Two details that I was privy to that she left out: Michael Moore greeted the line waiting to see the film (Dawn sent me a photo mocking me that I wasn’t there to spit at him) and that Dawn was reading ‘The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ by Mark Smith in line as she met Moore.
Oh, and also, my brother called Fahrenheit 911 ‘propaganda’, another detail she leaves out.
Posted by Karol at 12:49 PM
For the record the “Official handbook” ain’t all that either. I’m more than half-way through and the only remotely good line is that liberals are like children on a family vacation whining “are we there, yet”
Everything else is dull, predictable and wrong.
the issue of if the movie is ‘propaganda’ or not is an non issue.
what you should be asking yourself is: Is this good or even great propaganda?
When i watch movieis I stop thinking. So i think that with my movie watching style and his propaganda i would be a liberal in about 5 mins.
I am just courious how other people watch movies?
Do you turn off you mind or are you activtly engaged in the moive?
I think everyone in some way wants to get lost when watching a movie, and get carried along in what the movie is saying, be swept away by the message. I also think it’s how effectively the movie does this, and to what extent. I like subtle movies. I like to add my own thoughts into what I see onto the screen. I despise it when I am completely manipulated by a film. Moore did the worst of the two. He tried to completely manipulate, and he did so with theories and far-fetched conclusions.
Why I’d like to see that picture that Dawn sent you. You should post it on your site so we can all shake our fist at it and frown.
Yeah, post it, so I can glare at him angrily. That moonbeam guy.
I agree with your last two commenters, let’s see that photo, so we can know the enemy!
Yeah, I would like to see that photo, too.
Hey!!! who is this other VANESSA????
“Fahrenheit 9/11″ is hardly what one would call a piece of balanced journalism. It is not really journalism at all. The film is an exercise in polemics; it is tendentious and argumentative. It is not a documentary but a political essay on a defining moment in American history. It is also one of the most brilliant political satires by an American in many, many years. And it is a terrible damning indictment of the present administration in Washington, the Democrats who suffer its outrages and the tame media who only are concerned with jockeying for position before the camera on the nightly news. If this film does not sink Bush, nothing will. Pray that it does, because we cannot afford four more years of this man.
The stupid George Bush gets defeated by the brilliant Michael Moore!
This is the fantasy to which people like Michael masturbate.
We are living in great times. The biggest circle jerk ever! with Michael Moore at the center! Truly, this is the sexiest movie Hollywood has ever produced.
I saw the movie yesterday and loved it. It is funny, moving, and deeply patriotic. It is one of the most sympathetic and understanding portrayals of American soldiers I have seen recently. Foxnews, of all places, said it best:
As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, “F9/11″
Only people who are convinced that Fox is a Bush mouthpiece would say ‘go figure’ and probably still not change their minds.
Actually, Fox is less a Bush mouthpiece than it is a terrible news gathering and reporting organization. As a result, their viewers are woefully misinformed.
See, for example, the PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll that showed that Fox viewers were far more likely to be lacking in basic information about a major story such as the Iraq war.
Roger Ailes is likely trying his hardest to make Fox News a Bush mouthpiece, but apparently he is doing a better job of misinforming the public.
hahahahahahahahha, nice! Bill needs to comment around here more often!
It turns out that PIPA issued the following clarification of its study on Oct. 17, two weeks after the study’s release:
The purpose of the study was to analyze the role of misperceptions in policy attitudes about the Iraq war. The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions.
So, yeah, stick around, we like disputing liberal myths here at Spot On.
That was PIPA’s way of being polite, and also of not trying to overstate what was transparently obvious from the study. Strictly speaking, yes, the study proved Fox blew it on the Gulf War. But the gap between Fox and the other networks was so great that the conclusion that Fox does a poor job could be easily drawn.
I have been involved with a lot of scientific research and how the results are described. PIPA’s clarification was their way of being polite and making sure people understood the narrow boundaries of that research.
Bill, I’m sure it was less being ‘polite’ and more wanting to not tarnish their reputation with faulty research.
One more comment, and then I am done.
Not “faulty research,” but not wanting people to overstate the conclusions. In essence they were telling others not to overstate the narrow conclusions of the the study.
Anyway, the whole Fox thing was off the point, and I am guilty of making the initial wisecrack (go figure!) to send us down that rat hole. My real point was that I really enjoyed the Michael Moore movie. I was moved by the depiction of US soldiers, and especially of the one military family that plays a prominent role in the movie (will leave it at that, as I don’t want to be a spoiler!).
Thank you for the lively give and take. I just discovered your blog (and your friendly competitor, “Clare-ified”) today, and I was glad to see the friendly disagreement.