A documentary by definition is supposed to be presented without bias.

The news is supposed to be objective.

Objectivity in journalism is vanishing with AOL/FOX/Time Warner and Universal/GE/NBC merger mania.

Every good doc I've ever seen has a point of view and they usually are rooted in compassion. No matter that Moore is brash, I think his viewpoint is valid. Yes, he can be arrogant in presenting his views but I'm glad his POV is being shown on American television.

To me, it seems like people who are against him seem to think that Bush should be above reproach but from what I can gather, evidence piles up against this administration. Where are those WMDs?

Okie Dokie then...LOL!

Wasn't able to get out [yet] this weekend...to see the movie. Lot's of OT and housework has prevented me from straying from home! Days not over yet though, so I'll see what hubby has on his agenda.

If anything...like The Passion of the Christ...this film has people talking!

__________________
Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open.

~Thomas Dewar~

I really don't think that documentries on such controversial topics can or necessairly should be done without bias.I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh and that ILK could even come close to Michael Moore.I saw his first two movies and thought,the guy wants to make documentries,but for the most part the public wants entertainment.So he tries his best to give a little of both.The questions he asks in his docu-movie has been around since 9/11 but the media has managed to keep a tight lid on the subject.I say,if this is the only way to take a good hard look at THE worst president in this country's history,then let him at it.If it costs Bush some more votes in November,then Moore power.

__________________
Sex is one of nine reasons for reincarnation.The other eight are unimportant...Henry Miller

asearching1,

I noticed two assertions in your fifth post:


“The action was taken by a handful of extremists ...”

Are you restricting the events of September 11th to only those actors who were on the aircraft? If so, then I must say that that seems to be unrealistic, as that excludes the organization which recruited, trained and financed them. If you are referring to the Al Qaeda organization which has operated in Afghanistan, England, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen, then that hand must be very large indeed to hold all those extremists.


“… they view our country as a large, unstoppable juggarnaut that regularly stomps on their own lives, freedoms, etc. History, even recent, proves that they are justified in their feelings.”

While I lived in the Middle East, I did get the sense that the general opinion was that American Foreign Policy was tilted decidedly, and inappropriately, towards the Israeli position. That is (was – it has been 16 years now) however, decidedly different from one which regularly stomps on their lives, freedoms, or any thing else. To what are you referring when you say this, and what Arab/Muslim history which involves the United States proves that they are justified in those feelings?


Now, I happen to agree that American Foreign Policy is limited by the degree to which it parallels that of Israel’s. The current resident of 10 Downing Street has probably regretted his decision to so closely associate HM’s Iraq policy with the one issued from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Irish’s allusions to warfare have value in the sense that a well funded organization can, and has, directed attacks against American civilians and military around the world. At what point is a sovereign nation entitled to act on the behalf of its overseas interests, and, given the record of Al Qaeda, what would you consider appropriate?

__________________
Eudaimonia

jseal:

>I noticed two assertions in your fifth post:

“The action was taken by a handful of extremists ...”

>Are you restricting the events of September 11th to only those actors who were on the aircraft? If so, then I must say that that seems to be unrealistic, as that excludes the organization which recruited, trained and financed them. If you are referring to the Al Qaeda organization which has operated in Afghanistan, England, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen, then that hand must be very large indeed to hold all those extremists.

I was referring to the specific attack of 911, which was one of the main catalysts for the events currently unfolding. The group of individuals in those planes were part of the al Queda network. This is the "handful" that I was referring. In retrospect, the words "small minority" fits better. Although this organization is wide-spread, its numbers were relatively small. I apologize if I was unclear in my meaning.

>“… they view our country as a large, unstoppable juggarnaut that regularly stomps on their own lives, freedoms, etc. History, even recent, proves that they are justified in their feelings.”

>While I lived in the Middle East, I did get the sense that the general opinion was that American Foreign Policy was tilted decidedly, and inappropriately, towards the Israeli position. That is (was – it has been 16 years now) however, decidedly different from one which regularly stomps on their lives, freedoms, or any thing else. To what are you referring when you say this, and what Arab/Muslim history which involves the United States proves that they are justified in those feelings?

Without digging up reference books I'll throw out the Isreali/Palestine situation and the U.s.'s intrusive influence in this situation, the U.S.'s heavy involvement and strong support of the Shah of Iran, the United States is fighting a war in Afghanistan whose own roots extend not only to a terrorist attack on our nation but to a revolution in Afghanistan-supported by the U.S.-out of which Osama bin Laden and his al Queda network were bred, Bush's clumsy and ignorant words including the fighting of a "Crusade" on an internationally televised address, etc.

