Fifty Nine Deceits in F-911

Ok before everybody flicks their bics in preparation for torch lighting let me explain that the reporter Dave Kopel readily admits to Bush administation lies in his preamble to his story preview, further he states,

Well there are plenty of lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than the administration claimed. This lie was critical to passage of the Bush drug benefit bill. Similarly, Bush's characterization of his immigration proposal as not granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens is quite misleading; although the Bush proposal does not formally grant amnesty, the net result is the same as widespread amnesty.

The one significant Bush administration lie exposed in the film involves the so-called Patriot Act; as Fahrenheit accurately claims, at least some of the material in the Patriot Act had nothing to do with 9/11, and instead involved long-sought items on the FBI agenda which had previously been unable to pass Congress, but which were enacted by Congress under Bush administration assurances that they were essential to fighting terrorism

Fair enough so far

Kopel goes on to say,

As we go through the long list of lies and tricks in Fahrenheit 9/11, keep in mind that Michael Moore has assembled a �war room� of political operatives and lawyers in order to respond to criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11 and to file defamation suits. (Jack Shafer, �Libel Suit 9/11. Michael Moore�s hysterical, empty threats,� Slate.com, June 12, 2004.) One of Moore's "war room" officials is Chris Lehane; Lehane, as an employee of Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark (who was also supported by Moore), apparently spread rumors to the press about John Kerry's alleged extra-marital affair.

Conversely, because Moore has a paid expert staff which is monitoring criticism of the movie, it is reasonable to assume that�unless I have specifically retracted some item in this report�Moore and his staff have not offered a persuasive rebuttal.

Kopel seems to have laid out the information quite nicely with links to sources and qoutes that can be fact checked by readers of the article.

Now then lay those torches down for a few moments and read what he has to say at the link provided. I would be curious if ATS members can refute what he has written with facts not vitriol - we'll see.

My take from reading his article was that F 911 is more entertainment than documentary.

Fifty Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

Given that I haven't seen the movie yet, I don't have much of an opinion of the movie. But, I can only assume that this article is right on the money. Michael Moore has repeatedly said that his intention in making this movie was not necessarily to put the "truth" out to the public, but to push his opinion about Bush on the public. I personally have seen several interviews where he has said he had a specific agenda to bash Bsh with this movie, and it seems that manipluating the public was the best way to do so.

[edit on 7-7-2004 by mpeake]

A writer for The National Review, he also wrote a piece about �Bowling for Columbine.� (his favorite subject is guns) he may not be the most objective person to write about Moore. I was reading the article, checking the sources when he used them, they seem to be either sympathetic or twisted to his point of view.
Here's a list of some of his sources. Not the most un-biased places to find information

Thomas Frank, �Film offers limited view,� Newsday, June 27, 2004.

Tom McNamee, �Just the facts on �Fahrenheit 9/11� Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004

Christopher Hitchens, �Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore,� Slate.com, June 21, 2004.

Matt Labash, �Un-Moored from Reality,� Weekly Standard, July 5, 2004. See also: Frank, Newsday; Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, "More Distortions From Michael Moore.

Michael Isikoff, �Under the Hot Lights. Moore�s movie will make waves. But it�s a fine line between fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing �Fahrenheit 9/11.� Newsweek, June 28, 2004.

Jonathan Foreman, �Moore�s The Pity,� New York Post, June 23, 2004.

"A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004.

Patrick Goldstein, �Truth teller or story stretcher?� Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2004.

Tim Graham, �Peter�s Peace Platoon. ABC�s Crusade Against �Arrogant� American Power,� Media Research Center, March 18, 2003.)


One of my favorite gems from the article:

Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.

"The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place."

i couldn't even get past the first "deceit" without realizing the author is a joke,

Originally posted by curme
A writer for The National Review, he also wrote a piece about �Bowling for Columbine.� (his favorite subject is guns) he may not be the most objective person to write about Moore. I was reading the article, checking the sources when he used them, they seem to be either sympathetic or twisted to his point of view.
Here's a list of some of his sources. Not the most un-biased places to find information

Curme, understand your point but in this case one has to ask is there anyone who can write anything of substance about this film without bias. What I found interesting was the apparent lack of refutation from the MM camp on Kopels information.

Originally posted by Ghost111797
"The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place."

i couldn't even get past the first "deceit" without realizing the author is a joke,

Sorry you feel that way about an incident that really did happen during the 2000 election - its common knowledge

Someone needs to write a "Fifty Nine Deceits in 'Fifty Nine Decedits in F-911'"

The article is bull#.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Someone needs to write a "Fifty Nine Deceits in 'Fifty Nine Decedits in F-911'"

The article is bull#.

Is 59 a prime number, cause if it is then we're in trouble.

