» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: RockandRollFan on 11/05/04 at 8:50 pm
Lies 1-2
Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.
Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."
Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.
In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the eveningâ€â€before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.
The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.
At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 a.m., CBS also took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations†(CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)
Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, formally speaking, false. But notice how he says, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy…†The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change (“All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’â€Â)
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: RockandRollFan on 11/05/04 at 10:59 pm
2000 Election Recount
Deceit 3
A little while later:
…Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, “under every scenario Gore won the election.â€Â
What Moore doesn’t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.
Thomas Frank, “Film offers limited view,†Newsday, June 27, 2004.
Bush Presidency before September 11
Deceits 4-5
The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. Moore continues: “No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. And for the next eight months it didn’t get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn’t get his judges appointed; he had trouble getting his legislation passed; and he lost Republican control of the Senate. His approval ratings in the polls began to sink.â€Â
Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the confirmation (not “appointmentâ€Â) of some of the judges whom Bush had nominated for the federal courts.
Congress did enact the top item on Bush’s agenda: a large tax cut. During the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives easily passed many of Bush’s other agenda items, including the bill whose numbering reflected the President’s top priority: H.R. 1, the Bush “No Child Left Behind†education bill. The fate of the Bush bills in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain. The Senate later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush proposals did not pass.
Did Bush’s approval ratings begin to sink? Not really. Moore shows a screen displaying Bush with 53% job approval on May 3, and 45% on September 5. Strangely, the screen shot includes no source for this alleged poll.
University of Minnesota History Professor Steven Ruggles has compiled a chart showing Bush’s approval ratings in 13 major polls throughout his Presidency. According the chart, never during 2001 did Bush’s approval rating fall as low as 45% in any of the polls.
Nor did Bush’s approval ratings really “sink†after inauguration day. Bush’s popularity ratings rose significantly in April (when his tax cut was the main issue in Congress), and then returned to more normal levels in June. From Bush’s inaugural until September 10, almost all of his approval ratings were in the 50-60% range, with only a few results from an occasional poll either higher or lower.
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: RockandRollFan on 11/06/04 at 12:58 am
Just like anyone else, he picked and chose what he wanted to show, it was his movie, it's his prerogative to do whatever he wanted. If someone came out with a similar one about Clinton, I'm sure you wouldn't be so critical of it.
If it was full of LIES and people were trying to pass it off as an accurate factual movie....yes I would. If anyone had done a movie like this about Clinton in the 90's they probably would be in jail....double-standards abound ::)
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: CatwomanofV on 11/06/04 at 1:53 pm
It was true that the networks did call Florida for Gore before the polls closed, which is what the exit polls were saying. However, do to the confussion of the butterfly ballots, many who said they voted for Gore in fact actually voted for Buchanan. That made the election too close to call. And ALL the networks were at fault for calling it too soon. However, it was true that Fox who first called it for Bush-and it is also a fact that person who made the decision, John Ellis is the cousin of George Bush.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
http://mediastudy.com/articles/jellis.html
As far as his approval rating, it was in fact 53% in May, 2001. And his approval rating just befor 9/11 was much lower.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/cnn.poll/
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732
Ok, it is taking me too much time to dispute most of this. Maybe others can help me. ;)
Cat
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: Leo Jay on 11/06/04 at 2:10 pm
1. Michael Moore always sabotages his own arguments with misrepresentations, unfair ambushes and other questionable tactics
2. Michael Moore's mission is to energize like-minded citizens, not to promote constructive dialogue
3. Michael Moore's bias is clear and upfront -- no one went to see this movie thinking it was going to be fair and balanced
4. Is there anyone on the PLANET who didn't know EXACTLY what the film was going to be before the projectors rolled?
5. Resistance to thoughtful socio-political dialogue is hardly an exclusively 'Liberal' condition
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: RockandRollFan on 11/06/04 at 7:29 pm
Bush Vacations
Deceit 6
Fahrenheit 911 states, “In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.â€Â
Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.
Tom McNamee, “Just the facts on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, “White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for ‘Working Vacation’,†Washington Post, August 7, 2001 (Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders.)
he shot of him “relaxing at Camp David†shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say “shows,†even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course.
Christopher Hitchens, “Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore,†Slate.com, June 21, 2004.
By the way, the clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:
Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how “the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists.†But Wilson disclosed that “a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber.â€Â
"Cyberalert," Media Research Center, July 1, 2004, item. 3.
September 11
Deceit 7
Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks. There is no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. The visuals are reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with horrified astonishment.
Moore has been criticized for using the reaction shots as a clever way to avoid showing the planes hitting the buildings, and some of the victims falling to their deaths. Even if this is true, the segment still effectively evokes the horror that every decent human being felt on September 11.
But remember, Moore does not necessarily feel the same way. As New York’s former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore later said, “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.â€Â
Like several of the other deceits identified in this report, the September 11 deceit is not part of the film itself. Several of the deceits involve claim that Moore has made when discussing the film. Like some deceits which are identified near the end of this report, the September 11 deceit involves the contradiction between Moore's purported feelings about a topic in the movie and what appear to be his actual feelings about that topic. If a Klansman made a film which feigned admiration for Rosa Parks, that too would be a form of deceit, even if the film were accurate in its portrayal of Parks as a great American hero.
Bush on September 11
Deceit 8
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better.†“What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?â€Â…
She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and “helped us get through a very difficult day.â€Â
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: GWBush2004 on 11/10/04 at 10:57 am
''There is no terrorist threat, there is no terrorist threat. Oh, sure, there have been terrorist attacks, and there will be terrorist attacks in the future, but there is no terrorist threat." -Michael Moore.
Is Moore even worth talking about? Either way, I just ordered Fahrenhype 9/11 from Overstock.com, I personally can't wait to see it.
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/10/04 at 6:37 pm
Why should I believe D-i-c-k Morris?
Subject: Re: FarenHype 911...ALL THOSE LIES!
Written By: philbo on 11/11/04 at 5:30 am
''There is no terrorist threat, there is no terrorist threat. Oh, sure, there have been terrorist attacks, and there will be terrorist attacks in the future, but there is no terrorist threat." -Michael Moore.
ISTM that what he's trying to say is this: in that the odds on any single person being involved in a terrorist incident are vanishingly small, especially when compared to, say, being in a road accident... there is no "terrorist threat" as some kind of Damoclean sword hanging over us. It's our media and our government that are going out of their way to make us feel that there really IS some kind of threat... it makes us do things (like buy newspapers and accept draconian legislation) that we wouldn't do otherwise.
It's about the language we use, and how it affects our behaviour.
In the aftermath of an IRA bomb at the bottom end of the M1, which caused little loss of life but huge disruption, the talk here was all about carrying on as though nothing had happened - "because changing how you behave because of a terrorism is like giving in to them" - Margaret Thatcher said something very much along those lines (and it's one of those very rare occasions when I actually agree with her).
Back to Moore - haven't seen F911 yet, but it sure seems like he's done with that very much what he did in the run-up to the election: get so carried away that the truth of what he tells is lost in the hyperbole of the way he says it.