Bowling For Columbine

[j2k4]

Echidna-

the criticisms you raised j2, were valid, yet they really only amount to damning MM for engaging the same techniques that the commercial news and current affairs programs use presenting 'facts' to us each day.

Not quite true.

Is it your contention that Moore is engaging in "journalism"? I think even he would disagree, as he considers himself an oracle, and thus would not deign to have what he does suffer a term so mundane as mere "journalism".

I will admit the "truth", such as it is, is difficult to sort from the chaff of "news" or "current events" reporting, but most often these are sins of omission and comission rather than outright lying and manipulation; THAT line is occasionally crossed, but not with the same degree of alacrity as Mr Moore.

An example of egregious network news reportage:

ABC news has made a habit, during "Man on the Street"-type interviews, of randomly discovering people who, strangely enough, seem to be incredibly well-versed as to the "Questions of the Day".

Turns out they have been hiring activists and the like to conduct these little sidewalk interviews; they got busted for it first during the 2000 elections when they were discovered to have run into the same "disgruntled non-voter" at two different locations, interviewed by two different reporters, on the same day.

This has been noted to have happened on other occasions since then.

in comparison with the commercial media i can't see any outright lie being perpetrated, and can't really fault a film having bias and an agenda, as they are both important elements in story telling and film making.

I'm sorry, but I am unwilling to accept "lies" anywhere, anytime, for any reason, from a "news" source, a documentary, or a shill like Michael Moore.

Please restrain yourself from the "Bush lies, Cheney lies, the U.S. lies" mode; I stand by my point.


hunter s thompson is a counter culture hero renowned for his regaling tales of the 60-70s, MM is something different

Hunter S. Thompson is a trip; I grew up on his stuff-Hell's Angels, Fear and Loathing, etc.-and you're right, he and Moore are different.

Thompson presented his stuff as HIS view, and, at bottom, was a very effective detector of hypocrisy and general "bullshit".

Moore, on the other hand, contends that EVERYONE with a brain agrees with him.

This is most assuredly not true.

Neither does Thompson possess Moore's penchant for insulting those who disagree with him.

an oscar is not a 'counter culture' accolade

True enough, though not relevant to my point.

In any case, it was awarded for best "Documentary"; which status is questionable at best.

i am glad to have had these issues with MMs work raised as i didn't know, but some hyperlinks would have been greatly appreciated

I'm afraid I'm not proficient enough to post these things with all links intact; my PC literacy isn't up to snuff, and for this I apologize.

as would some more stateside opinions

Sorry again; I'm apparently the only one in the world who doesn't love Mr. Moore (apart from the few dissenters whose opinions I've duplicated here).

[3RA1N1AC]

how about this? rather than referring to michael moore as a documentarian or a journalist, we refer to him as a social/political satirist? would that tip the scale over from "fat obese *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* lying hypocrite" to "genuinely entertaining agitprop comedian who occasionally manages to make a valid political statement"? or does the fat hypocrite just weigh too much?

does michael moore really bend the truth any more than the average news outlet does?

A wee bit of research into Mr. Moore's modus operandi revealed his penchant for "ambush" journalism

i think you're giving ambushes a bum rap. the ambush is a time-honored tradition. the original 60 Minutes staked its whole reputation on the thrill of ambush journalism-- nowadays it's completely toothless, it's celebrity interviews and andy rooney. the american military has considered the ambush to be a legitimate battle tactic ever since the revolution. firing factory workers en masse and completely relocating operations is sort of an economic form of the ambush. maybe i'm just cynical, but i tend to think that ambush interviews are necessary because (given the choice) a lot of people would choose not to grant interviews at all.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@5 November 2003 - 11:59
how about this?  rather than referring to michael moore as a documentarian or a journalist, we refer to him as a social/political satirist?  would that tip the scale over from "fat obese *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* lying hypocrite" to "genuinely entertaining agitprop comedian who occasionally manages to make a valid political statement"?  or does the fat hypocrite just weigh too much?

does michael moore really bend the truth any more than the average news outlet does?

A wee bit of research into Mr. Moore's modus operandi revealed his penchant for "ambush" journalism

i think you're giving ambushes a bum rap. the ambush is a time-honored tradition. the original 60 Minutes staked its whole reputation on the thrill of ambush journalism-- nowadays it's completely toothless, it's celebrity interviews and andy rooney. the american military has considered the ambush to be a legitimate battle tactic ever since the revolution. firing factory workers en masse and completely relocating operations is sort of an economic form of the ambush. maybe i'm just cynical, but i tend to think that ambush interviews are necessary because (given the choice) a lot of people would choose not to grant interviews at all.

If people actually thought of Moore that way, fine, but we both know that isn't how it works.

As to your preference for "ambush" journalism, I wonder: Do you mean merely "tough, honest" questioning (which isn't even taught in J-school anymore) or do you mean you would prefer more questions of the "Do you still beat your wife?" variety?

Anent 60 minutes:

Mike Wallace is not my cup of tea politically, but he knows how to do a tough interview if he wants; we don't see enough of that.*

I hope that is what you mean, 3RA1N1AC.


*And when we do, it's never a Liberal on the receiving end-has anybody ever gotten to grill Ted Kennedy over Chappaquidik?

