bowling for columbine=lies article?
 

who has the link to that article? i was tellin sumone about it and i was gunna get it for em, but then the site crashed!

anyone even remember who posted the link to it?

Yup. That's ONE of them.

Let me know if you need more.

The Wallstreet Journal also did an article on it, but I think it's referenced in that linked article.

i knew i could count on you guys!! thanks johnny! and now that i see your username, it all comes back that you were the one who argued it Lebell! If i need anything more, ill let you kno!

I passed over this thread about 5 times before taking a look, because I was afraid that I would be forced to say what I think about this guy (Michael Moore).

After scanning the link, my fears became reality. This guy is an idiot. I also question anyone who can justify his position or his actions.

Imagine that. Michael Moore fabricating an issue for his own benefit? Never!

The Academy overlooking their own rules in order to forward their own agenda? Preposterous!

Give me a f'ing break...

I'm glad it got reposted too :) I wanted to read it myself, but never got around to it, and then the site crashed. Thanks for the link, again. :)

Wonder what it means if he knows he's lying, is the left that desperate to prove how right they are?

Bowling for Columbine - Lies! Lies! Lies!
 

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is supposedly a documentary (which by definition is objective and based on facts), but for a long time people have been pointing out its lies.

I have seen many sites describe the lies in the movie, but here is one of the most comprehensive pages I've come across: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html.

And it's not like there were a couple innocent mistakes... there is deceitful editing, misrepresented quotes, bad math, omissions, false implications, and blatant lies.

The movie gets mentioned quite a bit on TFP, so I would particuarly like the fans of the movie to read this.

Old Charlton Heston made me laugh. Lies or not, I think people take these things way to seriously.

Wow that is really interesting. I don't like being lied to.

OMG the media is always 100% truthful! :rolleyes:

interesting, thanks.

A documentary is classified as non-fiction to say that it should also be "objective" is erroneous.

Moore has a carefully planned and executed film that supports his thesis that America was founded and exists as a nation around the concept of fear and that that fear has lead to the alarming rate of murder by guns.

Does he stretch the "truth" maybe. Does this matter? You decide.

To completely misrepresent someone or an organization by slick editing seems like a bit much to me. I mean he was making Heston out to be a racist, which, no matter what else you think about him, is not the case.

How come people are so amazed when liberals bend or manipulate the truth to make a point but when the conservatives do it, no one seems to bat an eye. The truth is, every, and I do mean EVERY form of media is manipulative, I don't care how independent or objective they claim to be. Maybe BFC should not have one the Academy, but for Christ's sake, they gave one to Titanic, should we really trust those idiots.

I realize that everyone bends the truth. My problem is I had respect fro Michael Moore. After his outburst at the oscars I lost a little but that wasn't a huge deal. I just think him bending the truth and manipulating his audience is very hypocritical.

Theres even a link at the bottom of the page to take away their Oscar. I'm surprised that someone spent the time to research all that.

HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH jeeezz... to quote him... SHAME ON YOU!

seriously, distort what you want mr. moore. those with brains will see thru it, those without well, will just be the same sheep just now following you.

The truth about it is that...


IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.

well, on the last thread lebell and harmless rabit said about all that was needed to be said about micheal moore, for both sides of the argument,

but im glad people(including me!) are getting to read the article anyway

the original thread was moved to the Entertainment forum... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&threadid=2651

I will read the article, because i'm interested.

I'm not going to read it tonight, since i need sleep.

I have noticed that a lot of people are bashing this guy, which is fine and healthy, but....

i have found that basically any reporter from the major news companies make biased opinions based on facts that go towards their own beliefs.

This is not good journalism by any means, and it's not just michael moore.

It is interesting to see what he has to say, but like any news anchor, don't take it all in as the whole story and situation. Know that there are more sides to all stories that these people portray.

Basically all you need to know before listening to any reporter or journalist is, they give you the facts that they need in order to prove their case, and that's it. Don't create opinions until you know EVERYTHING about the topic at hand.



EDIT

Also, i have heard that a lot of reporters (if not most) actually take law in school before becomming a reporter.

Think about how a lawyer works. They use anything in a given case to prove their case, and that's it. This is what reporters today are doing. If they just gave the facts, the public would create their own opinions and it would make for a much better society.

taog,

Michael Moore isn't a reporter, he is a filmaker.

'BFC' is supposed to be a documentary, but it isn't. It is more akin to when NBC Dateline rigged those car gas tanks to blow up. In other words, there is pure fabrication in it.

That is the main reason I am so vehement about it.

i know, i understand the difference between the reporter and michael moore

he has biased opinions, just like reporters

that's what i was trying to say

he will do anything to prove his opinions, just like a reporter and a lawyer.



I guess what i was trying to say is....


people are bashing him like it's their job, but why not bash reporters on fox news, msnbc, or cnn

the reporters on there are just as bad, or worse.

What ever happened to good olde fashoned reporters giving the facts about cases, and that's it.

Maybe it's because most reporters these days have taken law in school, and their minds work like a lawyers. They have a point, and they do everything and anything to prove that point, including leaving out key facts, or distorting the current ones, and even, sometimes, lying about them.

Consider the source of this article, David T. Hardy Is a rightwing pro gun lawyer, and Michael Moore Is a Anti-gun Liberal.

