pity there has been so much around recently about how correct he is.. but at end of the day.. I still like him

Are you saying you disagree with his points? And its only now with the multitude of other documentarys about 9/11, Bushes Saudi Investors and connections to the Bin Ladens that you believe what he's saying?

Whether thats the case or not, I find it hard to believe how people can completely disregard everything he says simply because he tends to sensationalise the facts. He's an American, thats what they do. Its what he has to do in order to get other Americans to listen.

On topic of course, I thought the debate was excellent. I thought it was amusing how Littlejohn & Moore bantered back and forth. Culminating in Littlejohn agreeing with moore twice in a row. Only to take a big lump out of him at the end.

Who was ye're 'wan from the Miami Election committee. Bit of a non-player. She seemed to just blame all the politicians for all the problems. Which is fair enough, but everyone knows that... right?

I thought the point on the $3.9 billion spent on the voting process in 2000 to prevent another disaster like Florida 2000, was rather quickly overlooked.

And I see Bush has cut out the middleman altogether. Instead of showing up to debates, he's now sending his speech writer

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Whether thats the case or not, I find it hard to believe how people can completely disregard everything he says simply because he tends to sensationalise the facts. He's an American, thats what they do. Its what he has to do in order to get other Americans to listen.

o.0

because the Irish and european media *never* sensationalises things..

Tiriel

speech writer.. guess he just couldn't memorise anymore! hard to imagine sometimes that he has actually even thought before he opens his gob!!

no I do agree with Moore's points. First thing I had heard of Moore was Bowling for Columbine. I love his style. Then I read two of his books.. well tbh I haven't actually finished Downsize This yet..

It's just that I wouldn't have the best judgement of the facts.. and in a way, just wondering if what he is saying is actually accurate or not! it's websites like moorelies.com that makes me a little uncomfortable.. that's all!! basically it's down to me not knowing the politics of America very well

dahamsta

Well worth watching. The first third or so was quite annoying to watch because the audience was indeed quite rowdy, and partisan with it. You'd get a distinct impression that the audience was stuffed, but it could just as easily have been intentionally sourced that way. On top of that the panelists started out trying to set out their agendas rather than discuss topics seriously, but although this didn't go away, it certainly became more watchable as time went on.

(In the order they appear on the BBC website...)

Moore did his usual thing, getting across some populist (and some not so) points quite well, but often ruining it by going too far, or occasionally not far enough. He's simply not a very good debater when you get right down to it (nothing to be ashamed about, I'm rubbish meself), I think he should stick to formats where he won't be confronted quite so easily.

David Frum is scary, and not just because he looks like George Castanza. It seems obvious to me that he genuinely believes what he says, even when it's blatant FUD or even outright lies, and it also seems that people genuinely believe him and people like him when they do it. And I don't think it's because they're particularly good at getting their point across, more that their own belief sucks people in.

Blumental is obviously an excellent thinker and strategist, but he made a very poor job of getting himself across in this instance, which is unfortunate. He made his points by referencing facts and figures that really should be hard to refute, but he stumbled and paused his way through a lot of it, which tended to make it easy for his opponents to just skip past it.

Littlejohn was Littlejohn, although he surprised even me on a couple of occasions by coming across relatively fair and balanced (sorry). However he invariably ruined it at the end by throwing in some comment that revealed his partisanship on the issue. Sorry, but people like Littlejohn remind me of our own Neil Prendeville down here: They shouldn't be in charge of shows that discuss issues.

And finally Rodriguez-Taseff made a boo-boo at the start by trying to twist an audience question around to her own agenda (electoral reform), but I guess that's to be expected, and for the rest of the show I think she came across as the most thoughtful, well-spoken contributor. Definitely partisan, but mostly because of the failings of the Bush administration, in my view.

I have to say, at the end of the show I vowed to go into the city tomorrow to find myself a Kerry-Edwards badge (some hope). The Republican on the stage and particularly some of the Republicans in the audience were really quite offensive in both their opinions and their actions. They tended towards rudeness and refutation that had zero basis in fact.

I guess it's to be expected that a liberal like me would be offended by that, but it's this blind arrogance, denial of truth and unwillingness to accept responsibility that scares and annoys me most about modern day Republicans. They shouldn't be called neoconservatives, they should be called Fundamentalist Conservatives. The term seems much more appropriate in this day and age.

adam

dahamsta

Ivan wrote:

And I see Bush has cut out the middleman altogether. Instead of showing up to debates, he's now sending his speech writer

Well, to be fair Frum is an ex Bush speech writer.

adam

Tiriel

thanks for that post

dahamsta wrote:

but it's this blind arrogance, denial of truth and unwillingness to accept responsibility that scares and annoys me most about modern day Republicans.

adam

with u on that one. it's frightening that people can just refuse to be open-minded and only see what they are pretty much brain-washed into believing.

Ivan

Mordeth wrote:

o.0

because the Irish and european media *never* sensationalises things..

Um, precisely, so why do you hate him so much?
Farenheit 9/11 was almost exactly the same as that british documentary we saw today. Except perhaps for the improv at the end of 9/11, about the woman who lost her son.

A rather emotional moment tbh, and good cinematography, imho.

The fact is on Question Time, he seemed to come out with good points but at the same time he seemed to just laugh things up. It was strange, he's definitely not a politician anyway. And as Dahamsta said, not a good live debater.

It seemed to me as if Rodriguez-Taseff tried to twist EVERY point made around to her own agenda. I didnt really see the start of the debate so I couldnt comment on her mistake...

Was it just me or did Blumental comment on how Bush was a disgrace to outlaw stem-cell research based on his own belief structures. And then Littlejohn joined him on this, saying how in Britain its worked out on a case-by-case basis.

Only then for a woman to come in and spout on about how she could walk again by Bushes Government funded stem cell research (which he actually outlawed or wanted to outlaw) and how she was able to walk but for the grace of God.

That or I just didnt follow it properly.

I thought it rather amusing how people made some points and then others seem to come in and basically agree with them, but in a tone/body language that made it seem like they were disagreeing with them.

And what exactly was the Israeli woman trying to say, when she said her Husband fought in 2 wars, her brother etc. etc. And how America & Europe doesnt understand the Arab peoples. Then she said something about Moore which he seemed to take as a compliment. Completely lost me.

All in all, a good debate. I didnt hear a single point from a Republican that I could agree with (unless of course Bush did in fact promote Stem Cell research, in which case he gets a small thumbs-up) but then I'd imagine Republicans all around America, who watched the show, are going to bed thinking the exact same thing.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

there's more to michael moore than f9/11.. bowling for columbine is another reason to dislike the man.

He goes on and on and ON about the evils of those in power, and how wrong they are for misleading the public and putting their own "dirty" spin on things.. then he goes and does exactly the same thing from a different perspective. He is a hyprocite, nothing more. He wants the attention, and he's getting it. He's a troll.

Ivan

Mordeth wrote:

there's more to michael moore than f9/11.. bowling for columbine is another reason to dislike the man.

He goes on and on and ON about the evils of those in power, and how wrong they are for misleading the public and putting their own "dirty" spin on things.. then he goes and does exactly the same thing from a different perspective. He is a hyprocite, nothing more. He wants the attention, and he's getting it. He's a troll.

Fair enough, I'll grant you he is a troll alright. But in a country, where the media is dominated by trolls, he is a lesser of a few evils.
His facts remain the same, despite the nice, shiny spinning package.
While bowling for a columbine isnt 100% fool-proof, it gets a very powerful message across. And at the end of the day, thats really what its all about.
Message + $$ = Moore.
$$ + $$ - Message = Bush
Thats my POV anyway.

dahamsta

Mordeth wrote:

He goes on and on and ON about the evils of those in power, and how wrong they are for misleading the public and putting their own "dirty" spin on things.. then he goes and does exactly the same thing from a different perspective. He is a hyprocite, nothing more. He wants the attention, and he's getting it. He's a troll.

