Confusing a Weak Argument with Being Right

From time-to-time, I like to take apart an article piece-by-piece just to provide examples of poorly constructed arguments. Most of the time, I happen to disagree with the points the author of the article is trying to make, which further demonstrates my point that the author makes a lousy argument. This time 'round, I agree with the guy, for the most part, but he still makes a lousy argument. What follows is my deconstruction of an opinion piece at CapitolHillBlue.Com written by a fellow who is supposed to be a journalist, but all he really sounds like is a pompous Republican windbag who forgets that a good opinion piece explains how the opinion is right and has a rational motivation for backing it up. Here we go:

Confusing Fiction With Fact

By DAN K. THOMASSON
May 25, 2004, 08:10

I'm suspicious already - anyone who thinks they have a firm grasp on the facts, usually doesn't. After all, what are one man's facts are another man's lies.

It really should come as no surprise that the international film community finally put an official stamp of approval on political propaganda.

Sure, that's usually government's domain. Just a few months ago, the Bush 43 Administration produced pro-Medicare-bill news reports with fake reporters talking about how great the new bill was without providing any facts. These reports were then sent to news programs many of whom ran the reports without mentioning they were fake or from the government. The GAO eventually found that the reports were illegal since they were quite literally covert propaganda.

The movie industry everywhere has had but one rule: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story even if it's billed as the truth.

Well, assuming it will make them some cash. If telling the truth could make them money and you could prove it to them, you can bet that Hollywood would be making truth movies left and right.

So the self-styled gadfly,

What's a "gadfly"? Are you one of those hideously old people? Like in your 80s who is so wrapped up in 1950's-era "America is great" stuff? But I digress - I shouldn't do the "Republican" thing and attack character. Personally, I am no big fan of much of what Michael Moore does, although I do think he's a talented film maker. I do think he's a showman and in the business of making money.

Michael Moore, has received the coveted Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival for his "docufiction" opus "Fahrenheit 9/11" amid promises that when Americans see it they will be swayed to vote against its target, George W. Bush.

OK, well, I'll assumed that you've got some proof that calling his movie a "docufiction" is an accurate statement. Sure, one man's facts are another's lies, but we can generally agree on certain reasonable truths.

That is, of course, when Moore and his supporters at Miramax find a distributor in this country.

Is that a dig? What the hell, the last independent picture to have trouble getting a distributor in the US was Mel's Jesus movie. I hardly think Moore's film will have real trouble, either.

Disney properly identified it as election-year campaigning masquerading as a legitimate documentary and refused to have anything to do with it.

Um, you should really do your research on a topic before you write, even an opinion piece, on it. Over a year ago when Moore first announced the deal with Miramax Disney said they wouldn't distribute it. Moore just made a big deal about it because he was trying to generate publicity. Way to buy into his line of crap. You're such an old-skool cynical newsman!

Obviously, someone will come forth to sell Moore's anti-Bush harangue to U.S. audiences. The prize probably has ensured that and the impact will be measured in good old dollars and cents, which is the object.

Of course, that's the target. Would you spend months and months working on a project for a company to get paid nothing? How is Moore supposed to continue "sticking it to the man" if he has no money in the bank? This is a capitalist society and as such we all need money to continue doing what we do.

Moore professes to tell us the real reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a connection between Bush and the Saudi royal family.

So, you've seen the movie? Because, I have not and based on Moore's previous work must assume that he makes a better argument than that. The argument you quote makes no sense whatsoever. "Four aircraft were hijacked and crashed killing thousands on the ground because Bush has business dealings with the Saudi family??"

That's completely illogical.

That's like saying K-Mart bombed my house because I bought some shampoo there.

As with most conspiracy theorists, he makes far more than he can prove out of the most tenuous connections.

So now you accuse him of being a member of the tin-hat society. Why is it that whenever people take issue with someone accusing the government of something the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is thrown around? Would it kill you to consider what the so-called "conspiracy theorist" is suggesting before writing him or her off? Why this desperation to discredit and disregard the words of someone who accusing a world leader of something? Is it, perhaps a fear that you'll be forced to actually DO something about that leader?

And he bashes everything else Bush has done since taking office.

What isn't bashable? No child left behind never got the funding it was supposed to get, while the Iraq Attack was underway, Republicans cut military health benefits, Bush deliberately mislead the American people in to thinking that Iraq and Saddam could lead to another 911, he couldn't catch Osama, couldn't find any WMD, and now over 10,000 Iraqi civilians are dead along with hundreds of American GIs.

What's not to bash?

Don't forget that Bush broke International Law by invading a sovereign member of the UN (Iraq) and by doing so violated the US Constitution. This makes America a criminal nation abroad and Bush a criminal at home. Hell, Clinton got impeached for a much minor crime than this.

Bush is the most public of figures and, therefore, is practically libel-proof. Moore can say what he wants about the president short of accusing him of capital murder, which one gets the feeling he would like to do.

