The only thing new about a politically-oriented speech being given on the Oscars is the degree of hostility with which such endeavors are met in this country.
One would think that spirited discussion of the current state of affairs would be greeted with an air of appreciation that we live in a country where such things are not only accepted, but encouraged and protected by our Founding Fathers. But no. Opposition instead is drawn in the most stark and distorted of terms: If you’re opposed to Bush’s actions, you’re in favor of dictators. If you’re opposed to the war, you’re against the soldiers risking their lives. And heaven help anyone in the entertainment industry who speaks out: They’re risking watching their livelihood spiral down the drain.
What a shame we don’t live in a country where criticism of the government carries stiff penalties. Where the citizens know better than to speak out. Where the residents fall into line…or else. A country like…I dunno…Iraq.
PAD
• 
You mean you like him now even less than the first time you posted?
🙂
I’m with PAD on the booing thing,and it cuts both ways.When you see groups such as environmentalists at a rally and some government speaker comes on the ‘hard-core’ usually totally drown out anything they have to say when most would probably like to hear the other side.
Then again Luigi Novi’s right too,sporadic cheering(like booing) is ok,and you could drown out a speech with cheering/clapping too,usually the speaker waits for this to subside.
Anyway,I didn’t watch it,and barely know who Michael Moore is,was reading comics at the time..
(didn’t read half these messages too erm)
SW.
“Luigi Novi: That’s not what the word “biased” means.”
Yes that is exactly what biased means.
“Bias has nothing to do with how much material of a given work one covers to prove a point. What you’re trying to argue is that John Fund did not sample a large enough amount of the movie to prove his point. This not only has nothing to do with the meaning of the word “bias,” it’s flat-out untrue, as anyone who reads this reports can see.”
Definitions of bias from dictionary.com :
“A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.”
“A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.”
The article was biased. The article set out to prove that Michael Moore was a liar, that is being biased by definition. I’m not saying that Moore didn’t misrepresent some things, but he does also tell a lot of truth in his films as well. Can you believe everything he says? No. Personally I question the veracity of any documentary because by their very nature they are biased because the majority of them are trying to state something in particular and they usually do not present an opposing view or if they do, they attempt to discredit it.
One area where that article presents a biased view is where he states you can throw out Moore’s statistics because they don’t take into account population density because Canada doesn’t have as dense a population center as the U.S. He fails to mention that Moore also presented statistics of crime in Japan which are lower than the U.S. and yet they have a higher population density.
Now remember that I did state that Michael Moore presents a slanted view of things. He has a nasty tendency to put people in uncomfortable situations to make them look bad.
Always question the veracity of any documentary or for that matter anything you might hear in the news. It is best to get your information from a multitude of sources so that you can form your own well-informed opinion.
>>So the best way to counter another’s action is to sit on my ášš?
Try not to take things out of context, please. Let’s put this where it belongs: a televised, public award ceremony.
I think it would be cool if you watch other events (previous academy awards or simlar events, for example)to see the efect in action.
You can judge how well a person is approved by the audience by just hearing the cheering and claping. And let’s not forget when the camera focus the audiences (once again, like when Roman Polanski won) you can see if a lot of people or just a few are giving an standing ovation or even clapping.
“The article set out to prove that Michael Moore was a liar, that is being biased by definition. I’m not saying that Moore didn’t misrepresent some things, but he does also tell a lot of truth in his films as well.”
Moore deliberately misrepresented things. That means he lied. That makes him a liar. He is a liar because he engaged in the act of lying. Do you need to look that up too?
He also didn’t write and direct a documentary. A documentary is a work of nonfiction, according the the rules of the Academy. Having deliberately misrepresented facts, i.e. he lied i.e. he told a fictionalized accounting, Moore obviously didn’t write and direct a documentary.
Or did he? No, he didn’t.
As for the bias of the article, if the purpose of the writer was to find misrepresentations of facts in Moore’s work, it would not be too hard to find such misrepresentations. In fact, if the writer was impartial in general and only partial to absolutism and truth he would still find these misrepresentations had he looked for them.
Richard Franklin: Definitions of bias from dictionary.com :
“A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.”
“A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.”
