Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Micheal Moore our "Woodward and Bernstein?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
FlemingsGhost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 02:58 AM
Original message
Is Micheal Moore our "Woodward and Bernstein?"
Personal opinions of the film's creator aside, will "F-911" be as integral in ousting this criminal administration as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's courageous reporting was to toppling Nixon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NV1962 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. I wish - twice!
One: I like Mike.

Two: I want W out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az-K9 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. You've got to be kidding.
Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. Michael Moore is like nothing we've had before
He's like Eugene Debs mixed with Alfred Hitchcock. That's the closest comparison I can see.

He's not breaking the news, he's making it. Much of the bush-damning info in "F-911" has already been published, most completely in "House of Bush, House of Saud" by Craig Unger. Moore's flair is activism, not journalism per se, but documentaries with an agenda.

For instance, you saw in the "F-911" trailer, he tries to get the congresscritters to enlist their kids in the Army, or drives an ice cream truck around the capital building reading the Patriot Act over the loudspeaker. His specialty is embarrassing the objects of his scorn -- he has no shame, and often gets results.

If you watched "The Awful Truth", in the very first season, I swear, he saves a man's life. This guy has an HMO that won't pay for the organ transplant he needs to live, so Mike holds a funeral service for him right in the HMO's lobby, complete with a hearse and the sick man in a coffin, and shows it on TV. The HMO caves, and agrees to pay for the transplant. It's shock & awe theatre.

Sometimes it doesn't work, but still makes powerful video statements. There's no evidence that "Roger & Me" changed GM's policy toward the city of Flint. Yet it stands alone as a very potent expression of the atrophy of the American dream.

I don't see him playing the Woodward & Bernstein game of investigative scoop reporting. He's more of a publicist. Whether his film helps or hinders the ouster of bush remains to be seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlemingsGhost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Some great observations, Organism
And I agree. Micheal Moore is a master showman. Alas, that's what it takes these days...

I believe most Americans who view "F-911", will be challenged to examine the actions of the current administration, during the last 32 months, in a way that will only lead to the exposing the soft underbelly of an unethical criminal enterprise.

In that way, Moore is influencing American politics in a manner very similar to Woodward and Bernstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Spot On...And May I Add...
Watergate languished as a backburner story for a long time. And most people still didn't understand what all the noise about Nixon was about even when he resigned. That's why there are still those who look at all that illegality and say nothing happened, then turn on the G Man.

Moore is more along the lines of a Sinclair Lewis or Orson Wells...men who inovated a medium to sell a message through storytelling that is very effective. Moore's ability to read people and situations and almost pre-determine the outcome and let it play out before the camera is what makes his style unique, and also irritating.

A good example is those scenes the with boys from Columbine. He was exploiting them by parading them around the K-Mart corporate...and one could say he went over the top in what he did, but the end justified the means. I remember the Naked Truth episode you cite, too...and now painful it was to watch these scenes play out...powerful, but maybe too powerful for some. He can drive home the point with a pile driver.

I'm looking forward to Farenheit 911 as I've heard it's more documentary than what Moore's done before and could have a strong effect...especially if the invasion continues to go badly. It won't open eyes that are determined to stay shut, but it will put a bug in those that need constant reminders as to how important this election is and why regime change in this country is so important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. about taking those kids to the K-Mart HQ-
do you honestly believe that he didn't know that the guy he would want to talk to was out-of-town?
considering the way he handled the "I am shocked!" thing about Disney not releasing F/911, when he knew it almost a full year in advance, shows him to be closer to Rush Limbaugh than woodward & Bernstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Hype Vs. Substance...
Moore's a promoter in a promoter's world...as is Rush. I was very dubious about the "censorship" of Disney releasing the movie, since I knew there was too much money to be made off of it. Also, notice how Moore's controversy occured right before Cannes...hmmm. But then it won awards that I've heard it truly deserved and the hype got a lot more eyes to see it than might have.

