NO MICHEAL MOORE TALK

I'm not sure, but I think their – that is those on the ‘right’ - idea of what a documentary is informed by either ‘classic journalism’ [fair, balanced, impartial, all sides, etc, etc], or alternatively the journalism practiced by the various tentacles of NewsCorp., nature documentaries or school training films.
Another thing, I’ve never seen or heard anyone actually compare or contrast the two men.

I don't see any problems with equating M. Moore to any other quality docu-maker. He mixes a batter of truth and incisive x-ray vision unpolluted by the right-dominated media and serves it with a syrop of humor and skilled filmaking. As for the propaganda rubbish, I once read a list of supposed innaccuracies in F9/11 on a site, called "the 59 deceits" by some hack named Kopel, and found through my own careful research that every point listed as a deceit was in fact...accurate. Then I discovered that Moore had already stood up to the challenges from the moonbats on his website, listing voluminous sources. The vast majority of criticism of Moore is simple garden variety propaganda from the right, a typical smear campaign from ppl who share the "values" of Mr. Rove.

chomsky--much smarter, sticks to facts, much better source of info. Unfortunetly, probably doesn't appeal to your average joe.
micheal moore--reguler intelligence, filmmaker, sarcastic, confrontational, funny, appealing to the mainstream(to a degree).
Chompsky is always gonna be a better, more reliable source of info, but I got into chompsky, cuz i got interested in all the *beep* from reading moore.....

I was just wondering how you foung that Michael Moore's films fit into the propaganda model. I was very curious about this because I don't really find tha your explanation was comepletely fulfulling.

Dauboy

[deleted]

...i completely agree with all ! –especially that ‘bad taste’ in the mouth after... and the laughing’s dead end to which M.Moor bring his audience, and nothing beyond... while the issue should at least make you fall thinking… and finding a way to act on it; and here Chomsky message is always very strong, like in the end of the 1st part of the movie !

While softly touching a cord in you, i do believe Moor makes a great de-service to the causes he speak about the way he does: he prepare-prevent you(“i heard of/know it”)from stronger/true touch, like Chomsky’s –that’s why Moor IS in mainstream media around the globe (in ROmania, from where i’m writing these lines, he’s weekly !), while Chomsky isn’t AT ALL… It’s a great dream of mine to have Noam Chomsky speaking in RO universities, but i wouldn’t care at all for Moor-like speakers, etc.

DanB
PS to the web-master: it's my choosing to write (call myself) an "i", not an "I" (in English, too, like in all other languages) --so please live it that way, thanks.

I don't know what you mean by "emotionally-potent oversimplification". You mean the exact type of oversimplification that is criticized by the likes of Chomsky and Moore? They are trying to open the eyes of the dumb masses for the real issues in our world, at least they are trying not to let the whole media, and that is to say, the whole world of thought, slip into the hands of a bunch of money-hungry lunatics. Just look at the news, the soaps and the jerry-springer-spastics. The information you get there is rarely designed to help, where there is so much need for help, but to stuff the pockets of the rich. So you should be thankful that there is a handful of people trying to keep a minimum of coverage of how the world really works, and eventually, how you, yes, you, are being sold your own sh*i*t.

I don't know what you mean by "emotionally-potent oversimplification". You mean the exact type of oversimplification that is criticized by the likes of Chomsky and Moore? They are trying to open the eyes of the dumb masses for the real issues in our world, at least they are trying not to let the whole media, and that is to say, the whole world of thought, slip into the hands of a bunch of money-hungry lunatics. Just look at the news, the soaps and the jerry-springer-spastics. The information you get there is rarely designed to help, where there is so much need for help, but to stuff the pockets of the rich. So you should be thankful that there is a handful of people trying to keep a minimum of coverage of how the world really works, and eventually, how you, yes, you, are being sold your own sh*i*t.
So by oversimplification you actually mean the kind of simplification that is produced by the big media companies, to keep the dumb people simplified. What Chomsky and MOore try is to put a little more complication to the oversimplified media. That is to be thanked for.

What is your point? I will use Fox News and Noam Chomsky in the same sentence. There, I did it.

What they say is VERY DIFFERENT. Chomsky operates at another level. Moore is vainly attempting to express rather complex political constructs as mere "sound bites"- which is why it is so easy to dismiss him as a propaganda mouthpiece of the left. The true power elite can elicit the same control regardless of who is in power politically (if you buy into this thinking). For example, there was no real wealth redistribution under Clinton. Clinton's reign was excellent for big business, the stock market, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the real differences between right and left are minimal- it all ends up being smoke and mirrors. Pundits may scream and kick over the little details, but they are mere crumbs compared to the real issues. Moore plays in the same trenches- fighting over crumbs. Chomsky is meanwhile disassembling the cake.

Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with either. Sometimes you feel like a nut; sometimes you don't.

Since Moore is taking a beating on this thread I'd like to rush to his defence. While I'm not a huge fan of his informational style, I have met him and Chomsky, and poor Noam is just a very dry and boring guy, conversationally. Fortunately what he says has its own resonance, because they way he says it it terribly boring. He is, in a word, "humourless". Fact is, if you invited them both to a dinner party, Michael Moore would electrify the conversation, while Chomsky would just mumble and pick at his beets. I think we have Michael Moore to thank for bringing progressive ideas to our fast-food, short attention span culture. I don't see that as a bad thing, either. He has exposed liberalism to an audience who couldn't access it previously, and some of that audience has thirsted for more, enabling Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Greg Palast, and many other voices of the "sane left" to reach more people than ever.

[deleted]