Deconstructing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

Bless the blogsphere

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
from JoeUser Forums

In one of the multitides of Michael Moore related blogs, one Moore defender essentially argued that unless you could debunk Moore's various conspiracy theories then we have no reason not to believe them.

Their position, essentially, was that crackpot theories are true until proven false. Which is absurd. It's much easier for crank out a crackpot theory than to spend the time debunking it. In my opinion, Michael Moore's books and films are little more than well produced and polished crackpot theories that feed the gullible and weak minded. 

I asked one of our IT people today how hard it would be to implement a feature where the answer to poll question would automatically prevent them from commenting on my blogs.  Basically, the poll question woudl be "Do you believe Michael Moore's assertions to be essentially correct?"  The preson woh says yes is basically telling me that they're too dumb to comment on articles I write.  I enjoy discussing topics with people who disagree with me (that's half the point after all). But I don't want my time wasted by...well dumb people.

But like I said, it's tedious and time consuming to actually put togther a good fisking or debunking of a crackpot assertion.  But the blogsphere is a wonderful thing and someone actually has taken the time to put together a reasonably thorough debunking of Fahrenheit 9/11's biggest charges.  It doesn't cover it all (no single article does) but it does cover a lot of it which is a good start to help bring those who have enough gray matter to at least be skeptical about some of the kooky theories and connections espouse d in the film.

Check the link below to visit the article. He has more time and patience than I'd ever have. ;)

politics
11,147 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've no doubt that we will be seeing many more such sites, just as we have for every other work of creative license Moore has put out.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Basically, the poll question woudl be "Do you believe Michael Moore's assertions to be essentially correct?"  The preson who says yes is basically telling me that they're too dumb to comment on articles I write. 


I like it! "Click here to pre-qualify to read Brad."
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Interesting article that you link to. Although I support Moore's work as a satirical writer (some of the things he says/does are hilarious, particularly when he picks on hapless corporate executives), it appears a significant part of his actual argument is based on circumstance and concealed truths. It's always disheartening to know that the icons of the left are no better than the icons of the right, especially considering that the centre is too gutless to say anything.

What a world, what a world... As for the screening question, surely it would be better to ask, "Do you think that Michael Moore is always truthful?" That way you don't solely get people who agree with you or disagree only on very minor points. After all it's possible to think that Bush is scum and that he and his advisors use their position to their own advantage and still have the intelligence to know that Moore himself uses halftruths to make his argument.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
A "dead whale or a stove boat"?

You'd think Moore bit of your leg, Brad.

Post all you want, they won't believe you. He's the saint of the hour. Take solace in the fact that he has maybe one more movie before even liberals start rolling their eyes at the mention of him... and there's always the chance he'll try to gain some street cred by cutting too deep in the other direction. Turncoats find no happiness in either camp.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just got home from the movie, and I thought it was pretty good. And I'm not dumb, and I watched the film with a critical eye. Have you seen the film, Brad?
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
no, he has not. Well, that may not be fair. If he "saw" it, he paid for a ticket and sat in a chair with a screen in front of him... but based on this refusal to stop calling it propoganda and lies while being blind to the irony of the party he is supporting by such criticisms... not to mention the charges he makes about claims Moore never made... it is obvious that Drag has no interest in an informed argument. But what do I know, I'm not smart enough to comment on his articles... wow I wish I was a blind self-contradictory seething extremist who slanders other people with arguments based on ignorance while calling those people ignorant and then quoting other extremists as better evidence than concrete evidence that I found to be unconvincing. He's just in a league all his own in the intelligence field. Not to mention that he's never once responded to any of the responses I've made to his threads save the oil argument which he threw irrelevant (and in my view supportive of my argument) CIA website numbers at.

Bottom line, if you don't agree with Drag you are dumb and have no right to be in his awesome presence. One day, he may grow up... but most likely not. Hopefully he is a grown adult and not a sniveling teenager with no perspective on the things he is talking about... but then again he has no perspective anyway other than what the right tells him... which makes me wonder why he keeps calling everyone else dumb despite Ann Coulter's claims that only Democrats call people dumb because they are unable to engage thoughtfully on issues. Kudos to you Drag, you internally contradict yourself as well as your party not to mention your own arguments so much that you have come about as believing yourself to not only be smart... but SO smart that other people have no right to respond to you. Takes a real special kind of person to get to that place.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Hopefully he is a grown adult and not a sniveling teenager with no perspective on the things he is talking about... "


Vor: Draginol is Brad Wardell, the owner of JoeUser and Stardock. You're here on his dime.