Luigi Novi: Which has absolutely nothing to do with focusing on several points of contention to the exclusion of the rest of the film, which is what you originally stated constituted bias. If Fund (and Hardy, the author of the other article I mentioned) focused on those several points, it’s because those were the points that were brought up as being of questionable veracity. It’s idiotic to say that, “Well, um, they looked at eight different portions of the film that comprise 37% percent of the film, but hey, they didn’t look at the other 63%!”
The only way excluding the rest of the film becomes a relevant counterargument to Fund and Hardy’s assertions is if there is material in those portions that directly contradicts the conclusions or implications about the portions that were examined.
The animated sequence implies that the KKK and the NRA were closely tied. Hardy showed that that’s untrue. Was there some other relevant portion of the movie that if looked at, would put this assertion in a new light? No.
Fund describes that the footage of Charlton Heston’s speeches was edited in a way that can only be described as blatantly malicious. Does some other portion of the movie prove that it isn’t? No.
Your argument that this material, which comprises 37% of the film, is not dámņìņg because the rest of the film is ignored, is obtuse. Fund and Hardy explored the portions of the film whose veracity and accuracy were called into question. That they found solid ground for these accusations is not mitigated by Moore telling the truth in some other part of the film. If they didn’t bring up other parts of the film, like say, Moore’s interview with James Nichols, it’s because there was no need to, because there was no indication that it was dishonestly filmed or edited. The idea, therefore, that the accusation that the NRA and KKK were closely tied is somehow excused or dismissed because Moore’s interview with James Nichols was accurate, or that Moore’s deliberately editing footage of Charlton Heston’s speeches to make him look like an arrogant jerk devoid of compassion is okay because he got K-Mart to stop selling 9mm ammunition, is a shoddy argument.
Richard Franklin: The article was biased. The article set out to prove that Michael Moore was a liar…
Luigi Novi: Um, no, you don’t know that. You know that the article made that assertion. You don’t know whether that was what they set out to do regardless of the evidence the author found. That’s an assumption on your part.
These matters could’ve been brought to the attention of Fund and Hardy any number of ways. An editor they work for said, “Hey, we’ve been getting various tips that some of the stuff in that Michael Moore film isn’t accurate. Check it out.” Or the authors simply watched the movie themselves and caught some things that raised a red flag. In any case, bias can only be asserted if the authors deliberately embraced evidence that conformed to the predisposed idea that these things were inaccurate, and deliberately ignored evidence that did not.
You seem to be confusing having a central idea or theme to explore for a literary work (an article, a book, a term paper) with having a bias. ALL writers, be it a high school student writing a term paper, to a newspaper columnist writing an article, have such an idea when they write any type of essay or article. The question isn’t whether they have such an idea, but whether they are willing to draw a conclusion based solely on the evidence. If Fund and Hardy looked at their information objectively, and were willing to conclude that Moore was not dishonest in his film if the evidence indicated so, then they were not biased. That they concluded Moore was deliberately dishonest appears to simply be because the evidence they found indicated he was.
Let’s say a teacher gives me a term paper assignment, or my editor gives me an assignment at a newspaper. They want me to explore the question of whether or not George W. Bush truly won the 2000 Election. I do my research, and conclude that he did. A pro-Gore person accuses me of bias. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. Bias cannot be determined simply on the basis of the question being explored, or the even the conclusion that is reached. You have to show that the research and the examination of the evidence was not only deeply flawed, but deliberately so. For a pro-Gore person to automatically assume I reached the conclusion I did because of my political leanings says more about that person’s bias than it does about mine, especially since I myself voted for Gore.
You have to prove that Fund and Hardy would not have concluded that Moore was dishonest had the evidence indicated that he wasn’t. You have not.
Richard Franklin: I’m not saying that Moore didn’t misrepresent some things, but he does also tell a lot of truth in his films as well.
Luigi Novi: What does that have to do with anything? Again, a truth does not cancel out a lie. It is moral relativism to say that doing a good thing somehow excuses doing a bad thing. If Moore deliberately misrepresented things, and these things amounted to prominent points that his film made, and large segments of the film, the film as whole is called into question, regardless of whether other parts of the film are accurate.
Richard Franklin: Personally I question the veracity of any documentary because by their very nature they are biased because the majority of them are trying to state something in particular and they usually do not present an opposing view or if they do, they attempt to discredit it.
