Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dave Kopel)   Fifty Nine deceits in Fahrenheit 911. Now watch this drive!   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

62184 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2004 at 5:47 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

739 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-08-05 12:17:20 AM  
I'm sure I could find more than 59 deceits in the Bush presidency.

Fark you.
2004-08-05 12:29:37 AM  
I only counted 52. Then again, I was exceedingly drunk, plus I didn't see the movie. I did, however, see Harry and the Hendersons, which I thought to be quite believable. I was in my recreational asphyxiation stage then. That was good.
2004-08-05 12:41:54 AM  
zpb52, and that's just over the Iraq war.
2004-08-05 12:46:03 AM  
Hasn't this already been debunked...and posted on Fark...numerous times?

Unless I'm thinking of something else.
2004-08-05 12:48:29 AM  
Oooh, looky... greenlight.

This will get gawdoffal.
2004-08-05 12:50:00 AM  
Hey, did you hear that Michael Moore is a communist whale?

/instant greenlight
2004-08-05 12:52:05 AM  
2004-08-05 12:54:05 AM  

You crack me up :)
2004-08-05 12:54:30 AM  
Oh man, why did this shiat get greenlit? I'm staying the hell away from this thread tomorrow at work. This is just a recipe for disaster.

Can we bring back the rabbits and cute puppies?
2004-08-05 12:56:12 AM  
if it's so inaccurate, why isn't anyone suing moore. I saw it and there wasn't anything in there i hadn't heard before.
2004-08-05 12:58:25 AM  
Hey, I missed the whole fallout from the 9/11 Commission business, did Moore ever issue a statement regarding Richard Clarke being the guy in charge of flying out the bin Ladens? Just curious.
2004-08-05 01:03:20 AM  
I went to the nytimes site on the link, and i got Al Gore won all all the combinations I think are fair.

/Maybe the ballots should have just been given to non-partisan teachers, they seem to be able to read all sorts of garbage
2004-08-05 01:04:33 AM  
Not to derail the inevitable flamewar but this:

The new version includes all the material in the original movie, plus captions to point out where Moore misleads or omits critical facts.

is simply incredible. Could you imagine the average person doing something like this ten years ago? Computers and the internet have really served to give common people a larger voice in issues. For only a few hundred dollars I can whip up a political commercial in Flash, or buy Premiere and a camera to go film my own documentary and then upload it on the net. This is simply an incredible time to be a geek and creative.
2004-08-05 01:05:02 AM  
if it's so inaccurate, why isn't anyone suing moore.
Because he's bashing public figures, so successfully suing for libel is next to impossible. Same story for Bowling for Columbine.
2004-08-05 01:09:06 AM  
Sammy_McL. You crack me up I'm happy to hear that. Of all the people on Fark I could pass a smile on to, you're (A) the most Scottish and (B) the most abbreviated. And that means something to me.

Rock on (and courage - seriously.)
2004-08-05 01:10:54 AM  
Libel is easy to sue for. Of course libel is something different than deceit.

There are three qualifications for libel. Intent, destroying livelyhood, and of course lying.

He isn't hurting anyone, other than bush and co, and since their public figures it doesn't count as much. Also, he uses quotes. Even though they are chopped bits, they're still quotes.

So more didn't do anything wrong. Persy he's just a horrible journalist. And he's never said he was fair and balanced.

/Thinks people should go see control room instead.
2004-08-05 01:12:41 AM  
I clearly hate Moore, but I also hate Bush, so this is kind of a draw for me. Meh, I'll watch it anyways. But I am sure as hell not going to participate in this thread. Starting now. Err, starting now. Wait... riiiiight now!
2004-08-05 01:13:23 AM  
Lord, give me strength.

[image from too old to be available]
2004-08-05 01:13:34 AM  
59 Deceits - Debunked

/no htmlizle skizzles
2004-08-05 01:15:08 AM  
SockMOnkeyHolocaust Could you imagine the average person doing something like this ten years ago?

Without a pretentious Nirvana retrospective? No.
2004-08-05 01:16:08 AM  
Lets nitpick so maybe people won't care about how we got decieved into invading Iraq.

/It looks like Hans Blix was right the whole time, too bad Bushco only likes information that fits into their version of reality.
2004-08-05 01:23:49 AM  
Oh, brother.

De-damn-bunked. About a hundred and fifty times.

There are more deceits on that site than in the entire movie.
2004-08-05 01:28:57 AM  
Yes please, let's argue about the merits of a movie or perhaps we can screech about the "Shove It" comment. But whatever we do, let's please not talk about our country going to war based upon incorrect intelligence. Isn't this potentially the worst mistake our country has ever made? We've already squandered our moral credibility on the international stage. And we've sacrificed over 900 lives...not to mention the untold Iraqi lives that have been lost, the uncounted life altering physical injuries on both sides, the spent resources. When can we talk about all of these things?
2004-08-05 01:29:25 AM  

And Markos "Screw Them" Zuniga is anything resembling unbiased. Debunked, my ass.

An opinion from a far more reliable source, linked by Kopel:
Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false -- and this leads in turn to another thought.If this much cleverness was required to create the inchoate "conspiracy" (whatever it may be, as it is never really specified by Moore), it suggests there was no such conspiracy. With this much care and effort invested in uncovering and massaging the data, if there really was a conspiracy of the kind Moore suggests, the evidence would line up more neatly behind it, rather than being made to do cartwheels so as to be "true" but oh-so-misleading. If the facts don't fit, shouldn't we acquit?
2004-08-05 02:07:32 AM  
I knew I;d find nodog in here claimng something that has never happened.

Hey, here's a question: Why is it impossible for Moore fans to discuss Moore's inadequacies without trying to shift the focus onto any one of about a thousand other people? Why the diversion every time one of his lies or manipulations comes to light?

Would it be so bad to, I dunno, talk about him without mentionig anyone else and what they may or may not have done?
2004-08-05 02:13:21 AM  

YOU knew you'd find ME?

Dude, I don't recall startign a website dedicated to the subject. Obsession, indeed.

What other people did I shift to? That list is ridiculous, I've spent hours debunking it, as have others. Remember? We started at the top and did it in groups of ten? Remember when it was called "56 lies" until the realized that by no stretch of the imagination were any of them lies?

The logic is third grade, the intelligence quotient double digit and the "facts" AWOL.

It's pretty funny, actually. Especially with the movie tracking in the 70's with undecideds and moderates.

But keep on keeping on, man. It's what you do.
2004-08-05 02:25:03 AM  
HEY!! Michael Moore is fat!! George Bush is dumb! Kerry looks like a friggin' horse! Edwards is a pretty boy! Kennedy is a drunkard! Kucinich looks like an goblin! Dean is a crazy man! Cheney is a stooge of Haliburton! Rove is pulling all the strings! Nader is a spoiler in this election! O'Rieley is a pompus ass!! Al Franken is a spitefull little fibber! Drew Curtis is awesome! Coulter is a Nazi she-devil!! Democrats lie! Republicans lie! Sadaam is a mass-murdering bastard! Terrorists like to spit pig bllod on the Koran! Bin Laden is the son of a three-legged camel! Liberals hug trees! Conservatives hate the poor! Hippies smell bad! Independents are wishy-washy arseholes who can't make up their minds! Lie! Lie! Lie! Hate! Hate! Hate!

Did I miss anyone?
2004-08-05 03:08:36 AM  
Funny how the word "deceit" is used instead of the word "lie". This creates the impression that the movie contains outright lies, when in fact it does not.

Hey, I can do this too!
2004-08-05 03:16:13 AM  
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy.All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"


Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.

So, he proved that everyone else didn't follow FNC and call it for Bush by... showing the other networks called it for Bush almost immediately after FNC?

Some funny logic there.
2004-08-05 03:42:16 AM  
While the left and the right fight so hard over stuff like this a nagging question just popped into my mind

who is driving this bus?

We need some kind of cabinent position in this country (nonpartisan) called getting it done, that can handle all those boring, essential details like running the damn country.
2004-08-05 03:44:04 AM  
***recycle mode: on***

In the left corner, weighing in on various liberal social issues is our very own nodog.


In the right corner, and boy do we mean right folks, is our flamewar heavyweight stark23x!


Remember gentleman, no directly insulting your opponent, no using cutesy nicknames to describe your opponent's icons, and most importantly, invoke Godwin, and the fight is over.


***recycle mode: off***
2004-08-05 03:52:23 AM  
***recycle mode:0n***

Ku_ is awesome.