Ah can ya put some facts on top of that pile you just laid, otherwise the opinion will begin to smell.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by Ghost111797
"The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place."

i couldn't even get past the first "deceit" without realizing the author is a joke,

Sorry you feel that way about an incident that really did happen during the 2000 election - its common knowledge

if it were common knowledge why would the author say 'probably', essentially he is attacking michael for making assumptions with assumptions of his own

they called the victory for gore 10 minutes before polls closed and from that the author deduces that bush lost thousands of votes? i don't think so, not to mention the fact that the author also compares it to when the networks were reporting reagans vicotry hours before west coast polls closed, thats just ridiculous as is most of the article

Originally posted by Phoenix


Curme, understand your point but in this case one has to ask is there anyone who can write anything of substance about this film without bias. What I found interesting was the apparent lack of refutation from the MM camp on Kopels information.

You're right about the bias, on both sides. Rotten Tomatoes says it a good movie but when you start to talk about facts, each side has facts and figures that can keep the debate of the valdity of the movie going for a long time. I just read that article as a bit one-sided. I mean, how can you use articles bashing Moore as a reference to bash Moore? I would assume that Moore would know that the Bush fact checkers would come out of the woodwork, like they did with 'Bowling' so you would think that he would make sure all of his bases are covered. As to the lack of refutation on MM's part, I doubt he has the tiime to refute each and every article against him, I doubt anyone has that much time.

Did anyone watch Ken Burns documentary on 'Baseball' on PBS? I didn't I hate sports, but I did watch his documentary on jazz. He didn't even mention Dinah Washington! Anyway, documentaries aren't your broadcasts on the evening news. The film makers make boring facts seem interesting. Jacque Cousteau could never be mistaken for Walter Cronkite.

i think the article should probably be called '59 disingenuities in F/911' or maybe 'the use of visual rhetoric in F/911'... the author seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

-koji K.

I don't profess to know where you were or what you were doing during the 2000 election, I can tell you that I was paying rapt attention when the polls in St Louis were left open for hours after they were supposed to close giving Gore many thousands of votes - but who can say exactly how many you or I ? I also specifically remember the controversy caused in the panhandle by the networks jumping the gun on the results - did you read the part where even Fox did this! Its a fact that it happened could of been ten votes or it could have been ten thousand but we'll never know will we? my guess (reasonable) would be hundreds at least - enough that we would'nt be having this conversation.

�Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, �under every scenario Gore won the election.�

What Moore doesn�t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.

[edit on 6-7-2004 by Phoenix]

The "Fifty Nine" article was pretty much tripe. I haven't seen the movie myself to know what was BS and what was true but the article wasn't well written or back up by much solid evidence. It got pretty boring a few minutes into the article.

Originally posted by Indy
The "Fifty Nine" article was pretty much tripe. I haven't seen the movie myself to know what was BS and what was true but the article wasn't well written or back up by much solid evidence. It got pretty boring a few minutes into the article.

Let me get this straight - things like the 9/11 commission staff report is not "solid evidence" or "well written" ABC news is skewed, Newsday is conservative clap trap , Slate, MSNBC and Newsweek are neo-con mouthpeices ,
THE LA TIMES is in on the conspiracy to ruin MM reputation as well


And attention spans are short, making all this boring detail not worth opening up ones mind to the propaganda espoused by MM worth learning about.

This is an excellent article. People who believe ANYTHING that Michael Moore says should be embarrassed. The sad thing is that people
actually paid money to see that F911 garbage. It's nutz

FlyersFan, did you even see the movie?

Of course Fahrenheit 9/11 is bunk. Did you expect something else from someone who started his marketing campaign with political rhetoric during his acceptance speech at the Academy Awards last year? He has an agenda which he has not been shy to admit, and his movie is propaganda, not a documentary.

Moore is a documented liar. I'm FROM Littleton Colorado, the city in which the Columbine shootings took place. I never went to see Bowling for Columbine in the movies because it simply didn't interest me, but I saw it on cable thereafter. I had never heard of Moore and didn't have an opinion of him at that point, but watching his "take" on the events from someone that is FROM Littleton made it painfully clear that he was a yellow journalist at best, and an outright liar at worst. Ever since then my opinion of Moore has been somewhere below pond scum.

So now he comes up with this propaganda piece in an election year and we're surprised because it's filled with half-truths, twisted truth, and outright lies? There's no surprise there at all. What's surprising is 1) People will pay to see this BS. 2) There are gullible people that actually believe Moore is honest and is telling the truth simply because they agree with him politically.

Moore is a dishonest liar--that was established before this movie came out. This movie just follows in the footsteps of his previous lie-filled movies. F9/11 is not a documentary, it's a political advertisement, and a dishonest one at that. Moore should be ashamed, but more ashamed should be the people that actually believe and defend him. Wake up!

