Dear Mike (Michael Moore)

[KelvinG]

Edited to add: Although would anyone want to give an interview to a person who's title of their film is immediately negative toward that person.

So why should GM or Nike's CEO have granted an interview to Moore, when it was clear from the start he would be negative towards them, too?

CEOs of large corporations are, of course, surrounded by a codron of secretaries and aides whose job is to ward of pests of all sorts--and that includes "investigative reporters" trying to find out the "awful truth about CEO X".

Moore seems blissfully unaware that he is merely one of thousands of such nudnicks who try to waste such people's time every day, and that them "avoiding" him was no more than the standard response to his annoying requests.

He has a big ego problem.

Actually, Skeptic, I mostly agree with you. If Michael Moore came a calling to my door asking for an interview, I would likely be wary because of his reputation. The same reason many people over the years have turned around and run away from Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes.
Of course, running away sometimes indicates you have something to hide. Why do you think the president only participates in carefully controlled interview settings. Because really hard questions would make him look bad, and of course God forbid the president look bad.

And I don't doubt some of Michael Moore's reasons for not granting this guy an interview are for the very same reasons that others don't grant Moore interviews. Does anyone really like to be under the gun?

And I've always maintained that I'm not a big fan of some of Moore's tactics. I think the way he ambushed Charleton Heston in BFC was not right. (The guy making this "Michael Moore hate America" documentary should probably ambush Moore the same way Moore ambushes others. That's probably the only way he'll get to talk to him.)

I do think Moore makes valuable points at times, and can't simply be dismissed, but his aggresive style and his tendency toward stretching the truth hurts him.

The guy inspires me at times, and angers me at other times.
Like a lot of people, I suppose.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Roger Smith closed a factory of GM in Flint, costing hundreds of people their jobs. This didn't just affect the people who worked directly for GM. The closing of the factory had an impact on the micro-economy of Flint. The factory was closed so that one could be opened in Mexico, where labour was cheaper.

In other words, Roger hurt people, including, it could be argued, Michael himself, and he should have answered questions in the name of the public interest.

Nike has used sweat-shop labour. Other company CEO's who have been 'harassed' are also guilty of sweat-shop labour, discrimination, environmental atrocities, animal abuse, and other issues which actually affect people directly. The media have been less than active in their pursuit of the people behind this. Michael Moore is one of the few people who take them to task for doing so.

Michael Wilson, on the other hand, has never been affected by anything that Michael Moore has done. He just doesn't agree with him. Moore owes him nothing.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Mr. Manifesto:
Nike has used sweat-shop labour. Other company CEO's who have been 'harassed' are also guilty of sweat-shop labour, discrimination, environmental atrocities, animal abuse, and other issues which actually affect people directly. The media have been less than active in their pursuit of the people behind this. Michael Moore is one of the few people who take them to task for doing so.

Nike uses what we might term "sweat shop labour", but the sweat shop labourers seem to be happy with their lot. People like me get cheaper shoes. Sounds like people are affected directly, and a good thing too.

I'd be interested to hear precise details about the CEO's who've been guilty of environmental atrocities and the like, and how the media have been lacking in their investigations of this.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Nike uses what we might term "sweat shop labour", but the sweat shop labourers seem to be happy with their lot. People like me get cheaper shoes. Sounds like people are affected directly, and a good thing too.

I'd be interested to hear precise details about the CEO's who've been guilty of environmental atrocities and the like, and how the media have been lacking in their investigations of this.

Well, how about that, your link to the right-wing Spectator forgets to mention Unsafe work practices. I'll be gosh-darned.

Missed child labour, too.

As for environmental atrocities that get little or no reporting in the media, maybe you should do some reading sometime. Or watch some Michael Moore!

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Mr. Manifesto:
Well, how about that, your link to the right-wing Spectator forgets to mention Unsafe work practices. I'll be gosh-darned.

And your link suggests that it was a report commissioned by Nike itself that uncovered instances of unsafe work practices, and that the company acted on the recommendations of the report. Good to see that the notion of corporate self governance has some basis in fact.

Missed child labour, too.

Nike claims instances of child labour are isolated, and there's anecdotal evidence to suggest the kids are lying about their ages to work there. Personally I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

As for environmental atrocities that get little or no reporting in the media, maybe you should do some reading sometime. Or watch some Michael Moore!

Well since you've claimed that these environmental atrocities are seldom reported, it falls upon you to cite what few media sources have had the foresight to report this.

As for using Michael Moore as a factual reference, you are being sarcastic, right?

