Michael Moore and the Press

[Mickey]

I have no desire to ignite yet another post-a-thon regarding Michael Moore. I have avoided those quite nicely so far and hope to keep my streak intact. The board has stuck its collective hands in the blender and hit "puree" enough times on that issue already. However, I attended Moore's presentation in Syracuse last night and there is an interesting angle to it that has nothing to do with the politics and everything to do whith how the press operates.

 

My sister is a big fan of Moore and her roommate is a "ticket broker" so she was able to get some tickets to his presentation which was part of the Univerity's symposium series on American Humor. Next up in the series is Wanda Sykes who is a standup often seen in "Curb Your Enthusiasm". I haven't seen Moore's movie yet, for no particular reason. I went to have some fun with my sister, to hear what this controversial figure had to say and to ogle University coeds who were there in abundance. I'll let you speculate as to which was the dominant motivating factor in my going to the event.

 

Originally Moore was to speak at the student center, a simple auditorium setting. So many people wanted to attend however that they had to move the event to the Carrier Dome and expand it to 10,000 tickets. It sold out immediately and there were people trying to buy tickets from scalpers all over the place. Clearly, lots of people wanted to see Moore and not because they hate him but because they either agree with his politics or at least wanted to hear what he had to say.

 

There were tons of anti-Bush and anti-war demonstrators outside the Dome which we had to circle to get to our gate. There was a contingent of anti-Moore protesters as well, I counted 4 of them. Not exactly a significant presence to say the least.

 

Moore was welcomed with a standing ovation and his presentation was interrupted with applause, cheers and a few more standing ovations throughout the evening. There was, however, one heckler up in the cheap seats on the third level who occasionally shouted such inspiring barbs as "You're ugly", "What about your money?" and "liar". Moore ignored him or didn't hear him most of the time and a few other times mocked him out the way stand-ups usually handle hecklers. Moore bested him to the point of embarassment. No big deal. 10,000 people and only one heckler. I expected much worse given how controversial Moore supposedly is but that wasn't the case. I counted 4 protesters outside and one heckler inside. Not much controversey there.

 

I spoke to my Dad this morning because we were all excited that my sister made the papers. She ended up getting on stage to meet Moore and participating in a trivia contest orchestrated by Moore, Americans vs. Canadians. It was pretty funny and my sister was elated that she got to meet Moore. My Dad said he listened to some conservative radio show last night when he was driving back from Watertown and they mentioned Moore's appearance in Syracuse. The host claimed that Moore got a hostile reception from the crowd and that he was booed frequently. That simply never happened, total and complete BS.

 

The paper this morning was even worse. It had two photos, one of Moore and one of the anti-Moore demonstrators outside (the article claimed there were "about 30"). Those demonstrators had two signs and both made it in the story. All 4 of those protesters were quoted in the story even though they didn't actually get in the event and didn't even hear Moore speak. None of the anti-war and anti-Bush protesters were photographed, quoted or even mentioned.

 

Moore was given questions on cards taken from the audience. One of those cards asked him "What do you say to people who claim you are a traitor?" Referring to those questions, the paper said "Some [the questions] accused him of being un-American and a traitor." WTF? That isn't what happened. The way they wrote it made it sound as if the audience thought he was a traitor rather than the audience wanting him to address that ridiculous charge being made by his enemies.

 

They only quoted two people who were pro Moore, my sister included and that was just because she won a twelve pack of toilet paper in the trivia contest.

 

There were basically 10,000 pro-Moore or neutral people at that event and the paper gives most of the press to the handful of anti-Moore people who didn't even attend the event they were covering. They apparently think it is "fair" to give equal time to both sides even if that is a distortion of what actually happened. An accurate report would have had about 2,500 quotes from pro-Moore attendees for every one of the anti-Moore people being quoted. Since that wasn't practical, the way to handle it would have been to simply mention that the reception for Moore was overwhelmingly positive from the sold out crowd although there were a handful of demonstars outside and one heckler among the 10,000 people cheering Moore inside.

 

Even if you think Moore is the biggest yahoo to ever point a camera and say "action!", you have to find this kind of media coverage disturbing. I don't think it is really bias in favor of conservatives. Not at all. They are biased in favor of a juicier story and if that means distorting things to make it more interesting, so be it. Maybe that is why you so often hear the complaint of media bias on both sides of the aisle. At one time or the other, both sides get screwed by the press who really has no agenda other than to attract viewers and if that means hyping, distorting or practically making it up on the spot, that is what they do.

 

I am not suggesting that this is an earth shattering revelation of any sort. It is just another example of what the press too often does but this time, I don't have to wonder what the truth is, I was there.

[RkFast]

Welcome to the biased media in the modern age.

 

Dont REPORT.....TWIST.

 

So sad.

 

Thanks for the detailed report!

[Buftex]

I have no desire to ignite yet another post-a-thon regarding Michael Moore.  I have avoided those quite nicely so far and hope to keep my streak intact.  The board has stuck its collective hands in the blender and hit "puree" enough times on that issue already.  However, I attended Moore's presentation in Syracuse last night and there is an interesting angle to it that has nothing to do with the politics and everything to do whith how the press operates.

 

My sister is a big fan of Moore and her roommate is a "ticket broker" so she was able to get some tickets to his presentation which was part of the Univerity's symposium series on American Humor.  Next up in the series is Wanda Sykes who is a standup often seen in "Curb Your Enthusiasm".  I haven't seen Moore's movie yet, for no particular reason.  I went to have some fun with my sister, to hear what this controversial figure had to say and to ogle University coeds who were there in abundance.  I'll let you speculate as to which was the dominant motivating factor in my going to the event.

 

Originally Moore was to speak at the student center, a simple auditorium setting.  So many people wanted to attend however that they had to move the event to the Carrier Dome and expand it to 10,000 tickets.  It sold out immediately and there were people trying to buy tickets from scalpers all over the place.  Clearly, lots of people wanted to see Moore and not because they hate him but because they either agree with his politics or at least wanted to hear what he had to say.

 

There were tons of anti-Bush and anti-war demonstrators outside the Dome which we had to circle to get to our gate.  There was a contingent of anti-Moore protesters as well, I counted 4 of them.  Not exactly a significant presence to say the least.

 

Moore was welcomed with a standing ovation and his presentation was interrupted with applause, cheers and a few more standing ovations throughout the evening.  There was, however, one heckler up in the cheap seats on the third level who occasionally shouted such inspiring barbs as "You're ugly",  "What about your money?" and "liar".  Moore ignored him or didn't hear him most of the time and a few other times mocked him out the way stand-ups usually handle hecklers.  Moore bested him to the point of embarassment.  No big deal.  10,000 people and only one heckler.  I expected much worse given how controversial Moore supposedly is but that wasn't the case.  I counted 4 protesters outside and one heckler inside.  Not much controversey there.

 

I spoke to my Dad this morning because we were all excited that my sister made the papers.  She ended up getting on stage to meet Moore and participating in a trivia contest orchestrated by Moore, Americans vs. Canadians.  It was pretty funny and my sister was elated that she got to meet Moore.  My Dad said he listened to some conservative radio show last night when he was driving back from Watertown and they mentioned Moore's appearance in Syracuse.  The host claimed that Moore got a hostile reception from the crowd and that he was booed frequently.  That simply never happened, total and complete BS.

 

The paper this morning was even worse.  It had two photos, one of Moore and one of the anti-Moore demonstrators outside (the article claimed there were "about 30").  Those demonstrators had two signs and both made it in the story.  All 4 of those protesters were quoted in the story even though they didn't actually get in the event and didn't even hear Moore speak.  None of the anti-war and anti-Bush protesters were photographed, quoted or even mentioned.

