Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michael Moore F911 lies and half truths

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael Moore F911 lies and half truths

    I can't get on the newsgroups, so I thought I would post this here. JMS said no one has come forth with any of the lies Moore tells in F911. I thought I'd post just a few of them here. (And by the way Joe, I've seen the movie, so while I am being lazy and copying someone elses writing, I know first hand what he is talking about)


    Fahrenheit Fact no. 29: Watch this drive, Yassir!
    Here's another one of Moore's myriad misrepresentations, this time involving one of the most quoted scenes in F-9/11. The Media Research Center had this to say:
    The TV ads for Michael MooreÆs ôdocumentaryö Fahrenheit 9/11 feature a mocking clip of President Bush on a golf course. Bush declares, ôI call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers,ö and then Moore jumps to Bush adding, as he prepares to swing at a golf ball, ônow watch this drive.ö Tuesday night on FNCÆs Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how ôthe viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists.ö But Wilson disclosed that ôa check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber.ö

    Fahrenheit Fact no. 26: Rep. Porter Goss does have a toll-free number
    One of the things Moore slams Rep. Porter Gross for is supposedly not having an "800 number". From Dave Kopel:
    Defending the Patriot Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he has an ô800 numberö for people to call to report problems with the Act. Fahrenheit shoots back than Goss does not have such a number; the ordinary telephone number for GossÆs office is flashed on the screen.

    YouÆd never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number to which Patriot Act complaints can be reported. The number belongs to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The number is (877) 858-9040.

    Although the CommitteeÆs number is toll-free, the prefix is not ô800,ö and Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression that Goss lied about having a toll-free number.

    Fahrenheit Fact no. 25: Moore claims Saudis have $100 billion more invested in America than is believed they have invested in the entire world
    From Dave Kopel:

    Moore asks Craig Unger: ôHow much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?ö

    Unger replies ôUh, I've heard figures as high as $860 billion dollars.ö

    Instead of relying on unsourced figures that someone says he ôheard,ö letÆs look at the available data. According to the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy (a pro-Saudi think tank which tries to emphasize the importance of Saudi money to the United States), in February 2003 total worldwide Saudi investment was at least $700 billion. Sixty percent of the Saudi investments were in the United States, so the Saudis had about 420 billion invested in the U.S.ùa large amount, but less than half of the amount that MooreÆs source claims he ôheard.ö (Tanya C. Hsu , ôThe United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investmentö Sept. 23, 2003.)

    Fahrenheit Fact no. 24: Fox called Florida for Gore first; CBS was the first network to retract the Gore result
    In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore makes the assertion that the Fox News Channel was the reason that other networks began to call Florida for Bush instead of Gore:
    NARRATOR: Did the last four years not really happen? Look, there's Ben Affleck. He's often in my dreams. And the taxi driver guy. He was there too. And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place. Was it a dream? Or was it real? It was election night 2000 and everything seemed to be going as planned.

    Series of news clips: In New York, Al Gore is our projected winner. / The Garden State is green for Gore. / We project that Mr. Gore is the winner in Delaware. This state has voted with the winner in... / (Tom Brokaw interrupts) Mike, you know I wouldn't do this if it weren't big: Florida goes for Al Gore. / CNN announces that we call Florida in the Al Gore column.

    NARRATOR: Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy.

    BRIT HUME: Sorry to interrupt you; Fox News now projects George W. Bush the winner in Florida and thus it appears the winner of the Presidency of the United States.

    NARRATOR: All of a sudden the other networks said, "Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true."

    Here's a timeline of the network projections, from an article soon to be published in National Review by David Kopel:

    In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the eveningùbefore polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

    The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.

    At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.

    Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.

    Fahrenheit Fact no. 22: Gore didn't win "every recount scenario"
    In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore asserts that Gore won the election, even after vote recounts. From the film:

    Now, it is true that many post-election investigations claimed Gore had won. But under every scenario? Turns out, no. From the LA Times:

    WASHINGTON ù If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.

    But if the recount had been held under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting--rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible--Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.

    The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush--but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes. As a result, under rules devised by the Florida Supreme Court and accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Bush probably would have won a recount, the study found.

    Since the study was launched, the nation's debate over the Florida recount has cooled and Bush, whose legitimacy as president already was accepted by a large majority in January, has won massive public approval for his leadership of the war against terrorism.

    The study, a painstaking inspection of 175,010 Florida ballots that were not included in the state's certified tally, found as many as 23,799 additional, potentially valid votes for Gore or Bush.

    The significance of these ballots depends on what standards are used to weigh their validity. Under some recount rules, Bush wins. Under others, Gore wins.

    So yes, Gore did win some recount scenarios. But so did Bush- clearly at odds with the "every scenario" Bush loss claim that "Fahrenheit 9/11" makes.

    Fahrenheit Fact no. 16: All embassies have Secret Service protection

    The agent was wrong- Moore does not mention this. He allows us to believe that only the Saudi Embassy has secret service protection, which is untrue. For example, the Secret Service has this to say:

    After several name revisions, the force officially adopted its current name, the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division in 1977. While protection of the White House Complex remains its primary mission, the Uniformed Division's responsibilities have expanded greatly over the years.
    They now protect the following:

    * the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other Presidential offices;
    * the President and members of the immediate family;
    * the temporary official residence of the Vice President in the District of Columbia;
    * the Vice President and members of the immediate family; and
    * foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and throughout the United States, and its territories and possessions, as prescribed by statute.

  • #2
    While I'm not qualified to address your points, having not seen the movie myself, I am qualified to say that we've never heard of Joe Straczynski posting or reading on this message board. He only hits the newsgroups. So you're really just wasting space.

