Quote:
Will I get much out of the film if I'm already upset about the state of health care in the US and can't stand Moore's methods? I gave up paying attention to him after Bowling for Columbine. This was because I felt he ran with the whole gun issue as a big part of the film without really ever coming to a proper conclusion as to why the Columbine shootings occurred. He also came off to me as someone very one sided in his reporting of information, and I've moved away from any news source like that, preferring to get both sides of the issue and make my own mind up.


Drakino - I do believe that Moore cherry picks statistics and facts in order to make his point more persuasive... Who doesn't?

I went to a panel discussion of "independent" and "new" media in San Francisco a few years ago. They were all talking about how ridiculous the mainstream press has gotten in the US. Of course, I totally agree with that sentiment. After the discussion, I asked the woman who was some mukety-muck at one of the larger independent organizations how they approach their news items. I asked if they go INTO the story with a notion of how they want it to be presented - in other words, do they have an agenda - she said "of course we do!"

The question is - what is truly fair and balanced today? Ok, you can persue your news from a variety of sources, but each is trying to persuade you as best they can. They ALL seem to have an agenda! Which one do you believe? Which is most persuasive? The one with the highest budget? The one with the most charismatic reporters? Which one SEEMS most honest and fair to you?

One thing is for sure in my mind - Michael Moore is encouraging us to DISCUSS these important issues. As far as I'm concerned, he's succeeded.

Have you guys been watching this Wolf Blitzer / Sanjay Gupta / Larry King stuff that's been happening in the last few days?

- Jon