Absolutely. I steer clear of those as well.

Well, books, print and internet are mediums that allow for much more factual backup and information to be given. A feature film is constrianed to certain lengths and cannot open new lines of discussion and only discuss them in a cursory way, even the Michael Moore rebuttal films (Celsius 4.11, Fahrenhype 911, Michael Moore Hates America) are susceptible to the same criticisms they levy against Michael Moore.

And in no place does Michael Moore claim he’s a balanced journalist.

People disagree with his version of the truth, even if the facts represented are correct. A fact is just that, a fact. The truth is far more complicated.

I agree here, instead of saying “his version of the truth” I just say, “his opinion”

Anyone who questions Michael Moore’s version of the truth (not necessarily individual facts) or is simply turned off by his caustic approach, does not understand the documentary format, is simple minded, blind, and a supporter of right wing idiots like Coulter and Hannity.

You said it, not me.

Seriously though, I do believe many people misunderstand what documentaries are, and how they’re envisioned in a general sense, with or without MM. In film schools, they teach that in many ways the suspension of disbelief and manipulative nature is higher in docs than narratives.

And I really didnt say anything about supporting Ann or Hannity, but those that have seek to discredit Moore usually have a vested interest beyond a simple “he’s caustic” or “I’m seeking the truth” reason.

But the problem is that he and other non-experts (in different content delivery methods: Books, TV, Print, Internet) are trying to pass it off as such. Just because there isn’t an outright claim that it isn’t balanced journalism doesn’t mean that there isn’t and undercurrent for acceptance as such. Especially when you get into the realm of a documentary/film/piece that have a political point, it may be a slice of the picture, however it can’t be passed off as THE truth.

There was an article floating around on Yahoo News this weekend which talked about this, and other factors that affect healthcare. Among them were the availability of doctors and nurses, with serious shortages in both being predicted for the future, the ability of domestic medical schools to provide the requisite numbers to ensure enough health service personnel are available (supply) to meet demand (not enough schools/slots), the overall approach to healthcare that is emphasized in western medicine vs a holistic preventative approach, etc.

Go see SiCKo, you might learn something. Can’t have that, can we?

You’ve kept attacking me for my personal preferance of disliking MM and been dismissive of anyone really who believes the product he’s putting out there, beyond the facts he highlights, isn’t designed to coopt the viewer into what he believes the truth is based on those highlighted facts. People disagree with his version of the truth, even if the facts represented are correct. A fact is just that, a fact. The truth is far more complicated.

I haven’t disagreed with Sicko’s basic premise (from what I’ve read here and been told from others) that the American system is ass backwards, it’s always been the solution to how one can fix it, with which I have an issue. When a failure in the system is recognized, why is for every problem one sees, the answer is [insert government here], particularly on a federal level the answer? Especially given the American landscape, when the practicality of implementing such a system poses serious issues? Plus, I prefer to learn from some more comprehensive sources than a movie. It’s a bit too advanced for random, run of the mill, unsophisticated, simple minded, caveman guju as myself.

In conclusion: Anyone who questions Michael Moore’s version of the truth (not necessarily individual facts) or is simply turned off by his caustic approach, does not understand the documentary format, is simple minded, blind, and a supporter of right wing idiots like Coulter and Hannity.

The newspaper headline wasn’t a fake, it was an opinion piece, with the date was changed. Which while unecessary, is not tantamount to “faking”

Lockheed martin is the largest defense contractor in the US. His footage implied the satellite launch vehicles transported through Colorado, were attack weapons, which they are not. but again, a diversion from the central point that moore was making in that sequence connecting the Columbine killer’s proclivity towards violence, with this countries proclivity towards violence.

If you understood the concept and process of documentary filmmaking, you’d understand that editing footage to push your point of view, not changing fundamental facts, is the bread and butter of the entire artform. It’s not meant to be balanced journalism, nor does it claim to be. The rockets transported through colorado were missiles, they were EELVs and not missles shot from jets, but Moore never claimed they were, he just didn’t stop you from making that assumption. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with documentaries as a whole.

You’re almost there, I’m waiting for it now, what the definition of the words “is” is.

Who I’m sure is grateful for your even-handed, un-emotionally charged responses. As they stand in such contrast to my drivel.

As a last grap from what i can tell, though its so illogical i’m not sure you’re making the argument, you’re apparently trying to claim system doesn’t mean a singular source despite the fact that in its own defintion you’ve just posted it refers to a ‘group of items’ forming a UNIFIED WHOLE (hint hint: singular source).

A unified whole made up of multiple parts (these could be independent, loosely dependent, or high dependent). For example, a mechanical system made up of levers, pullys, ballasts, rope, etc.. are all separate items, serving independent purposes, but when put together, achieve a common goal. And this has been my f*cking point all along! that the most commonly accepted examples and connotations of propaganda indeed refer to what you’re qualifying as “institutional propaganda”

It’s simple because the effectiveness of the systemization is directly preportional to how loosely dependent (or even independent) the components are in terms of origin (when we’re talking about a socio-political system, and not a scientific one), but how highly correlated they are in terms of content. So the viewer/consumer will more likely be fooled into thinking: because these independent sources are saying the same thing, it must be true. If someone has it already lodged into his brain that Michael Moore = liar, then any propagandizing effort is nipped in the bud.

