The film "2016 Obama’s America"

[BigRedBuster]

I'll flat out say I don't like their dishonestly and it concerns me. Will you say the same thing about the Obama and Uncle Joe?

 

Yes, and you can go through the archives here to confirn it. Good. I'm new here and don't know people's views yet.

 

I an mo fan of Obama/Biden/Hillary, but see them as less foul than McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan. We differ here but that's why we live in America.

 

We are talking about documentaries in this thread. You then point to what the rest of the world calls a documentary in "sicko" and claim it was pretty good. Documentaries are by definition supposed to be truthful and teach us something.

 

I clearly labelled Moore's films as "mocumentaries", with bias and with an agenda (see post #18).

 

Then I said that Moore did a triage on facts, and talked about lefty fiction (see post #20).Not sure what you mean by "triage on facts".

 

I am sorry if you were confused.

 

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

 

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mockumentary

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

 

According to Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured while the remainder, who are covered, are often victims of insurance company fraud and red tape. Interviews are conducted with people who thought they had adequate coverage but were denied care. Former employees of insurance companies describe cost-cutting initiatives that give bonuses to insurance company physicians and others to find reasons for the company to avoid meeting the cost of medically necessary treatments for policy holders, and thus increase company profitability.

 

I am not a fan of insurance companies. So, don't take this as a defense of them.

 

However, when you agree that a producer of documentaries/mocumentaries doesn't tell the truth, then how do you know those people in this movie aren't actors?

[BigRedBuster]

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

 

you really think it is as black and white as either all true or all false? you have to be able to decipher the truth in all information you consume.

 

The problem is, because he has been so untruthful in various movies, we as the public have no idea what is true in his other movies. How do you know? So, how can you base any opinion on anything that he puts in a movie?

 

AND, some people will sit here and say that they go to the movie but understand some or all of it isn't true. BUT, once you see something it affects your opinion of that idea or event.

 

It kind of goes with the old saying, "the more times you say it, the more true it becomes". The more times you tell a lie, the more people will believe it.

[Sub-Husker]

The problem is, because he has been so untruthful in various movies, we as the public have no idea what is true in his other movies. How do you know? So, how can you base any opinion on anything that he puts in a movie?

 

Other than movies, where else do you expect unbiased honesty?

[knapplc]

The problem is, because he has been so untruthful in various movies, we as the public have no idea what is true in his other movies. How do you know? So, how can you base any opinion on anything that he puts in a movie?

 

Other than movies, where else do you expect unbiased honesty?

 

Attempting to take his stance to absurd extremes doesn't make your point any more cogent.

[Comish]

Interestingly, Scott Paulson (a liberal) from CBS saw the film and has a different take...

Liberal media mocks documentary? Ignore it and decry the liberal media.

Liberal media doesn't mock documentary? Look! Even the liberal media agrees with us!

 

 

 

 

Also . . . is this your liberal? http://www.examiner....l/scott-paulson

 

My apology and mea culpa. With a major brain fart, I somehow made the leap to Scott Pelley of CBS 60 minutes.

[Sub-Husker]

Attempting to take his stance to absurd extremes doesn't make your point any more cogent.

 

You are incorrect about me "attempting to take his stance to absurd extremes".

 

Count how many posts in this thread he has made that point a central theme of his argument.

 

I counted six (posts 4, 12, 22, 26. 31 & 32).

 

My points in this thread include:

 

1) All movies are biased in some way in how they present facts.

2) Sicko did highlight abuses by insurance companies.

3) Lefty humor is more popular than righty humor.

[knapplc]

Attempting to take his stance to absurd extremes doesn't make your point any more cogent.

 

You are incorrect about me "attempting to take his stance to absurd extremes".

 

Errr... no. You said:

 

Other than movies, where else do you expect unbiased honesty?

 

When you can show me where he said he expected unbiased honesty "in movies," you'll have a point. But he wasn't talking about "movies" as a whole, he was talking about documentaries. The definition of "Documentary" as it pertains to movies uses the words "factual" and "objective." Moore has shown that he is not always factual and is almost never objective, which is why he said he doubts all of Moore's films.

 

The "absurd extreme" was the implication that he expects unbiased honesty in "movies." He never implied that.

[BigRedBuster]

Attempting to take his stance to absurd extremes doesn't make your point any more cogent.

 

You are incorrect about me "attempting to take his stance to absurd extremes".

 

Errr... no. You said:

 

Other than movies, where else do you expect unbiased honesty?

 

When you can show me where he said he expected unbiased honesty "in movies," you'll have a point. But he wasn't talking about "movies" as a whole, he was talking about documentaries. The definition of "Documentary" as it pertains to movies uses the words "factual" and "objective." Moore has shown that he is not always factual and is almost never objective, which is why he said he doubts all of Moore's films.

 

The "absurd extreme" was the implication that he expects unbiased honesty in "movies." He never implied that.

 

 

Thanks...well explained.