Uh, Moore is a documentary maker Mordeth. If he lies he might change the opinion of some people, but that's about the limit of what he can do. The Bush administration is responsible for 280 million people, who expect them to tell the truth. Their lies result in wars. Comparing Moore and the Bush administration isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing jam and ICBMs.

adam

Tiriel

dahamsta wrote:

Uh, Moore is a documentary maker Mordeth. If he lies he might change the opinion of some people, but that's about the limit of what he can do. The Bush administration is responsible for 280 million people, who expect them to tell the truth. Their lies result in wars. Comparing Moore and the Bush administration isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing jam and ICBMs.

adam

spot on

Baldy

Mordeth wrote:

there's more to michael moore than f9/11.. bowling for columbine is another reason to dislike the man.

He goes on and on and ON about the evils of those in power, and how wrong they are for misleading the public and putting their own "dirty" spin on things.. then he goes and does exactly the same thing from a different perspective. He is a hyprocite, nothing more. He wants the attention, and he's getting it. He's a troll.

Gonna have to agree here, there have been many a case where moore has been hypocitical, but on the other the man has pointed out several social problems in american, which I agree with. Whether he did this for selfish purpose or not is leaving my view of the man tainted! TBH I'm not sure how to judge him!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

dahamsta wrote:

Uh, Moore is a documentary maker Mordeth. If he lies he might change the opinion of some people, but that's about the limit of what he can do. The Bush administration is responsible for 280 million people, who expect them to tell the truth. Their lies result in wars. Comparing Moore and the Bush administration isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing jam and ICBMs.

adam

so what you're saying is, because he's on our side.. it's ok for him to lie and cheat? He's a spin doctor, nothing more. He has his agenda to put forward and he's doing that. He's is no different from any of the republicans who lie to get their message across, and the fact that you think he is better than they are simply because you agree with him is a little scary.

He shares the views of alot of people here that the bush admin. is evil, etc etc etc..and he wants to be seen as their enemy. He is not impartial, he is not unbiased.. he is partisan.. and he is not deserving of respect, or awards for his "documentaries".

Fair enough, I'll grant you he is a troll alright. But in a country, where the media is dominated by trolls, he is a lesser of a few evils.

Because he agrees with you?

His facts remain the same, despite the nice, shiny spinning package.

Sure the facts remain the same, but facts are never what it's all about.. it's the spin that is put on these facts.. the way they are presented and the things that are *not* mentioned are often as important as those that are not. Those in the bush administration are just as convinced of their correctness, as you are of yours.

While bowling for a columbine isnt 100% fool-proof, it gets a very powerful message across. And at the end of the day, thats really what its all about.

Finally you admit that it is pure propoganda, and not a documentary. Thank you.

Uh, Moore is a documentary maker Mordeth. If he lies he might change the opinion of some people, but that's about the limit of what he can do. The Bush administration is responsible for 280 million people, who expect them to tell the truth.

I would be more inclined to shift part of the blame for this to the american public that so readily lapped up the **** they were fed by their goverment. The information (Truth) is out there for all to see, the fact that alot of them don't seem to want to and are perfectly happy to be fed the "news" at a nice, slow steady pace is a problem that needs to be adressed as much as that of Mr Bush and his cronies. Moore is doing nothing to combat this, bar his sensationalist movies and books and ratm music videos. He is a hack, and I believe he was portrayed quite beautifully in the new "team america: world police" movie. (go see this film )

Their lies result in wars. Comparing Moore and the Bush administration isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing jam and ICBMs.

If moore was in a posistion of power, I don't think he'd do a much better job of respecting the rights of people who did not agree with him. He is (imo) as bigoted as many in the bush admin. and deserving of about as much respect.

