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


5 Responses to “michaelmoorization?”

  1. supatyp Says:

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

  2. eldan Says:

    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….

  3. Big John Says:

    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.

  4. Dud Says:

    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’).

  5. moorishgirl Says:

    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.

  • Twitter

  • Category Archives

  • Monthly Archives