I took some time on another thread and dealt with the Willie Brown idiocy, and never got a peep from the conspiracy mongers in return. That is how it always happens. Someone insists on proof, you take an hour tracking it all down, and then the ass never responds. A week later it happens again with some other ass.

So, after a while, we stop paying a lot of attention to the demands of asses. Moore and his ilk don't want answers to these questions, anyway. He just wants to piece them into a neat little mythology.

Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
I understand if he doesn't have time to respond or just doesn't have the energy and is grouping me inaccurately with conspiracy theorists, but that doesn't give him the right to slander everybody on the internet who disagrees with him. There are a lot of stupid people running around, yeah. But when they go and research an opinion and check it all with other books and interviews and fact checkers that he hires... well you have a well informed opinion that may or may not be true... you don't have a conspiracy theory or mythology. To call it propoganda is in itself a hypocrisy as all Moore says is anti-Bush evidence and opinion... it's like saying that an anti-Kerry ad is also innane propoganda not worthy of my time. What amounts out of shutting your self up from one side of the isle and calling it dumb is blind extremism, and that is not something that I think anyone should ever have to go through. I try to find as much evidence as I can to back up the things I say. When I ask a question, like I did with my post about differing justifications between the war on terror versus the war on terrorism... I geniunely would like to hear others answer the question posed (in this example, if there is a philosophical difference in the justifications of rhetoric usage). Moore may not want answers, but if that is the case it is because he has already provided the answers he has come to on his own. If he does not want to hear a differing answer then he is in the exact same position as those who support the opposite conclusion as his and slander him as propoganda. It becomes two ships passing in the night without any debate whatsoever... something the political philosophies this country was founded on warns sharply against.

Now that I know Brad's profession, I can understand not responding to me directly as I have not been very closely watching these forums and have already seen more than my share of illguided nonsense on both sides of the isle; however, I would still like to have a legitimate voice to his left in terms of honestly constructive debate. If he didn't want that, I am sure he would never have posted to begin with. As to the quote, I hope to help provide said perspective with my remarks without being discarded as a conspiracy theorist, a dumb person, a demanding ass, or the ilk of Moore.

I may just not understand how infuriating it can be to deal with truly nutty people on these forums constantly which may explain the slander of other forum users since I am relatively new, but see? It's all about perspective
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
You just don't get it.

Moore doesn't pose a case. He lists a string of disparate facts and telling questions, and then leaves the viewer to draw their conclusions. He has the ability to edit this footage any way he likes, piece together troubling images, and use details anachronistically so as to make a point that simply wouldn't be there otherwise.

This isn't a case of refuting facts. This is a case of seeing the obvious fallicy of what all these disparate facts are supposed to add up to. That is why you get "so what" as a response so often. Even if individual details are true, however stretched, the whole still does not add up to the highly skewed and edited reality Moore is trying to impose.

So, no, I'm not gonna spend hours debating the CIA factbook with you. In some cases you'll be right, in others you'll be wrong, and in the end it won't matter, because your view of F-911 is the culmination of Moore's filmaking and myth-spinning, not facts.

A gifted conspiracy theorist can piece together hundreds of truths to make one big lie. I don't think that Moore even cares about the truth, but even if he does, it still adds up to a work of fiction.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Look, what you are saying is that he never poses a case, you come to conclusions in the end right? So where's his theory then if he never posed a case for one. The news gets to edit things too, so do papers, everybody gets to edit what they want how they want to do what they'd like with a story. In the end it is always up to the individual to decide for themselves, but saying that he lied about something when you are saying he didn't pose a case is my whole point. Point to a lie of his please, what you're going to point to is a disagreement with his opinion that you find so radical... it isn't going to be an actual lie. We need to be debating issues instead of slandering people for having opinions. Let's debate issues instead of people please?
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
it's tedious and time consuming to actually put togther a good fisking or debunking of a crackpot assertion.
Draginol, I'm sorry that you find arguing the issues tedious, and that your "argument" turns mainly on calling the man a crackpot and those that believe him dumb. But I understand, because I have to fight the same tendencies in myself when discussing the Bushies, particularly Mr. Ashcroft.

