I hear a lot of Micheal Moore Bashing from our friendly members who are right of center. In most parts I agree with them, but I would like to know their feelings on Right wing propaganda slingers such as Rush, O’Riley, Hannity, Ann Coulter or whoever else.
These people do basically the same thing that Moore does which gets condemned so much.
So I figure if you guys hate Moore so much you would have to hate these guys (girls for Coulter) also.
An excellent question Kevin… I would really like to know the answer to this question.
[quote]KevinKovach wrote:
I hear a lot of Micheal Moore Bashing from our friendly members who are right of center. In most parts I agree with them. But I would like to know their feelings on Right wing propaganda slingers such as Rush, O’Riley, Hannity, Ann Coulter or whoever else.
These people do basically the same thing that Moore does which gets condemned so much.
So I figure if you guys hate Moore so much you would have to hate these guys (girls for Coulter) also.[/quote]
I disagree. Those mentioned, with the possible exception of Ann COulter, tell you right from the start what their position is. They don’t disguise a piece of propaganda as a documentary.
Rush and Hannity are first and foremost conservative commentators - glorified Op/Ed writers. Never in any of their work is their any attempt to fool you into believing they are true journalists.
Rush is the first to admit that his work is in the entertainment industry. When folks quit tuning in from 11-2 to listen to him - he’s out of a job.
O’Riley fights both sides of the fence. I beleive he was one of the first on-air personalities to call for Rumsfeld to step down. He’s all over the Bush Admin for the handling of the war.
There’s a difference between Moore and the folks you referred to as being basically the same as Moore - They don’t hide who they are or what they believe in under the guise of being journalists. Moore hides behind the documentary status of his films when they are little more than propaganda pieces.
all extremists are douches. they forget that most people pretty much want the same thing: to be left alone in personal issues and have a fair society to live in. these people offer their way of living as the solution to all the world’s problems (the biggest of which is them - the same type of people are the ones in al-queda or any other crazy group). as evidenced by their physiques (moore and limbaugh) or their public speaking (these people are mostly hypocrites who have no clue about logic - unless it is circular reasoning - but that doesn’t really count) they really have nothing to offer the rest of society. so why do people listen to them. well they prey on issues which people have strong feelings about(even if people don’t know why) to get their listeners fired up. anger motivates one to action a heck of a lot more than being calm. i contend that most of these issues raised are either not real or a gross bastardization of the real issues (to the point where it could be considered fraud). some people will be fooled because they do not go about informing themselves about the issues. also people like to believe that whenever things go wrong that someone else is to blame. many times no one is to blame, stuff happens. not to mention that hindsight is clouded by the same biases (which everyone has, but some control better than others) as foresight. this is no different than strenght training. there are many different methods which are touted to be the ultimate, truth is, the optimal thing is an individualized program, so basically everyone is in charge of their own destiny. why are you not successful? the finger points elsewhere, but the other three point back at you. this about the proportion that you influence, notice how it is the great majority. the same is true at any level. anyone blaming the economic problems (are they really that bad, ten years ago if i told you that unemployment would be at the levels it is today and people are up in arms, i’d most likely be laughed at) on ‘foreign devils’ undercutting good old US jobs (or the same thing in any other country) will be surprised to learn that this is what will lead to better jobs becoming available kind of like in the early '90’s when everyone was worried about the german and japanese (where are they now?) taking all the american factory jobs. fact is not long after the economy was on a tear. empirical evidence suggests that this is true today as ten years ago. the american economy will do well in the future too. what would make it even better is if the stupid protectionist attitude is dropped and people deal with the fact that they might have to retrain to get a better job. the US has the best post-school education or training available in the widest variety of fields. it may not be as organized as other countries or all in one place, but it is there for those who seek it.