***recycle mode:Off***
2004-08-05 03:58:10 AM  
"This creates the impression that the movie contains outright lies, when in fact it does not."

Yes it does. The Taliban pipeline stpory, for one. The Pantagram falsified news page for another.

And before anyone says "Is that all you got" no, it isn't. Spend some time with those and then we'll move on.
2004-08-05 04:06:41 AM  
My money is on infinity by 07:30 Farkistan time.
2004-08-05 04:14:09 AM  
My money is on delusional and misguided by 03:58 Farkistan time.
2004-08-05 04:17:43 AM  
So, nodog, are you claiming there is a gas pipeline, instigated or assisted by BushCo and involving Unocal, in Afghanistan today?
2004-08-05 04:18:55 AM  
No... and neither does F9/11. You should really watch it.
2004-08-05 04:20:39 AM  
You're just unable to actually do the things you claim. I've watch the film 12 times so far and helped transcribe it.

Talking to you is completely useless. But there's no chance I'm going to watch you lie in defense of a liar. So around we'll go.
2004-08-05 04:26:47 AM  
Oh, man... you are really out there.

I've made exactly zero lies. you cannot say the same. You've had to correct your own site to reflect that.

And, yes, talking to me is useless if what you expect is for your tinfoil hat-Moore edition to make an impression on me. I'm not that gullible. I've checked both your and Moore's facts. His check out. Your's don't.
2004-08-05 04:29:35 AM  
Name one lie I've told. Right now.
2004-08-05 04:37:51 AM  
Stark... I don't keep screen grabs of your site. But I can go there and take a look around... I'm sure I can find several. But it's gonna have to wait a bit.

You have this lovely way of walking away as soon as someone proves you wrong, so it's probably not worth the time.. but I'll get around to it.
2004-08-05 04:43:03 AM  
You're so full of crap.

I have never. And would never, knowingly tell a lie. I have made corrections when a story did not pan out., Recently I had to correct a story when an Australian paper apparently made up some stuff.

Also, another news source edited their entire article just four hours after it was posted, so we had to make changes based on that news piece.

I have NEVER lied, and you will NEVER be able to prove it, and you're a real scumbag for trying to imply it. However, the challenge will not be left alone. I will bring it up to you whenever we come across each other until you fulfill it.

Prove I lied. Show me a lie I posted to I'll take it one step further.

Would you like to place some money in an escrow account and we can wager on it? If you can demonstrate a lie, you get the cash. If not, I get it.

Put your money where your mouth is. Say, $500 bucks? We'll put it to the TFer community to vote on a legit escrow service.
2004-08-05 04:52:14 AM  
flame war in 3. . . .oh wait
2004-08-05 04:52:28 AM  
I'm a scumbag for saying you lied?

Are you kidding me? You just accused me of it four or five posts up? Bite me, hypocrite.

And your entire website is calling, baselessly, someone a liar.

And, so you admit you made corrections, but they weren't "lies" cause you just ran something without verifying it?

Escrow? You tell me what would count as a lie. You tell me what ground I have, then we'll talk.
2004-08-05 04:59:19 AM  
I think Moore played unfair.

Let's take just one example and stick with it:

Fahrenheit 911 states, "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."

1) First of all, that is a lie.

a. It is not at all accurate. The Washington Post did not say that. They said he spent 42 percent of the days in his presidency - full or partial days - at his primary leisure destinations or en route.

b. Moore must have known it was not accurate. Moore, of course, knew what the Washington Post really said, and obviously misquoted it intentionally to make a dramatic (and misleading) point. I don't think you can say he didn't know the real quote, and therefore, he must have misquoted it deliberately. By definition, that is a lie.

In context, it's a pretty big lie. There is a major difference between the two statements. Let's take an example:

The President flies to Camp David late Friday night. He spends all day Saturday and Sunday in meetings with his advisors and foreign leaders. He flies back to the White House early Monday morning.

By the Washington Post's definition, this is four days at his leisure destinations, full or partial, there or enroute.

It is completely fair to say, "The President spent four full or partial days at or en route to/from Camp David"

... but Moore did not say that. He chose to summarize the facts of that weekend as "The Washington Post said that the President spent four days on vacation".

