So Michael Moore tells the truth?

OuTpaTienT · July 12th, 2004, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidley

New rule: All "facts" without matierial support are now deemed "opinion."

Move to second the notion?

There is all kinds of supporting material. It's just common knowledge to most folk. If you've been under a rock or are just too lazy to research it for yourself that's not my problem. [shrug]

RayH · July 12th, 2004, 02:45 PM

So Bush and Co. are telling the truth, eh?

OuTpaTienT · July 12th, 2004, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayH

So Bush and Co. are telling the truth, eh?

No, not necessarily.

TOAD6147 · July 12th, 2004, 08:10 PM

By Gustave Gilbert from an interview with Hermann Goering

Quote:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

originel · July 12th, 2004, 08:47 PM

I find that the media is rather centered actually, with an equal number of conservative and liberal news sources. It really depends on your own viewpoint. For example, MTA you said that everything was rather conservative. This just means that you are very liberal. I have my views which just shows i am a moderate. and so on and so forth.

As for the topic, of course Moore doesn't unbiasedly tell the truth. No one ever does, it's just a fact of life. If you think otherwise you're just fooling yourself. Just because someone tells some truth doesn't mean that person also doesn't slant or lie. Conversely just because someone slants and lies doesn't mean they don't also tell the truth. I haven't seen the film so i can't comment other than my generalizations about everyone.

TOAD6147 · July 12th, 2004, 09:05 PM

Here's "fair and blanced" for you:

Quote:

Recently the network debuted a weekly half-hour series--Only on Fox--devoted explicitly to right-wing stories. The concept of the show was explained by host Trace Gallagher in the premier episode (5/26/01):

Quote:

Five years ago, Fox News Channel was launched on the idea that something was wrong with news media--that somehow, somewhere bias found its way into reporting. . . . And it's not just the way you tell a story that can get in the way of the truth. It's the stories you choose to tell. . . . Fox News Channel is committed to being fair and balanced in the coverage of the stories everybody is reporting--and to reporting stories you won't hear anywhere else. Stories you will see only on Fox.

Gallagher then introduced a series of stories about one conservative cause after another: from white firefighters suing Boston's fire department for discrimination, to sawmill workers endangered by Clinton-Gore environmental regulations (without comment from a single supporter of the rules), to property owners who feel threatened by an environmental agreement "signed by President Clinton in 1992." (The agreement was actually signed by George Bush the elder, who was president in 1992--though that didn't stop Fox from using news footage of a smiling Bill Clinton proudly signing an official document that was supposed to be, but wasn't, the environmental pact in question.)

Fox's news specials are equally slanted: Dangerous Places (3/25/01), a special about foreign policy hosted by Newt Gingrich; Heroes, an irregular series hosted by former Republican congressmember John Kasich; and The Real Reagan (11/25/99), a panel discussion on Ronald Reagan, hosted by Tony Snow, in which all six guests were Reagan friends and political aides. Vanishing Freedoms 2: Who Owns America (5/19/01) wandered off into militia-style paranoia, suggesting that the U.N. was "taking over" private property.

There is a formula to Fox's news agenda. "A lot of the people we have hired," Fox executive John Moody explained (Inside Media, 12/11/96) when the network was launched, "have come without the preconceptions of must-do news. There are stories we will sometimes forego in order to do stories we think are more significant. The biggest strength that we have is that Roger Ailes has allowed me to do that; to forego stores that would be 'duty' stories in order to focus on other things."

These "other" stories that Moody has in mind are what make up much of Fox's programming: An embarrassing story about Jesse Jackson's sex life. The latest political-correctness outrage on campus. A one-day mini-scandal about a Democratic senator. Much like talk radio, Fox picks up these tidbits from right-wing outlets like the Washington Times or the Drudge Report and runs with them.

To see how the formula works, consider the recent saga of right-wing activist David Horowitz and his "censored" anti-slavery reparations ad. When some college newspapers refused to carry the ad, and some campuses saw protests against it, the case instantly became a cause celebre on the right. It was the perfect story for Fox: The liberal academic establishment trampling on the free speech of a conservative who merely asked that his views be heard. Within less than a month, Horowitz was on nearly every major Fox show to discuss the issue. (See sidebar.)

More here...

originel · July 12th, 2004, 10:01 PM

exactly, foxnews is a conservative news channel. like i said, some are conservative and some are liberal.

chipbgt · July 12th, 2004, 10:19 PM

so yeah, michael moore made this film, and some guys said "hey thats not factual" but this other guy says "yes it is"

did I forget anything?

OuTpaTienT · July 12th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipbgt

so yeah, michael moore made this film, and some guys said "hey thats not factual" but this other guy says "yes it is"

did I forget anything?

Yes, you forgot the guy that says, "they are both wrong" and the guy that says, "I don't care". I'm both of those guys.

Epidemic · July 12th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by originel

I find that the media is rather centered actually, with an equal number of conservative and liberal news sources. It really depends on your own viewpoint. For example, MTA you said that everything was rather conservative. This just means that you are very liberal. I have my views which just shows i am a moderate. and so on and so forth.

As for the topic, of course Moore doesn't unbiasedly tell the truth. No one ever does, it's just a fact of life. If you think otherwise you're just fooling yourself. Just because someone tells some truth doesn't mean that person also doesn't slant or lie. Conversely just because someone slants and lies doesn't mean they don't also tell the truth. I haven't seen the film so i can't comment other than my generalizations about everyone.

You stole my thought there Originel. I had actual work today at work and did not get to post it. But thanks for my thought anyway

Liberals will not see CNN, NBC or the TIMES as liberal because it agrees with their thought process, any leaning is lost in the perceived truth.

Conservatives see CNN, NBC, and the times as notoriously liberal slanted because the stories do not address what they feel is important and the conclusions gathered and presented are not perceived as the complete truth.

Liberals will see fox the exact same way as conservatives see ABC.