Well, those American GIs and Iraqi civilians didn't kill themselves, did they? Well, actually, more than twenty American GIs did kill themselves, but that's a slightly different issue.

But, if nothing else, Moore should have had the decency to turn his project into a real movie like Oliver Stone did for "JFK," the completely unverifiable, off-the-wall conspiracy theory about John Kennedy's assassination.

I'll give you that. For all of Oliver Stone's brilliance, JFK is a total crock. Any critical mind can tear that film a new one. As for Moore making a drama out of it, I can't judge. I haven't seen the movie nor have you really presented any compelling argument that Moore has done anything wrong. You accuse him of "bashing" but provide no examples.

It would have been a more truthful approach. Those who care about honesty in documentary filmmaking would not have to be embarrassed about the disservice done to their craft.

Well, embarrassed, perhaps, but shocked? Surprised? Look at Moore's previous films, do some research and you'll find that Moore does "rearrange" the truth to suit his needs. But then, I do recall a certain American "leader" doing the same thing in front of the UN.

If anyone doubts the motives behind this, the film received a record long-standing ovation at its festival screening and was only one of three "documentaries" allowed in the competition in 50 years. That doesn't happen with films about wildlife or Eskimos or because the texture and cinematography were super.

What a POWERFUL statement against the entertainment industry you just made!! Next thing you'll be telling me is that the Academy is racist!! WOW!! You are ON THE EDGE, MAN!

Yet Moore can't even be honest about his reasons for the film. He and the festival jury chairman, Quentin Tarantino, had the temerity to claim that the quality of the film, not its political message, was the reason for the highest honor awarded. Balderdash!

"Balderdash??" BALDERDASH??? What ever happen to "adapting your message to your audience?" This is the 21st century, you can say "crap" or "garbage" or "come on" or ANYTHING and you'll lose less readers. But, to your point, you accuse Moore and Tarantino of lying, saying the decision to give it the top prize at Cannes is because of the quality of the film. You're right - that is a crock. But understanding Moore's tendency to rearrange the truth and Tarantino's tendency to steal entire scenes from other (better) films, combine them, and call them his own movies, we can expect lies from these two goons.

Moore contends with a straight face that he did not set out to make a political film. He just wanted people to leave the theater feeling that it was an enjoyable way to spend two hours.

Oh, come on! You honestly think ANYONE believes that? "Yeah, I was thinking that I'd like to provide people with a pleasant way to spend two hours - I know! I'll make a movie about 911!!!"

Are you cynical or naive, please pick one before you write your next opinion piece.

It would be fair to ask him: Enjoyable for whom? Sen. John Kerry and his fellow Democrats generally? It is safe to predict that the president of the United States or his relatives would not find it a pleasant experience.

Or the 911 families, or anyone who doesn't like to see corruption in government, the misleading of the citizens by their government or, Americans, in general, I'd say.

Of course, the jury paid no attention to the main thrust of the film. The members just liked the way the film was edited, the color and the tone of the narration and whatever.

I take it you didn't go to film school. I did. One of the things we learned is that even documentaries have an opinion, a point to make. You don't make a documentary about drugs without picking a side on it. Your film WILL come out on one side of the fence or another. You have no choice because odds are, you're not the perfect film maker. No human can disassociate him or herself from the subject enough to make a perfectly balanced film about ANYTHING. It's one of the draw backs of being human.

And to prove their independence from political persuasion, Tarantino was quick to point out that four of the panel members were American and only one was French. So you can't blame it on the host country's growing anti-Americanism no matter what all those right-wing radio and television and newspaper commentators are bound to say.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that Hollywood tends to suggest that the news media is right-wing? Any educated person knows that this is not true. The truth is that the news media isn't left-wing or right-wing. They are green-wings. Motivated by money and money alone. Their overt-wingedness (??) depends on who buys the most papers.

A good example of this is how while researching a story recently I found a few news sources online covering how the US Government was pushing the UN to give US soldiers in Iraq immunity from lawsuits in post-hand-Iraq. I couldn't find any American news sources for this story. If the US Media were truly liberal, they'd have covered this story like it was Monica Lewinski.

"In view of recent developments at Abu Ghraib, we find it shocking that the US would push for immunity against those crimes," the 'left-wing' pundits would say.

Perhaps we shouldn't make too much out of this.

Too late!

Moore earns a living being an unattractive, obnoxious nose-tweaker of the powerful.

As opposed to Dick Cheney who is unattractive, obnoxious, member of the powerful. (Sorry, he was the only overweight guy in the Bush 43 Administration that I could think of.)

The only danger is that impressionable young people think all movies about current events are rooted in undeniable fact and will regard this as just more proof of the evils of government.

Yeah, you're right! They should listen only to the news media, which never gets it wrong! Oh and they should also listen to Bush, since he never misleads anyone!

