HaysooChreesto!

There's a lot of enlightening info on The Hero of the Oscars at this website. Look around and read through two or three articles about Moore's dishonesty, embellishments, half truths, and outright lies. Should he have won an award for a "documentary"? Documentaries are supposed to be factual, yes?

www.larryelder.com

HaysooChreesto!

Sorry admins. I goofed and meant to put this in Media & Popular Culture. If it could be moved soon I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Bookman

Done!

Deacon

You're going to have to do a lot better than throw Larry Elder up there.

What are Moore's lies? Half-truths?

HaysooChreesto!

Did you bother to read? Or are you not willing to admit that Moore is indeed a dishonest person. The most convenient links to articles that are critical of Moore are on that site.
If you want to be critical then you should at least have the intellectual integrity to read the sources provided. If you do not wish to read the sources provided, then don't bother to respond.

Kinross

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/12...requestid=6287

Thalia

Hi, I'm new (I posted an introduction). I really enjoy MM's work, however, I have been hearing negative things that seem to be worth consideration for a long time. Here is one example.

Although I appreciate and agree with the general sentiments he expresses, I am skeptical of the specifics. But either way, I find him incredibly entertaining.

ETA- here is another article that is more recent. Of course you have to consider the source, but it still makes you think.

Deacon

Yep, and also read Moore's counter arguments among others.

Bookman

Let me see if I can help get this started by providing a few cites.

One of the articles linked to from the larry elder page is an essay written by David T. Hardy titled BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE: Documentary or Fiction?

The essay makes several specific points. I can not affirm nor deny the veracity of the claims; however, the specificity of them certainly provides a lot of detail to either agree with or take issue with.

For example, Hardy claims that in one section of Bowling, Moore presents a highly-edited version of a Charleton Heston speech. Hardy claims that the speech is supposed to appear to viewers to be given by Charleton Heston in Denver after the NRA has come to give a rally in response to the Columbine tragedy (or, as hardy quotes from Dale MacDonald, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy").

Hardy claims that this representation distorts the truth and that Moore deceives his viewers with edits of the Heston speech. The editing puts several quotes from Heston out of context to reinforce the point that the NRA has come to Colorado and is largely unsympathetic to the Columbine victims. To show the nature of the edits made by Moore, Hardy provides a side by side comparison of the speech in Bowling and the speech as actually given (he provides a link to "CNS's full transcript of the speech"; I assume CNS=Colorado News Service) to illustrate this point.

Hardy also points out the following "facts" about the NRA event in Colorado:

I assume that by corporate law he means that the members meeting is required in the NRA charter.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't seen Moore's Oscar-Winning documentary, and so I can't say that Hardy is correct with regard to his characterization or the impression that it gives. However, if the substance of what Hardy asserts is true, it certainly gives the impression that Moore is a bit loose with the facts for a so-called documentarian.

Bookman

Kinross

Well there lies the problem. Moore never lets the facts get in the way of an entertaining story.