Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
522
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 1:31pm

Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?



  • No
  • No, but I plan to
  • Yes


You will be able to change your vote.


 

The last time anyone listened to a Bush, they were lost for 40 years!   Looks like we're doomed to "wander" ano

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 4:26am

Does the 'regular media' obnixiously jump all over a person? Catch them off guard? Intrude on them? Are the 'regular media' deliberately editing footage of a 'regular interview' to the "greater good" of smearing someone else? MM does it all the time, unless of course it is someone who agrees with his POV.


I saw the film and place it in the film category called Propaganda.


In another thread I

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 6:42am
Sometimes they do, yes.

< Does the 'regular media' obnixiously jump all over a person? Catch them off guard? Intrude on them? Are the 'regular media' deliberately editing footage of a 'regular interview' to the "greater good" of smearing someone else? >

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 9:08am
Too bad that his last two films contained very few facts, and a lot of twisted information, and should not really be classified as documentaries.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 9:09am
That was an excellent documentary which only showed the raw footage of the men as they followed around the fire department on that fateful day.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 1:46pm
I saw his movie "Roger & Me" on HBO earlier this week. It's probably going to air all this month. It was an interesting movie and how people just didn't want anything to do with the movie and forced him out etc. XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 1:47pm
Oh and this movie was done in the late 80's so he already had a negative reputation. XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 1:52pm
Just wondering: is there any solid trustworthy proof they aren't facts in his movie(s)? Just would like to know. XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 2:04pm
Michael Moore is a whistleblower. If you are so offended by the likes of him, then I suggest that you might look out for people around you with whistles. Usually the people who do not like to hear that there are other ways to look at something are those who need it to stay the way it has always been presumed to be. Maybe they put too much stock in it, maybe they just like to be right. I am not convinced that Michael Moore is all right or all wrong I do know he has exposed the truth in a some cases, if you can deny that then you can deny the earth is a spherical planet.

As far as documentaries go, If I am thinking of the wone you mentioned, (the one I sqw was called 9/11 and if it is by the same people, it is rather emotionally driven, and while I did find it to be a good film, was it chock-full-o-facts> no. not really, some but then, Moore stated facts in his documentaries too. a documantary is a broad term. you can make a film documentary about anything you want... and as for the way they are reported, well, its pretty much anything goes. NOW, I did not go to film school, but I did go through a period in the 90's when all I watched were documentaries. All kinds of them. old ones new ones, and they varied immensely. So, while you may not like MM it does not serve a purpose to try to discredit his film genre at least no more than it does for a person to try to discredit say Dr. Kevorkians PhD.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 2:16pm
you said, "Does the 'regular media' obnixiously jump all over a person? Catch them off guard? Intrude on them? "

No, they do not, they all up a person they want to interview, the person calls his agent, (or in a politicians case, his advisor, or PR person) finds out if it is a good idea to do the interview, and then the person and the persons agent and the interviewer kahve a talk it over, and the interviewer gives the agent and the interviewee a list of questions

they intend to ask and they two go over the list, and the agent and interviewee agree to do the interview on the condition that questions #3 7 8 22 and 24 are not asked and that question 16 is ok but must be rephrased and not rebutted. Then they go do the interview that way, and if the interviewer asks any of the questions they agreed not to then the interviewee refuses to do another interview with them, and it spreads across the world of the famous that such and such an interviewer is out to make people look bad and then that interviewer cant get another interview with anyone anymore, and their job will not just sit and wait. and THAT is what stinks about the "regular media" and yes, the regular media deliberately edits, of course, sometimes interviews do not go into print until the interviewer has it just the way he wants it, or the interviewers boss, and they smear people all the time.

How can you think that the world is perfect on your side of it but so twisted and horrid over here? *sigh* I will put you in my prayers.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 2:19pm
there were a lot of facts and a lot of opinions, sure, but hey, give me one source that is only fact, name one documantary that is all fact. come on. I dare you , one book, one documentation that is not actual footage, come on.

Pages