These actions and others taken by the white "christian world" can all be looked at to get a better understanding of why so many Middle eastern people have concerns about our government. Whether there is an absolute "right or wrong" here is really an unanswerable question. What is important is that we have an awareness of how we are perceived and why. Too often I hear people who I consider to be intelligent free thinkers saying that "those people just hate us, they always have and always will". Hatred always has a birth, a beginning, a starting point. Again, I DO NOT say that we deserve to be hated or be violently attacked. What I am saying is that every single person develops beliefs, emotions, etc based on their perception of the world and people they are surrounded by. *Whew, it is getting late and I fear I am rambling. ;p*

>Now, I happen to agree that American Foreign Policy is limited by the degree to which it parallels that of Israel’s. The current resident of 10 Downing Street has probably regretted his decision to so closely associate HM’s Iraq policy with the one issued from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Agreed.

>Irish’s allusions to warfare have value in the sense that a well funded organization can, and has, directed attacks against American civilians and military around the world. At what point is a sovereign nation entitled to act on the behalf of its overseas interests, and, given the record of Al Qaeda, what would you consider appropriate?

I do not consider attacking said organization when it is identified. I do consider the attack in Iraq a crime against the people there. There has never, never been any evidence that Hussein has ever supported terroristic attacks against us that I'm aware of and he certainly has never made any terroristic threats against us. Closest he came to that was stating that Iraq would fight if invaded.

Thanks for the questions and I hope that I am being more clear than I previously was. Feel free to ask more or pm me if you'd like to continue this.

Fred

__________________
Imagination is more important than intelligence.

- Albert Einstein

lakritze,

One problem that arises from this approach is, as Steph observed above, that it is at variance with how the word is commonly used in English.

Rather than use the word “bias”, which has negative connotations, I’d suggest “point of view”. Mr. Moore is entitled to his point of view, and is also free to express it. He seems to be more than a little ambiguous in regards his film, as he had no problem accepting an award for it as a documentary, yet, as Steph comments, states that his point of view comes through.

Given these realities, wouldn’t “Editorial” or “Opinion Piece” be a more accurate description of his film? Surely being honest about what he is presenting would serve to emphasise the difference between his efforts and those of his subject, about which he expresses grave reservations?

__________________
Eudaimonia

jseal, I can't argue with this except to ask who in the world would go to see a film lauded as "The finest 2 hour Editorial piece ever!!"? Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Fred

__________________
Imagination is more important than intelligence.

- Albert Einstein

asearching1,

Granted, but then Mr. Moore could claim the moral high ground. As it is, the difference between his position and that of the President is merely a question of degree.

Come to think of it, aren’t the State Of The Union speeches essentially long winded editorials? They usually get plenty of play.

__________________
Eudaimonia

I'd rather claim the 21.8 million for an opening weekend

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Lilith,

Hell yes! Ref back to LixyChick's mention of "The Passion of the Christ" - controversy sells.

I believe that Mr. Gibson was criticized about some historical inaccuracies, no?

__________________
Eudaimonia

I think it can still be considered a doc because it is rooted in fact with commentary from sources you wouldn't think would have the POV they came to have (like the woman who was a proud Bush supporter until her son's last letter from Iraq).

Maybe it's stretching the def'n of doc but that's its classification. Docutainment is probably more apt.

Steph,

"Docutainment" seems suspiciously similar to "Infomercial".

Still, how does one differentiate? What's the word on the journalism forum you mod?

__________________
Eudaimonia

A Few Notes On Former President Clinton:


After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
Also,if he had accepted,the offer of OBL,there would probably,be
thosands alive,that were killed in the towers.
Bush may be your opinion,of THE worst US President,but he's certainly not mine! Irish

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

Gentlefolk,

Please let us not be uncivil. I should be sorry to see the thread closed because of intemperate comments.

There have been more than forty presidents to date. None of them have walked on water.

It is always easier to make promises than to deliver results. There may be information to which a Chief Executive has access which is unavailable to the man in the street. That information may stay his hand when he might otherwise deliver.

__________________
Eudaimonia

I recall that in late 98 or early '99, Clinton ordered the bombing of the suspected Al Queada (sp?) camps...unfortunately OBL & co. were a step ahead & had moved on...the reaction from the Clinton detractors? He was just trying to start a war to distract from the impeachment procedings...this was further evidence that the problem was with the intelligence agencies & their turf wars that kept anybody from taking action agaist the terrorists...

__________________
Plug me into somethin'

If the theory does not conform to the facts, then the facts must be discarded.

No good deed ever goes unpunished

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, & beat you with experience.