quote:

Originally posted by occrider Help the country or help Michael Moore? That's what I question. I don't doubt that the media sensationalizes events, but my point is that moore is guilty of the same thing.

IM sure he probably is.. but he is trying to convey a strongly apposed messsage.. some rhetoric must be used to get through to the people.. i mean.. thats What America is used to.. who would watch a boring documentary on the US? i doubt anyone really would.. he spiced it up a bit and still got the main message accross which was in fact very valid.. so yes he is guilty of the same thing propoganda.. but instead we get to see the other side to the story

quote:

The article that I posted presented a valid point in that there is a vast discrepenancy in population density with the more urban areas having definitevely higher death rates. And as it does point out, In 2001 the nine American states with land borders contiguous to Canada had an average homicide rate of 2.5 per 100,000 persons, half the rate of the rest of the US and close to Canada's 1.8 rate.

well look at toronto..we have a dense vast dense population and still are crime rate is way lower than any comparable UScity. 2.5 to 100, 000 people? i told you that htey had less taht 2 deaths in 3 years.. so again this anti moore website fails to targe the THESIS which is that the US media manipulates people to think how it wants it to think by instilling fear in them this is why crime rate is so much higher there than in canada.. thats my point.

quote:

I'm not arguing the credibility of the thesis due to it not being a documentary. If you read way back, I was merely pointing out the irony in his stamtements about fiction at the oscars with respects to his methods in the film.

You were initially saying that his film is not credible since it isnt a TRUE documentry.. thats only half true.. since his thesis does hold water and it was well proven even though he used dramatic methods to prove it.. he still got to the point

quote:

How did Iraq get brought up? I thought we were discussing Michael Moore. Are you asking me about my thoughts on weapons inspections, N. Korea, the use of force or is this a general question to other people? Hehe because I must have posted my thoughts on those issues a hunderd times already in other threads.

lol well i just simply wanted to apply this to the iraq situation its good to see how the media manipulates people in this respect.. look at the post just put up today about al jazeera.. they are trying to put down that media source so only one exists.. AMURICAN people NEED AMURICAN tv hehe.. thats probably what Bush is telling his council right now.. look at the War coverage on Iraq on CNN it just simply shows the whole war thing as a cake wake.. i see a video game being played on EASY mode when i watch CNN.. its soo ficticious like.. doesnt give the whole story and tries to make the people think that the war isnt going so bad.. but i think the people are smarter than that according to the polls displayed..

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but while he is making his point, he is deceiving the viewers just as much as any other media source! how is that fair to the viewer when the movie is being sold as a documentary? isnt it the same type of brainwashing, no matter whose pov?

sorry i missed a response to your post before

i dunno.. why it is being sold as a documentary?

it was voted as a documentary and it won.. this is delegated by the people .. sooo i really dont know why.. i never knew it was a documentary i just saw it as a one of a kind film.. about the ironic truth of media manipulation

quote:

Originally posted by InAcoma Michael Moore is a perfect example of what Hollywood has turned out to be. Hypocrisy: Stepping out on the stage at an event which advertises one of your country's biggest exports, entertainment, accepting and keeping your award then criticise your country and your government. People say he had courage to do that. Marlon Brando had courage in his conviction when he refused his Oscar in the early 70s due to the way the US was acting at the time. Michael Moore is not courageous, he decided to keep his trophy of American idealism yet still lambast his country. I believe his speech was nothing more than a attempt at more publicity for himself. As for the other actors and actresses that stepped out to give their view. The Oscar's aren't a forum for posturing of political beliefs. One of the actors stepped up and said "Let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution", this in my mind was probably the most appropriate comment about the war on a night that should be devoted to cinematic excellence.

hehe.. welll your country has freedom of speech.. i would question your government when your president decides to use his vito right to go to war against the world community..

AT LEAST someone is speaking out about it and being heard.. i mean they dont even show the protests on the news anymore.. it makes people think that all is dandy you know

i have respect for michael moore since he is using his right to freedom of speech.. he is a respecatble person since he is famous and people will watch what he has to say.. since all other media is propoganda in teh opposite direction mainly

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit IM sure he probably is.. but he is trying to convey a strongly apposed messsage.. some rhetoric must be used to get through to the people.. i mean.. thats What America is used to.. who would watch a boring documentary on the US? i doubt anyone really would.. he spiced it up a bit and still got the main message accross which was in fact very valid.. so yes he is guilty of the same thing propoganda.. but instead we get to see the other side to the story

Yes I don't disagree with that at all! I enjoy seeing the other side of things and I look forward to when hackers stop fucking hacking al jazeera so I can get a new perspective. Right now I'm using arabnews.com ... any comments as to its objectivity/worth?

quote:

well look at toronto..we have a dense vast dense population and still are crime rate is way lower than any comparable UScity. 2.5 to 100, 000 people? i told you that htey had less taht 2 deaths in 3 years.. so again this anti moore website fails to targe the THESIS which is that the US media manipulates people to think how it wants it to think by instilling fear in them this is why crime rate is so much higher there than in canada.. thats my point.

Well salt lake city has a populationo greater than 100,000 people and had 9 deaths in the past 2 years ... is that indicative of anything? Again the website is not attacking the THESIS, it is targeting the METHODS used!!!

quote:

You were initially saying that his film is not credible since it isnt a TRUE documentry.. thats only half true.. since his thesis does hold water and it was well proven even though he used dramatic methods to prove it.. he still got to the point

I never initally said anything of the sort!!! This is what I initially said:

"I'm not discrediting the value of the film at all. Indeed it presents a valid commentary on society. As for how much one should regard the film as reality that is up to the viewer. I just posted this because I saw some irony in Michael Moore's statements at the Oscars and his methods for conveying his message in the documentary. I guess a fictitious stylized documentary is needed for a fictitous society."

Page 2 if you need references

quote:

Originally posted by occrider "I'm not discrediting the value of the film at all. Indeed it presents a valid commentary on society. As for how much one should regard the film as reality that is up to the viewer. I just posted this because I saw some irony in Michael Moore's statements at the Oscars and his methods for conveying his message in the documentary. I guess a fictitious stylized documentary is needed for a fictitous society." Page 2 if you need references

oh ok in that case we are at the same level hehe

it seems to me that most people on this board have totally dismissed his film to have any truth just because of that website

i agree that his methods were very extreme to get his point across and incorrect to be used for a documentary..

the film ISNT a documentary i know that.. but the thesis does hold water and i think it was an ironically stunning movie since it showed the total other side of the senario

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes I don't disagree with that at all! I enjoy seeing the other side of things and I look forward to when hackers stop fucking hacking al jazeera so I can get a new perspective. Right now I'm using arabnews.com ... any comments as to its objectivity/worth?

Hrmm well id say its good to use as a comparison.. you get to see what the other side of the world thinks about the whole ordeal.. you get a better picture on how the war is ACTUALLY like.. but western news is good to give you teh whole big picture i guess. with the satellite photos and all

GOOOO MOOOOOOOOOOOR!!!!!!!!

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)