What errors or mistruths were ever documented in F9-11?

[Jackpine Radical]

My impression is that there were a few minor points that the RW was able to single out, but nothing major. But I don't remember any details. Who can help?

[Warpy]

1. Moore used a mockup of a paper instead of an actual copy of

that paper. Moore cut a Congressman's interview short, cut out the part where he said a nephew(?) was in the military.

That's it.

Those are the only glaring inaccuracies the rabid right found.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Ah, yes. Twirling newspapers.

Film makers haven't been this dishonest since Frank Capra slandered a newspaper by suggesting it printed a story on Senator Smith stealing money from Boy Rangers.

[Radical Activist]

5. It was a letter to the editor headline

that looked like a story headline, but there was no explicit claim that it was a story either. Real nitpicking there. It doesn't damage the credibility of any point made in the film at all.

[JohnnyRingo]

8. I recall that after the exposure of those "glaring inacuracies',

...Suddenly the movie was "completely" fraught with errors.
"One lie after another"
"A mockumentary"
"A lie from beginning to end"

Funny how the right wing can run with a point and magnify it through the squeeling static of an AM radio echo chamber.

[Avalux]

2. Well, for one thing, there were no actors involved.

The footage was real, of real people - a lot of them doing stupid things (like Bush). I don't remember anything in that film that was fictitious. Trying to compare F 9/11 to ABC's mess isn't even possible.

[valerief]

4. Didn't Madalien All Brite say, "Isn't there something we can do?"

Correct spelling of her name is now optionally thanks to ABC's The Patch to 9-11.

[Armstead]

6. I think it was more the inferences that Moore drew

I like Michael Moore a lot, but he is an advocate and propagandist, not a journalist.

I don't think there were a lot of actual factual errors inn F-911. However, Moore extends individual facts outward to lead the viewer to conclusions that may or may not be truthful, either through inference or outright manipulation of emotion -- as well as honest opinionating.

That's fine, but the criticism that can be raised is that such an approach should not be confused with actual journalism. And it's also possible to disagree with the conclusions he draws.

[Justitia]

7. "Propagandist"? I prefer muckraker, myself. -eom

[Armstead]

11. Mother Jones is muckraking journalism

They dig down deep to find hidden information. They may have a pioin of view, buttheir focus is investigative reporting.

Michael Moore illustrates and dramatizes issues to convince people usng entertainment. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same as factual investigative journalism.

[Chemical Bill]

9. Specifics, please. n/t

[Bridget Burke]

10. So: "there were not a lot of actual factual errors"....

Perhaps you can mention a few?

When did Michael Moore say he was a "journalist"? Which of his conclusions cause you problems?

[JPZenger]

12. There was a movie made in response

There was a right wing movie made in response to F-911. It was on the shelf of the local Blockbusters for a week and then disappeared because no one rented it. I didn't see, but I remember the description on the box made a big deal that the Oregon cop in the movie didn't like his story being used to attack George Bush.

[Armstead]

13. I don;t have problms with his conclusions

When he made F 9-11, it was necessary to make the case that the Iraq war was phony and that America had been manipulated in many ways regarding the war on terror. We needed our popaganda to counter the propaganda from the poliicians and mainsream mdia.

Moore did that, and helped to solidify and make visible the opposition to all of that. Kudos to him for doing it.

But to do that, he relied on tchniques of propaganda, such as emotionalism and inference. That's not the same as, say, 60 Minutes doing an investigtie report about the abuses of prisoners in Iraq.

Again, I'm not criticizing him for that. Just responding to the original question that was posted, about why Moore was criticized for accuracy.