spoot wrote:Alex, this is not the truth. It's clear that much of Michael Moore's appeal is in his uncouthness - he's the common man standing up against corporations & governments who don't care about the little guy. Right. That's why people like him.
I've heard quite a few people slight him based on superficialities and when people criticize his "biases" by throwing out pure abstractions without any specific examples I can only counter their critiques by guessing that what motivates them is MM's demeanor or mannerisms or whatever.
I think everyone who has seen the movie agrees that they enjoyed the experience, i.e. were "entertained" and I KNOW
for that very reason some people decide that it's skewed or propagandistic. If you're enjoying yourself you must be getting duped, is the logic. Very 19th century!
There were 165 gun deaths in Canada last year and 11,127 in the United States yet Canada is hugely saturated with guns. How can one approach this fact in a balanced way, getting "both sides" of the issue? Interview some of the 11,000 shooters? That would only bolster the anti - gun mafia.
Say, by interviewing an eloquent NRA member, rather than a senile or delusional one.
Michael Moore IS an eloquent NRA member! The first scene in the movie is him winning the marksmanship award from the NRA. He was raised on guns. He establishes the movie from the very outset as a sort of LAMENT about the political affiliations you get associated with if you own a gun in the US. But any "balanced" portrayal of the NRA would by definition be the most insidious form of propaganda. The NRA was formed by klansmen as a front when they were forced by the courts to disband the newly outlawed Klan. This then began a process that continues today of obscuring the ideological affiliations of the NRA by publicly presenting a more moderate face. The highest form of propaganda!
So I can't see anything fruitful coming from interviewing anyone even remotely connected to the NRA. Again, people who claim he doesn't portray gun moderates must have somehow missed the relentless aggrandizing of Canada and Canadian culture. Until people come up with specific examples then I can only assume that the "unbalanced" accusations are made because of the things I put forth: his class, the entertaining aspect of the film, his slovenliness, his id, his girth, his pie in the face of traditional academic or journalistic methods etc etc...
The main offense to Michael Moore stated so far on this board is that he's the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. To me this means: when he has a point he wants to get across, he carefully selects his topics and interview subjects so that nothing will be presented that doesn't further his agenda. Like Rush, he "doesn't try to obscure his proclivities."
Okay then, to approach this issue with even more equanimity I'll ask, what kind of documentary would Rush Limbaugh himself make to explain the reality of the overwhelmingly disproportionate gun death toll in the US? Who would he interview? One begins to ask, at this point, if it's even possible to approach in a "balanced" way a statistic that from any perspective has such undeniable, profoundly pathological implications about American culture. Presumably a big reason you all decry MM's "bias" is that he's abandoning any hope of appealing to that huge conservative sector of responsible, upstanding Americans who nevertheless really like their guns. Well watching this movie won't dissuade them from liking their guns, it'll hopefully motivate them to improve their damn PR.
I tend to like Michael Moore's stuff to a considerable degree because I agree with him - the same reason Rush's supporters like him. They both present interesting and pertinent, and even sometimes reliable information to strengthen their arguments. For some reason, though, I expect a lefty to at least make an effort towards avoiding excess bias. Rush never interviews difficult subjects, and neither does Michael Moore. They both avoid questions they can't answer easily with some sort of "what is wrong with this picture, people?" comment or gesture. I think it's accurate to say they're counterparts to one another.
Here it is happening again. More abstractions about how "biased" Michael Moore is without concrete examples. But if I speculate (openly, I might add) as to what affinities YOU might have that would predispose you to knock Michael Moore then I'm "making stuff up to fit your argument". I'll ask again, what is one example of a "hard question" that Michael Moore evades? What would people say is a documentary that achieves the perfect "balance" that eludes Michael Moore?
time for lunch