What are your thoughts on the infamous Michael Moore?

Answer 1

He's a necessary evil. On the one hand, he's absolutely correct about a lot of things, and the truth *needs* to get out there, but....

It does disturb me that the only way we can get a *lot* of people to listen is by being as rude, mean-spirited and aggressive as the Big Corporate Media we have to fight. One could rightly argue that the best way not to fight is, well, *Not To Fight*, and that by stooping to the level of our enemies, we do give something needed away.

But holding on to a "moral high ground" or even to some "dignity" has to take a back seat to fighting off 26 years' worth of right-wing, corporatist cronyism, doesn't it? It's called "save the world first, then deal with the guilty conscience at your leisure."

Still....while I can empathize with Mr. Moore, I still don't have to like the tactics. It's that means/end logic that bugs me....does the *end* of Saving Western Civilization from Its Own Rich Men justify *any* means?

Ahh, but what do I know, I'm just some nobody here on a computer. At least *he* gets out and does something relevant. What do I do in comparison?

Thanks for your time. ^_^

Answer 2

Started his 'career' with good intentions and a fair presentation when he put out 'Roger and Me". I thought it was accurate. After that, only bits and pieces were accurate -- other stuff was just him on a soapbox.

Watch Bowling for Columbine. Like his career, it started out OK but took an obvious sensationalistic turn at the end. Instead of confronting Dick Clark about participating in the tax relief program, Moore should have confronted whichever politician(s) responsible for creating the legislation. The footage he put in the movie showed that he simply wanted confrontation rather than accuracy -- the very same concept he bashed the Cops creator about!

Answer 3

I think Michael Moore does a good job of bringing to light the social inequalities in this country. I also believe he went waaayyyy overboard during his Oscar acceptence speech for "Fahrenheit 9/11". Using the Oscars for political grandstanding is wrong. I don't have a problem with a sentence or two if you disagree with the government, but don't get on a soapbox and launch into a lengthy diatribe.

Answer 4

I saw both of his movies, Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Also I've read articles and books from him.

I think the guy is quite a radical liberal, which is fine in my book, if you present facts in your statements, and name your sources, I don't care which side of the fence you're on!!!

Problem is...... He takes things a bit too far sometimes, and gets too personal on his attacks. I'm all for someone not liking our political situation and all, but when you take cheap shots at someone who's too easy of a target, you need to pick on someone your own size, not just someone with a label.

Answer 5

I just saw the first half of Fahrenheit 9/11 and found it very informative. All of the material about the Bush family's intimate ties with Saudi Arabia and even the bin Laden family were completely new to me.

Answer 6

Other than that he is a liar? He presents his films as truth, but they are only his 'truth'. He ignores anything that disproves his conspiracies or his skewed world view. And at the bottom, he only does it for money. He is not short of cash, he is one of the bloated plutocrats he professes to despise, which also makes him a hypocrite. Apart from that, he may be alright.

Answer 7

He's a talentless hack who can't get a real directing job so he falsifies research, interviews, facts and presents them as documentaries to promote his own radical political idealogy.

Makes Ed Wood look like Martin Scorcese.

A jackass of the highest order.

Answer 8

He is a muckracker who lacks intellectual honesty. He sure makes some money off his rhetoric though.

Answer 9

He's a big fat baboon.....

Answer 10

I hope he dies... in a fire.