|
Post by Glom on Nov 15, 2005 17:29:53 GMT -4
I watched a programme last night about Janet Street-Porter doing a Michael Moore on Michael Moore. She quickly arrived at the conclusion, from talking to other people, that he could take what he dishes out to others.
I was impressed with how apolitical it was. The issues of his political beliefs were not put on trial, neither were they defended. Her investigations revealed how he was generally a jerk and how his editing was manipulative to the point of fraudulent.
The later part covered his campaigning for 2004, the year of Farenheit 911. Kerry made the mistake of connecting himself too much with Moore. The result was that Red Country was galvanised and Republicans came out to vote, when normally they might not have bothered, which helped Bush. The centrists were put off by Michael Moore's rabid diatribes and voted Republican. The only people who would have been impressed by Moore were those who had already decided that Bush was a retarded lunatic and they weren't potential Republican votes in the first place. Farenheit 911 is a movie that preaches to the choir.
She also made the point that Moore is more like Bush than he likes to admit. He sees the world in absolutes. If you don't agree with him, you're either deluded or evil. That kind of arrogance doesn't sit well with those who remain undecided about things.
|
|
|
Post by colinr on Nov 16, 2005 9:46:57 GMT -4
I'll try and catch the repeat of that , it looked an intresting program - I used to be a big fam of MM , but not anymore ...
|
|
|
Post by drjohn on Nov 18, 2005 12:20:21 GMT -4
She also made the point that Moore is more like Bush than he likes to admit. He sees the world in absolutes. If you don't agree with him, you're either deluded or evil. That kind of arrogance doesn't sit well with those who remain undecided about things. I would have to agree with that, except that they are the reverse image of each other.
|
|