July 23, 2003

michaelmoorization?

Go read Red's comments on recent trends in presenting the facts in documentaries. Then come back and tell me what you think.

posted by Laila Lalami at 09:11 AM

Comments

well, what's the problem? mm made people go nuts. that's fine.

Posted by: supatyp on July 23, 2003 09:28 AM

Just because someone is obnoxious doesn't mean they're wrong. That applies as much to Michael Moore as to the people he attacks, but it can be so easy to forget....

Posted by: eldan on July 23, 2003 11:28 AM

Excuse me? Mr Moore slanders decent people with outright falsehoods, and that's not "wrong", just obnoxious? Eldan, can I now assume that if I go around in your neighborhood telling people you are a known child molester, you won't object? Fine.

Yes MM made people "go nuts", by saying things about them that were untrue. But of course you deem those targets of MM as "evil", and thus undeserving of fair treatment. No tactic is too dirty when dealing the hated CONSERVATIVES, right?

And liberals always claim to be the fair, tolerant, enlightened ones. Ha.

Posted by: Big John on July 24, 2003 12:32 AM

I'd say that Moore's things are pretty clearly provocations rather than documentaries in any traditional sense, designed to force topics into the media highlight partly by winding up his ideological adversaries and creating controversy. They're editorial rather than reportage, they obviously come with an agenda and a viewer would have to be fairly naive not to grasp that.

What does bug me is agenda-laden pieces of any political perspective that pretend to a cool documentary objectivity ( What was the phrase in MG's cons list? 'Bigots disguised as pundits').

Posted by: Dud on July 24, 2003 02:26 AM

I like Michael Moore. But I'll agree that sometimes his ego (and wanting to appear as a hero) get in the way of telling his story.

Posted by: moorishgirl on July 24, 2003 07:42 AM

Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?