Michael Moore: Mainstream Media Boosts Dishonesty

October 3rd, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Somewhat fresh off the trail from despicable attempts to distort the events and facts surrounding Columbine, 9/11 and the American health care system, filmmaker Michael Moore is back to perpetuate new mis-truths and to face off with a new “villain” – capitalism. In case of shear irony, in his new film entitled, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” Moore sets out to unravel the very system that gives him notoriety, fame and, no doubt, opulence.

Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.

Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter. 

A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,

…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”

If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”

How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to aReuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,

…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and ofdubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.

The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.


And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”

I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.

I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.

Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.

Rating: 2.9/5 (13 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!
  • Jason
    Please help us fight government corruption

    Sign our petition http://myfreepress.net/petitions/dont-tread-on-me
  • aliy
    Did anyone else notice that when conservatives say liberals are leading our country in a "socialist" direction they jump up and down and call us names, but when the news papers review Moores film its "an argument for socialism" and liberals think this is a wonderful thing.

    Keep in mind, in a true socialist country Michael Moore would NEVER have been premitted to make these films that are critical of ANYTHING. He would not be a millionaire (by committing random acts of CAPITALISM I might add), no one would even know who that fat shlub is, never mind follow him to the gates of hell calling for socialism.

    I think hes a diplorable slug. It is Capitalim that got him where he is today. Why is it evil for the rest of us but its OK for him? If he REALLY believed in what hes preaching, you wouldnt have to pay $9.50 to go SEE IT!! Wake up Liberals, this guy doesnt want a fair society, he wants to keep the rest of you away from his millions and youre fighting his war for him.
  • JackieM
    aliy, I agree with you completely. I have been listening to that idiot speak and cant believe that he buys into his own bullshit.
  • Dora
    instead of running your collective mouths off- it would be nice if you read some fact-checking regarding Moores "Capitalism" production...we already know your opinions.

    • Obama campaign money from Goldman Sachs employees. In the movie and in recent interviews, Moore has repeatedly said the Obama campaign got more money from employees of the Wall Street firm than any other private employer. We checked contribution records and rated that True.

    • The wealthiest 1 percent has disproportionate wealth. A key point in the film and his interviews is that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans has more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent. We found he correctly cites a Citigroup memorandum but that another methodology of analyzing the numbers would have made his statement incorrect. Mostly True.

    • Growing youth support for socialism? In the film, Moore suggests that the Joe the Plumber episode, which led to criticism that Barack Obama would pursue socialism, actually increased support for socialism among young people by Election Day. We rated that False.

    • A 90 percent top tax rate. Moore says in the film that the top tax rate for the richest Americans when he was growing up was 90 percent. We found that was the marginal rate back then and rated it Mostly True.

    there are more here:


    personal insults directed towards Moore ...like "fat slob" and such only shine the light on your willingness to jump right into your usual mud-slinging- and the facts be damned.
  • JackieM
    you are a total fool and have missed the points Aliy and I were making completely! Surprise, surprise--not!
  • billyLevine
    Michael Moore is a supreme opportunist and hypocrite. Why he recieves as much publicity as he does is a mystery to me and if there is any controversy it ought to stay in his head where it belongs. Instead, the media fuels his reckless and unsubstantiated allegations; all of which are intended to CAPITALIZE on the same things he degrades.

    The man is an entertainer...no, hes a circus barker for the freak show he assembled. "Step right up, ladies and gentlemen...go away kid, you bother me..." I ignore him. More people should do the same.
blog comments powered by Disqus