There is some real damage to the art form and the attendant loss of faith in the institutions of democracy.

You're worried about some film maker damaging people's faith in the institutions of democracy??? If you were a true American you'd realize that some film maker is the least of your worries when you've got a guy in the White House who has made a bunch of claims that have costs thousands of lives and turned the world against us. He didn't want the 911 commission to be created. He and Cheney quote executive privilege more times than Clinton did and all Clinton did was cheat on his wife in the oval office. He got impeached for lying about it. At the very least Bush stretched the truth to the UN. I don't care what your feelings are on the validity of the UN, itself, but misleading the UN is essentially misleading the world. Because that's what the UN represents.

That's what bugs me about people who go after people like Michael Moore. They're the lefties. Lefties are the little guy right now. They have virtually no voice in government. The Republicans dominate everything. The news channel with the most ratings is Fox News, an acknowledged clearing house for right wing propaganda. All this and people like you take issue with so-called lefties who bend the truth to fit their needs.

Don't treat Fahrenheit 911 like it's Birth of a Nation. Oh, that's right, you didn't go to film school. Birth of a Nation was silent film maker D.W. Griffith's defense of America. It told the tale of blacks taking over America. It was a fictional Civil War-era drama that featured a then historical group known as the Ku Klux Klan. They had all but disappeared when Griffith's movie premiered but white men everywhere were happy to take up the call and fight those black people back!

SIGH.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is no Birth of a Nation. Birth of a Nation encouraged men to put on bed sheets and murder black people. Farenheit 911, from what I understand, encourages people to be suspicious of the Bush clan specifically and the US government, in general.

In light of recent events, I'd say this was warranted.

Or should we not pay attention to things our government that might be wrong?

Perhaps you'd prefer we all turn a blind eye to the most powerful government on Earth and just trust that it would never abuse it's power.

Again, you've really got to decide which side of the fence you're on - cynical or naive. Damage to the institution of democracy, indeed.

It is not hard to see that the award was an "in your face" to Disney, that most American of companies, which realized that putting its imprimatur on a campaign exercise of this nature would have been not only unfair but also bad for business. Tarantino is connected to Miramax, after all.

How shrewd you are, sir! Calling a capitalist a "capitalist" is hardly an insult to them. As for Disney not wanting to get political, they've donated millions over the years to various political parties and campaigns and even lobby the US Government like any other major company. A more accurate judgment about Disney's behavior regarding Moore's film is probably that they are a friend to government like any other major corporation. They want to stay in the good graces of whomever's in charge in the White House. It's not Disney calling Moore's film is crap and therefore shouldn't be released. It's Disney saying "Let's not piss anyone in government off.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown. We have a First Amendment,

How kind of you to remember this in the final paragraph of your attack on Moore's film.

after all, and neither films nor books should be burned or banned, no matter how controversial. Audiences, however, should be aware that what they are watching is propaganda.

Well, until Fox News makes it's audience aware of the same thing, I think we should just leave it up to the people of the world to decide what to believe and who to listen to.

Viewers should understand that members of the Cannes jury would have been quick to denounce it had they not agreed with the message.

That may be true, but it is irrelevant. After all, what does the average American care about some film festival?

(Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.)

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

And here I thought I was going to get to read how Michael Moore's film got the facts wrong. I expected to read about how Moore was staying true to form and leaving out certain things, like in his Oscar winning documentary Bowling for Columbine, when he conveniently left out the explanation that the bank that gives him a gun for opening an account makes him wait a week to get that gun.

The point is that you start off with the thesis that Moore is a liar and yet you provide no actual proof. You just repeat the thesis over and over and over.

You really are a Republican because you work just like they do. Repeat something over and over until it is accepted as the truth.

And come on, man - picking on the little guy? Moore may be wealthy and fat, but he is the little guy. The big guys are the Bush 43 Administration, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the corporations of America. When one guy stands up and speaks out, even if he lies, he should not be squashed. There are much bigger liars in the world who are responsible for a hell of a lot more than what Moore is responsible.

When history looks back at the early 21st century, they probably won't notice you. But if they do, they'll laugh and shake their heads. They'll say "With all the mess that was going on in the world, with all the lying, deceit and killing going on by people in power, this guy, and people like him, pick on the few voices that dissent."

You go after the BIG liars who do the most damage and work your way down.

Michael Moore is just fat.

ThePete is a writer and webmaster of ThePete.Com an independent web site that has no political agenda beyond that of a hope to secure peace, love, truth, education and honest freedom to the world. (See, Capitol Hill Blue Boys? I can be cute and pithy, too.)

Oh yeah and I emailed the site that originally posted the original piece, just in case they need to be reminded that official "articles" usually need to stick to general rules like stating a point and then making it. Apparently the author got paid nothing for his article which makes me think that they might post my rip of his article. Wouldn't that be funny?