"He's Annoying. He's often wrong. I repect him anyway."

Every time I read an article reviewing Michael Moore's films, the author is sure to build their essay on two points: 1. Michael Moore is annoying. 2. Michael Moore is often wrong (or some variation on this, i.e. he's "loose with facts," he "bends the truth," his presentation is juvenile and therefore incorrect, etc.)

The first point is one of personal taste. I like Michael Moore. I think he's a vibrant, engaging film maker who says things no other name director has the time or interest to say. I also don't know anything else about him outside of what he presents in his films, so I don't have to worry about his annoying personality, assuming he really does have one.

As to the second point, from my experience reading Moore critiques it's guaranteed that along with the suggestion that Moore is "often wrong" with his facts is a near-total absence of proof of that assertion.

Just once I would like to read a point-by-point refutation of one of Moore's films that, using logic, facts, or evidence, proves that Moore is being inaccurate about something he says.

Maybe one of the Slate writers can take up the task. Pick one of Moore's films (Bowling for Columbine, Roger & Me, fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, any of them), pick out specific lines of Moore's narration that are patently not true, and explain why they are not true. It seems like a simple task, but outside of right-wing moron conspiracy nuts, no one with an interest in daily publishing has done it. I wonder why that is. Maybe because even if his style is easy to take pot-shots at, Moore has a hell of a lot more substance than your average news source?

It's a catch-22. If anyone actually did what you ask you would just label them "right-wing moron conspiracy nuts".

I have probably just received a smiliar label.

You should be able to find Christopher Hitchens' 'Unfahrenheit 9/11' right here or at his web-site.

Bowling for Columbine:

<link>

Just once I would like to read a point-by-point refutation of one of Moore's films that, using logic, facts, or evidence, proves that Moore is being inaccurate about something he says.

There are a lot of articles and essays that do exactly that. You could not possibly have looked for one and not found anything. That makes me think that you're being deliberately disingenuous to score some easy points in this debate. But on the off chance that you're just a lazy and talking out of your ass, here are some good examples:

<link>

<link>

"Pick one of Moore's films (Bowling for Columbine, Roger & Me, fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, any of them), pick out specific lines of Moore's narration that ****are patently not true, and explain why they are not true.****"

That won't happen. Ever. Why? Because you won't find a single patently not true line from Moore. You must be painfully unfamiliar with how spin works.

To whole point is to subtly spin the truth in your direction and half-truths without blatantly lying. And the bias usually isn't about what one says. Its what they DON'T say (convinetly leave out) I am worried about.

I'm with Dobbsfox. As a Michigander lefty myself--and one of the unwashed everymen who make this country run--I expect to see the same tired treatment each time Moore emerges with a new project. The coastal left--the Brooklynites and the Berkeleyians--and their bedfellow scribes--that endless cycle of furrowed-brow, Ivy League NPR-dwellers--express their "concern" about Moore because most of them haven't ever talked to a working person about politics or life or family. Moore is one of the very few on the left who think that working people aren't all teabaggers and fundies. God bless him for getting the voices and concerns of real Americans into his films.

Moore is hilarious, compassionate, and intrepid. The hand-wringing about his methods amounts to nothing more than the usual paternalism from the caretakers of the precious liberal pieties.

Moore is hilarious, compassionate, and intrepid. The hand-wringing about his methods amounts to nothing more than the usual paternalism from the caretakers of the precious liberal pieties.

I think there are also some people who are concerned that his arguments are pretty much entirely based on lies.

What? Where is this truth you are so certain about? Moore's movies--at least the best parts of them--are about people. And they are also comic. I plainly disagree with you that Moore uses lies, but, in case you haven't noticed, the battle over the economy, healthcare, and the future of this country is not being played out in some academic classroom but, rather, in the hearts and minds of citizens who, when it comes down to it, are rather open to persuasion AND in the very boardrooms and government offices Moore so doggedly assails.

quidfecisti:

Moore is hilarious, compassionate, and intrepid. The hand-wringing about his methods amounts to nothing more than the usual paternalism from the caretakers of the precious liberal pieties.

I think there are also some people who are concerned that his arguments are pretty much entirely based on lies.

I don't believe that his arguments can be "pretty much entirely based on lies."

They can be "pretty much" based on lies. Which is the same as saying he's "often wrong". Statements like this don't mean much, as one man's "pretty much" and "often" are different from another's. Is him being wrong 25 times out of 100 considered often? Depends on who you ask. And it's true, people who use statements like "pretty much based on lies" and "often wrong", generally fail to point out where handful of factual points that he does make and how important they are relative to the ones he gets wrong.

Or, his arguments can be "entirely" based on lies, which they are not.

Absolutely correct.

The Coastal Left goes out of its way each day to live up to the ridiculous caricatures Rush Limbaugh paints of them.

If Moore's anger makes them uncomfortable I invite them to come to Michigan and attempt to raise two kids on a Wal-Mart cashier's salary. We'll see where it leaves their endless enthusiasm for free trade policies and globalization.

Leaving the camera on the faces of the children most fucked-over by this system is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable, you goddamn idiot.

:sigh:

Dear Flyover Fucks,

Shit is hard in Brooklyn, too.

Love,

Coastal, Leftist Liberal Intellectuals.

More seriously, my apprehensions as regard Moore stem from precisely that intellectual grounding - that you have to consider both the benefits and drawbacks of an alternative or proposition, the pros and the cons of an idea, before you adopt and advocate it relentlessly. Moore's films advance the positives of his positions, which I personally have absolutely no problem with as I typically agree with them. The problem is that he doesn't address the shortcomings. For instance:

SicKo pushed for the universal healthcare system of countries like England, France and Canada, but didn't address the flip sides such as the fact that the NHS has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to rationing consumption because a benefit/entitlement that isn't paid for is one that is just begging to be overconsumed (an idea explored in David Goldhill's "How American Health Care Killed My Father"), nor did it consider the mixed public/private systems of Germany or Australia - its omissions cheapened the discussion by polarizing it as money-grubbing private insurance vs single-payer government insurance only.

We need to have the sort of discussions that Michael Moore's films enable, and his voice is a hugely valuable contribution to the debate - and a hugely influential one in helping to frame said debate. However, I think that he undervalues his own influence and as such delivers simplistic presentations of problems and/or solutions - c.f. "replace capitalism with democracy". And that makes talking to rather than at each other just a little bit harder.