I took some time on another thread and dealt with the Willie Brown idiocy, and never got a peep from the conspiracy mongers in return. That is how it always happens.
Yes, Baker Street, I know how it is. I repeatedly ask the Moore bashers why they never objected to Rush Limbaugh and his cadre of right wing propagandists, and the silence is deafening.

When the so-called right wing conspirists attacked Bill Clinton, the bottom line truth that mattered in the long run was not the motives and character of the attackers, but rather the veracity of Bill Clinton.

The same is true today. The thing that matters in the long run is the truth about President Bush and his high level advisors. Whether the attacker is morally pure, whether he is right on all his charges, whether he has made bad movies in the past -- these are all debating points, tactical issues determining the likelihood of his charges getting a fair hearing. But what really matters is the extent to which our administration has done badly.

I have read through the article Draginol linked, and, honestly, I am underwhelmed by Brendan Nyhan's response:

1) He objects to Moore's line:
it won't matter just as long as all your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court vote the right way.
I cannot get too worked up over this. That near dead heat in 2000 was unfortunate, the fact that the courts also broke along party lines even more unfortunate. You can bet that, if the legal process had installed Gore as president, that to this day the Republicans were going to see it as less than legitimate. Nyhan scores no points here -- he and Moore just disagree on a matter that cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

2) Regrading the Bin Laden flights out of the country after 9/11 he says:
The "after September 13th" clause may show that Moore's claim was technically accurate, but it leaves viewers with the distinct impression that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to.
I am underwelmed by Nyhan's case, which amounts to: Other Saudis than the Bin Ladens were hurried out of the country before regular air traffic resumed. He does cite the Newsweek article on the FBI having interviewed most of the Bin Ladens before they left -- but I hardly would expect Newsweek to get to the bottom of a controversial matter.

3) Nyhan also complains that
Moore also uses the power of insinuation to play on the relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens.
But Nyhan just plain loses this argument because there isn't much arguent to be made. The Bush family and Saudi oil do, indeed, have close ties -- and the Bin Laden family is one group to whom the the Bushes have close ties. George W Bush advertised these ties on national TV during the 2000 campaign, saying that this was his ace in the hole when it came to keeping oil prices down. The significance of this is open to question, but no character assassination of Moore can change that fact.

4) Nyhan hits Moore for
a cheap shot at John Ashcroft, stating, "In 2000, he was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy."
Yeah, that was kind of harsh of Moore, but it also shows something else. One of the things that I think most rankles Draginol, Nyhan, and all the other people attacking Moore is this: He plays by the same rules as President Bush. He relies more on entertainment values than on substance to make his point. He uses pictures, which, by their nature, simplify and thus distort the truth. (Remember Bush and a certain aircraft carrier? That really burned the left, for many of the same reasons that this movie burns the right.)

Narrative, image, entertainment, charm, and pictures have replaced fact and logical arguent as trump in American politics. Too long, the left has been in denial about this -- but while they were losing ground as a result, the right got kind of spoiled about being the only ones who got to use this kind of stuff.

So Draginol, when you find the issues tedious, your statement seems ironic to me. The whole point of the Bush administration and of this movie is that a well framed film clip is a lot more effective than arguing the issues.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very good article, Brad...I looked at some of the other stuff this guy has out as well...he's an excellent researcher and a talented writer as well. Unfortunately, I think we're all going down the road of preaching to the choir as well, as the ultralibs'll never believe it.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I should do more articles like this. I can lure gullible people like Vort out and black list them so that future articles on more substantative issues don't have to have their comments polluted with input from people who will buy into any crank theory put out by someone on the net.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I should do more articles like this. I can lure gullible people like Vort out and black list them so that future articles on more substantative issues don't have to have their comments polluted with input from people who will buy into any crank theory put out by someone on the net.


You need a new Honeypot category.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol wrote:
>I should do more articles like this. I can lure gullible people like Vort out and black list them so that future articles on more substantative issues don't have to have their comments >polluted with input from people who will buy into any crank theory put out by someone on the net


I'm new here and I'm sure I'll probably be blacklisted for this considering what you have just written. That's ok really because I find it more important to comment on what you've posted than to blog particularly on this site.