Illkillya

Mordeth wrote:

so what you're saying is, because he's on our side.. it's ok for him to lie and cheat? He's a spin doctor, nothing more. He has his agenda to put forward and he's doing that. He's is no different from any of the republicans who lie to get their message across

You're clearly missing the point. You should read dahamsta's post again rather than try to rewrite it for him in your own confused and inaccurate words.

dahamsta

Illkillya wrote:

You're clearly missing the point. You should read dahamsta's post again rather than try to rewrite it for him in your own confused and inaccurate words.

Precisely. You'd swear I was Moore's lover the way yerman goes on.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no, I'm not missing the point. i just don't agree with it

their lies result in wars

Their war mongering attitudes and blinkered worldview resulted in wars, the lies they put out were merely explanations and soothing blankets for the fox watching public. As terry pratchett said "a lie can run around the world before the truth has got it's shoes on". And moore knows that as well as anyone.

Comparing Moore and the Bush administration isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing jam and ICBMs.

so who can we compare the bush admin to?.. seeing as the US is the only superpower left in the world they don't really have any peers. How about God, or satan? or Thor, or Mars?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

dahamsta wrote:

Precisely. You'd swear I was Moore's lover the way yerman goes on.

my apologies if I caused offence

Elmo

My view on Micheal Moore

I wouldn't beleive everything he says.

But then I wouldn't beleive everything the establishments says either.

I look at Micheal Moore as a small voice over a the very large mega media machine that is The Politcal Establishment of America.

BaZmO*

The way I see Michael Moore is as shoehorn for the average person to get an insight into American politics without having to be subjected to "political" speak. He is merely a stepping stone for the "average Joe" into the world of politics.

He is also most definitely a self publicist, but I think deep down his heart is in the right place and if his rather simplied way of explaining the political cronyism that is rife at the moment gets young people and those who just think politics is boring and for old men into it, well then imo it's not a bad thing.

If you're smart enough it's not difficult to see that if Moore can state that politicians are lying or "bending the truth" to suit their own gains, well then it is quite possible for him to be doing the same.

I would rather have people like Moore out there then nothing at all.

B.

stagolee

I agree Moore is guilty of putting spin on the facts he uses in his documentaries but certainly no more so than the U.S. government press office or the mostly ultra conservative controlled media.
In this he has quite admirably in my opinion created an opposing voice to what was a one sided shouting match. Although there have been many liberal activists in america before him few of them received any attention as they did not draw that attention to themselves , leaving the average american to soak up the single point of view being put before them with all its ommisions and borderline lies(i read somewhere a while ago that many americans thought iraq was behind the september 11th attack).
Moore may be of questionable ethical integrity but at least he is in the public eye. It would be nice to have someone of great moral strength in the mass media stating the case of liberal america but who would it be? John Kerry is only very slightly less conservative than bush and i cant think of anyone else liberal minded who appears in the media anywhere near as often as Moore.
So although it is in my opinion a wise idea to question every word that comes out of Moores mouth, it is no more important than taking anything you see on U.S news with a large grain of salt.

sorry for the badly written and wandering rant but to sum it up , i dont trust Moore 100% but he seems to be the only one getting a second viewpoint accrosss to the majority of the U.S. public , so hes ok by me

stagolee

doh 2 people just said that much better than me before i pressed the submit reply button

LightofDarkness

Umm.... WHAT?!

I agree with Mordeth, Moore is a propagandist and no more.
However, I find it hilarious that people here think the US media is republican controlled and conservative. Here's the cold hard fact people: there is JUST ONE CHANNEL in America that conveys any true conservative message at all and that's Fox News. I lived in the country and frequently visit over and back, I think I know what I'm talking about. Just watch the CBS news on Sky News sometime and observe the democratic/liberal commentary. They often paint republican politicians and their ideas as "wacky" and other colourful adjectives are used too.