 

Moore was given questions on cards taken from the audience.  One of those cards asked him "What do you say to people who claim you are a traitor?"  Referring to those questions, the paper said "Some [the questions] accused him of being un-American and a traitor."  WTF?  That isn't what happened.  The way they wrote it made it sound as if the audience thought he was a traitor rather than the audience wanting him to address that ridiculous charge being made by his enemies.

 

They only quoted two people who were pro Moore, my sister included and that was just because she won a twelve pack of toilet paper in the trivia contest. 

 

There were basically 10,000 pro-Moore or neutral people at that event and the paper gives most of the press to the handful of anti-Moore people who didn't even attend the event they were covering.  They apparently think it is "fair" to give equal time to both sides even if that is a distortion of what actually happened.  An accurate report would have had about 2,500 quotes from pro-Moore attendees for every one of the anti-Moore people being quoted.  Since that wasn't practical, the way to handle it would have been to simply mention that the reception for Moore was overwhelmingly positive from the sold out crowd although there were a handful of demonstars outside and one heckler among the 10,000 people cheering Moore inside.

 

Even if you think Moore is the biggest yahoo to ever point a camera and say "action!", you have to find this kind of media coverage disturbing.  I don't think it is really bias in favor of conservatives.  Not at all.  They are biased in favor of a juicier story and if that means distorting things to make it more interesting, so be it.  Maybe that is why you so often hear the complaint of media bias on both sides of the aisle.  At one time or the other, both sides get screwed by the press who really has no agenda other than to attract viewers and if that means hyping, distorting or practically making it up on the spot, that is what they do.

 

I am not suggesting that this is an earth shattering revelation of any sort.  It is just another example of what the press too often does but this time, I don't have to wonder what the truth is, I was there.

42887[/snapback]

 

Funny, Michael Moore was here in Austin, about a year ago, on the University of Texas campus. It was before "Farenheit 9/11" had been released. The tickets were free. Being one who isn't afraid to admitt admiring Moore sometimes ("Roger & Me" is still one of my very favorite movies, reminded me too much of home-Buffalo), I went. It was the same as what you were saying. There were some NRA protesters, and some pro-Bush people (maybe a dozen total) outside trying to tell people that Moore was a muck-racker, un-patriotic, blah blah blah. But inside, nobody seemed to have any problem with him. Mind you tickets were absolutely free for this event. In the end, the handful of protesters outside got more press coverage than Moore, or anything he said did.

[RkFast]

People holding picket signs are VERY photogenic

[Alaska Darin]

Even if you think Moore is the biggest yahoo to ever point a camera and say "action!", you have to find this kind of media coverage disturbing.  I don't think it is really bias in favor of conservatives.  Not at all.  They are biased in favor of a juicier story and if that means distorting things to make it more interesting, so be it.  Maybe that is why you so often hear the complaint of media bias on both sides of the aisle.  At one time or the other, both sides get screwed by the press who really has no agenda other than to attract viewers and if that means hyping, distorting or practically making it up on the spot, that is what they do.

 

I am not suggesting that this is an earth shattering revelation of any sort.  It is just another example of what the press too often does but this time, I don't have to wonder what the truth is, I was there.

42887[/snapback]

Bingo. The press is the biggest reason our society is now so predatory. It's embarrassing how many people actually believe what is reported.

 

I think it's pretty much poetic justice that it's happening to Michael Moore. Apparently the old adage "you reap what you sow" rings true in this instance.

[Paco]

Bingo.  The press is the biggest reason our society is now so predatory.  It's embarrassing how many people actually believe what is reported.

 

I think it's pretty much poetic justice that it's happening to Michael Moore.  Apparently the old adage "you reap what you sow" rings true in this instance.

43027[/snapback]

You would think Dan Rather would have opened peoples' eyes to how poor the reporting is in this country, but alas...it's not to be.

 

Wait...did someone hear the microwave just 'ding'?

[Mickey]

Bingo.  The press is the biggest reason our society is now so predatory.  It's embarrassing how many people actually believe what is reported.

 

I think it's pretty much poetic justice that it's happening to Michael Moore.  Apparently the old adage "you reap what you sow" rings true in this instance.

