+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Occupy Wall Street
Log In to post a reply
109 messages
View: flat \ threaded

5992 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

hito wrote:
cyberpainter wrote:
hito wrote:

Moore has caught onto this propaganda model and decided that the way to battle half truths is to fight fire with fire. He manipulates, omits, emphasises and exaggerates to get his message across. In part, he has been very successful and managed to achieve left wing goals or get the left wing story out there.

Can you give us some specific examples of his manipulation, omissions, and exaggerations? I think the other one is acceptable: emphasis. Nothing wrong with emphasizing something to make your point. But in any case, some examples would be appreciated.

Good question and it took me some time to think about it.
I watched Bowling when it came out and thought it was a half baked thesis. It took a whole lot of ideas and put them together. Some of it was good and powerful but a lot of it did not seem to go with the rest. It really has been a long time since I saw it so I am probably being unfair in not rewatching it but I know it disappointed me due to its lack of coherence.
This guy here goes to town on it:
and I am not saying his word is gospel but there appears to be some truth in it or at least there are questions that need answering. As my entire post suggested, my big criticism with Moore is he leaves himself open to attack with his apporach.
And if you say, "who is Dave Hardy?" I can see where you are coming from. But check out this rant from Christopher Hitchens and you can see that Moore is open at least to criticism:
Now again, Hitchens is no saint and I can counter some of his points but I think he lands a few body blows.
I should make this disclaimer that I did not read all of these articles listed as they started to bore me like Moore does. Moore is a bit like a Christian or devout atheist in that I don't care much about what they have to say, save a neat precis. Pulling Moore apart in detail is of little interest to me now as I find him unwatchable. I couldn't be bothered with his 911 film after 30 minutes or so because it assumes I am a simpleton in need of hearing the things I want to believe.
And that was my original point. I don't like Moore's approach and I don't like the approach of those placard carrying people because they assume they can lump many woes together and that I - as a left leaning person - will lap it up. I won't.
More than anything, I want honesty. I want to counter the covert dictatorships, corporate welfare and capitalist elections with genuine investigation and scrupulous debate. I don't want anyone questioning the veracity of my claims or the claims of those who are on my side because it distracts from the main game.

That second article was so tedious I didn't get through it yet. However, to reject that opinions, politics, and history can have grey areas, that everything is an either/or proposition, makes this guy sound very small minded, despite is grandiose language. I may attempt to go back again and read it but it's quite a snoozefest, and is terribly flawed. I can't begin to say that I agree with everything Michael Moore says or does. But that doesn't make me reject en masse all of his questioning, which is what I consider what he basically does.

Oct 11, 2011, 19:12


Topic Outline: