MEDIA MATTERS
Michael Moore unmasked
by left-wing filmmakers
'If you have to sell out your values and principles
to get at a greater truth, where does that leave you?'

Posted: March 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



Michael Moore
Filmmaker Michael Moore, director and star of successful films such as "Roger & Me," "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," has become the unwilling subject of a new documentary that raises questions about the credibility of his work and describes a "disturbing pattern of fact-fudging and misrepresentation," reports the London Sunday Times.

While Moore has long been a favorite target of those on the political right, this new documentary – "Manufacturing Dissent" – comes from two left-leaning Canadian filmmakers who were once fans and who began their project expecting to tell a positive story.
"When we started this project we hoped to have done a documentary that celebrated Michael Moore. We were admirers and fans," said Debbie Melnyk, who, with husband Rick Caine, made the film. "Then we found out certain facts about his documentaries that we hadn't known before. We ended up very disappointed and disillusioned."
Caine and Melnyk discovered, early on, that the public persona they knew was not the Moore they encountered when they began to examine his work.

"As investigative documentarists we always thought we could look at anything we wanted," Caine said. "But when we turned the cameras on one of the leading figures in our own industry, the people we wanted to talk to were like: 'What are you doing? Why are you throwing stones at the parade leader?'"

Their first disillusionment came in Flint, Mich., where Moore had portrayed his efforts to interview Roger Smith, the former chief executive of General Motors, about the company's policies that led to closure of the city's auto manufacturing plants. In "Roger & Me," Moore failed to get Smith to talk to him. In reality, said Caine and Melnyk, Moore secured two on-camera interviews, but the scenes were left out, apparently for dramatic effect.

"Manufacturing Dissent" includes a long list of alleged exaggerations or distortions in Moore's other films.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54541

Now even the left see Moore for the big fatass liar he is......

I wonder how many of the libs here defended him? I would guess the majority....

I would like to see how some of the libs here are going to blame this on the right wing attack machine, as usual, when it's two of your own exposing the liar?......:nice:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54541

Now even the left see Moore for the big fatass liar he is......

I wonder how many of the libs here defended him? I would guess the majority....

I would like to see how some of the libs here are going to blame this on the right wing attack machine, as usual, when it's two of your own exposing the liar?......:nice:

Expect snarky comments about worldnetdaily.

Mm, I think I can stand by what I've said previously about Moore - in fact, I've never been a big fan. That said, the inaccuracies and falsehoods that he has in his movies don't retract as much from the factuality of his main point as it does from the overall "punch" of the movie. He has good points, even if they may be overshadowed by the inaccuracies.

This looks like it could be an entertaining documentary, though. I'll just have to remember to bring that pinch of salt :p

I don't really like him. He's boring, and I am distrustful of him.

Expect snarky comments about worldnetdaily.


worldnetdaily is a biased right-wing publication [with a long histroy of inaccuracy],so I take everything they publish with several grains of salt.

I thought his lies were allready exposed a week after his documentry came out?

I thought his lies were allready exposed a week after his documentry came out?

They were, by the right....the left is just now catching up as usual......

and TT, you never disappoint me son with your blaming everything a liberal is exposed or caught in as just another right wing attack......nope, no personal responsibility from you nor your party.......:nice:

Oh Noes!!!

Propaganda in politics!!! Say it aint so!

Its not like the US government does it. :rolleyes:

Moore's an ass and always has been. I've always equated him with Rush Limbaugh.

Expect snarky comments about worldnetdaily.

I wonder if there's a reason for that.

Well he is definately fat.

worldnetdaily is a biased right-wing publication [with a long histroy of inaccuracy],so I take everything they publish with several grains of salt.

What do you think about this particular story, and the people they quote? Do you believe it?

What do you think about this particular story, and the people they quote? Do you believe it?

While I overall like Moore,I have major disagreements with him on some issues and I also have major disagreements with some of his tatics.

I've gone into this before and stated my problems with him,though I do overall approve of him.

As to the article , I take everything on world net daily with many grains of salt,just like I take everything you guys say with many grains of salt.

Modern conservatives [and their mouthpieces like Limbaugh,Savage etc.]bring nothing useful or crebral to the modern political debate,they just distort,manipulate and outright lie about topics and people left of center,only so they can elect empty suits like Bush and Cheney.

People like Hannity standing up for Scooter Libby kills what little credibility the moderen conservative movent had left.

Modern conservatives [and their mouthpieces like Limbaugh,Savage etc.]bring nothing useful or crebral to the modern political debate,they just distort,manipulate and outright lie

You mean like you?
LMAO!! Whats crebral?

You mean like you?
LMAO!! Whats crebral?

Don't pick on TT's spelling. There are reasons for it that have nothing to do with intelligence.

While I overall like Moore,I have major disagreements with him on some issues and I also have major disagreements with some of his tatics.

I've gone into this before and stated my problems with him,though I do overall approve of him.

As to the article , I take everything on world net daily with many grains of salt,just like I take everything you guys say with many grains of salt.

Modern conservatives [and their mouthpieces like Limbaugh,Savage etc.]bring nothing useful or crebral to the modern political debate,they just distort,manipulate and outright lie about topics and people left of center,only so they can elect empty suits like Bush and Cheney.

People like Hannity standing up for Scooter Libby kills what little credibility the moderen conservative movent had left.

I don't care about your overall opinion of Moore. I'm interested in your opinion of this one story. There are some people out there that routinely reject EVERYTHING that comes from a source that has favored the opposition in the past. I find that juvenile.

I'm interested in your opinion of this one story.


I don't think it's much of a story,just a few vauge allegations.



There are some people out there that routinely reject EVERYTHING that comes from a source that has favored the opposition in the past. I find that juvenile.

I don't think it's juvenile or unfair to point out any possible credibility problems a source might have.

I mean you conservatives yell "liberal bias" in media that I [as a liberal who wishes it was true] don't see liberal bias in.

In any media with any agenda, it's not so much what they cover but what they don't cover.

Example: I was involved in a protest over a local issue,the newspaper sent a guy who was biased on the other side of the issue,he talked to two of our people,what he wrote was fair and accurate ,but he left 90% of the information he had out of the article too.

I mean you conservatives claim that the New York Times is the ultimate in liberal bais,yet I heard they didn't even cover a recent anti-war march on Washington.

A much better indictment of Moore is a book called Forgive Us Our Spins written by a liberal named Jesse Larner [wich goes into other liberals/leftists who have major issues with Moore],some of Larner's criticisms of Moore I agree with,some I don't.

Don't pick on TT's spelling.

Why not? He villifies everyone that doesn't agree with him and makes vile personal attacks towards those he doesn't ideologically agree with.


There are reasons for it that have nothing to do with intelligence.

Yeah. Obviously. You presuppose there was intelligence to begin with, I don't.

They were, by the right....the left is just now catching up as usual......

and TT, you never disappoint me son with your blaming everything a liberal is exposed or caught in as just another right wing attack......nope, no personal responsibility from you nor your party.......:nice:to me its not a matter of left or right, hes an american, go figure.. :)

Why not? He villifies everyone that doesn't agree with him and makes vile personal attacks towards those he doesn't ideologically agree with.
Sounds like someone else I know around here.

Let's keep the debate civilized everyone. Talk about the posts, not the posters or else...:lock:

Michael Moore is a digusting ****... Why is this in the news section?

Sounds like someone else I know around here.

Let's keep the debate civilized everyone. Talk about the posts, not the posters or else...:lock:
sounds like ALOT members here not just one.....funny that you would post the first part then go on to warn others for something you "yourself" just did......:eek7:

Moore's an ass and always has been. I've always equated him with Rush Limbaugh.

Except Limbaugh doesn't manufacture facts. I don't agree with a lot of what Limbaugh says (particularly concerning "free trade" and other issues) but he does back up what he says with actual news stories printed in major newspapers. He doesn't make the stuff up.

Mm, I think I can stand by what I've said previously about Moore - in fact, I've never been a big fan. That said, the inaccuracies and falsehoods that he has in his movies don't retract as much from the factuality of his main point as it does from the overall "punch" of the movie. He has good points, even if they may be overshadowed by the inaccuracies.

