Michael Moore

[Mistygreen]

I recommend that anyone thats interested read books from Michael Moore.

I have read two so far and find them eye opening,
He also produced films, one of which was Bowling for Colombine, again an eye opener.

Hope i've been helpful

Misty

[Misanthrope]

I hated the "documentaries" by Michael Moore, I thought they were poorly portrayed, far from impartial, and appealed to the emotions of viewers to the point of manipulation.

[Guest]

I thought they were loud and obnoxious. American.

[Lena]

He sticks up for little people !!!!

[Schadenfreude]

I hated the "documentaries" by Michael Moore, I thought they were poorly portrayed, far from impartial, and appealed to the emotions of viewers to the point of manipulation.

I agree. Stupid White Men was a pretty good read though.

[monosodium]

I think Michael Moore has some good facts and provides excellent food for thought - he is biased, because all documentaries are biased.

Understanding the bias which is inherent in all media is a key asset in the information age. So long as you approach his work, like any political documentary piece with a healthy level of skepticism (sp?) then you'll end up better informed than you were when you started.

[swee]

I recommend that anyone thats interested read books from Michael Moore.

I have read two so far and find them eye opening,
He also produced films, one of which was Bowling for Colombine, again an eye opener.

Hope i've been helpful

Misty

However, he misses the true point. Go to http://www.infowars.com and see what you think.

[Guest]

He does miss the point, but that's the point of michael moore the puppet.

[JamesofKent2]

Of course he's biased, ALL journalists are biased. Each and every one of us filters every piece of information through our own set of values, it's inevitable.

Do you film the rioters throwing bricks at the police, or the police beating the rioters?

I used to love Moore on TV Nation, but now he's just a shabby journalist. His 'facts' are woefully inaccurate (any British folk who saw the one about healthcare will not recognise the NHS he shows) and contradictory. While I know he's trying to do a good job, this completely destroys the points he'd trying to make sadly.

[ccd]

I like Moore because he raises subjects no-one else dares to and gets people talking and a little more aware, which in America is no bad thing. On the downside, he is well known to be very manipulative. For instance, the famous scene of him going into a bank and being given a gun for opening the account was faked. He also plays very loose with facts or is sloppy with his research. He often puts forward things in such a way as to make conjecture sound like fact which any viewer not paying attention will swallow. I can't remember a specific but as an e.g., he'd show 2 or 3 facts then follow it up with 'could it be it's because they were killing innocent people and hiding the evidence?' Note the 'could it be' i.e. no basis in fact but mixing it in with facts lends it weight. All standard spin doctoring but something to be aware of.