43027[/snapback]

 

Moore isn't press. He is an advocate so he has license to present his view and all evidence to support it while ignoring evidence to the contrary. That is for advocates on the other side to present. That is what Limbaugh and the rest do. Although they do pretend to tell the truth, they don't pretend to be balanced or unbiased. That is not an apology for Moore or Limbaugh. It is more an indictment of those who take what they say as unbiased truth, usually it is neither.

 

The newspaper however has a responsibility to be unbiased and present as accurate a picture as possible. A point I have tried to make many times here (remember the "Laura Bush killed a guy" thread?) is that you can be absolutely truthful and yet still mislead to the point of lying. The story had most of the facts right and probably quoted people accurately yet it was still misleading to the point of deception. The anti-moore people were only referred to as having "attended the protest" which makes it sound like they attended the event but actually, they did not. The statement that some questions accused him of being a traitor was factually incorrect but only by a hair. It was a question and it was about him being accused of being a traitor. It wasn't however an accusation by those who attended but an invitation by them for Moore to disprove that scurrilous charge.

 

A simple complaint that the paper stick to just the facts is not really enough. They can stick to the facts and still present an unbalanced picture of an event.

[Alaska Darin]

Moore isn't press.  He is an advocate so he has license to present his view and all evidence to support it while ignoring evidence to the contrary.  That is for advocates on the other side to present.  That is what Limbaugh and the rest do.  Although they do pretend to tell the truth, they don't pretend to be balanced or unbiased.  That is not an apology for Moore or Limbaugh.  It is more an indictment of those who take what they say as unbiased truth, usually it is neither. 

 

The newspaper however has a responsibility to be unbiased and present as accurate a picture as possible.  A point I have tried to make many times here (remember the "Laura Bush killed a guy" thread?) is that you can be absolutely truthful and yet still mislead to the point of lying.  The story had most of the facts right and probably quoted people accurately yet it was still misleading to the point of deception.  The anti-moore people were only referred to as having "attended the protest" which makes it sound like they attended the event but actually, they did not.  The statement that some questions accused him of being a traitor was factually incorrect but only by a hair.  It was a question and it was about him being accused of being a traitor.  It wasn't however an accusation by those who attended but an invitation by them for Moore to disprove that scurrilous charge. 

 

A simple complaint that the paper stick to just the facts is not really enough.  They can stick to the facts and still present an unbalanced picture of an event.

43103[/snapback]

I don't care what he calls himself. Apparently more than a few people actually believe in his "crockumentaries" at least as much as they believe the media.

 

The reality is we are becoming dumber as a nation. That's what happens when you turn over the power in your life to other entities. Instead of "questioning everything", most people do the polar opposite.

 

That's how we end up with George W. Bush vs John F. Kerry. We're now a nation of pasture animals.

[VABills]

I don't care what he calls himself.  Apparently more than a few people actually believe in his "crockumentaries" at least as much as they believe the media.

 

The reality is we are becoming dumber as a nation.  That's what happens when you turn over the power in your life to other entities.  Instead of "questioning everything", most people do the polar opposite. 

 

That's how we end up with George W. Bush vs John F. Kerry.  We're now a nation of pasture animals.

43120[/snapback]

 

I believe you have heard my theory about this.

 

Here's the theory:

 

God intended for the world to have a certain level of intellectual ability. As the world got more populated the ability would be spread out over more and more people. We have reached the point now where the majority are just barely getting enough to maintain certain body functions like breathe and turn on the TV.

[Buftex]

Bingo.  The press is the biggest reason our society is now so predatory.  It's embarrassing how many people actually believe what is reported.

 

I think it's pretty much poetic justice that it's happening to Michael Moore.  Apparently the old adage "you reap what you sow" rings true in this instance.

