"Deceptive Editing Techniques" Explained

its bad but if we dig deep enough we can make anything look bad with enough selective evidence as you call it. but does that make it as bad as we make it out to be? and lets keep in mind nothing is interly bad, there is always a plus side to everything and much like selective evidence you have to find it if you want to see it.

i can make food in general look simply awful if i applied those techniques, does that mean we should stop eating?
come on now...you're more intelligent than this and you know it.

And I certainly am open to hear an argument that makes what i have already seen and heard a little 'sweeter'. However I can say in myself that even a documentary on the same subject matter with the opposite political biased would not convince me that Bush is a good president and hasn't been misleading America and the world.

Originally posted by RANT
I think we can all agree then that what Mike Moore needs is more effective Deceptive Editing Techniques. It's not hard to find good examples. Here's a common DET used to demonstrate to stupid liberals how Mike Moore is disgusting and can't be trusted.


I think you'll find this posted frequently all over the web including ATS.

The reason it's a great example of the deceptive editing techniques Mike Moore should aspire to is it's an outright lie. But believed by "reasonable" people (namely conservatives) convinced Mike Moore uses DET's and they should expose them with pictures like this.

Here's the unneoconned version of the picture. Also known as the orginal or "truth" for those so challenged.


Big difference huh?

I agree with you again RANT (that darn mind control must be working, time for a new tinfoil hat), but not for the same reason. I find the disarming portrayal of Michael Moore as a fat slob content with stuffing his face with processed foods as a betrayal of truth; he's a maniacal manipulator with an agenda (who found he could incite, and freeload at the same time, ain't America grand?). The thought of Michael Moore with a microphone is far more alarming, not that he's going to change any minds, we all have our opinions well grounded, and our political beliefs are thoroughly polarized. He is however, blurring the lines between propaganda, and reporting. The ability to legitimize "documentary style news" as a pop format (movies for those that just don't get it) will haunt both sides of the argument. I prefer information in an "old fashioned, three sources kind of way" not DET's, and non-renseable manner. Otherwise, we might as well have David Icke doing the nightly news, and Matt Drudge as Editor-in-Chief of the New York, and L.A. Times (now everyone can be mad at the "bad monkey")

Originally posted by RANT

You aren't saying THAT was your creation was it?

This was already on the web right?

No, I didn't do the Hot Dogs.
Really though? It was about to go to air?
Thats BAD journalism..As much as I despise MM..I'd not want to
represent that as true..

SPACE

Let me begin by saying I completely agree taht the photo is irresponsible.

I do however beleive the film is selectively edited. I havent seen the film, but I recently read a transcript. The example I will use to show the technique I saw will be the link between Bush and Bin Laden.

In a post a few down the board, I posted saying I thought these claims were false. I did some research, reading the transcript of the movie, and looked for references to specific member s of the Bin Laden family, I found 2 names. One was dead, and the other I couldnt find a shred of information on. But the point is, he never clearly showed a link between Osama and Bush. He showed a link to the family, but as other articles in that thread showed, Osama had been disowned by most, if not all of the family.

So what Im getting at is, in this portion of the movie especially, I dont think he shows all the facts, ie he ignores the disowning. At the same time, however, he doesnt even show everything he needs to show to prove wrongdoing. Sure, Bush was linked to hte Bin Ladens, but were all the Bin Ladens terrorists? Its a slippery slope that could very well end up at "all arabs are terrorists", and this time its being propogated from the left.

Originally posted by PB
Sure, Bush was linked to hte Bin Ladens, but were all the Bin Ladens terrorists? Its a slippery slope that could very well end up at "all arabs are terrorists", and this time its being propogated from the left.

I'll be the poster child for that assertion. Not that I think all Arabs are terrorists, but the main point I took from the movie was that Saudi Arabia is much more America's enemy than friend...yet remains a big friend of the Bush family. I didn't confuse this with an Osama connection (or lack thereof) at all.

If someone would like to correct my belief and demonstrate what good guys the ruling family of Saudi Arabia are, I'm all ears.

Rant,

To carry it even further..How many "Princes" are there in the Saudi ruling family?
I think the number is in the thousands (5000 I think)
Are all Saudi ruling family members Bad?
It just goes on and on!