David Is only criticizing Michael's movie because It's bad for his business. :D LOL

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com...rs/bowling.htm

http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco279.html

http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/carlos.html

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...eb12/hardy.htm

Michael Moore has long been guilty of obsessive distortion of the truth to the point of outright creepiness.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge the case against Moore as a fringe thing.

Here are some balanced arguments:

http://www.galun.com/misc/seasonal/2.../17-Moore.html

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/custom/moore/

Do you ever feel you've been cheated?

It's a shame, because I once held him above most mortals.

Ghost Bladder


never hold anyone, whether it be a film maker, lawyer, doctor, or anyone *about anyone else.

Everyone is out there to make money and will do anything to do so.

Mr. Michael Moore is out there to make money, and will do anything to do so, and succeeded.


*=above

Moore is an entertainer, he never pretended to be unbiased or truthful. Sorry if this is disappointing to some, but he has been manipulating his audience since "Roger and Me."

He is a good filmmaker. His movies make emotional arguements. He has a knack for filming the real world and turning it into the world inside his head. That is something that many directors struggle with.

Bowling for Columbine is still a good movie, just remember it is only a movie. It is entertainment, meant to dazzle you and play with your feelings...not The Truth.

By accepting the Academy Award for Best Documentary, Moore makes a de facto claim that he is not an entertainer, but a serious investigator.

I think I speak for most liberals when I say that I don't know who the hell Michaeel Moore thinks he is, or where he came from, but I wish he would go away just as much as the rest of you.

-MSD (Apparently the only pro-gun liberal in the USA)

I have still yet to see the film, but after hearing all the various opinions, I'm wondering how I'll react to it. I loved "Roger and Me," as well as his Rage Against the Machine videos, yet happen to own a few firearms myself (I'm from Texas, it's required by law).

Maybe half of me will hate it, while the other half likes it.

I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that documentaries are supposed to be objective... again... they are not.

They are essays in an audio/visual medium. How a filmmaker chooses to present his or her facts and arguments is up to them...

There is no such thing as objectivity and documentarians have no obligation (such as the press does) to strive for objectivity (an unatainable ideal).

I think Nomad has put it best... Moore is an anti-gun Liberal and most of his opponents are not...

(an interesting point is that the movie had to be made by a Canadian company - Salter Street Films out of Halifax)

Ran across this link;

<a href="http://www.revoketheoscar.com/" target="_blank">http://www.revoketheoscar.com/</a>

I don't think it was stated outright in this thread (more like implied or obvious), but now they're lobbying to have his Oscar revoked.

I wonder how much of this is about people trying to restore the integrity of the Oscars? To me, it all seems like sour grapes. A guy says something they don't like or agree with, and they try to get petty revenge.

I saw the movie, I think that article is BULLSHIT

lebell, theres nothing wrong in with moore did. i don't think he advertised it as a documentary, so i don't see why everyones so upset. Presumably, the Academy, being experts in thier field, thought that there was enough truth in it to constitute it being a documentary.

*shrug* i saw the movie, and thought that it could have been a lot more balanced, but it was interesting.

if the NRA and associated allies want to dispute what Moore said, they are more then welcome to make a "!Bowling for Columbine" movie, which i will watch as well =)

Excellent points, Charlatan. Here's Moore's explanation:

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/custom/moore/

I finally got hold of a copy of the movie (eg, I downloaded it) and I really don't understand why everyone is choosing sides on it being "a liberal wanting to take away our guns by distorting the truth." The movie was about how we as Americans are afraid of an unseen enemy, and weapons are just a way to soothe this retarded fear. He does a good job presenting this fact using avoidable gun deaths as the tip of the iceberg.

Everyone who has ever seen anything Michael Moore has done knows he on occassions overexaggerates situations to get his point across, but he bases it on fact, then builds off those facts in his own way to educate as well an entertain. He never flat out made shit up.

Whether the Colorado meeting was "preplanned" or not, it is still poor taste to have held it after the event. Manson cancelled his concert dates out of respect, and he's so evil and all, how does that make the NRA look? Whether they edited the "cold dead hands" thing out of sequence with realtime, they never said in the film "when Charlton Heston was in Colorado, he said exactly this." The audience perceives that he did, and that's their own fault. Anyone who watched the news knows that line was made when he was chosen as chairman of the NRA, and you can obviously tell he's dressed different at different locations.

Part of his style of filming is catching people off guard, because when you do that, they're more honest. Dropping off your business card for an appointment gives them time to get their talkinghead, while showing up unannounced keeps them on their toes.

If you notice, none of the statistics are ever debated, just how things were edited in the movie. Bowling for Columbine is a very educational film that everyone should see. I happen to own two rifles, a .22 and a .243, which are unloaded, locked in a gun cabinet, and only taken out for cleaning or hunting. I never for one moment thought of that movie's primary motive to make gun owners look like racist nuts. The movie isn't anti-Republican, anti-gun, or anti-media, it's anti-fear. People get dirty in the process to tell the story, hence the outrage, but comparing the movie to Spinal Tape is fucking idiotic.

Thanks for the link. I'm gona finish reading it IN GREAT DETAIL later....
I got through the first 1/4 of it, and feel disgusted that I actually came out of that film trumpeting it as a wake-up call to America. I was telling eveyone they had to see it. I've never felt so manipulated...