*Bows head in shame/poverty*

To be honest, I haven't seen it yet, due solely to the fact that I wanted to eat this month. Roommate saw it, and in Edina (a wealthy Twin Cities suburb). Take heart in the fact that even there, the audience literally applauded in various places. Even the rich in the twin cities are anti-Bush (or pro-Moore, whichever is better).

In Response to daubergoat (#18300):

he audience literally applauded in various places. Even the rich in the twin cities are anti-Bush

You mean the rich that atteneded the movie in the twin cities are anti-Bush.

I seriously doubt that anyone who sees this movie will remain in their respective political view points, either A) anti-Bush which is why they went in the first place or B) as right-wing conservative as they were before since they were just checking out the movie to see what the other side was doing.

I personally have no interest in seeing it, its as much of a left-wing, election-year publicity stunt as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchannon are on the right-wing.

(Side note, I have not yet decided on my choice on Presidential candidates)

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm [davekopel.com]

Take it as you will.

In Response to Dynedain (#18395):

There's some interesting thoughts in there. Some of which I agree with, most of which I found to be really reaching.

The one I do agree with most is the segment on Bush reading to the kids after the 9/11 bombing. I think Moore was overly critical of this rather small event. What would it have served for Bush to have stormed out of the classroom?

That said, I failed to see the decipt pointed out in many of the notes given in the article.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#18426):

I think what the author of that article was trying to point out was M.Moore's tendency to use "real quotes, real facts" but also to use the skills of editing to imply things and to get the viewers to "read" something that isn't necesarilly there.

In Response to Dynedain (#18432):

I saw what he was trying to point out. I thought that in many cases, he was not pointing it out very effectively.

Example: Re: Moore's charge of Bush taking too many vacations.

"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."

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I never considered presidency to be a 9-5 M-F kind of job... I think that noting that he was away 42% of the time is a fair point to make weekends or no. Moore even sited his sources. It doesn't seem very covert to me.

On the other hand, the spirit of Dave Kopel's article is basically reinforces what I had said in my earlier post. Moore is twisting some information to get his point across. However, I couldn't help but notice that Kopel was spinning facts to suit his needs as well.

So! So far, we've got Kopel spinning facts to show that Moore has been misrepresenting facts in order to show that Bush has been lying.

These guys should really start a club or something.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#18443):

These guys should really start a club or something.

I thought that was how political parties get started...that and when someone shows up with beer to the debate.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#18443):

These guys should really start a club or something.

Ooooo.

Or a band.

They could call it....

The Spin Doctors!

That would be sooooo cooool.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#18443):

Not to say he is incorrect at all about it, but I do question his motives. I certainly don't take everything Michael Moore says as blatant fact, but I see this article sort of as, well, okay, the puppy bit you, so now you're going to bite it back. That's not unjustfiable, but it makes you wonder what kind of a person bites puppies.

/Tyler Durden mode:

He does make a good point, although, probably unintentionally. I find it particularly interesting how dependent our society has become on the media. If you want to know what's going on in Washington today, what do you do? You check the media: you turn on the TV to catch the news, or you turn on the radio for the 15-minute broadcast, or you pick up the newspaper or check the local News Stations' website. But really, it's all pretty much the same. We even see the news as a reliable source of a information in which facts can be immediately attributed to, yet it's obvious that's not always true. [bbc.co.uk] Shit, can you see the irony, I just quoted a news agency to support my argument that we overly depend on news agencies for information. Seriously, how often do you go directly to the source to figure out what's going on? Who checks the White Houses' website every morning for the newest headlines? Obviously they aren't going to tell us if there is corruption in the White House. So who do we depend on? A bunch of talking heads whose every word is just close enough to fact that it might as well be. It doesn't matter who actually gets the most votes for which state, or who actually wins an election. The person who goes into office is the person who the news reports as going into office. After all, how else would you know who won the election? Call each county elections office? Tally the votes yourself? It's never going to happen. We rely completely on the news to tell us what is going on in the world. Sure, we may have our biases, CNN is better than that trash they call Fox News, but really, how different are they? They may have "different viewpoints," but it's all the same second-hand shit they're handing us. We expect that they've done their research, that they know what they are talking about, that they're not just doing all of this to boost their ratings and thus their profits. But how much do we really know that hasn't been given to us on a silver platter called "the Truth?"

   

In Response to Phobos (#18455):

I don't know for sure who Tyler Durden is, but that's an excellent point about the state of our information society. Well said!

I have two suggestions for you; they work for me somewhat-- your mileage may vary.

First, i take the "news" from mainstream sources and try to apply extremely skeptical mental filtering techniques, reading between the lines and silently arguing with the reporters. For example: when i watch TV-Asia-News, which is obviously progpaganda for the Hindu Nationalists, i look at what they say, then try to imagine how it would sound if they weren't spinning it to the benefit of the BJP. If they gloss something over to avoid embarassing the BJP, then i just mentally assume it's much worse, or assume they omitted the important parts of the truth. If they give facts and figures, i try to calculate how the numbers have been massaged for their purposes, then i estimate my own results based on my biases, my experience, and my distrust of the source.

This technique should be applied to most any source of information, trusted or otherwise. Occasionally, i'll watch a few minutes of MSNBC's cable "news" broadcast. This is sponsored by two of the biggest evil corporations ever: Microsoft and General Electric. So i ask myself, "What do MS and GE want me to think? I should try to react skeptically. What do MS and GE want to hide from me? I should try to imagine what is really happening, and assume that the truth consists of the many possibilities which they've carefully downplayed."

This leads to my second suggestion. Keeping in mind that all sources are biased, no matter how much i personally respect them, i use my computer to seek out "news" from reporters who do not work for the Ministry of Truth. So instead of spending much time reading propaganda from the AP, Reuters, AFP, et cetera, i will instead concentrate on the stories from "smaller" providers.

This entails going to various websites of agencies such as OneWorld.Net, FAIR, the Independent Media Center, and numerous small newspapers' sites which are not (apparently) under the direct control of megacorps. Although i know they all have their agenda, and probably their own sort of slant which is affected by their desire to appeal to certain patrons, i still think i find lots of information in their reports. I try to give preference to the reports which give lots of detailed sources, and reporters who discuss their efforts to actually be present at the front-lines of news-making events. So, for example, i might put more trust in something Amy Goodman says about East Timor than, say, Dan Rather; because i know from reading Amy's stories about her experiences that she really has spent a long time among the East Timorese.

If i'm trying to get an idea of what's going on in a certain place, a city or region, i look not only for their "official" publications, but also for independent people who have websites. There is an ever-growing number of bloggers and people with small quirky webpages. These sources all have very dubious factual value, and obviously are slanted just as much as (but in different directions from) the "news" sources which have corporate and government sponsors.

Nevertheless, by reading their accounts of their lives and experiences, i start to get a taste of what the world might actually be like in their region. This might not help me learn many very specific accurate truths about a city or an event or a company-- but it paints a kind of background picture. It creates a gradual image for me of how things are going in those places i've never (or rarely) been.

Something else that has begun happening with greater frequency over recent years has been my ability to contact people online and strike up casual friendships of all different kinds. As this process has continued, and i spend more time than ever communicating over the Internet, i've slowly spun my own tiny, unique, personal little web into various parts of the world.

A few years ago, i starte...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Teledildonix (#18456):

I don't know for sure who Tyler Durden is

This has much to do with the movie you won't watch, and the book you won't read - both on account of the excessive violence - which takes place in Delaware, on Paper Street.

More specifically, this would be Brad Pitt's character in Fight Club.

In Response to sakuruth (#18457):

Fight Club is an inspirational film, and I do highly suggest you go see it Tele. It's not about Violence, that's just an aspect of it. Sure, the message could probably get across to the audience in a better way, but this one really works. Endure the first 45 minutes or so, it gets much better after that. I own the DVD and have watched it through probably 4 times since I got it, and each time I notice something new about it. Trust me, it's really not about the violence. I'd have to say, it's one of the best main-stream films produced in the last few years.

On the news subject, I don't even watch the news anymore. I have no cable since I'm a poor college student and the school is fucking me on my student loans, and frankly I'm barely interested in the opinions of people who only think they know what they're talking about. I only rarely check the BBC to see what is going on, but it's not because I don't care about the world outside, I'm just tired of hearing what other people think of it. And that's really what I find the news to be these days, less of the facts and more of their opinions. We don't just tell you the news, we tell you what to think of it.

In Response to Phobos (#18459):

Also, I found an appropriate analogy. It's like South Park, the language, terms, topics, etc may offend you, but genuinely, it has a message and a purpose. If you can see through all the other crap, it's totally worth it, and sometimes, that crap even helps to reinforce it (see the episode about the usage of "Shit" on TV).

In Response to Phobos (#18455):

Shit, can you see the irony, I just quoted a news agency to support my argument that we overly depend on news agencies for information

Well said Mr. Durden.

The "free press" has become this super power in society. For all practical purposes, they have the power to create the truth as they see fit in the minds of millions of viewers. And what can be done to stop them? Not a heck of a lot.

The problem is, for every power, there needs to be some sort of watchdog organization that can call BullShit when the power gets out of line. It cann't be a political power, because how could we trust them to not serve there own agenda? Or for that matter any organization that has anything to lose or gain from what the news has to offer.

So, where do we find this mysterious group of people with no money to lose, no power to sway, and no agenda to follow that can vigorously check and recheck the news makers' facts?

I sure as hell don't know. For now, I guess it's just down to 'In Tyler we trust.'