I appreciate you creating this site. However, I feel very strongly that what your reply did was to very adeptly illustrate what is wrong in America no matter what your partisan standing is at this point. It is your web site and I'm sure you have put alot of thought and energy into it. But to have only one viewpoint continually reiterated over and over again seems a bit counterintuitive to the notion of democracy. You are, of course, as creator of the site, fully entitled to do this.

But for the benefit of not only others but yourself, it might prove useful to examine why others feel the way they do. I looked at the link you posted and agree with Don Bemont's comments. People who oppose your viewpoint are willing to devote a substantial portion of their time to looking into your statements and that might encourage you to do the same and actually see films you criticise.

Either way, if you are most comfortable in your own world of thinking exactly a certain way blindly without really even considering the points of view of others who might disagree with you, I'm sure you'll continue to do just that.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
We all have the right to decide who we think is worthy to comment on our own blogs.  Blacklisting someone doesn't prevent them from writing their own blogs or commenting on other people's.  I just don't want my time wasted by those who don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion.  And anyone who buy sinto Moore's conspiracy theories is someone I wouldn't want polluting my blogs comments area.  Let them write their own blogs whch they are free to do.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I cannot get too worked up over this. That near dead heat in 2000 was unfortunate, the fact that the courts also broke along party lines even more unfortunate. You can bet that, if the legal process had installed Gore as president, that to this day the Republicans were going to see it as less than legitimate. Nyhan scores no points here -- he and Moore just disagree on a matter that cannot be satisfactorily resolved.


How does the idea that Republicans would be calling the election a sham if Gore had won justify Moore?

I am underwelmed by Nyhan's case, which amounts to: Other Saudis than the Bin Ladens were hurried out of the country before regular air traffic resumed. He does cite the Newsweek article on the FBI having interviewed most of the Bin Ladens before they left -- but I hardly would expect Newsweek to get to the bottom of a controversial matter.


Why doesn't Moore mention them instead of the ones that left? It probably would have helped his argument than to mention the ones that left before everybody else rather than the ones that left with everybody else.

But Nyhan just plain loses this argument because there isn't much arguent to be made. The Bush family and Saudi oil do, indeed, have close ties -- and the Bin Laden family is one group to whom the the Bushes have close ties. George W Bush advertised these ties on national TV during the 2000 campaign, saying that this was his ace in the hole when it came to keeping oil prices down. The significance of this is open to question, but no character assassination of Moore can change that fact.


It looks like he's debunking the details of Moore's claims in that section than he is assassinating his character.

Yeah, that was kind of harsh of Moore, but it also shows something else. One of the things that I think most rankles Draginol, Nyhan, and all the other people attacking Moore is this: He plays by the same rules as President Bush. He relies more on entertainment values than on substance to make his point. He uses pictures, which, by their nature, simplify and thus distort the truth. (Remember Bush and a certain aircraft carrier? That really burned the left, for many of the same reasons that this movie burns the right.)


So, what you're saying is that Moore is the Bush of the left, and that people who respect and defend Moore are no more open-minded or objective than those who do the same for Bush and that they're left-wing propogandists while those who remain silent on criticizing Limbaugh and others are right-wing ones? I'll agree with that.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
well put.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Other Saudis than the Bin Ladens were hurried out of the country before regular air traffic resumed.


No. No one was flown out of the country while airplanes were still grounded.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Either way, if you are most comfortable in your own world of thinking exactly a certain way blindly without really even considering the points of view of others who might disagree with you, I'm sure you'll continue to do just that.


One of the problems we have here is that fact after fact has been put out refuting the accuracy of Moore's work, and yet a good number of people still choose to ignore it. I believe an honest and deliberate assessment of the situation is in order, but I also believe we shouldn't be gullible enough to blindly follow every piece of information (or disinformation, as it were) that people like Moore gives us. The information should be examined and dissected.

What many people seem to miss is the link at the end of the article that draginol posted here that does just that. Spinsanity answers these questions categorically, with equal, if not additional credibility. I found the link to be interested and informative.

