Michael Moore's Latest Target: Your HMO

[djnemo65]

Regarding Moore, I don't understand why he is held to different standards of objectivity then any other mainstream media polemicist. It's not like he is trying to be Peter Jennings. Of course he selectively uses evidence to make his case. So do lots of people. If you wish to disagree with these arguments, do that, don't just say that you hate him and accuse him of being corrupt.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Regarding Moore, I don't understand why he is held to different standards of objectivity then any other mainstream media polemicist. It's not like he is trying to be Peter Jennings. Of course he selectively uses evidence to make his case. So do lots of people. If you wish to disagree with these arguments, do that, don't just say that you hate him and accuse him of being corrupt.

The problem with Moore is that he started out by presenting his arguments as authoratative "documentaries" - not "fact based", but "factual" documentaries.

Sure everybody now knows that he is simply a demagogue in the vein of Sharpton, who has an agenda (including his own aggrandizement) and who resorts to half truths, omissions and hyperbole. Originally, however, Moore presented himself, and allowed himself to be presented, as honestly portraying the facts of the subjects of his "documentaries". Go look up the Fahrenheit 911 thread - As I recall their were several defenders of Moore's "truth".

Sorry, Moore played the "I honestly portraying the facts" card and has since been called on it. He is in the same class as Sharpton, Limbaugh and others of that ilk and deserves to be reviled by any one who values honesty in approaching and solving the problems that confront us as a society.

As for being corrupt, I am not so much accusing him of being corrupt as dishonest in both his method and in his motives.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The problem with Moore is that he started out by presenting his arguments as authoratative "documentaries" - not "fact based", but "factual" documentaries.

Sure everybody now knows that he is simply a demagogue in the vein of Sharpton, who has an agenda (including his own aggrandizement) and who resorts to half truths, omissions and hyperbole. Originally, however, Moore presented himself, and allowed himself to be presented, as honestly portraying the facts of the subjects of his "documentaries". Go look up the Fahrenheit 911 thread - As I recall their were several defenders of Moore's "truth".

Sorry, Moore played the "I honestly portraying the facts" card and has since been called on it. He is in the same class as Sharpton, Limbaugh and others of that ilk and deserves to be reviled by any one who values honesty in approaching and solving the problems that confront us as a society.

As for being corrupt, I am not so much accusing him of being corrupt as dishonest in both his method and in his motives.

I think that sums it up excellently