Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not thier own facts. There is a vine line between propaganda and a documentry. After Farenheight 9/11, can anyone take what he does seriously?
2007-06-18 11:11:46 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
In my opinion, the words Michael Moore and credible should not be used in the same sentence. His "movies" (I use the term loosely) should be marketed as fiction or sci-fi.
2007-06-18 11:33:09 · answer #1 · answered by rosi l 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Personally, I have not watched to many of Michael Moore's documentary productions, but from what I have seen I have only good things to say about what he is does. I only wish his journalism inspires others that people that work in media around the world to dig deeper and perform a more criticizing journalism. I find the media in general these day's boring. It seems like the journalists just pretty much "go with the flow" and ask few or no questions about the cases they presents. If anybody is guilty in doing propaganda, I will point my finger at all the TV stations and news papers out there that "cut and glue" all their story's into useless non informative crap... Pretty much to just to please their greedy bosses and company owners.. I find Michael Moore to be more credible than the above mentioned. Not that I agree in every little thing he does and says.
2007-06-18 12:45:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
It all depends who you put him up against. If you compare Moore to the old Iraqi Minister of Information (the guy who was lying to the Iraqis during the invasion), the editors of the National Enquirer, or Bill O'Reilly, then yes, Moore is more credible.
However, if you compare him against Charlie Gibson, Anderson Cooper, Tom Brokaw, or the Government Accountability Office (the last unbiased department left in the government), then I would consider Moore less credible.
2007-06-18 12:03:25 · answer #3 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
One of the most common criticisms of Michael Moore
is that he distorted the facts for his own purposes. I'd
say that sums him up quit accurately.
Not only do I believe he cannot--and should not--be
considered as "credible," but I see him as being the
very same thing as the title of his most recent film:
"Sicko."
2007-06-18 11:26:43 · answer #4 · answered by Pete K 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I find him to be ABSOLUTELY credible. He is trying to do what many are afraid to do; some people view him as being arrogant and/or unreliable in his sources and tellings-on because--and this is just my opinion, so please don't be offended or get angry--they don't want to hear the truth. Sure, everyone wants somebody to blame, everyone wants answers, but not everyone is as ready to hear it as they think they are. There are truths that are stranger and more outrageous than fiction, and it just so happens that Michael moore presents them. Most things have a seedy underbelly, and the government, any government, is certainly no exception to that rule.
2007-06-18 14:42:38 · answer #5 · answered by PDAisAOK 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I liked Roger & Me and especially Big One- my favorite- ( which most people overlook) ; Far 9/11 was well done
I did not care for Bowling and thought he was sloppy in getting his point, if any, across, and did not like the timing of the Heston interview and release of the movie w/ Heston coming out with his message about his Alzheimers.
I also did not overall like his Awful Truth series which was mostly fluff and well as his first book.
So I guess this answer will please no one. So screw you all!
2007-06-18 11:26:27 · answer #6 · answered by George 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I find Micheal Moore to be very credible,he does his research.
2007-06-19 04:47:42 · answer #7 · answered by Candi Apples 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Whether or not he's credible...he's got people talking about big issues. I personally think he's far more credible than any of our government.
2007-06-18 20:43:24 · answer #8 · answered by Arcangel 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
When the Whitehouse goes to such extremes to discredit him, big red flags should be going up. If he was a shamus, then his credibility would be destroyed by the media and the public. There would be no need whatsoever to charge him with anything. Seems to me that somebody doesn't want his information in the hands of the public. I wonder why???
2007-06-18 11:23:06 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
i dont think of him in those terms....whether or not i believe him, he gives us information that i can later go look it up and verify myself..i found Bowling for Columbine very informative though, as well as Roger and Me....but 9/11 is so heated an issue that i try not to believe or disbelieve people but try to do my own research based on their "facts" to form my own opinion....
2007-06-18 11:21:34 · answer #10 · answered by susuze2000 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