43027[/snapback]

 

 

Hey AD, not trying to be a smart ass, but what is it exactly that you think is "happening to Michael Moore?" I know you don't care for Moore, so what is the "poetic justice" you are referring to? Just curious. I feel like his detractors are playing right into his hands, and giving him much more significance than he may otherwise warrant. Sort of like Kerry and the Swift Boat vets. The more you try to deny something, or explain something away, the bigger the story becomes. Ultimately, it may end up having little significance, but it may change a mind or two...

[Alaska Darin]

Hey AD, not trying to be a smart ass, but what is it exactly that you think is "happening to Michael Moore?"  I know you don't care for Moore, so what is the "poetic justice" you are referring to? Just curious.  I feel like his detractors are playing right into his hands, and giving him much more significance than he may otherwise warrant.  Sort of like Kerry and the Swift Boat vets.  The more you try to deny something, or explain something away, the bigger the story becomes.  Ultimately, it may end up having little significance, but it may change a mind or two...

43130[/snapback]

I think short term you are probably right. Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum should have said nothing more than "he absolutely has the right to make his movie." They weren't smart enough to do that.

 

The poetic justice is the media misrepresenting the facts of the story. I think that does benefit him for the short term, though over the long that may not be the case. America is a fickle place. A small percentage of the populous will always like Moore, but eventually his "star" will flame out because he's bound to misstep.

 

Changing a mind or 2 isn't going to fix what ails this country. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are any different than the Republicans at the national level is either a fool or lying to themselves.

[Mickey]

I think short term you are probably right.  Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum should have said nothing more than "he absolutely has the right to make his movie."  They weren't smart enough to do that.

 

The poetic justice is the media misrepresenting the facts of the story.  I think that does benefit him for the short term, though over the long that may not be the case.  America is a fickle place.  A small percentage of the populous will always like Moore, but eventually his "star" will flame out because he's bound to misstep.

 

Changing a mind or 2 isn't going to fix what ails this country.  Anyone who thinks the Democrats are any different than the Republicans at the national level is either a fool or lying to themselves.

43186[/snapback]

 

I don't think any one from either side seriously thinks that if their guy wins they will wake up to a new America except for maybe the fanatics. I think that most people think that "all things considered" we would be better off with one or the other, even if only slightly so. I don't think this is because we are in the thrall of evil people. This is simply what our system logically and consistently produces. People pine for a third party as if that will make a big difference. I think it would just give a choice between three mediocrities rather than two. Big whoop.

The concept of "majority rules" even in a representative system like ours is going to produce a "lowest common denominator" at the top. The same system that made "The Dukes of Hazard" the No. 1 show in America is basically how we choose our leaders.

 

I guess that is my theory of voting this year: "I voted for __________ because he is not quite as bad as the other stupefyingly clueless moron." Okay, maybe I am overstating the matter a bit but you get my drift.

[Adam]

I don't care what he calls himself.  Apparently more than a few people actually believe in his "crockumentaries" at least as much as they believe the media.

 

The reality is we are becoming dumber as a nation.  That's what happens when you turn over the power in your life to other entities.  Instead of "questioning everything", most people do the polar opposite. 

 

That's how we end up with George W. Bush vs John F. Kerry.  We're now a nation of pasture animals.

43120[/snapback]

 

 

Couldnt have said it better myself! We should run as a ticket........we should easily beat both of those shmoes

[Buftex]

I think short term you are probably right.  Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum should have said nothing more than "he absolutely has the right to make his movie."  They weren't smart enough to do that.

 

The poetic justice is the media misrepresenting the facts of the story.  I think that does benefit him for the short term, though over the long that may not be the case.  America is a fickle place.  A small percentage of the populous will always like Moore, but eventually his "star" will flame out because he's bound to misstep.

 

Changing a mind or 2 isn't going to fix what ails this country.  Anyone who thinks the Democrats are any different than the Republicans at the national level is either a fool or lying to themselves.

43186[/snapback]

 

 

AMEN!

[Dawgg]

Couldnt have said it better myself! We should run as a ticket........we should easily beat both of those shmoes

43366[/snapback]

 

 

Awww can you feel the love?