Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I know this is an old topic,but I rented the DVD and saw the film for the first time. I heard all the criticism of Michael Moore and his film. All I can say is that even if I disagree with Michael Moore's premise I would defend his right to make the film. However,the Bush administration ignored this film and the press did not dig any further into the allegations that Bush and the Saudis are in financial bed together. Oh yes several authors did, but not the press....Why? And please don't say that this is because the republicans control the press. If the press could prove any of Moore's allegations wouldn't Kerry get elected by a landslide? The film certainly gave ne a lot to think about. Anyone care to share their opinion?

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Moore is in the same category as right-wing conspiracy nuts and their black helicopters.

By Welshie (Welshie) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 04:34 pm: Edit

For the most part, I agree with Michael Moore but completely disagree with the tactics he uses to deceive people and pass it off as fact. In addition to that, I dislike it when I guy gets an Academy Award for film that wasn't a documentary and takes it without a hitch and goes off on his own tangents an motives. "Bowling for Columbine," like "Fahrenheit 9/11," was touted as some amazing documentary and it wasn't. It was full of half-truths and deceptions and Mr. Moore never once acknowledge that. If they guy wants to make a movie with that stuff, more power to him. But Mr. Moore, don't make a movie like that, slap a documentary label on it and take awards away from people that made true documentaries.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

^^Probably the most extensive analysis debunking Moore. And Kopel is a independent, btw.

also check out:

www.moorewatch.com
www.moorelies.com

By Taffy (Taffy) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit

fuuck the media. the media just does what sells. it can hardly be called the "news" anymore. the media didnt ask any hard questions to the president before the war... why? because the people were supporting bush and the war. Why is the press covering LACY PETERSON, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, and all those other stupid gossip stories, when they could be covering something that actually matters? because no matter how stupid those stories are, there are enough fat walmart slobs out there that will watch the National Enquirer Newscasts (*cough* gretta van sustern). They make more money talking about scott peterson than talking about millions of people being slaughtered in africa, about our troops in iraq, about our political scandals in america.

ann coulter, michael moore, whats the difference?

By Knightmare (Knightmare) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 07:06 pm: Edit

haha taffy, amen to that.