July 6, 2004
Michael Moore had created quite a stir with his mockumentary, Fahrenheit 911. I commented on it not too long ago, and so have several others.The Economist happens to be one of the world's most renowned and credible periodicals we have today. They've made a comment on the movie, and especially considering the magazine is British, the review isn't kind, warning even mainstream Democrats to be wary of association with him.
Posted by charr at 1:47 PM
Hah, mockumentary. Did you come up with that?
I find it somewhat remarkable that so many people, yourself included, judge Moore by what others say rather than deciding for themselves if any of the multitude of questions and issues he poses and offers up have any merit. All this fuss and criticism, and I'm betting money you Cameron have never seen any of his films. Are you afraid to think for yourself, or does all your world view have to come filtered through conservative spin (and yes, the Economist is regarded as conservative)? Just curious...
There have been so many reviews of Moore's work that it's pretty easy to discern what it's about without seeing it. And considering that a lot of those reviews are from notoriously liberal news sources, I'd expect them to at least be complimentary towards it. (At Slate, Christopher Hitchens - the same man who ripped into Reagan before he was in the ground - blasted F9/11. If that extreme liberal says it is full of lies and half-truths, then I can only imagine what nonsense I would find in it. And the NYT ripped into it, too. The NYT is in no way conservative.) Since the liberal press hasn't been complementary, and since the errors in Moore's work have been written about ad nauseum, I can easily deduce that it isn't worth my time or money to see it.I don't think that it has anything to do with being afraid to think for myself. It has everything to do with being discriminate with my time and money.Judging something by what other people say about it is a perfectly valid method of judgement. When someone you know warns you about something, it perfectly reasonable to be cautious around it or to avoid it all together. It's called learning from someone else's mistakes.
Dan, I wish I could take credit, but I've heard the term before; not related to this film, but with something else I think.Tim, I find it remarkable that you would use such weak arguments as not being able to think for myself and fear. I had a whole bunch of things and examples I was going to pour out, but I'll refrain. Moore has a pretty extreme reputation from more than one side and I have no desire to pay money or spend time watching his stuff. Does that mean I can't think for myself. It's precisely the opposite -- I'm not going to follow the crowd to see the movie; I've deduced that it's not something I want to see and therefore won't see it. My point with my postings is that several people have lambasted the movie to the point where I'm confident it wouldn't appeal to me, like Jan said. And you're absolutely right with the fact I haven't seen it, nor do I plan to. Does Moore have some valid points? I'm sure he does. Am I so naive to think Bush is perfect? No. Would I have a fuller point of view to criticize the movie if I had seen it? Yes. Does that disqualify me from offering any critique? Absolutely not. Can I say that cocaine is bad for you without trying it? Am I too scared to think for myself regarding illegal drugs? We just had a similar discussion over at Heather's site.And by the way, the Economist is conservative in the aspect of fiscal handling. It is not by any means a Republican oriented magazine unless you only look at the traditional Republican ideals on economics. From their website:
"The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage."
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with Moore politically. I don't have a problem with you not wanting to give him any of your money. That's all well and good. I just find it strange that you've twice now made (rather blistering) criticism regarding a filmmaker and his film(s) you've not seen (nor apparently plan to see). For what it's worth, I've read a fair number of books and seen a lot of films that I've enjoyed, learned a great deal from, been inspired by (and even been horrified by) that have been slammed (and recommended) by friends, family, and the professional critics. I'd just be very curious to know what you, Cameron, think of it, from your own subjective experience, not what Brooks or other op-ed writers think (I can and do read their comments too).I suppose I'm also curious why you've now posted twice about a guy you can't stand. Is he some kind of threat to you? I understand why you dislike him so much, but you have to admit that true democracy demands freedom of expression, no?It's like the manager at KSL told me when I asked why the LDS Church airs Hannity in the afternoon, the same church that goes to great pains every election year to warn members not to use Church facilities or resources to promote a particular political party. He said that Sean gets great ratings; it's the most popular show during the day, and it consequently brings in more ad revenue than any other show they have. If I don't like it, I can tune in to a different station.
The reason I've been more vocal about Moore and his movie is most likely because he angers me. He has been very vocal and very critical of things that I feel strongly about; and unfortunately, quite influential. It's not so much his attack on Bush, though that does bother me. What really got me going was his attack on America and Americans. In relation to him, I have basically no influence, but I use my blog to voice my opposition to him and the terrible things he says. Besides the foul things he has said about this country, I do think he (along with many others) treats Bush unfairly and gets a lot of people worked up over it. His explicit goal is to overthrow Bush, and while I don't think Bush is anywhere close to perfect, I disagree with the way he is being dealt with. I think it's kinda sad how disrespectful we as a country have become of our leaders.
Renee marvels at her role as conservative defender of F9/11 once again.I am not surprised that liberal press would discredit Moore. He isn't exactly kind to their lack of selective reporting in F9/11. Reminds of when O'Reilly gets letters bemoaning him for criticizing Bush. O'Reilly responds that he's not pandering to the right or left. He's criticizing where it's called for. Moore's target is definitely the current administration but he points out flaws on the left, too. Of course they don't like that. What would you expect?I don't think people need to see the movie to comment on it. I heard plenty of that on talk radio and read it on blogs. Then I saw it and found there was a lot in it that wasn't being talked about. It would be kind of nice if more people saw it so there would be discussion of the things not being talked about from it. And if you don't want to support Moore, you can do like one of our local radio personalities suggested and buy tix for another movie then go to F9/11. Of course, that wouldn't be ethical and that effectively usurps one's credibility when they question the lack of integrity in a film they didn't get into by honest measures. ;)
I agree with you Cameron. Moore really upsets me, because he attacks America and Americans. What makes him think that he is so much smarter than the rest of us? I don't care if he agrees with me, and I even believe he should be able to express his opinions. However, he crosses the line when he does so with no integrity. He is simply not interested in the truth. In addition, it would be nice if he could express himself without belittling people and distorting reality. He clearly does not hold a high opinion of America or Americans. He should just leave.