Is "Bowling for Columbine" credible?

[Against ME]

I always thought MM did a good job at telling things like they are, but I've been hearing alot of critisism about MM skewing the facts, and cutting out alot of footage.

I havn't actually seen the movie, but no doubt their is some skewing of the facts, because thus is the nature of facts dealing with such a loaded topic. And as for leaving footage on the cutting room floor, I have not problem with that, I trust MM to do a good job in representing people correctly.

Anyone that has seen the movie, or has an opinion about this, please tell me what you think.

[Randi_Listener]

1. One "factual" error

He was not able to get the gun from the bank on the same day as signing up for an account. He had to wait several days. Other than that....

[onecitizen]

13. Hahahaha

I've never seen that picture before. What a dork!!

[arcane1]

2. I enjoyed it thoroughly...

of course it will be hammered by the right, it's what they do!


When they start checking Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc, for accuracy, then I might take them seriously...

otherwise, it's a movie, not a college course. They protest too much

of course, the best way for you to decide would be to see it for yourself :-)

[MattNC]

3. errors/editing 'tricks'

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[AbbieLives]

7. check out the links page

You mean The Wall Street Journal's John "issues with women" Fund didn't like BFC? I can't believe it <sarcasm>.
The right is going to hammer the shit out of Moore every chance they get - he is popular & he blasts the wingers on progressive issues.

[Kellanved]

9. I have checked some of those

(Those about Germany) and: the "Truth" is as far off as "Bowling"; the numbers are in between.

In 2002 there were 5528 criminal acts involving shots fired;
243 homicides involved a gun; 873(860 in 2001) people were murdered in total in Germany. (I wasn't able to find a number matching Moore's, but the number of people killed by guns/gun users was always lower.)
http://www.bka.de/framer/text/pks/default.htm

The "Truth" report picked a peak year to attack Moore. And although the author attacks Moore for using numbers not rates, he only uses numbers himself.

[papau]

10. very credible - list of NRA comments/notes at Hardylaw and sprynet

But all NRA comments were refuted except time line on getting gun from bank - or were not important

http://www.michaelmoore.com/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/BowlingforColumbine-1117183/

list by NRA of Moore’s errors
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/bowling.htm

Moore letter to NRA:
October 30, 2002
To: Charlton Heston, President, NRA
From: Michael Moore, Winner, NRA Marksman Award
Subject: Your Visit to Tucson Today in the Wake of Another School Shooting

Dear Mr. Heston:
When you showed up in Denver to hold your pro-gun rally just days after the massacre at nearby Columbine High School, the nation was shocked at your incredible insensitivity to those who had just lost loved ones.
When you came to Flint to hold another rally in the months after a 6-year old boy shot a 6-year old girl at a nearby elementary school, the community was stunned by your desire to rub its face in its grief.
But your announcement that you are on your way to Tucson today, just 48 hours after a student at the University of Arizona shot and killed three professors and then himself, to hold ANOTHER big pro-gun celebration -- this time to get out the vote for the NRA-backed Republican running for Congress -- well, sir, I have to ask you: Have you no shame?
I am asking that you not go to Tucson today. Do not cause any more grief, any more pain. Let the relatives and friends of the deceased mourn. Why show up to play the role of the bully, kicking these good people when they are down, just so you can prove that you have a right to your big, bad guns? These are not the actions of a once brave and decent man. They are the acts of a coward, as no man of courage would think of picking on his fellow citizens when they are so consumed with tragedy.
Obviously, you couldn't care less. Because to you, The Gun is supreme -- and wherever it is used to kill multiple people (preferably at a school), there shall we find you gloating about some misbegotten right you think you have to own a device that is designed to eliminate human life.
Well, Mr. Heston, this time I think you have crossed the line. I hope that your efforts as a gun supremacist -- you are now, I understand, in the middle of a 12-state tour to help elect Republicans -- backfire on you in the surest way that it can: total rejection of you, the NRA, and the candidates you back come next Tuesday. The American people have had enough.
To the people of Tucson and the students at the University of Arizona, I am so sorry for the tragedy you have suffered, and I feel terribly sad that you will have to endure the sight of Charlton Heston and his gun nuts today. Take some solace in knowing that your fellow Americans by an overwhelming margin want tough gun laws -- and that the day of obtaining them is not far away. There is one small way to make sure Heston and the NRA are stopped in their tracks -- just check out the website of the man (http://www.grijalva2002.com/) they have come to Tucson to defeat. Let them pack their guns -- we will pack the polls!
Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

[ibegurpard]

4. I was very surprised

I guess I didn't know much about it because I went expecting it to be a total anti-gun rant and was surprised at how thoughtfully it examined the many issues that contribute to violence in America. I also though that it wasn't heavy-handed in trying to pin all the blame on one thing. The closest it came was to blame the sensationalism and fear-peddling in the media.

[Maccagirl]

6. I thought he nailed the media perfectly

They are sensationalistic and if fear sells (which it does)-they use it. Think of the utter nonsense local news peddles in May and November (aka sweeps months). EVERYTHING is dangerous!!!!

[Must_B_Free]

5. Nothing is unbiased

Did MM present what he wanted you to see? Of course.

There is a page called the truth about Bowling for Columbine. It is full of even more half and mistruth than he accuses MM of.

