*affronted* I don't think this is a waste of my time...it actually helps me a lot--with writing and such-- if not anybody else. Besides, I enjoy arguing. But I guess I'm wasting my time now, writing this.
You guys have the ability to lock topics, so because this remains open I ask that you give this a chance before it becomes the 3rd post of mine to be deleted because a mod or admin was mistaken. It's not a bad thing to be proved wrong and no one is infallible (even me with that double negative); it changes your false belief into what really is the truth. In my book truth = good. As for the "I think we've all expressed our opinions to the fullest extent in this, so let's all stop." I don't think that applies to me becase I've yet to post on this topic. Please don't read this deffensively because the way that I am writing it isn't offensive at all, it's all peaceful on this side of the internet. With that said, these are some things that could do with some clearing up and please correct me if I'm wrong. Moore admits F9/11 is bias. If the "documentary" was unbias, then you could make your own accurate decision. However, the film is a 122 min attack on one administration. Moore really thinks that Bush has done 0 good since in office? It's like trying to formulate an opinion based on a political ad. Yes, the vast majority of it is fact, but some parts are taken out of context. The way someone presents facts and the context they put the facts in can make them bias. He also only told the bad side of the story about this administration. You need to include the good side of the story as well for it to be unbias (no matter how small it may be). Also, things like "We'll see how long you last." and "Yeah. Then you learned not to be a noob who thinks they know everything." are abusive comments. In Phil 101 and Eng 101 they teach you to omit these because they only hurt your argument. Vampire was wrong about Mark being hostile, but he would've been right if Mark had said things like this. <!--QuoteBegin--Todd@Nov 19 2004, 04:19 PM And on the flip side, many Americans would jump off a bridge if the right wing media told them to.[/quote] Yes, the majority of media is bias in for both the left and right. Fox News, NY Times, etc. Vampire really didn't have a chance to come out of this ahead with this many people against his beliefs. Everyone has already called him on his mistakes. It is possible to argue in a civil manner and understanding can be done. As aslways, sorry in advance for what is probably a huge amount of typos in this post. Thank you
Moore admits F9/11 is bias. If the "documentary" was unbias, then you could make your own accurate decision. However, the film is a 122 min attack on one administration. Moore really thinks that Bush has done 0 good since in office? It's like trying to formulate an opinion based on a political ad. Yes, the vast majority of it is fact, but some parts are taken out of context. [/b][/quote] True. I didn't say it was unbiased. Of course he's going to attack Bush. He's not going to say "Bush sucks" followed by "Bush rocks". All the things presented in his movie were from proven sources though, so as "biased" as it seems, it's all factually backed up. It wouldn't be much of a movie if he wasn't constantly slamming Bush. Bush has done little to help the US, in my opinion, though. In a two hour movie about him and the administration, it'd probably take up 30-45 secs of the movie. Good post, though.
That's not what I said at all. The article posted in the beginning wasn't opinionated it was downright facts. It's like if CNN said, "a helicopter crashed into a school." That's true in this hypothetical situation. If CNN said, "the helicopter crashed into the school most likely in an act of terrorism by Al-Quieda," then that would be false. Am I making sense here? If I pointed to a red baseball cap and said, "that's red," that's fact, not opinion. The article posted here just said Mr. Moore plans on making another documentary, right? I think that's what it says, haha, I suddenly don't remember. Hold on... Edit: Yeah, it just says he's planning another movie. That's fact. I wasn't saying the news isn't biased or won't lie to us. Never would I say that! Double Edit: eXess7, I get what you're saying about bias and it's true. Mr. Moore presents one side of the story. I'm not saying he has to post both sides (like all the accomplishments from Bush's administration) but you can't tell me he isn't biased when it comes to making his films. That's his point -- to persuade his audience to believe in what he believes in. Nothing wrong with that, I just don't like it. That's me. "I could go on, but I'd rather not continue to waste my time on this. I just wanted to end this off with proper information."-Mark Mark, my information is proper. Thank you for posting your information though.
Meh the media suck. I hate the way they insinuate and poke into business that aint theres to poke into...and their false claims...adn false representations...hell itas all damm flase...maybe im off topic cos i coudlnt be reading the hole thread...but this replies to the above post...
I didn't say yours was improper. I merely said I wanted to end it off with some information of my own.
I'd give Bush at least 60 seconds As for bias things, the two that I know of that are fact, but taken out of context are: 1. A newspaper excerpt that was taken out of a NY Times editorial (opinion section), but was made to look like a headline (fact section) by mixing it with other newspaper headlines in F9/11. 2. In BFC, the famous "From my cold, dead hands" scene is inserted in a place that infers Heston did it in the Columbine convention shortly after the attack when it was footage from a prior convention in another city. Yes, these are fact, but they mislead the viewer a bit. However, knowing this still doesn't prevent BFC from being one of my favorite movies of all time. Just to let you guys know where my bias comes from: I am Libertarian, my candidate almost beat Nader! I have my pros and cons with both the Dems and the GOP. Main things: pro choice, against wel-fare to an extent, for stemcell research, and against the two party system.
Yeah. I talked about this a few pages ago. Moore said that he used that footage because it was an infamous shot of Charlton Heston. He used it as a symbolic thing to show us who Charlton Heston is, and it was not meant to mislead viewers into thinking it was at the post-Columbine rally, which caused an uproar.
But i don't thnik that Moore would be making this movie merely just to bash Bush, but it would be at the republican party as a whole. Obviously form what we have seen from Morre he is a left wing person. So he owuld mainly just be doing this movie to try and hurt the rubublicans for the next election.
That's not what I said at all. The article posted in the beginning wasn't opinionated it was downright facts. It's like if CNN said, "a helicopter crashed into a school." That's true in this hypothetical situation. If CNN said, "the helicopter crashed into the school most likely in an act of terrorism by Al-Quieda," then that would be false. Am I making sense here? If I pointed to a red baseball cap and said, "that's red," that's fact, not opinion. The article posted here just said Mr. Moore plans on making another documentary, right? I think that's what it says, haha, I suddenly don't remember. Hold on... [/b][/quote] Somewhat true. But only somewhat, you are dead on in the comparison to the red baseball cap. But what if you couldn't see the cap for yourself? What if it was being relayed to you through someone else? That, essentially, is what news is. And in that aspect, the "truth" you accept is completely reliant on the legitamacy of the media. If I tell you that Mark's cap is red, you can accept it based on trust, faith, or whatever. But you do not truely know it's factuality unless you track down Mark and see that, indeed, his hat is undisputedly red. If CNN told you that a helicopter crashed into a building, it, in theory, could be an utter lie. Would you know if it hadn't crashed into a building? No, you would not, unless you went to the reported crash site, checked it our for yourself, and found that, yes, a helicopter crashed here. Now, that's theoretically, our news has a supposed obligation to report "true" events. CNN, in this case, would probably be shut down, or fined if there was no helicopter crash. This does not mean, that facts cannot be distorted or spun. Let's say a helicopter DID crash into a building. The media could take this factual event and make you think what they want by using certain words or adjectives. For instance: "At 9:30 today a helicopter rocketed violently into an Elementary School, causing large explosions, and several deaths." This example subtley demonizes the helicopter, with the phrases "rocketed voilently" and mentioning the 'elementary' school, explosions, and possible deaths. Again, you don't necessarily know any of this to be true, the original event, a helicopter crashing into a building, is the only thing you could be sure of. The same event could be reported in a way that makes the event sound like a complete accident. Gotta love the media.
Link04, very good points! I never thought of it that way at all. I'll use that for future reference, thanks.