I am starting to see why the people who really hate him, really hate him. It seems that the perception of those who oppose him is that to make his points he either A). Sensationalizes or B). Outright lies, or does a little of both.
Here is what I have to say about that:
Outright Lies: I do not believe that he outright lies. If he does, I haven't seen it yet, that's for sure. I've double checked his statistics and info that suprised me on occasion, and I have not found anything false yet. I have read the links that say that his information is flawed, or that he lies; what I usually find is that these sites either illogically misdirect the issues making it look like he is being untruthful (such as focusing on Lockheed Martins other work in systems technology for comercial markets, while completely ignoring the fact that their biggest contracts are with U.S. Government agencies for weapons/defense developement), or these sites outright lie themselves. The thing with these sites here is that the people who have made them have clear agenda's to "defame" Micheal Moore. One has to ask, why go through all the trouble if what he is saying isn't at least striking a cord? Regardless, I have not seen verifyable proof that Moore has outright lied; not yet anyways, and certianly not on some of the websites opposing him.
If any of you here can think of specific places where he has outright lied, then please post the specific circumstance (not some link to a site) and I'd be happy to look it over and change my mind if I am wrong.
Sensationalism: Does Michael Moore sensationalize? Of Course! Michael more is trying to do 3 things 1. Question/Critique the many problems in our country, 2. Make a political/social statement, 3. ENTERTAIN HIS AUDIENCE.
It's the entertaining part that his critics seem to forget about. He is not a "fair and balanced" journalist, nor does he try to be. He is an entertainer. Many of the things that he does are to get a reaction from his audience, and are not "fair and balanced." If you are looking or expecting a fair and balanced journalistic view from Micheal Moore, then your looking in the wrong place. If you are looking to get your mind thinking about questions that our society needs to think about, while being entertained and educated at the same time, then Michael Moore is a good source for you.
Did he give a fair and balanced view of Flint, for example. Not really. The Rabbit lady and some of the unemplyed people on the streets giving commentary does not give a fair and balanced view of the city; so if you live there like Rich, or near enough to there like me, and your looking for a balanced representation, you might be upset by the Flint depiction in "Roger and Me." If you are instead looking for someone to say some things that NEED to be said about the state of certian cities like Flint, Detroit, Pontiac, Battle Creek (I could list a few other Michigan Cities, and hundreds of others from other states), then you would have thought it was good. If you were looking for a fair and balanced representation of the problems that Plants have had with Union workers Indolent behavior coupled with the Good that Unions have done, then Michael Moore is not a good resource. You would love what he says, however, if you were happy to see some interesting questions raised such as "How can we allow our American Companies to leave American Workers and Cities in economic upheavel by closing down plants (like in the GM/Flint example) only to open new plants in other countries where the pay requirements are much less?"
Would Charlton Heston have been making his NRA mantra "from my cold dead hands" to a group of weeping kids and parents in Columbine? I would like to think that he isn't that cold hearted. Did the movie pan from weeping kids and parents to a blurb of Heston's mantra, yes. Did ANYONE believe that Heston was "speaking directly to the parents and kids of columbine who suffered losses." NO! Did the sensationalized way of putting this in the film stir up emotion and shock, thus making the point he was trying to make, YES. And thats the point....
So does Michael Moore sensationalize? He is an entertainer, just like any political celeb., so he does things to get a reaction and to entertain. He does sensationalize to make his points. However, I don't think that this is dishonest. He isn't presenting things that aren't factual to mislead his audience; he is presenting a different side and way of looking at things to get a reaction from his audience to make his points.
So, I think what I am seeing with his critics is that they misunderstand why he sensationalizes. This is often added with the fact that they don't want to face some of the issues he is bringing to the table. This is why people hate him.
I think that if his critics can either better understand why he sensationalizes, or if they can look past the sensationalism if they don't undertand/like it, they will find some very good points and questions that need to be addressed.
Please....spare me the B.S.....