Here is the Post's article:

2) Not only is it a lie, but even if it were true, it is misleading. Is 42% a lot? A little? An average amount? Moore's tone and context imply that it is a lot. As it turns out, it is an average amount. Get out your pencils.

Remember it includes weekends and a vacation period in summer.

Assuming you began your job on January 20, as the President did, what percentage of your time were you on vacation before Sept 11th? There are 234 days from Jan 20 to Sept 11. The average person takes weekends off, so that would be about 67 days out of 234 (two sevenths). The typical American family takes vacation in summer. If you are the President's age, you are probably entitled to three weeks. That's fifteen more days. You also get four legal holidays in that period. That means you probably took 86 days off out of those 234 days - by Moore's definition, you were on vacation 37% of the time, roughly the same as the President.

In other words, his 42% is not "a lot". It is "about average". All we have really found out is that the Prez is a normal guy just like you.

Unless you are French, then he actually works a little harder than you! If you take six weeks of vacation instead of the American three, that means you probably had about 101 days off in that 234 day period - you were on vacation 43% of the time, by the standard Moore used. That's slightly more than GWB.

Does that indicate that the President is a dedicated worker and qualified to be in high office? No, I don't believe so. It means he takes a typical number of days off for an Average Joe American.

But I think the records of previous Presidents or top CEOs would clearly show that President Bush does appear to be a slacker by senior executive standards. Michael Moore could have made his point by presenting the case fairly - but he did not. He made the point with demagoguery and misrepresentation.

I know some of you anti-Bush guys really want Moore's case to be fair, but I do not generally find it to be so, even though I oppose the President as much as you do.

I did find Fahrenheit 911 to be moving in some spots, and quite funny in others, but I did not find it to be intellectually honest.
2004-08-05 05:00:15 AM  
*ding ding ding*
Round one is over.

A lot of flurried action and dancing aroung the ring folks, but not as much content as we'd hoped for.

Here's hoping they'll stick to the subject at hand and get some good, not-below-the-belt jabs of logic in.
Remember men, a TKO would involve proving or disproving Mr. Dave Kopel's statement. Now let's see a little less fancy foot work, and see some contact with the subject matter!

2004-08-05 05:00:21 AM  
Look at you double-talking and backing down.

A lie is easily defined. You said I lied. Now prove it or retract it.

You DID lie when you repeated your claim that Moore doesn't own his film. He does. As much, in fact MORE than most filmmaker. You also lied when you said F911 doesn't claim that the war in Afghanistan was started to advance the cause of a pipeline project that, among others, contains the Taliban, Bush and Unocal as co-conspirators. Shall we pull the transcript of the film and start quoting words that came directly from Moore in the form of the voiceover?

Now...prove I lied.
2004-08-05 05:10:18 AM  

The whole topic of Bush's lies, Moore's fatness (with a side of lies) makes me sick. I think that Bush's stewardship of our country does not reflect the morals and beliefs of our people, regardless of whether or not Moore lied.
2004-08-05 05:10:27 AM  
Well... there ya go, big guy... Moore does NOT own the film. Done.

And there is another lie there... I didn't say that.

That's two lies, one post. I think we're done here, pants on fire man.

For the record, here's what I DID say:

2004-08-05 04:17:43 AM stark23x
So, nodog, are you claiming there is a gas pipeline, instigated or assisted by BushCo and involving Unocal, in Afghanistan today?

2004-08-05 04:18:55 AM nodog
No... and neither does F9/11. You should really watch it.

None of which equals this:

"You also lied when you said F911 doesn't claim that the war in Afghanistan was started to advance the cause of a pipeline project that, among others, contains the Taliban, Bush and Unocal as co-conspirators."

You put words in my mouth and claimed I said them.

2004-08-05 05:15:56 AM  
Let's take them one at a time:

"2004-08-05 04:34:23 AM nodog [TotalFark]

Bullcrap, I'm wrong. The ownership of that film is in the control of the Weinsteins. Moore owns a piece of it... he DOES NOT OWN IT. It's very common in Hollywood.

And that was my claim - Moore does not OWN the film."

Seems you did say it. Just not in this thread. And it's still wrong. Moore is a partnership with the Weinstein through F.A.G. They CO-OWN the film.

Moving on.
Displayed 50 of 739 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.