Look at it like the Raygun movie crap of last year in reverse. Moore's antics made sure that he'd get ink, just like Gibson, and ensure the movie would be released and then to up the ante by almost forcing the movie industry to give it prime viewing slots when it is released. Cineplex owners know this movie will be the one to have on their screens the weekend it's released. Again, it's hype, and this is a part of Moore's genius as well.

Woodward & Bernstein were "shit shovelers" at the Post, and Watergate started as a local story...they stumbled their way through the subsequent revelations that led to the unraveling of the Nixon machine. Since, everything Bernstein and Woodward in particular (especially after the Casey book in the late 80s) gets a lot of hype as well. Look whose on the top of the New York Times list.

One great thing about DU is you see a lot of the bloggers and independent artists and film makers...the next Michael Moore's...and hopefully they're taking lessons from how Mr. Moore does his thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
weedthesmoke Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. Not until he loses the ego trip
Ego is the biggest barrier to the ability to connect with a majority of the people. It's an unbalanced equation with the fringe unaccounted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Let's hear it for Michael Moore's ego
I realize that the Bush apologists want to shut him up; he won't. He'll be out there speaking up & sometimes acting like a clown to get his point across. At least you've got a novel approach; you left out "he's rich" & "he's fat".

And could you please explain what "it's an unbalanced equation with the fringe unaccounted for" means? Sounds like total gibberish.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
weedthesmoke Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I see the Yankees won last night
Which has about as much to do with my comments on Mooore and your bush strawman.

Balanced equations are required in math. Moore's equation is unbalanced on the side of his ego. He doesn't not appear to know what humble means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeahMira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Bush's equation is also unbalanaced.
Moore's equation is unbalanced on the side of his ego. He doesn't not appear to know what humble means.

Sorry, but there isn't a one who's in the public eye who doesn't have some ego. It's not a place for shy violets. How come you aren't writing about Bush's ego or Cheney's ego? I haven't seen one ounce of humility from them... or anyone in this administration.

As to "rich" and "fat"... the friends of this administration are all rich and fat. If my husband had a shape like Bush, I'd put him on a diet at home (but very tactfully) and suggest long evening walks together. What Mrs. Moore does is her own business, but "fat" is hardly a barb that Republicans should sling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. here's an idea:
how about "michael moore has a large ego." or "michael moore's ego is too large to make a difference."

it's nice when your claims are clear enough to actually evaluate.

*does* michael moore have a large ego? too large? what criteria do you use to judge this? what is "too large?" does a large ego, in general, interfere with ones success as an activist? is humility necessary in these sort of endeavors? is humility desirable? do we have evidence of this?

would michael moore be considered a "successful" activist? what criteria would we use to judge the "success" of any given activist activity?

assuming that your implied argument is true, that it is necessary to be considered "humble" to be successful in endeavors such as those undertaken by moore... what evidence is there to point to the idea that most people think moore is not humble?

what does moore's intended target audience think about moore's humility? do their feelings about the strength of his ego make them more, or less likely to consume his media productions? does it make them more or less likely to believe his claims? do we have evidence that lack of humility makes other audiences of other media personalities less likely to believe *their* claims? how can you explain this when compared to rush limbaugh, admittedly a very successful media personality, and his "talent on loan from god?"

what media personality, by the way, does *not* have an ego? this is like bashing a presidential candidate for having a big ego, isn't it? what person without an overlarge ego would ever *want* to be president? what person without a rather inflated ego, or at least the outward appearance of one, would ever become a well-known media personality? should some exist, are they representative of media personalities in general?

or is this just a personal opinion projected upon your vision of your fellow citizens? if what you say isn't really supposed to matter, then, it doesn't really matter. if it's supposed to matter, then it should stand up to scrutiny. but in order to scrutinize your claim, and evidence for it, you should actually *make* a coherent claim, then provide some evidence in favor of it, or at least reasons for making it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. You're hilarious man. You're the best.
Don't let anyone tell you any different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
7. No he is not
Moore is a number of things. I like his work. But an investigative journalist he is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Of course not...
...but this stuff has already been investigated, he's just "popularizing" it in "pop culture"... And frankly, that's the only way to get thru to the "V-generation"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. We don't need anymore investigative journalists
no matter how many more investigative journalists there are in this country people are still not going to hear about the incompetence and failures and crimes of this administration. The corporate owned media is not going to expose this stuff. Once in a blue moon it's printed in a major newspaper but it's usually buried somewhere in the back and is never picked up by the mainstream media.