anyhow, that’s enough for this rant, it may seem off topic, but i believe that such issues misinterpreted by otherwise well meaning individuals will lead to the beliefs perpetrated by the extremits that we are not in control, and that to be so, we must let the lead us the right path (rolling my eyes). if we stick to the middle and be conservative fiscally and liberal socially, it would lead to a far fairer society (but that could be wrong too - i guess we should give it a go though, it would be easier than going with the extreme, at least for those that have gotten over themselves). these losers are fighting a losing battle against themselves, don’t join them
Rush: Great. He’s so funny. Take any random three minute clip of his show and contrast it with any three minutes of Michael Moore. Rush is funny and good natured. He knows his job is to keep people (liberals included) tuned in, and he does an amazing job. Moore is so angry and full of hate in contrast.
O’Riley: Not that sharp. He could go back to hosting Inside Edition tomorrow. He’s not really on the right or left. He has stupid ideas like doing away with the death penalty and making criminals work hard labor, but he never gets to how he’d handle the triple murderer who says no.
Hannity: No the sharpest knife in the drawer, either, but an actual conservative. Sometimes funny, mostly annoying.
Ann Coulter: Hungry. Uses her hate rather than food to sustain her frail, frail body. Not a good spokesperson for conservatism.
Easy one…In politics we want to hear those we do not agree with get bashed. So therefore, if you are a liberal Moore is just fine. If you are a conservative then Rush is the one who is just fine.
People will also go to great lengths to tell you why their big mouth is actually, um…fine and your big mouth is…well…just a big mouth.
In the end when someone agrees with your point of view you like them. When they disagree with you, they are nasty no good bone headed morons.
That’s called politics!
What’s wrong with Rush?
Agree generally with Doogie’s take.
However, Coulter is sharp as a tack, which makes her work all the more disappointing. I think most of her stances are marketing-driven, targeting that segment of the market that gets worked up on frothy rhetoric.
O’Reilly is NOT a conservative. He’s some weird form of populist. He has no set of ideals that he applies. Normally liberals find this pragmatic, non-dogmatic approach to be a good thing, but they vehemently dislike O’Reilly. I simply find O’Reilly annoying most of the time.
Moore is a buffoon and a liar, and it’s rather laughable that anyone even takes him seriously. The biggest indictment of the collective intelligence at work in Hollywood is that Moore actually won an Oscar in the “Documentary” cateogory.
I’m curious what RainJack meant about “documentary status”. I agree that “Bowling for Columbine” is ultimately a failure because of the deliberate lies Moore perpetrated in his editing choices and does discredit the ideology he is trying to represent, but a documentary in no way has to be impartial; even seemingly benign documentaries do argue a specific viewpoint and I don’t think for a second that Moore has any illusions that one would view his work and believe it to an impartial piece.
I’m not too familiar with Hannity, but O’Reilly pisses me off mostly b/c of his total lack of a sense of humor and utter lack of intelligence and intellectual curiosity.
Ann Coulter gave a talk at my college this past year, and, while she is intelligent, she’s also a spiteful b*****. Her idea of political discourse is to make savage (and she got incredibly, unnecessarily brutal during her talk) personal attacks. I mean, if that’s the level of political discourse in this country, I suppose I could make fun of her for being a chain smoking, anorexic beast. But that wouldn’t be cool, would it?
Nothing wrong with documentaries having a point of view - in fact, they should. Moore is a sham not becuase he has an opinion, but for his presentation and dishonesty.
Rush: talented, great communicator. Opinionated, but not dishonest. Great marketer, enjoys lively debate - doesn’t shy away from exchange of ideas, and that makes him good.
O’Reilly: a gasbag, contrived controversy for ratings. Not especially enlightening or original, wants to be Rush Limbaugh. I pay little attention to him.
Hannity: ordinary pundit, opinionated, but essentially harmless. His stuff is not great, uninspiring, but he believes what he talks about. Decent guy, but I dn’t watch or read his material.
Coulter: amazingly talented and witty, but vile. Not a conservative, she’s a radical. Myopic and unwise. She’s a bad respresentative of the Republican Party because she has such extreme and faulty views. But is very sharp.
Franken: I remember when he used to be funny. Now he is a hack, a dud. Writes like a moron.
For all you Moore bashers out there, I just have one question: if, as you say, his documentaries are dishonest, how come no one has bothered to sue him?
As far as Fahrenheit 9-11, auditors have checked it frame by frame for discrepancies. Their only beef was that Moore neglected to include England, Italy, Poland, and Spain in the list of countries that backed the coalition in Iraq.
Everything else was deemed factual.
He did, of course, use editing to strengthen his case, but that doesn’t undermine the important message behind this film.
TurboT33,
“…that doesn’t undermine the important message behind this film.”
Enlighten me, since I won’t watch the film: what is that important message?
The message of the film?
That this President is the product of a failed educational system; a man bereft of intellectual curiosity.
That his moral vision is nonexistent or myopic.
That this administration has long had economic ties to the Saudis and Bin Laden himself.
That this President had no right to send my friends to die.
That’s all I can gather so far from the numerous reveiws I’ve read. I’m sure there’s more reasons for every patriotic American to see this film.
turbot:
No one sues because it is almost impossible for an elected official to sue for defamation, given the protections of the 1st Amendment for political speech. You would basically need to prove the Moore subjective and objective knowledge of their falsehood, and with malicious intent toward a specific individual, published his comments. That is de facto an impossible standard of proof – you never see elected officials suing anyone for speech.
I think Moore tries to portray himself as a journalist just seeking the truth. F-9/11 is a blatant propaganda piece that I think he is pushing as a piece of journalism. If I am mistaken in my terminology, I apologize.
I am basically equating a documentary as a piece of journalism - which carries with it a percieved level of objectivity.
He doesn’t try to portray himself as anything. He simply has viewpoints that require evidence for support. He’s on one side of the issues and will likely have a slanted view of “evidence” or information. It doesn’t matter what is “true” or not because the truth is seen 2 completely different ways. That is the fundamental problem with politics. When faced with any big issue both sides have valid reasons for believing what they do but not everyone is going to be in agreement. The issues tend to be at the core of basic human beliefs and that is probably why the disagreements tend to be highly volatile.
I like listening to Rush. I don’t know why, he acts like he’s always right and he’s arrogant, which normally makes me hate people, but he makes fun of things and I just like hearing him talk. I don’t even agree with him that much, or care what he says. He’s just entertaining.
Two boys in Boston were playing basketball when one of
them
was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly,
the other boy
ripped a board off a nearby fence, wedged it into the
dog’s collar and twisted it, breaking the dog’s neck.
A newspaper reporter from the Boston Herald witnessed
the incident and rushed over to interview the boy.
The reporter began entering data into his laptop,
beginning
with the headline: “Brave Young Celtics Fan Saves
Friend
From Jaws Of Vicious Animal.”
“But I’m not a Celtics fan,” the little hero
interjected.
“Sorry,” replied the reporter. “But since we’re in
Boston, Mass, I just assumed you were.”
Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again,
“John Kerry Fan rescues Friend From Horrific Dog
Attack.”
“But I’m not a Kerry fan either,” the boy responds.
The reporter says, “I assumed everybody in this state
was either for the Celtics or Kerry or Kennedy. What
team or person do you support?”
“I’m a Houston Rockets fan and I really like George W.
Bush” the boy says.
Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again:
“Arrogant Little Conservative Bastard Kills Beloved
Family Pet.”
nicely said, turbot…
i’ve talked to some people who have seen the movie, and from all accounts, moore stands back and lets his images do his talking
but then again i wont know until i see it this friday
[quote]Mutt wrote:
What’s wrong with Rush?[/quote]
rush limbaugh? he’s the first person I’ve ever wanted to kill in my whole life, aside from bush…
what’s wrong with you?