Luigi Novi: You’ve seen many documentaries?
Richard Franklin: One area where that article presents a biased view is where he states you can throw out Moore’s statistics because they don’t take into account population density because Canada doesn’t have as dense a population center as the U.S. He fails to mention that Moore also presented statistics of crime in Japan which are lower than the U.S. and yet they have a higher population density.
Luigi Novi: That has nothing to do with bias.
Again, if the article focuses on Moore’s assertions about Canada’s crime rate and population density, it’s because that’s the portion of the film whose veracity is called into question. Moore spent 11 minutes of the film exploring the Canada/U.S. comparison. He did not do so with Japan.
At best, you may have found an interesting counterpoint to make to Fund, but finding a good counterpoint to make does not, ipso, facto mean that Fund’s arguments about Moore’s depiction of Canada are biased. Hëll, even if you could prove that Fund’s arguments are flat-out wrong, that doesn’t automatically signal bias, because it doesn’t exclude the possibility that Fund simply made an honest mistake, or overlooked some piece of information. (By contrast, the clever editing of Charlton Heston’s speeches could only have been deliberate.) You seem to throw the word “bias” around to denote any kind of disagreement with another person’s argument or position. Sorry, Richard, but it doesn’t work that way.
I also find it interesting that this is the only disputed part of the film that you commented on, and that you have not said anything about the other seven or so points. If we were to follow your logic, Richard, then you’re biased, because your only focused on 12.5% of the portions of the film Fund and Hardy have argued, and ignored the other 87.5%.
>>So the best way to counter another’s action is to sit on my ášš?
“Try not to take things out of context, please. Let’s put this where it belongs: a televised, public award ceremony.”
I think my idea is applicable both within your given context and without.
A silent sam is no match for a cheering, screaming, moving fool. The animate are going to show more support than the unmoving can remove. But a boo is certainly an anti-cheer. And it certainly isn’t censorship within the context of Moore and the Oscars.
Hey, Luigi,
I say enough things to get myself in trouble without people attributing things to me which I never stated. Other than to briefly mention Michael Moore in passing, I never said the following:
EClark1849: …so I don’t think you could say based on that article that everything Michael Moore states is a lie exactly.
I don’t know who did, but it wasn’t me.
I apologize, Clark. In composing my response to Richard Franklin’s post, for some reason I wrote your name in attribution to that quote instead of his. My bad! 🙂
A few comments about Moore.
Here is a bit from his column on Sept 12, 2001 as posted on his website. This column no longer exists. He has never apologized for these remarks:
“Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!”
So maybe Texas and Florida should havce been targets eh??? In one full swoop they could have gotten rid of thosae pesky anti-communist ex-Cubans.
Alan Edelstein, a producer of Moore’s television show The Awful Truth, was suddenly laid off from the program
So, just like Moore, he decided to stalk the boss for a turning-the-tables documentary on why the television star had put him out on the street.
Moore was not amused. He complained to the NYPD, got Edelstein thrown in jail for a day, and had a restraining order slapped on him. Here’s how it read: “The defendant knowingly entered and remained unlawfully in a building with intent to harass, annoy and harm … a course of conduct which alarmed and seriously annoyed another person.”
HA! Using his own M.O. on him. Brilliant.
EClark1849: I reiterate my point Luigi which you seem to be skipping all over. Soldiers should and usually do join to fight, but yes some join just for the benefits and hope they don’t have to fight. It happens. Soldiers go AWOL all the time when they realize this.
Luigi Novi: Soldiers go AWOL all the time??? Got any facts or statistics to back that up? I’d be interested to see them.
Happy to oblige: the following info came from the Christian Science Monitor August 2001:
In all branches of the military, the number of individuals who are simply walking away from their service commitment is on the rise. Approximately 9,400 deserted from the four main branches during fiscal year 2000. That’s less than 1 percent of the 1, 371,280 men and women on active duty that year. But it’s also about 2-1/2 times as many as deserted five years earlier, when the total was about 3,800.
It seems that you’re using the word “support” somewhat loosely, to sometimes mean “agree with” and sometimes mean “respect the right of.” Perhaps we should establish a common meaning in order to both use the word.
