Deconstructing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

Bless the blogsphere

Published on July 2, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

In one of the multitides of Michael Moore related blogs, one Moore defender essentially argued that unless you could debunk Moore's various conspiracy theories then we have no reason not to believe them.

Their position, essentially, was that crackpot theories are true until proven false. Which is absurd. It's much easier for crank out a crackpot theory than to spend the time debunking it. In my opinion, Michael Moore's books and films are little more than well produced and polished crackpot theories that feed the gullible and weak minded.

I asked one of our IT people today how hard it would be to implement a feature where the answer to poll question would automatically prevent them from commenting on my blogs. Basically, the poll question woudl be "Do you believe Michael Moore's assertions to be essentially correct?" The preson woh says yes is basically telling me that they're too dumb to comment on articles I write. I enjoy discussing topics with people who disagree with me (that's half the point after all). But I don't want my time wasted by...well dumb people.

But like I said, it's tedious and time consuming to actually put togther a good fisking or debunking of a crackpot assertion. But the blogsphere is a wonderful thing and someone actually has taken the time to put together a reasonably thorough debunking of Fahrenheit 9/11's biggest charges. It doesn't cover it all (no single article does) but it does cover a lot of it which is a good start to help bring those who have enough gray matter to at least be skeptical about some of the kooky theories and connections espouse d in the film.

Check the link below to visit the article. He has more time and patience than I'd ever have.

Comments (Page 2)

Draginol

on Jul 03, 2004

We all have the right to decide who we think is worthy to comment on our own blogs. Blacklisting someone doesn't prevent them from writing their own blogs or commenting on other people's. I just don't want my time wasted by those who don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion. And anyone who buy sinto Moore's conspiracy theories is someone I wouldn't want polluting my blogs comments area. Let them write their own blogs whch they are free to do.

messybuu

on Jul 03, 2004

I cannot get too worked up over this. That near dead heat in 2000 was unfortunate, the fact that the courts also broke along party lines even more unfortunate. You can bet that, if the legal process had installed Gore as president, that to this day the Republicans were going to see it as less than legitimate. Nyhan scores no points here -- he and Moore just disagree on a matter that cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

How does the idea that Republicans would be calling the election a sham if Gore had won justify Moore?

I am underwelmed by Nyhan's case, which amounts to: Other Saudis than the Bin Ladens were hurried out of the country before regular air traffic resumed. He does cite the Newsweek article on the FBI having interviewed most of the Bin Ladens before they left -- but I hardly would expect Newsweek to get to the bottom of a controversial matter.

Why doesn't Moore mention them instead of the ones that left? It probably would have helped his argument than to mention the ones that left before everybody else rather than the ones that left with everybody else.

But Nyhan just plain loses this argument because there isn't much arguent to be made. The Bush family and Saudi oil do, indeed, have close ties -- and the Bin Laden family is one group to whom the the Bushes have close ties. George W Bush advertised these ties on national TV during the 2000 campaign, saying that this was his ace in the hole when it came to keeping oil prices down. The significance of this is open to question, but no character assassination of Moore can change that fact.

It looks like he's debunking the details of Moore's claims in that section than he is assassinating his character.

Yeah, that was kind of harsh of Moore, but it also shows something else. One of the things that I think most rankles Draginol, Nyhan, and all the other people attacking Moore is this: He plays by the same rules as President Bush. He relies more on entertainment values than on substance to make his point. He uses pictures, which, by their nature, simplify and thus distort the truth. (Remember Bush and a certain aircraft carrier? That really burned the left, for many of the same reasons that this movie burns the right.)

So, what you're saying is that Moore is the Bush of the left, and that people who respect and defend Moore are no more open-minded or objective than those who do the same for Bush and that they're left-wing propogandists while those who remain silent on criticizing Limbaugh and others are right-wing ones? I'll agree with that.

Draginol

on Jul 03, 2004

well put.

Madine

on Jul 03, 2004

Other Saudis than the Bin Ladens were hurried out of the country before regular air traffic resumed.

No. No one was flown out of the country while airplanes were still grounded.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 03, 2004

Either way, if you are most comfortable in your own world of thinking exactly a certain way blindly without really even considering the points of view of others who might disagree with you, I'm sure you'll continue to do just that.

One of the problems we have here is that fact after fact has been put out refuting the accuracy of Moore's work, and yet a good number of people still choose to ignore it. I believe an honest and deliberate assessment of the situation is in order, but I also believe we shouldn't be gullible enough to blindly follow every piece of information (or disinformation, as it were) that people like Moore gives us. The information should be examined and dissected.

