Definitely not. Not interested in his movies for the many reasons posted in this thread.

Actually Stof. You didn't get the gun at the bank. You got the gun at a gun store after you open the account. Michael Moore was simply lying again... and you bought it.  The bank actually can't and doesn't give out guns right there.

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328

Spinsanity has a bunch on Michael Moore... Spinsanity being a former bipartisan fact checking blog founded by a liberal.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

etc.

In fact... that same founder and liberal calls the page you are reffrencing bunk. 

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html#106429368980662837

And hell... this was one of the guys behind "All the Presidents Spin"... the book that pretty much ripped apart everything Bush ever said.

So do you pick the ground of "flat-out wrong" for any particular reason?

Would you similarly claim that he attempts to give a "fair and accurate" view of the events he depicts?  Or would you argue that this is not important and that it would be unreasonable to expect him to given what he is doing?

You seem to genuinely think his movies reflect reality....so it stands to reason that you also think he is fair and accurate, right? I certainly get that impression when you describe his films as "informative".

Of course it's obvious the point of this post is to change the scope of the discussion a bit, but if you want to call something informative I think it is reasonable that it not be misleading in its key details and that it be representative of the full facts without omissions and overstated positions (within reason obviously, a documentary can't always be factually perfect).

I don't watch Moore's movies so I don't know anything off the top of my head I can point to, I'm just asking the question generally.  But to me if the furthest you will go in his defense is that he avoids outright lies then I think you make the case against him pretty well all by yourself.  So I'm just curious if you will go the extra step in endorsing his films? Lets say I was interested in watching his new film, what can I expect? Are his movies informative enough that I could watch them and not find them littered with key premises that are either presented through misleading narrative, missing vital relevant information, and/or misrepresent facts in some deliberate way?  

Or maybe you really don't think his movies are "informative" and that was just a poor choice of words?  I don't know really, but I hope you can fill me in.  I'm really, truly, curious to see if you think the notion that his films are intellectually honest is defensible and then if you think they are whether or not you can actually defend them against those who have seen them and disagree. 

On a side note Sqrl, it seems like Capitalism: A Love Story is performing similar to Sicko at the box-office, and will fall (very) far short of Fahrenheit 9/11 which probably means that Michael Moore is only preaching to the converted now; and I suspect that while most Americans are enraged at business leaders for the state of the economy, they know that Michael Moore only produces propaganda and are staying away.

Or people dont want to watch an educational documentary.  I'm tired of American Capitalism, and I probably agree with Micheal Moore on a lot of things, but I have no desire to go watch any of his documentaries, or any other documentary for that matter.

The documentary is actually doing great.  Its number 7 at the box office, bringing in over 5 million dollars.  Its not in that many theatres, so those theatres who do carry the film are treated to the third highest payout of $5,000 per theatre.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

What's interesting about the argument is that the trailer has Michael Moore going to the banks that got the bailout money, and requested it back for the tax payers.

That's not socialism, that's capitalism - removing the social bailouts from the greedy banks.

Manus, Capitalism: A Love Story is doing worse than any Moore movie since Bowling for Columbine. Given the data, it's going to be behind Sicko once everything is said and done. Great for a documentary at $5m USD in it's first 2 weeks, but will be behind Sicko and F 9-11 once it's done.

Socialism is the equitable distribution of resources, whereas what the American government did was targeted towards one group of indivividuals, namely businesses and corporations.  Thats not socialism, thats fascism or corporatism.  I've always thought of facism and corporatism as the same, and even though one could argue that there are differences, the term applies to practices of Fascist Germany and Italy.

Corporatism - the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism

Corporatism - of or pertaining to a political system under which the principal economic functions, as banking, industry, or labor, are organized as corporate unities.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporative

I like the second definition better...

Fascism usually has a corporatist economic policy but it's not always the case. Fascism itself isn't hugely related to economic policy, it has more to do with social and political policy.

Thats true, but I have a hard time seperating them.  When I think of corporatism I think of Hitler and Mussolini, since they are the only examples I know of.  Also, I have a hard time seeing fascism operate under any another economic system, fascists are opposed to both socialism's redistribution of wealth and capitalism's free market system.

Edit:  Misspelled Mussolini as Mussolina, sounded like it came from a fascist fairy-tale.

 Sqrl said: did you pick the ground of "flat out wrong" for any particular reason?

I picked flat out wrong because that was what I took issue with. To say he's too once sided or that he draws inproper conclusions from the facts is a different argument all together. From what I knew, most claims about his "lies" were themselves made up on sites like moorewatch (and if you've gone to those sites, you'll see that pretty much any accusation anyone can think to make is held up as true"  And in the past when I'd asked for examples of these straight lies on this forum I'd been given links to people that merely disagreed strongly with his work. But disagreeing doesn't make the original work.

So I asked for some of these examples, and thankfully people supplied them. And when I do have proper time to research the matter and respond accordlingly I will (despite how I hang around here like a buzzard, I rarely get time to actually reseach formulate and type out lengthy responces). I'm not setting out to defend Michael Moore. I'm setting out to find the facts, and I hope you'll understand that if I'm going to change my opinion on a director whose works I greatly enjoy, I'm going to want to make sure I don't do it for false reasons.