Nope.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 November 2003 - 09:25
Anent 60 minutes:

Mike Wallace is not my cup of tea politically, but he knows how to do a tough interview if he wants; we don't see enough of that.*

i meant that michael moore's partycrasher approach in "roger & me" (and the style of many local news crusaders, such as the ones that work "consumer advocate" angles) descends directly from the early years of 60 Minutes and mike wallace, who would just show up at people's doors with the camera already rolling, shove the microphone in their face and start grilling them.

i'm not talking about wifebeater questions-- that's left-field questioning that you can spring on people at any time, whether in the studio or on the street. i'm talking about the "surprise confrontation with a reporter" scenario, in which the subject can't run away without looking like a weasel. so with the deer-in-the-headlights effect, there's a pretty good chance of getting a more candid response directly from the horse's mouth, rather than a canned response from lawyers or low-level p.r. workers.

and personally, although i do think michael moore's later films are entertaining, "roger & me" was the only one that i would classify as "great." accuracy aside, it had a focus and sharpness that his later work lacks. and he's essentially been repeating himself ever since then, both in style and in tone.

[j2k4]

For what it's worth, I thought "Roger and Me", was, at the time, funny and more than a bit poignant.

Everything Mr. Moore has done subsequently (again, MY opinion only) has had the effect of cheapening any positive sentiment generated by "Roger and Me".

Kind of the reverse of Clifford Irving: Irving started out writing a total hoax story about himself and billionaire Howard Hughes-was completely and utterly discredited, and has since written some decent stuff.

[Biggles]

I have to confess I have not seen either of MMs films. I am familiar with him through his programme 'TV Nation' which was a satirical and often affectionate look at life in the US. It was an interesting mixture of ambush journalism, genuinely funny interviews and oddball characters.

He would appear to be first and foremost a satirist rather than a traditional documentary maker.

I read most of the thread (although I did give up on the Mr. Jackson chap who was a tad too polemical for my taste - it is possible to be rude without being tasteless imho)

All I can say is I would like to see even fewer guns in the UK than there are at present and I think it is good our police can conduct their business for the most part unarmed. I can see no benefit from all and sundry owning devices whose sole function is to kill. Regardless of the fine tuning regarding numbers, even taking the lowest figures of 8,000ish in the US and between 60 to 300 in most other major countries, and then adjust for population, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that something is out of kilter. The US should have figures in the region of 600 to 800 to be be broadly comparable.

The question, why are gun deaths so high in the US? is, therefore, a valid one. However, as I said, I have not seen the movie so I cannot say if this question is addressed thoughtfully or not by MM. I guess by the debate on here he has at least got people talking about it and that might be as much as any movie can ever hope to achieve.

Talking about naughty editing or loose figures will not, I suspect, in itself prevent another 8,000 to 10,000 deaths occurring again this year.

[j2k4]

Biggles-

Relative to your post:

I strongly suspect that data I'm having difficulty pinning down would reveal an extraordinary number of gun-homocides here in the U.S. are traceable to the various permutations of the drug trade, specifically due to the U.S. being a mainstay for importation (the "anti-drug" stance of our government aside) and the incredibly complex and gang-oriented distribution networks which riddle our urban (and to a lesser extent, suburban) areas.

Absent hard data, I would guesstimate well in excess of 50%.

A contributing factor will also be (no doubt) the haphazard and somewhat selective application of existing firearm laws. There are a bunch of them, and they don't get much play, to my way of thinking.

I'm also giving some thought to why such data isn't able to be plucked like fruit from a tree.

I think this last is an unfortunate side-effect of the high degree of polarization between the competing lobbies.

[Biggles]

J2

You may well be right. As far as I am aware, most of the scattering of gun deaths in the UK are as a result of turf wars over illegal activities. The two gun rampages of the last 20 years or so, Hungerford and Dunblane, stand out as strange aberations in the statistics.

I really don't know enough about US urban street crime to comment. I read about things like drive by shootings but they don't make much sense to me and I have no idea how representative they really are of life in down town LA.

One figure that struck me as sad is the high number of child deaths caused through playing with guns parents have forgotten to unload or hide. I believe the US accidental gun deaths are actually higher than our total gun deaths, even after adjusting for population. Again, I am not sure if that is a readily available statistic.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Biggles@8 November 2003 - 15:44
One figure that struck me as sad is the high number of child deaths caused through playing with guns parents have forgotten to unload or hide.

this is a major point of controversy, i think, because it's not good enough to simply hide a gun. if you leave a child alone at home for even a few hours, it'd be stupid not to expect that he'll eventually rummage through the parents' closet and see if they've got any lurid stuff hidden, or to have a peek at their gifts before christmastime. it's only natural. the only way to absolutely be sure that a child won't get hold of it is to lock it up in a safe, but then that sort of defeats the purpose of keeping it around for defense against burglars-- in an emergency, the last thing a gun-owner would want to do is fumble around with a lock.

so i think a lot of gun-owners are unwilling to take the necessary step to make absolutely sure that their child can't get hold of the gun, because --at least in their minds-- it defeats the purpose for which they bought it.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@8 November 2003 - 20:33
so i think a lot of gun-owners are unwilling to take the necessary step to make absolutely sure that their child can't get hold of the gun, because --at least in their minds-- it defeats the purpose for which they bought it.

Yes-

In many such cases, laws having to do with negligence are not brought to bear (who could stand to prosecute grieving parents?) and societal lessons are never taught/learned.

As you say, 3RA1N1AC: Too many gun purchases are made without a proper examination of motivation for doing so, and the necessity of teaching gun safety to adults is ignored.

An appreciation of the danger of firearms does not accrue merely by having achieved the age of majority.