Nope, I used very specific definitions, “approval of ” or “to encourage”. And those came from the Webster’s dictionary.
EClark1849: I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn’t , I wouldn’t support them. Doesn’t mean I’d want to see them harmed.
Luigi Novi: You just described the very viewpoint you claimed earlier not to understand. 🙂
You left off the next sentence where I also said I didn’t want to see the Iraqi troops hurt and I don’t support their actions or their views.
I don’t want to see most humans harmed, which has nothing to do with supporting their views or actions.
BTW, I enjoy debating you, but I don’t think it’s fair to PAD to eat up his webspace. If you want to go on, let’s go to email.
Luigi Novi: Soldiers go AWOL all the time??? Got any facts or statistics to back that up? I’d be interested to see them.
EClark 1849: The following info came from the Christian Science Monitor August 2001:
In all branches of the military, the number of individuals who are simply walking away from their service commitment is on the rise. Approximately 9,400 deserted from the four main branches during fiscal year 2000. That’s less than 1 percent of the 1,371,280 men and women on active duty that year. But it’s also about 2-1/2 times as many as deserted five years earlier, when the total was about 3,800.
Luigi Novi: Even if we were to assume that these figures are accurate, it does not make going AWOL a viable choice for a solider who doesn’t agree with his country’s position.
Luigi Novi: It seems that you’re using the word “support” somewhat loosely, to sometimes mean “agree with” and sometimes mean “respect the right of.” Perhaps we should establish a common meaning in order to both use the word.
EClark 1849: Nope, I used very specific definitions, “approval of ” or “to encourage”. And those came from the Webster’s dictionary.
Luigi Novi: Well, excuse me, Clark, but maybe, just maybe, those war protestors who say they don’t support the war but support our troops are using a DIFFERENT one. What does the definition that you use have to do with them? Again, the original point was that you didn’t understand what they meant by that statement. So why are you ascribing your “very specific definitions” to their use of the word?
Webster you say? I just happen to have Merriem Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, and it has SIX main categorizations of the word comprising about SIXTEEN individual definitions. (the entry for the word “support,” in fact, is the largest entry on that page.) So just maybe, the war protestors you claim not to understand are using a different connotation of the word than you are. You claim to use the connotation of “approval” or “encouragement.” I simply assume that when they say they don’t support the war but support their countrymen in the military, that they’re simply using the connotation of “to endure bravely or quietly; bear,” or “to keep from fainting, yielding or losing courage.”
Again, I understand their position perfectly. They do not want their anti-war stance to be interpreted as an anti-military stance, because they know that those in the military are their brothers and sisters, and know what a dangerous and difficult job it is. It’s possible they may be thinking of soldiers who were spat upon or called “baby killer” when returning from Vietnam, and want to distance themselves from that image of protestors as communists, leftists, anarchists, etc. Thus, when they say they support the troops, they may simply mean EMOTIONAL support, not ideological support.
Even if you saw their use of the word wrong, perhaps it might’ve been appropriate to instead focus on what they might have meant.
EClark1849: I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t support them. Doesn’t mean I’d want to see them harmed.
Luigi Novi: You just described the very viewpoint you claimed earlier not to understand. 🙂
EClark1849: You left off the next sentence where I also said I didn’t want to see the Iraqi troops hurt and I don’t support their actions or their views.
Luigi Novi: Because it wasn’t pertinent to the point. The point I made is that the statement, “If I didn’t, I wouldn’t support them. Doesn’t mean I’d want to see them harmed. is pretty much what the statement you claimed not to understand means. The next sentence had nothing to do with that point.
EClark1849: BTW, I enjoy debating you, but I don’t think it’s fair to PAD to eat up his webspace. If you want to go on, let’s go to email.
Luigi Novi: Thank you. Ditto. However, I think debates like this are why Peter set up this site. To eliminate spam, I keep my Inbox set to “Exclusive,” so I can only receive mail from addresses already in my Address Book. But thanks anyway. 🙂
Free speech is the right to say what you want. Free speech is not the right to not have criticism of your beliefs. It works both ways. People can say what the want. But if they voice their opinion don’t expect for people to voice their’s right back. The only time this is an issue is when the people think they are being censored, when in reality they are not. It’s just that most people don’t agree with them, thus their arguments are discared.