Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


This deconstruction of Bowling for Columbine is fascinating. (I haven't checked it for accuracy, though.)

via flashfire, posted in pjammer's journal


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 5th, 2003 12:58 am (UTC)
I think it's interesting - but I think ALL documentaries have a slant - I don't know how a director could film one without a slant.
Jul. 5th, 2003 03:21 am (UTC)
But there's a large difference between slant and bias and lies, distortions, and fabrications. He *made shit up* for this "documentary," and Hollywood doesn't seem to care.

However, there are people who're agitating to get Moore's Oscar revoked.
Jul. 5th, 2003 09:19 am (UTC)
I think it's all sour grapes ;)
Jul. 5th, 2003 08:58 am (UTC)
I agree that all documentaries have a slant. But I hope all documentaries aren't as deliberately inaccurate as the web page claims this one is.

I don't particularly mind stuff like fudging on what a particular Lockheed Martin plant makes, but I think stuff like saying the NRA held a rally in a community immediately after a shooting, when in fact Heston was not in the community until 9 months later, is wrong.

If an opinion is worthwhile, then there are facts to back it up, and it's not necessary to rely on lying.

Well, at least I wish that were true.

People who I think are very smart keep trying to convince me otherwise, though. I've heard stuff like "Well, since the right wing has Rush Limbaugh, I'm glad the left wing has Michael Moore to compensate."


Personally, I think this attitude that the truth doesn't matter as much as the spin is precisely one of the reasons that US President Bush and his cronies think it's perfectly all right to lie through their teeth about their reasons for invading Iraq. I hate it.


Sorry for the rant - it's not directed at you.
Jul. 5th, 2003 09:57 am (UTC)
No need to apologize for the rant. I feel similarly about Michael Moore.

IMO, lying like this inevitably hurts the side that the lie is told on behalf of. Because when the truth is exposed, people will suspect the rest of the argument, thus discrediting everything else one says.

If one can't make one's argument without resorting to lies, then maybe one ought to choose a different argument...
Jul. 5th, 2003 10:09 am (UTC)
Right. And it's not as if there aren't plenty of truthful arguments to be made when discussing firearms.
Jul. 5th, 2003 12:53 pm (UTC)
IMO, lying like this

Nitpick: firecat says in the original post that she hadn't confirmed the site's calims for accuracy. So, it wouldn't be "lying" but rather "alleged lying" unless you have done the fact-checking.
Jul. 5th, 2003 08:57 pm (UTC)
True, I haven't confirmed that site either. Maybe I should've said "Lying like Moore is accused of" Then again, I've read enough reports of similar lies and unverified claims perpetrated by Michael Moore in Angry White Men (reported in Salon.com -- hardly a right-wing site upset with his ideology) that I find such accusatons against Bowling for Columbine wholly plausible. That's another problem with telling lies; the boy who cries wolf analogy makes it that much harder to believe his veracity.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2018

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars