Fahrenhype 9/11

PosterBoy

There is a new documentary coming out in October called Fahrenhype 9/11, written to be a counterpoint to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

There is very little information about it yet, so I can't say whether it is going to refute Moore or just be a right-wing hate fest (here's hoping for the former, though), but I figured those with open minds would be interested in checking it out.

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

There is of course also "Michael Moore Hates America", which is admittedly a poor title, but looks interesting also.

http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

__________________
"Putting clients first by putting employees first, immediately after prioritizing fiscal responsibility and leveraging profitability toward exceeding by empowering our employees to put clients (and themselves) first, in a diverse and respectful environment of only those that come first, first."

thewitt

(Watch the 'trailer of the week')
"Micheal Moore is collaborating with terrorists in the promotion of Fahrenheit 9/11"

OMFG!

Swift boat veterans to the rescue.

If you took 9/11 (the movie) like an olympic score card, knocked out the high score, then knocked out the low score... The result would still be: HOLY CRAP

__________________
I'm ok with it...

Gretchen

The thing is, nothing he documents in the movie is top secret. If you did your own research and digging you'd find the same stuff.

Ya he can be a slight be 'slanted' in how he spins his pieces, but here he didn't really do much of that, not on the level the 'other' side is yelling about.

There is far more damning evidence against the Administration that is public record than what MM shows in his movie.

__________________
"Sure you can.....but you'll die."

iGeeK

There is far more damning evidence against the Administration that is public record

Except that the public rarely consults it's own record. Why bother when "Inside Edition" and CNN provides all the news one could possibly want? [img]graemlins/ptptptptptpt.gif[/img]

If it's not entertaining, why does anyone need to know all the little things the Wizard of O... oops... Dick Cheney et alia do behind the curtain? After all, it's really for the good of all the McMunchkins everywhere, and what's good for them, is good for everybody. Riiight?

Damn that Michael Moore for all the horrible things he does! Because, because, because!

iG/<

__________________
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam.

PosterBoy

"Micheal Moore is collaborating with terrorists in the promotion of Fahrenheit 9/11"

Don't scoff, it's true. The Hezbollah is helping distribute the film in the middle east. Apparently, it was either let them help or they'd boycott the film, and they couldn't have that.

Ya he can be a slight be 'slanted' in how he spins his pieces, but here he didn't really do much of that, not on the level the 'other' side is yelling about.

Actually, yeah, he kinda did. It's more annoying to me than it should be, too, annoying because for the most part I agree with his politics.

__________________
"Putting clients first by putting employees first, immediately after prioritizing fiscal responsibility and leveraging profitability toward exceeding by empowering our employees to put clients (and themselves) first, in a diverse and respectful environment of only those that come first, first."

MacNutt

Even the people who are solidly behind Michael Moore in a political sense are slightly put off by his methods and his constant fact-twisting.

Why...if he has such a valid point...can he not just leave the data alone? Why does he lie? Why does he take great pains to omit some facts that might radically affect his position in these films and books? Why does he alter what people say? Especially when there is already a public record of what they actually DID say? Why does he re-edit and change facts to suit his own agenda?

And why would he DO this while KNOWING that this will ultimately affect how people really view his films and books?? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Isn't he worried about how people will look at him in the future? Especially once everyone has had a chance to really look at his stuff and dissect it to find out what is real, and what is NOT??

I mean...he's currently the focus of several lawsuits by individual people and organisations whose words he has "rearranged" in his recent films. (just last night, the evening news carried a story about a newspaper that is suing him for a substantial sum for altering their headline...and then telling everyone that it was the "truth" in Farenheit 9/11!)

Michael Moore MUST be aware that he can't just go out and lie about this stuff, and get away with it...can he?

Because,if he did...and was found out to be doing this....then, in the long run, he would eventually be seen to be a MAJOR traitor to his own political party. A complete sellout. A guy who totally undermined and trivialised their very valid positions on a whole range of important issues by making the public question every single thing they say...because of the well-documented falsehoods in his many films and books.

Especially if he was making tens of MILLIONS of dollars for himself, while doing it! Wouldn't he?

Gee..do ya THINK ? [img]graemlins/heybaby.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/lmao.gif[/img]

used to be jwoodget

It's kinda ironic that you can substitute George W. Bush for Michael Moore in Macnutts last post and except for the newspaper headline action, it doesn't look out of place.

It's called manipulation of the truth, or "sexing up" the facts (gee, where have I heard that term applied?). Society seems willing to eat it up and even requires the extra sauce to take notice. Exaggeration and sensationalism are common tools in PR and some arteries of journalism.

Moore is simply using some of the same tactics as the people he condemns. While I don't condone it, I see the reasoning as it grandstands the topic and get's it noticed. Indeed, the anti-Moore websites further that debate. Perhaps this is what is lacking in Kerry's campaign.....

PosterBoy

Indeed, Moore and Bush use similar tactics when presenting their points of view, but the difference, at least to me, is that Moore presents himself as somehow better than Bush and Co, which doesn't resonate when you find out that he has twisted or left out just as much, if not more, than Bush does.

__________________
"Putting clients first by putting employees first, immediately after prioritizing fiscal responsibility and leveraging profitability toward exceeding by empowering our employees to put clients (and themselves) first, in a diverse and respectful environment of only those that come first, first."

used to be jwoodget

The other minor difference being that Moore hasn't sanctioned the killing of over 10,000 Iraqi civilians.... not to mention over 1,000 American troops. Maybe Michael will donate some of his $20 million in profits to the $450 billion US 2004 deficit (I ain't holding my breath).

PosterBoy

So because Bush lied it's ok for Moore to lie, too? Two wrongs now equal one right?

But that is besides the point, because no leader sanctions the death of any civilians. Civilian death is an unfortunate and inevitable consequence of war, yes, but not the intent.

Unless, of course, you're someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Hussein. And as bad as Bush may be as a president, there is no way you can place him in the same category with them.

__________________
"Putting clients first by putting employees first, immediately after prioritizing fiscal responsibility and leveraging profitability toward exceeding by empowering our employees to put clients (and themselves) first, in a diverse and respectful environment of only those that come first, first."