What many people seem to miss is the link at the end of the article that draginol posted here that does just that. Spinsanity answers these questions categorically, with equal, if not additional credibility. I found the link to be interested and informative.

Interestingly enough, I am of the camp that once found Moore entertaining. I found "Roger and Me" very informative, LOVED "Canadian Bacon" (it was at least advertised as a fiction piece, after all), and found some interesting talking points in "Bowling for Columbine", although the larger work suffered because of the sensationalist angle. I even enjoy the debate that has come up over "Fahrenheit 9/11". I do think, though, that both sides of the issue need to be examined, and frankly, Moore's intellectual honesty seems to be in question. That and the fact that Moore (separate thread), openly ridicules and mocks his very audience cause me to lose any respect I might have otherwise had for him.

Don Bemont

on Jul 04, 2004

We mostly agree here.

However, I would go further and say that almost all political discourse in our era is propaganda, to the point that the meaning of the word is getting lost. For example, ad hominem arguments (attacking the speaker, not the man's facts or logic) epitomize the classical concept of propaganda.

When Moore makes his crack about Ashcroft being the man who lost to a dead guy, that is an ad hominem argument. However, if you go back and read through these threads for conservative comments about Moore and his movie, you would find that most of it is ad hominem -- simply saying how bad a guy he is, but arguing very few particular points...

The parallel goes further. Ashcroft's views are complex, and many viewers of the movie would see at least some justice to these ideas, if they were fully explained. Not only that, most viewers would tire of the details, and tune out Moore -- so he goes for the funny personal attack.

As to the conservatives on this forum... Moore's ideas go off in many directions, and many of these would garner considerable support from readers if spelled out in detail. Not to mention that even Draginol finds the details "tedious" -- thus it is much better to just say bad things about the man, calling him such names as "propagandist."

None of this amounts to political debate in any traditional sense, and this applies to almost every issue, every candidate, and every media opinion piece. Exactly why would America be better off allowing torture of detained Iraquis? Exactly why would we be worse off doing so? Why would we be better off lowering taxes on capital gains? Why would we be worse off? You will hear extremely little in the way of reasoning on such issues. Rather, there are lots of slogans, focus group tested one liners, photo ops, and pictures. These bring applause from supporters and fury from opponents -- but it is aimed at the undecided, and it seems to work.

Part of the tragedy is that without reasoning, the winning side has no real mandate and no real responsibility. It's not just a poor basis for election, but it leaves a hollow shell of a democracy after the election is over.

However, I must admit to my other reaction, by way of a war analogy:

Country A effectively uses a new technology to bombard Country B, causing massive destruction and great dismay over a long period of time. Really, this new technology is not humane and a disinterested person might say it to the detriment of mankind... but Country A has no qualms and continues to use it... Then Country B not only comes up with the same technology but their return bombardment is particularly effective.... All of a sudden, Country A is OUTRAGED at the wrongness of it all, and howls to all who will listen that this shows just how uncivilized Country B really is.

I may agree on the narrow issue that the weapon is inhumane, but my sympathy for Country A at this particular moment is limited.

I agree that entertainment and propaganda masquerading as political debate is a bad thing, but my sympathy for the Republicans at this moment is limited.

Abe cubbage

on Jul 04, 2004

Thanks for the spinsanity link, it's nice to know there are other peple out there objective enough to know that both parties are lieing sacks of shit.

I just finished seeing the movie and I was quite disappointed with it. You can read about my experience here Link.

CS Guy

on Jul 04, 2004

I agree that entertainment and propaganda masquerading as political debate is a bad thing, but my sympathy for the Republicans at this moment is limited.

But you miss the point that many (if not most) of the people here arguing agaist Moore are not doing so because they are Republicans or even support Republican party in some manner. Rather, they argue against Moore because they do not like his methods nor his hypocritical and condescending attitude towards Americans as a whole.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 04, 2004

well put, cs guy. I am by no means a Republican, as a quick perusal of my posts should point out. Like many in here, I'm sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative (hard to put my views in a box) but will cop to being always opinionated.

Don Bemont

on Jul 05, 2004

his hypocritical and condescending attitude towards Americans as a whole.

I guess I never felt this any more from Moore than I did from Limbaugh, Savage, or the Bushies... And I object to it in all these cases.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!