You have to look at specific instances. I read the criticism and my opinion is that the right wing can;t handle the truth so they try to change it.

[Darth_Ole]

11. BFC is not fiction.

But if there is a scene or so in the movie where Moore hypes up or exaggerates something, I wouldn't be surprised, because he has a bad tendency to do that.

Mike Savidge and Joe Scarborough are two people who say this movie is a pack of bullshit and lies and it's all edited. Ya know why? Because it directly and bluntly attacks their ideas. It's that simple.

Besides, I'm not about to give serious consideration to people like Mike Savidge or Scarborough. Just consider the source.

[Dem2dend]

14. Half truths

I just read the Blowling for Columbine page desperately looking for half truths. What did I miss?

[Must_B_Free]

21. For example

"A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston "

The page calls it "distorting the evidence".

it's called "editing" in the film industry. He is suggesting that moore is engaged in some conspiracy to fool people, by doing what is the essence of cinema montage.

[htuttle]

8. Does it have to be 'credible'?

If watch the movie with that attitude, you will miss the point.

It's a movie, not a news broadcast.

[Darth_Ole]

12. Yes, it does need to be credible.

It makes big political statements and it won an award for Best Documentary. It better be true (which it is).

It needs to be credible, because if it turns out that it isn't, it would completely destroy our cause.

[StandWatie]

15. docutainment is probably a better term

but watch the History Channel some time and start really analysing the bullshit they put out and you realize just how few true documentaries there really are.

[BigDaddyLove]

25. There are hundreds and hundreds of

'true' and wonderful documentaries, only you won't find them on the History channel.....although it's still a neat channel.

I would also (as you do) hesitate to put Michael Moore's films in the Documentary column, as what he does is more akin to finding images and stories to illustrate and re-enforce ideas and opinions that he already has, in a form of advocacy journalism; kinda like an essay with moving pictures in a way. The best documentaries seek to find and illustrate the unvarnished reality of a situation or environment (as much as that's possible when a camera is poking around in a subject's face or environs), that exist apart from and outside of the documentarians' influence; making a documentary is an act of constant discovery (about both yourself and the world around you), rather than an act of asking questions to which you already know the answers to or of ignoring anything that comes along that might conflict with any preconcieved ideas the filmmaker has. Moore clearly feels a certain way about his subject matter, and as such depicts his subjects (and issues) in a subjective rather than objective fashion.

Aside from that, documentaries are really, really hard work.

[Dem2dend]

16. Did you read the web page about it?

I'm disturbed about the editing liberties he took. If he really did edit speeches together then it isn't a documentary and it isn't truth.
MM seems to be destroying our cause, fortunately not many people are making a big deal out of it.

[StandWatie]

17. oh bullshit

Ann Coulter just wrote a book that said Truman was a communist sympathizer(!) and that McCarthy was a misunderstood hero, nothing and I mean nothing Michael Moore could say could possibly compare with calling a book treason and then lionizing Nazi Sympathizer, brought false charges against the US military, corrupt little McCarthy and then calling other people traitors.

[Dem2dend]

19. Venona Papers

Check out this site regarding The Venona Papers
http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/077718.htm

[jagguy]

23. as a documentary it's been shown up

there was a dust up to lift the award as it was thought more fistion that documentary. Nothing happened of course.

None of his stuff can strictly be thought of as documentaries. And credibility has been overlooked probably for this reason.

[ant]

18. both sides do it

Yes, Limbuagh, Coulter, etc. all lie and distort, and the right never calls them on it, but that doesn't mean MM is free of criticism or justified in using the same tactics.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

Quite frankly I was surprised by this. I like MM's politics, and for the most part I didn't think the movie was an anti-gun rant at all. He really did seem to be pushing the "guns don't kill people, people living in a culture soaked in violence kill people" line, which I happen to agree with. His argument is a good one, and it's unfortunate that that's lost because he chose to play loose with the facts.

[Fescue4u]

20. In a word, - NO.

Its an interesting movie. In fact I enjoyed the first half of the movie quite a bit and at about the mid point, I was wondering what all the negative fuss was.

MM makes VERY valid points about fear and media hype etc etc. Then in the last quarter of the movie, he kinda whigs out and pulls out of his ass "with all this fear, no one should have guns around"

At that point he pulls various stunts, which while entertaining and poignant, prove nothing (like return the bullets lodged in a kid back to K mart), and are just that - stunts.

In addition, he goes to GREAT lengths, and outright lies, saying that Heston went to Michigan 48 hours after a child was killed by another kid. When in fact such trip occured 8 months later, and was part of a political fund raiser.

At the end, he beats up on Heston in a way that I found replusive and did all but lay the blame of a child murder at heston feet.

60% of BFC was fantastic, 20% was a little slanted (but acceptable), and the remaining 20% was ludicrous.

btw, The "creative" editing went FAR FAR beyond leaving things on the floor, the editing in at least one case was an outright lie. (the 48 hours part)

[Fixated]

22. ...

In a word, YES. There are multiple distortions in that movie. He lied about the bank and the Lockheed plant near Columbine for starters. He edited Heston speeches and lied about when they took place. Ugh, it ruined an otherwise good movie.

[Yentatelaventa]

24. BFC is not credible - it's mostly fiction

Editing tricks and his own agenda. Nothing more than Moore himself.