Well however many there are, it's kind of fruitless to attempt to seperate the good dictators from the bad ones.

But I think the point stands that Saudi Arabia has bought it's way out of democratization over the years, assuming that's our goal.

The war in Iraq is a spearate issue. Personally, I havent decided if I support or am against that war.

In the case of the Bin Laden/Bush issue, though, its a case of innocent until proven guilty. There simply wasnt enough evidence in the movie to conclude anything without making broad, racialy discriminatory connections. Moore only named two individuals who were arab in the whole film, and there is no evidence either of them were or are connected to Osama. There are just too many Saudi princes and Bin Ladens to conclude that because Bush had relations with one he had relations with all. This might be a good subject for the research forum.

As for Iraq, Ill add a terrible analogy that is sort of my opinion. If anyone has ever seen the movie Boondock Saints, youll know its about 2 brothers who beleive it is there duty to kill "bad men". They end up knocking off a bunch of mafia hitmen. I would sort of compare this movie to Iraq, though the movie was much better executed. IMHO, Saddam was a "bad man". I see it as an improvement to have him gone. On the other hand, I dont think it was the right time, with America so involved in war at that time. Rather than a mentality of "Lets help these people", I think there was probably more of a mentality of "were killing terrorists" among the soldiers.

Originally posted by PB
The war in Iraq is a spearate issue. Personally, I havent decided if I support or am against that war.

Well my postion quasi-against it derives from how I feel duped into originally supporting it. I was ravenous. Watched Fox all day because the coverage was "better" ... hated France because they refused to believe our "obvious" intelligence of WMD's. I mean POWELL had pictures! Bush was angry. America was angry. I was angry. Basically 9/11 made me crazy, I wasn't exactly thinking straight. Who was?

Knowing now it was (ironically) cherry picking and other "deceptive editing techniques" that rallied Bush's march to war, I'm angry at myself and Bush/Cheney. Not so much at Saddam and France anymore. Sure they suck. But I can't vote them out of office. Or myself. And just like the well oiled hate machine that Bush/Cheney made me...someone needs to pay!

God let it be Bush/Cheney.

Mike Moore couldn't possible do half the mind job on the public Bush did.

I remember reading something the other day, something about Neo-Conservative joint cheifs trying to convince the president (Kennedy?) to get invloved in some half-baked scheme to do something ridiculously stupid. Excusing my vague reference, could this not be a similar situation? Where we have some sort of warmongering generals, or similar high-rankig military officials, who convinced Bush that Iraq was harbouring weapons?

The reason I see this as a feasable theory is that America has been involved in some sort of war in almost every decade since WW2. We had WW2, Korea, Vietnam, USSR (cold war), Iraq 1, and Afganistan/Iraq 2. Its a disturbing trend, especially when we look at the reasons for going to war, that suggests to me someone in the military wants to keep fighting without cause.

Just a thought.

Except that on a hunch I googled "Mike Moore Jedi Mind Tricks" and got a link.

Jedi Mind Tricks - Links to the community
... POLITICS MichaelMoore.com - Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, could become the proverbial nail in the Bush ... 1996-2004 Jedi Mind Tricks - The official ...
www.jedi-mind-tricks.com... - Cached

It's just a band promoting the film, but it's still funny to me. Considering a CNN poll says 8% of Americans have already seen the film, and a majority plan to see it on video before the election (including 39% of Republicans), I fully expect to see the following site soon...

"DET's and Other Jedi Mind Tricks of the Looney Left Revealed!!!"

Originally posted by RANT
the well oiled hate machine

Was this a clever dig at the amount of oil they are going to get form Iraq or am I reading to far into that comment?

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
i think you're missing the bigger picture here. moore does it, limbaugh does it, CBS does it, every political pundit does it, every media outlet does it.

christ even you and i do it! and dont dare tell me you've never done it. you're human and you're not THAT special.

You're right! There isn't a single politician who doesn't edit or bend everything in attempt to sell his view, or climb the political ladder. Moore is only doing what they do, and much better than they do, IMO. The only difference is, Moore could make just as much money making any other kind of movie. His so called "agenda" doesn't require that he risk his life and career trying to take down the president of the US. This is something important to him. I admire him for taking a stand and throwing his opinion out there, whatever the cost.