This looks like it could be an entertaining documentary, though. I'll just have to remember to bring that pinch of salt :p

This sounds a lot like an endorsement of the "fake but accurate" principle. He builds a thesis that sounds believable - backs it with lies (falsehoods) and selective context (inaccuracies), but you still buy the main point while admitting that the evidence presented is bunk. In my opinion, a clear conflict exists in that train of thought- but hey - to each his own. :rolleyes:

Would it be fair to say that your position is "It doesn't matter that he's lying, because he's exposing (my particular belief of) the truth"?

Hard point to argue there cappie.

Personally I take any propaganda with a 5lb grain of salt but I'm also not foolish enough to ignore the subject in question.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there aren't people out to get me. :|

sounds like ALOT members here not just one.....funny that you would post the first part then go on to warn others for something you "yourself" just did......:eek7:
Just doin my job. You criticize soccer goalies for touching the ball with their hands too?
I meant what I said. It stay open as long as it stays semi-civil.

This sounds a lot like an endorsement of the "fake but accurate" principle. He builds a thesis that sounds believable - backs it with lies (falsehoods) and selective context (inaccuracies), but you still buy the main point while admitting that the evidence presented is bunk. In my opinion, a clear conflict exists in that train of thought- but hey - to each his own. :rolleyes:

Would it be fair to say that your position is "It doesn't matter that he's lying, because he's exposing (my particular belief of) the truth"?- Well, that's not exactly it, no. The meat of his facts are true - the falsehoods and inaccuracies are just there to "spice things up". You remove them, and you'll still have an interesting movie, it just wouldn't have enough "punch" to do as well in the box office.

I've seen both Bowling for Colombine and Fahrenheit 911 after looking up right-wing Moore-bashing sites, and the same goes for both movies.

- Well, that's not exactly it, no. The meat of his facts are true - the falsehoods and inaccuracies are just there to "spice things up". You remove them, and you'll still have an interesting movie, it just wouldn't have enough "punch" to do as well in the box office.

I've seen both Bowling for Colombine and Fahrenheit 911 after looking up right-wing Moore-bashing sites, and the same goes for both movies.

So being lied to 59 times is what you call being entertained? He was and is using the stupid masses that wont questioned him to farther his political agenda and personal wealth.

So being lied to 59 times is what you call being entertained? He was and is using the stupid masses that wont questioned him to farther his political agenda and personal wealth.- I've seen the lists, and he most certainly didn't lie as many times as that in any of his movies.

And I'm not saying I approve - what I am saying is that they are entertaining movies, but not to be watched or trusted. without a minimum of fact checking.

- Well, that's not exactly it, no. The meat of his facts are true - the falsehoods and inaccuracies are just there to "spice things up". You remove them, and you'll still have an interesting movie, it just wouldn't have enough "punch" to do as well in the box office.

I've seen both Bowling for Colombine and Fahrenheit 911 after looking up right-wing Moore-bashing sites, and the same goes for both movies.

Adding lies to a story to "spice it up" is an admission that the story on its own is weak. Seriously, if he had unassailable fact behind his assertions, he wouldn't have to lie about it. The fact that he does tells me he doesn't even believe himself.

Adding lies to a story to "spice it up" is an admission that the story on its own is weak. Seriously, if he had unassailable fact behind his assertions, he wouldn't have to lie about it.- There's a difference between making a film that convinces people and making a film that does well in the box office.

The overwhelming majority of films that do well in that respect are almost completely fictional.

Important facts aren't always entertaining.

- There's a difference between making a film that convinces people and making a film that does well in the box office.

The overwhelming majority of films that do well in that respect are almost completely fictional.

Important facts aren't always entertaining.

An entertaining piece of fiction shouldn't pretend to be a serious, fact-filled documentary. Once you start mixing fact and fiction, guess which one dominates?

An entertaining piece of fiction shouldn't pretend to be a serious, fact-filled documentary.- I agree, but that doesn't mean that you can't learn from it - as long as you approach it correctly. For example by reading lots of critical texts about it on beforehand (or as I did, while watching it)

Once you start mixing fact and fiction, guess which one dominates?- That would depend on how and what exactly it is you're mixing.