Interestingly enough, I am of the camp that once found Moore entertaining. I found "Roger and Me" very informative, LOVED "Canadian Bacon" (it was at least advertised as a fiction piece, after all), and found some interesting talking points in "Bowling for Columbine", although the larger work suffered because of the sensationalist angle. I even enjoy the debate that has come up over "Fahrenheit 9/11". I do think, though, that both sides of the issue need to be examined, and frankly, Moore's intellectual honesty seems to be in question. That and the fact that Moore (separate thread), openly ridicules and mocks his very audience cause me to lose any respect I might have otherwise had for him.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
So, what you're saying is that Moore is the Bush of the left, and that people who respect and defend Moore are no more open-minded or objective than those who do the same for Bush and that they're left-wing propogandists while those who remain silent on criticizing Limbaugh and others are right-wing ones? I'll agree with that.
We mostly agree here.

However, I would go further and say that almost all political discourse in our era is propaganda, to the point that the meaning of the word is getting lost. For example, ad hominem arguments (attacking the speaker, not the man's facts or logic) epitomize the classical concept of propaganda.

When Moore makes his crack about Ashcroft being the man who lost to a dead guy, that is an ad hominem argument. However, if you go back and read through these threads for conservative comments about Moore and his movie, you would find that most of it is ad hominem -- simply saying how bad a guy he is, but arguing very few particular points...

The parallel goes further. Ashcroft's views are complex, and many viewers of the movie would see at least some justice to these ideas, if they were fully explained. Not only that, most viewers would tire of the details, and tune out Moore -- so he goes for the funny personal attack.

As to the conservatives on this forum... Moore's ideas go off in many directions, and many of these would garner considerable support from readers if spelled out in detail. Not to mention that even Draginol finds the details "tedious" -- thus it is much better to just say bad things about the man, calling him such names as "propagandist."

None of this amounts to political debate in any traditional sense, and this applies to almost every issue, every candidate, and every media opinion piece. Exactly why would America be better off allowing torture of detained Iraquis? Exactly why would we be worse off doing so? Why would we be better off lowering taxes on capital gains? Why would we be worse off? You will hear extremely little in the way of reasoning on such issues. Rather, there are lots of slogans, focus group tested one liners, photo ops, and pictures. These bring applause from supporters and fury from opponents -- but it is aimed at the undecided, and it seems to work.

Part of the tragedy is that without reasoning, the winning side has no real mandate and no real responsibility. It's not just a poor basis for election, but it leaves a hollow shell of a democracy after the election is over.

However, I must admit to my other reaction, by way of a war analogy:

Country A effectively uses a new technology to bombard Country B, causing massive destruction and great dismay over a long period of time. Really, this new technology is not humane and a disinterested person might say it to the detriment of mankind... but Country A has no qualms and continues to use it... Then Country B not only comes up with the same technology but their return bombardment is particularly effective.... All of a sudden, Country A is OUTRAGED at the wrongness of it all, and howls to all who will listen that this shows just how uncivilized Country B really is.

I may agree on the narrow issue that the weapon is inhumane, but my sympathy for Country A at this particular moment is limited.

I agree that entertainment and propaganda masquerading as political debate is a bad thing, but my sympathy for the Republicans at this moment is limited.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for the spinsanity link, it's nice to know there are other peple out there objective enough to know that both parties are lieing sacks of shit.

I just finished seeing the movie and I was quite disappointed with it. You can read about my experience here Link.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree that entertainment and propaganda masquerading as political debate is a bad thing, but my sympathy for the Republicans at this moment is limited.


But you miss the point that many (if not most) of the people here arguing agaist Moore are not doing so because they are Republicans or even support Republican party in some manner. Rather, they argue against Moore because they do not like his methods nor his hypocritical and condescending attitude towards Americans as a whole.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
But you miss the point that many (if not most) of the people here arguing agaist Moore are not doing so because they are Republicans or even support Republican party in some manner. Rather, they argue against Moore because they do not like his methods nor his hypocritical and condescending attitude towards Americans as a whole.


well put, cs guy. I am by no means a Republican, as a quick perusal of my posts should point out. Like many in here, I'm sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative (hard to put my views in a box) but will cop to being always opinionated.
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
his hypocritical and condescending attitude towards Americans as a whole.
I guess I never felt this any more from Moore than I did from Limbaugh, Savage, or the Bushies... And I object to it in all these cases.