sprawl15: BeesNuts: I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries.

Eh, my problem was more that it didn't seem to really learn anything as a general arc. It went in asking what factors contributed to the Columbine massacre and went out saying "Dunno. But the NRA are douchebags."

I mean, it was good that he brought up some common justifications and threw them away (the Manson interview was interesting, but kind of hilarious since they listened to KMFDM and not Manson), but it seemed like he could have made ten times the documentary by cutting out most of his complaints about the NRA and replacing it with more social commentary about how tragedies like that occur. The attempt to kind of diffuse the blame from "It's because you have guns!" and "It's because violence on the TV!" was negated by constantly pointing and blaming the NRA - it's just as shallow an excuse as the others.

Except that the NRA are a bunch of douchebags.

They're not even advocating for gun rights anymore, they're transparently acting as another wing of the GOP. They supported the candidate who signed anti-gun laws in the past as governor over an incumbent president who hasn't. Why? Not because of guns. It's because they're douchebags.

Epicedion: The problem with Michael Moore is that he uses deceptive techniques to get people to say things they don't agree with and so he can later use clever editing to take quotations out of context or make individuals look stupid. He doesn't have bias, he fundamentally misrepresents people and opinions to strengthen whatever message he's cooked up for his movie.

So basically, the Todd Akin defense. Or the guy who insisted that he was quoted out of context for saying that rape babies are a gift from God, on the basis that he only meant that the baby was a gift from God, not the rape itself.

The problem isn't that people are being quoted out of context. The problem is that the statements are offensive even in context. Conservatives don't understand how anyone could believe that the statements are offensive in context, because they agree with the statement. So their only conclusion is that the statement has been taken horribly out of context, even though it wasn't.

i.e., a person who agrees with Akin that most women lie about rape and any woman who gets pregnant secretly enjoyed it is not going to find Akin's "legitimate rape" comments offensive, and is not going to understand why people are complaining. Therefore, he will conclude that Akin must be quoted out of context and that people are reading something in his statements that isn't actually there. And that's basically what happened with Heston. Even in context, Heston's speech was insensitive to the tragedy. Conservatives don't understand that, because they don't agree with the speech. So they conclude that the only reason that anyone would find his speech offensive is because Moore took out some magical words that would have completely changed how people interpreted the speech.

Another example that comes to mind is when Maddow interviewed Rand Paul, asking him if he agreed with the Civil Rights Act, specifically the provision regarding discriminations in businesses of public accommodation. The conservative blog sphere accused Rachel Maddow of being a dirty liar for claiming that Rand Paul would repeal the civil rights act even though she never accused him of that. They also insisted that Rand Paul was being quoted "out of context," and that his actual position was simply that government shouldn't interfere with business. In other words, the conservative blog sphere couldn't understand how opposing anti-discrimination laws for businesses was offensive to the American viewer. So their only conclusion was that Rachel Maddow must have quoted Rand Paul out of context somehow.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.

The vast majority of people who criticize Moore are under the impression that:

1) Documentaries must basically exist as unedited security footage with no bias, no editing, no editorializing, no perspective, no opinion, no point of view, etc.
2) FOX news is a pinnacle of objective and unbiased journalism, because FOX news is fair and balanced.

Believing #1 is naive, but incorrect. Believing #2 is blatantly delusional. When "Bowling for Columbine" came out, I was amused that same people who were running websites debunking Moore's work as a documentary were also running websites debunking evolution as science, using similar arguments. Just because some guy on the internet calls something a lie doesn't make it so.

Does the Daily Show deserve to win awards in journalism, even though they say things that obviously aren't true? Well, it depends on whether or not the audience is in on the joke. Michael Moore is not unbiased, unedited truth. What most conservatives don't seem to realize is that he doesn't claim to be, and most of his fans don't interpret him as such.