Originally posted by Phoenix
My take from reading his article was that F 911 is more entertainment than documentary.

I don't know how anyone could see it as anything but that. I enjoyed the movie very much, but I believed that it was comedy and a very good one. Moore said himself recently that "the facts presented are indisputable, but the opinions and interpretations of those facts are mine" so of course he's been very selective of the facts to get across his point, I don't see how anyone could act surprised about that.

I don't know many film makers that would spend nearly 2 years of their lives making a movie and it not be their personal feelings put up on screen. Watch any film and it's selective of the topics that gets their plot across, that's their job that's what they do.

People seem to forget that he's a satirist/comedian, and like all the best comedies it is based on tragedy. There are moments in the movie that are side-splitting because if you didn't laugh you'd cry. Anyway yeah, I best stop before I end up going into a history of the best comedy in cinema.

I actually didn't think that F9/11 was as good as Bowling for Columbine or Roger and Me. The problem with it was that he covers about 5 subjects that are all deserving of their own seperate movie, so the focus of the movie is muddled at times and also seems kind of rushed in places. I reckon that's probably the reason behind alot of the innaccuracies in the movie, it being a result of him losing focus of what it is he's trying to say and just skimming over the subject so he can move onto the next one.

Of course he's been selective in places, but I also believe alot of it is down to just bad film making as he's tried to cover too much for one movie, lost focus and rushed it.
As a side note the use of music in it was fantastic, the orginal music by Jeff Gibbs was really eerie in parts and the songs used in it both fantastic and hysterical (Shiney Happy People...hahaha)

I find it odd that so much hate can be aimed at one man and his movie (I don't recall more being responsible for even ONE death) with people claiming the reason is he's biased and a liar, yet I hardly see many people picketing...say...the Fox News Network screaming that the lies and bias stop, not in the same capacity anyway. Why are so many panicked by this...at the end of the day "entertainer"? It really confuses me...

Yes the movie is certainly his propaganda, but so what? Right wing propaganda gets spewed out everyday from the entertainment and "news" industry, to say that liberals control this is a joke. I find propaganda fascinating and as long as you know it as such it is great to watch. To watch all the old war serials, Nazi propaganda movies is truly fascinating and very educational. To those who don't know propaganda when they see it they're the real problem, as if they're influenced by F9/11 then imagine all the other crap those masses have swallowed everyday being pumped out of Hollywood, the media e.t.c. F9/11 is the least of your worries yet it seems to be getting the most attention. Again very confusing...
For example why doesn't Fox have it's own forum so we can tear that apart?

At the end of the day I don't think I've seen one review of it as a movie, where someone doesn't get sucked up in the politics and go "it was funny... It was enjoyable... I thought it was badly edited e.t.c"
It's a very well made and enjoyable movie although not perfect, no one can deny that.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Someone needs to write a "Fifty Nine Deceits in 'Fifty Nine Decedits in F-911'"

The article is bull#.

This is a good start:

legitgov.org...

I have seen the movie and frankly I was disapointed. I thought it was rather mild and could have gone much further. I don't understand what all of the vitriol is about.

The information contained in the movie has been available in public discourse for some time now on hundreds of websites and has been debated and written about by dozens of columnists and authors.

It is a sign of the times when such relatively mild criticism generates such hostility.

Originally posted by letxa2000
Of course Fahrenheit 9/11 is bunk. Did you expect something else from someone who started his marketing campaign with political rhetoric during his acceptance speech at the Academy Awards last year? He has an agenda which he has not been shy to admit, and his movie is propaganda, not a documentary.

Moore is a documented liar. I'm FROM Littleton Colorado, the city in which the Columbine shootings took place. I never went to see Bowling for Columbine in the movies because it simply didn't interest me, but I saw it on cable thereafter. I had never heard of Moore and didn't have an opinion of him at that point, but watching his "take" on the events from someone that is FROM Littleton made it painfully clear that he was a yellow journalist at best, and an outright liar at worst. Ever since then my opinion of Moore has been somewhere below pond scum.

So now he comes up with this propaganda piece in an election year and we're surprised because it's filled with half-truths, twisted truth, and outright lies? There's no surprise there at all. What's surprising is 1) People will pay to see this BS. 2) There are gullible people that actually believe Moore is honest and is telling the truth simply because they agree with him politically.

Moore is a dishonest liar--that was established before this movie came out. This movie just follows in the footsteps of his previous lie-filled movies. F9/11 is not a documentary, it's a political advertisement, and a dishonest one at that. Moore should be ashamed, but more ashamed should be the people that actually believe and defend him. Wake up!

Check out this article about all the lies in "Bowling For Columbine"....

www.hardylaw.net...