People are not getting the information. Woodward and Bernstein were of a different time. There are lots of Woodward and Bernsteins out there right now. The problem is that no one is listening. No one cares. The gatekeepers are not letting the information through.

Michael Moore is what we need right now. In the great tradition of the Yippies he's taking a battering ram to the gates -- fuck the gatekeepers -- he's making his own fucking gate! I am so thankful for Michael Moore. He's doing it. He's really doing it and he's doing it well and he's doing it his way. He's exactly what we need and we need him right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlemingsGhost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. That's exactly my point! It's about exposure of the truth.
The very reason "Woodward and Bernstein" are in quotes.

Thank you for posting, Hootie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. My Hope Is Mike Inspires Teenagers To Get A Video Camera
and start shooting planned confrontations with Authority figures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemExpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. I do believe that his influence will be, IS, vast.
Time's Man of the Year for 2004!

Half kidding.....:D:D:D:D


:kick:

DemEx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
14. Not anymore...
Woodward & Bernstein were part of the mainstream media when it actually had a few teeth... Moore has already been written off as a radical wacko by the current mainstream media in Fox, CNN, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
17. In the Sense of "Shaking the Trees"
and no telling what will fall out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
18. I generally like michael moore, BUT...
he's closer to being our Rush Limbaugh than our "woodward and bernstein"?? (I thought that woodward and bernstein were considered ours too...)

in "Bowling For Columbine" for instance(s):

He approached the question of why Canada has a lot of guns, yet much less gun violence than the U.S.- when someone suggested that it might have to do with the different racial makeup of the two countries, he tries to claim that Canada's population is just as diverse racially as the U.S., when in fact it isn't, and he actually even says so himself...He says that when he's in Canada, he sees black people, brown people, yellow people, a very diverse mix- he then quotes census figures that show that Canada has a 13% "non-white" population, and therefore they're "just like us."
excuse me? 87% white is "just like us"??(and btw- that 13% non-white also includes the many native "eskimo"(?) tribes, inuit and such that still inhabit a lot of northern canada).
that's bullshit...they aren't "just like us" at all, racial diversity-wise.

Another thing about Moore is when he does the "surprise visit" thing, like when he tried to get Dick Clark on camera about the welfare-mom who works at a "dick clark's diner" whose son shot a girl, and then seems all incredulous when Clark(who started out by saying they were running late) tells the guy to shut the door and take off...what did Mike think he would do? does he think that Dick Clark is personally involved with the hiring of the staff? or with the restaurant at all for that matter? most likely, he liscenses his name, and it ends there, involvement wise...

and about that little girl being shot, in that part of B for C, Moore is droning on about how all the vulture-like(my word, not his) news media and cameras converged on his "hometown" of Flint when it happened...
ummmm, mike?
how did you get that footage for your film if not from one of those cameramen who converged on the scene? You may be doing the voice-over, but that's not you interviewing those people on the scene on camera is it? Because you weren't in Flint that day- you may call it your "hometown", but you sure as hell don't live there anymore, do you? So all that footage was stuff that you bought from someone who was there that day, with a camera, to record all the (other) people who were there with cameras to record the event...it just seemed a little odd to me, that's all.

and ending the movie with by leaving the picture of the girl at Chuck's place was definitely a ham-handed attempt at over-sentimentality, to which all i could do was :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
23. Heavens no! Closer to Abbie Hoffman.
Moore isn't really a journalist, he's more a performance artist/cultural provocateur like Hoffman was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb 10th 2025, 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC