Some good ones, esp. the Clinton ones:
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/09/the-most-controversial-magazine-covers-of-all-time/
The new Michael Moore film is to feature unseen footage of FDR and his proposal for a 2nd Bill of Rights. I don’t think much of the unbalanced and contrived Moore but I am looking forward to the footage of FDR:
(Both articles discovered at http://www.dangerousminds.net/index.php. A pretty cool website)
The only thing that really bugs me about mike moore is his repeated and over use of the “appeal to emotion” fallacy. That brings his ideas/musings/insights down a couple of pegs, I think. Plus he does it so much! His ideas are generally decent enough to stand on their own with out his whiny “I’m gonna make you cry with this next anecdote” bullshit.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Michael Moore is a golden god.
Michael Moore is a golden god.
before or after he jumps off the roof into the pool from taking too much acid?
Late,
grmpysmrf
All hail the King!
Love the Kanye cover.
Michael Moore…is he the one capitalizing off that movie that bashes capitalism?
Michael Moore…is he the one capitalizing off that movie that bashes capitalism?
He freely admits that. He’s using that to show just how “filthy” capitalism is. “A capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with as long as it will make him money.” This is the idea really behind the film and most of Moores work. I think He’s right to a point but PURE anything probably isn’t good when it comes to politics/economics. Personally I think Socialism and Capitalism need to be friends instead of Mortal enemies.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Moore makes good points at times, but he also has a way of twisting facts around. I’d respect him a lot more if he just approached both sides of an argument professionally instead of using little editing tricks and making a spectacle. Sometimes he just doesn’t dig deep enough into the story.
Yeah, I agree with the idea about using both socialist and capitalistic elements. It’s sad how people react to socialistic ideas like it’s an act of treason. It’s really all about compromising and coming up with new ideas to fix certain issues. It can’t just be black or white. There’s a lot of grey, too, and we shouldn’t be afraid to try new things.
… but he also has a way of twisting facts around.
not to be rude, but for example? I hear this criticism of Moore’s work quite a bit but nobody can ever elaborate. care to be a little more specific?
Late,
grmpysmrf
On “Bowling for Columbine,” for example, he talks about the shooting of Kayla Rolland in Flint, Michigan. He mentions that Charlton Heston held a pro NRA rally after the event. The rally was not about gun rights, but was really a “get out the vote” rally, eight months after the shooting. The rally was about the upcoming election between Bush and Gore. The shooting took place on February while Heston’s rally was held in October.
He goes on to show a snippet of an article on the NRA’s web site, talking about the shooting, while at the same time, interviewing a woman talking about how Heston’s rubbing their faces in the tragedy. Notice that when he shows the NRA article, it has absolutely nothing to do with Heston or his appearance. It’s about Clinton’s reaction to the shooting when he went on the Today Show. The article even says: “Clinton-Gore vs. the NRA.” But Moore highlights part of the sentence: “48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead” and enlarges it, blocking out Clinton’s name to give the viewer the impression that Heston showed up at Flint after Kayla was killed. What it really said was, “48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, ‘Maybe this tragic death will help.’” But it’s cut up so fast that you don’t get a chance to read the rest of it. So really, there is no significance in the line “48-hours after…” other than to mess with the viewer’s head and make them think that Heston just marched into Flint right away to defend the NRA. You can even see Bush/Cheney signs being held up at the speech he was giving. And when Moore talks about the interviews given before the speech, they only show a portion of the article of his response to the Columbine and Flint shootings. You don’t even see much of a response in that article either because they cut that one up too.
^
thanks.
that was pretty thorough! Yeah you do get the impression that the NRA marched in within 2 days and not 8 mos. later. That is definitely misleading. I should go back and rewatch just for a refresher
Late,
grmpysmrf
Is there a list of all the misleading edits throughout them?
Is there a list of all the misleading edits throughout them?
I know “Bowling…” was the worst one for misleading with “Fahrenheit…” being the most solid
Late,
grmpysmrf
I heard Moore is encouraging supporters of his works to pirate his new film or barter goods for admission. Guess that’s decent marketing.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Interesting information in that article that doesn’t seem skewed or biased.
I heard Moore is encouraging supporters of his works to pirate his new film or barter goods for admission. Guess that’s decent marketing.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Interesting information in that article that doesn’t seem skewed or biased.
I think Moore has his head and his heart in the right place which is usually pretty uncommon because if someone is strong in one of those areas they are usually severely lacking in the other. Unless, i can obtain a boot (which I won’t actively seek) I’ll prolly skip the theater release and net flix it (caught sicko and F911 in the theaters though. excellent releases- In light of what happened with W’s presidency Moore comes off like a fuckin prophet based on what was said in that flick)
Late,
grmpysmrf