[sd'sker]

sub-husker said 'mockumentaries', i think he meant 'infotainment'. either way, objectivity seems subjective, at least it seems like an argument in semantics. it all comes down to presentation and perception. you can be objective with the facts you use to paint a picture and still be biased. again, as long as it is true. a lot of people talk about the misinformation used by moore, i will not defend fahrenheit 911, but would be curious to see examples from 'sicko' and even 'bowling'.

[Sub-Husker]

When you can show me where he said he expected unbiased honesty "in movies," you'll have a point. But he wasn't talking about "movies" as a whole, he was talking about documentaries. The definition of "Documentary" as it pertains to movies uses the words "factual" and "objective." Moore has shown that he is not always factual and is almost never objective, which is why he said he doubts all of Moore's films.

 

The "absurd extreme" was the implication that he expects unbiased honesty in "movies." He never implied that.

 

Michael Moore's films have been better described as mockumentaries than documentaries. Does anyone go to a Michael Moore film and not understand this or what his bias is?

 

Since Moore (in my opinion) does not make real documentaries, I defaulted to movies.

 

Read through the six posts I listed, and in your words describe what you believe he wants to see in documentaries.

 

I am a firm believer in 'know your source'.

 

I don't expect honesty or lack of bias in anything political, but am greatly alarmed by the degree of dishonestly in our news media.

[Sub-Husker]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mockumentary

 

sub-husker said 'mockumentaries', i think he meant 'infotainment'. either way, objectivity seems subjective, at least it seems like an argument in semantics. it all comes down to presentation and perception. you can be objective with the facts you use to paint a picture and still be biased. again, as long as it is true. a lot of people talk about the misinformation used by moore, i will not defend fahrenheit 911, but would be curious to see examples from 'sicko' and even 'bowling'.

 

Michael Moore's films have been better described as mockumentaries than documentaries. Does anyone go to a Michael Moore film and not understand this or what his bias is?

[BigRedBuster]

When you can show me where he said he expected unbiased honesty "in movies," you'll have a point. But he wasn't talking about "movies" as a whole, he was talking about documentaries. The definition of "Documentary" as it pertains to movies uses the words "factual" and "objective." Moore has shown that he is not always factual and is almost never objective, which is why he said he doubts all of Moore's films.

 

The "absurd extreme" was the implication that he expects unbiased honesty in "movies." He never implied that.

 

Michael Moore's films have been better described as mockumentaries than documentaries. Does anyone go to a Michael Moore film and not understand this or what his bias is?

 

Since Moore (in my opinion) does not make real documentaries, I defaulted to movies.

 

Read through the six posts I listed, and in your words describe what you believe he wants to see in documentaries.

 

I am a firm believer in 'know your source'.

 

I don't expect honesty or lack of bias in anything political, but am greatly alarmed by the degree of dishonestly in our news media.

 

From my view, he has been nominated for or won over 50 awards for creating "DOCUMENTARIES". Gee.....I wonder why people think he makes "documentaries".

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601619/awards

[sd'sker]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mockumentary

 

sub-husker said 'mockumentaries', i think he meant 'infotainment'. either way, objectivity seems subjective, at least it seems like an argument in semantics. it all comes down to presentation and perception. you can be objective with the facts you use to paint a picture and still be biased. again, as long as it is true. a lot of people talk about the misinformation used by moore, i will not defend fahrenheit 911, but would be curious to see examples from 'sicko' and even 'bowling'.

 

Michael Moore's films have been better described as mockumentaries than documentaries. Does anyone go to a Michael Moore film and not understand this or what his bias is?

i think of 'the office', where they use a documentary format but it is a traditional sitcom. i think he is earnest in his attempts, but he just puts more focus on entertainment value (sacrificing integrity) because he wants people to actually see his films.

[knapplc]

When you can show me where he said he expected unbiased honesty "in movies," you'll have a point. But he wasn't talking about "movies" as a whole, he was talking about documentaries. The definition of "Documentary" as it pertains to movies uses the words "factual" and "objective." Moore has shown that he is not always factual and is almost never objective, which is why he said he doubts all of Moore's films.

 

The "absurd extreme" was the implication that he expects unbiased honesty in "movies." He never implied that.

 

Michael Moore's films have been better described as mockumentaries than documentaries. Does anyone go to a Michael Moore film and not understand this or what his bias is?

 

Since Moore (in my opinion) does not make real documentaries, I defaulted to movies.

 

Read through the six posts I listed, and in your words describe what you believe he wants to see in documentaries.

 

I am a firm believer in 'know your source'.

 

I don't expect honesty or lack of bias in anything political, but am greatly alarmed by the degree of dishonestly in our news media.

 

I don't totally disagree with you. And I'm certainly not in support of Michael Moore. All I'm saying is, he (BigRedBuster) just expects that a guy who says he's giving you the "real" story to actually do that.

[Sub-Husker]

I don't totally disagree with you. And I'm certainly not in support of Michael Moore. All I'm saying is, he (BigRedBuster) just expects that a guy who says he's giving you the "real" story to actually do that.

 

It comes down to... does anyone going to a Michael Moore film believe that they are getting the "real story".

 

Perhaps so (the Ed Schultz audience), but I am biased by my own desire to research sources.