Sorry, but again the burden is on you to plainly prove that somehow a singular source is not propaganda.

at the very least I have shown that the majority definitions and instances of propaganda imply more than one source, coagulated together. Your insistence on arguing definitions and other tangential points, is just an attempt to distract from the central point, so let’s cut the bullshit, and how about you answer my question (posed in #283)?

Provide me a historical account where some activity, piece of work, set of works by a singular person was regarded as propaganda, and did not arise or exist as a component of what you qualify as “institutional propaganda” No, I don’t want alternate definitions that define propaganda as a pink cow or whatever, give me an actual historical example – this is what I meant by “provide your proof”

If you did that earlier in the mess of shit above, then humor my infantile and slow mind and do it again. You owe it to your constituents, who are ardently depending on you to defend their meek, fragile sensibilities that I’ve excoriated so ruthlessly. Don’t do it for me, I’m too far gone the dark path, do it for them, they still have a chance.

Again, I feel sorry for you. You’re wrong in so many ways. First let me just trace your steps. You excoriated a person for claiming Moore’s works were propaganda because they weren’t derived from an institutional structure. Now if you had only meant it in a relative sense then there’s no reason for rejecting that classification. You could have said well is propaganda but isn’t as bad as institutional propaganda but isntead you definitively said ‘his movies AREN’T propaganda’. You realize saying some isn’t propaganda thereby means that it just doesn’t fit under the subset of that word right. I mean you were pretty unambiguous. It wasn’t like you were like well it isn’t institutional propaganda which is more pernicious (which is arguable on a case by case basis) but instead you went for the whole home run. So don’t try to lie your way out of this—that’s the beauty of the internet, your exact words are right there.

Then you tried to say well I mean propaganda in the institutional sense or propaganda that doesn’t come from a singular source which you believe exonerates Moore from the label. You then proceed to highlight the fact that propaganda can be the systematic dissemination of information which shows that the burden is still upon you depending on the definition of systematic. Systematic in the links provided again has multiple definitions most of which only require some type of order or methodology, again allowing Moore to fall under as a subset of propaganda.

As a last grap from what i can tell, though its so illogical i’m not sure you’re making the argument, you’re apparently trying to claim system doesn’t mean a singular source despite the fact that in its own defintion you’ve just posted it refers to a ‘group of items’ forming a UNIFIED WHOLE (hint hint: singular source). Now this is already hilarious, but i’m assuming youre saying that the group of items can only be a set of sources, but that’s again not true, as an item can also just refer to bits of information or scenes or well just about anything because the defintion of item is : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1 obsolete : WARNING, HINT 2 : a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series : ARTICLE 3 : an object of attention, concern, or interest 4 : a separate piece of news or information 5 : a couple in a romantic or sexual relationship

So again, you come up completely empty handed. A set of interconnected items forming a unified whole can in fact just be separate pieces of news or information which Moore’s movies are constructed off.

Sorry, but again the burden is on you to plainly prove that somehow a singular source is not propaganda.

As for historical accounts, I’ve again given you refernces to alternative definitions of propaganda in the past and aside from that your initial Moore isn’t propaganda argument wasn’t a historically based one but instead a definitional one.

That’s just not true. Coulter has claimed absolutely false things to be true (for example, Dale Earnhardts lack of coverage on the NYT). Michael moore, even if he’s decontextualized facts to some degree (which I think in some cases, or he’s left irrelevant facts out – for example, the bank vault with the guns being 100 miles away or whatever, rather than being in the bank) he’s never flat out uttered untruth. Coulter seems to do this with no shame. And seriously, if every link I provide you’re retort is , “well yah, they’re just biased.” then I don’t think you can discuss anything with anyone. (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html) The problem is, Coulter wastes other peoples time by making them disprove her shit, much more time than I’ve wasted on you.

http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=4221 http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html http://www.hardylaw.net/omitted.html

You’re going to have to waste more time then. Moore has already faked newspaper headlines, spliced together disparate election adds and added words to them and lied about for example whether lockheed martin makes or transports nuclear missiles just to make points. And that’s just to start.

By the way, I was being sarcastic about the sources. I dont automatically reject sources due to my perceptions of their bias. If you could read you would have seen that it was actually a sarcastic response to yours and another posters dismissal of some sources as right wingers.

By the way, what relevance does bodies have to the point (namely none). Gupta even says in your own quote that it doesn’t change Moore’s point but does affect his CREDIBILITY, which is important for people trying to use him as an accurate source when deciding how to protect their and their loved ones bodies.

Well, I’m sure the people I was rude to are thanking you profusely in their prayers each night for defending the meek, so gallantly. In fact, I’m sure this is the case, given the fact they most certainly tuned out 100 posts ago, as they’re so overcome with tears at your single handed tackling of the evil HMF. You should have your d*ck bronzed.

Secondly, I still believe the definition I provided of propaganda is the accepted definition by colloquial, and connotational persepectives as given by historical accounts. Thirdly, it’s clear I was comparing Moore’s films as propaganda vs. larger mainstream corporate & govt forms of propaganda with clearly more infrastructure as a set of things. It’s obvious it was a relative measurement I was making, not an absolute one.

By the way: the first definition from here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/systematic

is: elating to or consisting of a system

and system is defined as:

a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole.

Oops there goes another rubber tree, Oops there goes another problem, kerplop.