    A public news server and Outlook Express or Thunderbird aught to be enough to get you posting on the newsgroups.
    Radhil Trebors
    Persona Under Construction

    Comment


    • #3
      The Moderators have closed down the political threads on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated . No one can post on F911. They have bounced my posts as well.
      Andrew Swallow

      Comment


      • #4
        Farenheit 9/11 is not completely objective, but it raises good questions... I'm not interested in debating it anyway, it seems to me that it's such a polarized issue that few change their minds, some take it as "objective" confirmation of their own opinion, others take it as "subjective" lies...

        If the moderated group doesn't accept posts about F911 the unmoderated group should... JMS might see it there, but certainly won't see it here.
        Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase
        James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79)

        Comment


        • #5
          Here is an interesting post I happened upon:

          As big a joke as I think Moore has become over the past decade, I still plan to watch F 9/11 when it comes to premuim cable - same as I did with BfC.

          This is after all a very important and timely topic that effects us all. It is also a astoundingly popular and influencial film (for what it is) and has already won this year's top Palme d'Or award at Cannes. So yes, like him or not, Moore's movies are relevant and worth viewing - if for no other reason other than to see what all the fuss is about.

          Also, as always, we should WANT to know exactly what our polar political opposities are saying about the most crucial issues of the day. Otherwise, how can we comment intelligently about them?

          Comment


          • #6
            And, if anything, he's going to "make a million bucks off it." Kudos to him for that.
            Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by nanorc
              Otherwise, how can we comment intelligently about them?
              I'm sorry, the bait and hook are there, and it's just too tempting.

              "Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
              Radhil Trebors
              Persona Under Construction

              Comment


              • #8
                Couldn't resist this...here is the link to MM's site...disputing and giving sources for all of the disputes and petty gripes the right-wingers have trown up about the film.

                http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
                Anthony Flessas
                Writer/Producer/Director,
                SP Pictures


                I have no avatar! I walk in mystery and need nothing to represent who and what I am!

                Comment


                • #9

                  quote:
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Originally posted by nanorc
                  Otherwise, how can we comment intelligently about them?
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Originally posted by Radhil
                  I'm sorry, the bait and hook are there, and it's just too tempting.

                  "Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
                  I sense a lack of intelligence somewhere in the near vicinity.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nanorc
                    I sense a lack of intelligence somewhere in the near vicinity.
                    Am I supposed to be offended by that or something?

                    If so, take a pill. I quip because I'm frustrated with topics like these, because my humor on the subject has gone massively black. And honestly, your weak attempt at insulting me just feeds that.

                    I actually happen to agree with exactly what you posted, for what it's worth.
                    Radhil Trebors
                    Persona Under Construction

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Radhil
                      Am I supposed to be offended by that or something?

                      If so, take a pill. I quip because I'm frustrated with topics like these, because my humor on the subject has gone massively black. And honestly, your weak attempt at insulting me just feeds that.
                      The post I was responding to was hardly in the realm of seriousness. As such, none of my comments were meant to be taken overly seriously as well. Lighten up dude.
                      Last edited by nanorc; 07-21-2004, 07:42 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, the title of the thread tells us a lot.

                        On the subject of Lies, however, think about this:

                        If there were Any demonstrable Lies in the movie, don't you think 10,000 Republican Lawyers wouldn't have already filed libel/slander lawsuits ??

                        Even if they didn't think they could Win, they'd be trying to get their hands on the money Moore is making off this film.

                        If there were even the Slimmest pretext, the lawyers would be having a Feeding Frenzy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I was under the impression that public figures could not sue for libel and slander. A dirty little rag written by rednecks in the woods here libeled a small town's mayor and the mayor told me he couldn't do anything because he was in the public eye. His brother is a lawyer, too, so I am sure he was advised in this.
                          Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Nope. The only defense in a Libel or Slander case is to prove what you said is the Truth.

                            That's why political mudslinging is so sneaky.

                            They choose their words very carefully so that what you Thought they said and what they Actually said don't quite match.

                            A classic example is the politician who told an audience that his opponent Matriculated at a particular college and that the Wife was well known to be a Thespian.

                            Very true. Both of the accusations. What this politician counted on was that 90% of his audience didn't know the meaning of the words Matriculate or Thespian and would assume the worst.

                            Just like Dubya can say "Kerry voted for XX 50 times in the last 4 years."

                            True. 25 votes on the Same Piece of Legislation before it finally passed. And, in the same commercial, IMPLY that it was a bill to Increase Taxes when in fact, the bill Reduced them.

                            Two Unrealted sentences will do it:

                            Kerry Voted to Raise Taxes. (Doesn't say Which Taxes)

                            Kerry Voted for XX 50 Times. (Doesn't say that it was the same bill over and over while the Senate argued.)

                            Two different bills, for two different purposes. But the AD makes it sound like "Kerry Voted to Raise Taxes 50 Times. In 50 Different Bills"

                            But, you can't Sue over that sort of "out of Context" or "Implied but didn't SAY it" lie because each Individual sentence is True.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <<But, you can't Sue over that sort of "out of Context" or "Implied but didn't SAY it" lie because each Individual sentence is True.>>

                              Just like the moveon.org ad I saw where this guy comes in, takes his helmet off and acts tired and they say "...and you just found out George Bush wants to take your overtime pay away."

                              Even people at work here hung up pol cartoons about that and were mad at Bush when NONE of them were at risk. I found out the truth in a simple AP story (hardly pro-Bush). I am against that, but when you think about it, people want to tax the rich and when Bush tried to cut down their overtime pay, people object.

                              Hot damn...I love politics.
                              Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X