 

[demon]

Mr Manifesto
"Michael Wilson, on the other hand, has never been affected by anything that Michael Moore has done. He just doesn't agree with him. Moore owes him nothing."


Moore has yet to cover large parts of SE Asia with agent orange, kill millions of Vietnamese civilians, poison Iraq with DU, and kill and torture ten thousand or more Iraqis (among the scores of other crimes against humanity the US military has perpetrated over the last hundred years or so). I suppose if Moore had have done any of these and was refusing interviews then Michael Wilson might have something to complain about.

Michael Moore might get his facts wrong from time to time. He might exaggerate (all people with an agenda tend to do a little bit of that), but if something even approaching truth and good character are what people demand, then why are they not directing their criticism towards the more harsher violators of such principles, of which their are so, so, many?

 

[RandFan]

Michael Moore might get his facts wrong from time to time. He might exaggerate (all people with an agenda tend to do a little bit of that), but if something even approaching truth and good character are what people demand, then why are they not directing their criticism towards the more harsher violators of such principles, of which their are so, so, many?

I'm sorry but find this hollow and a bit desperate. Michael Moore hasn't just gotten his facts wrong he has manipulated the truth. I think it appropriate for the press or even interested citizens to demand answers from those who spread lies and propaganda including Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oriely, Moveon.org, PACs, Activist groups and yes even the sacred and beloved fat a$$ Moore. Moore's propaganda has the potential to change public opinion in a very significant way. He does have the potential to hurt people. He has been caught lying. If he has nothing to lie about then he should have the back bone to come forward. He can't be compelled to but then the public has a right to judge his work based in part on his reticence. His refusal to respond is a good reason to question his integrity.

 

[Ion]

Considering the...sentiments running against the current administration in France it does not impress me.

Aren't the French right about Bush's war?

 

[Ion]

...
He has been caught lying.
...

Well, that's OK about Moore, he didn't kill people.

Now, regarding Bush who has been caught lying while killing people, that's serious...

 

[Mr Manifesto]

And your link suggests that it was a report commissioned by Nike itself that uncovered instances of unsafe work practices, and that the company acted on the recommendations of the report. Good to see that the notion of corporate self governance has some basis in fact.

It's amazing that these reports were only commissioned after public pressure was put on Nike to stop these practices, no?

Nike claims instances of child labour are isolated, and there's anecdotal evidence to suggest the kids are lying about their ages to work there. Personally I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

That's nice.

Well since you've claimed that these environmental atrocities are seldom reported, it falls upon you to cite what few media sources have had the foresight to report this.

As for using Michael Moore as a factual reference, you are being sarcastic, right?

No. Michael Moore, for all his faults, raises public awareness about issues that the American media don't really care about. Not when there are more important things happening, like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez breaking up, or Michael Jackson getting arrested for diddling kids again, or George W Bush saying he doesn't like terrorists.

 

[sorgoth]

Nike uses what we might term "sweat shop labour", but the sweat shop labourers seem to be happy with their lot. People like me get cheaper shoes. Sounds like people are affected directly, and a good thing too.

Very interesting...thanks for the link. This has sparked much thought...

 

[RandFan]

Aren't the French right about Bush's war?

Not the point of the thread. But to answer your question, not emperically and I don't think they are.

 

[RandFan]

Well, that's OK about Moore, he didn't kill people.

Oh, so lying is ok. Thanks Ion. We know where you stand.

Now, regarding Bush who has been caught lying while killing people, that's serious...

A claim. I know better than to ask you to document your claim. I guess we can all just ignore it. Again, thanks.

 

[demon]

Ion
"Well, that's OK about Moore, he didn't kill people.

Now, regarding Bush who has been caught lying while killing people, that's serious..."

Good point.
As the other thread here shows, your assumptions that the Palme D'Or represents a "French prize" are on shaky ground.
However, if we give you the benefit of the doubt and the French people/government really are "virulently anti-Bush" and his policies, just why might that be? Do they just hate freedom and democracy?

 

[RandFan]

No. Michael Moore, for all his faults, raises public awareness about issues that the American media don't really care about. Not when there are more important things happening, like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez breaking up, or Michael Jackson getting arrested for diddling kids again, or George W Bush saying he doesn't like terrorists.

Odd, people were not aware that terrorists are plotting to kill us and a tyrant was murdering 100s of thousands of people and there was reason to believe this man was dangerous so we invaded. No, I think they knew that. I also think they knew that Bush's detractors disagreed and made allot of arguments in opposition. Hell there were protests all over America. Moore was not needed for that. Tell me anything new that Moore brings to the table?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

A claim. I know better than to ask you to document your claim. I guess we can all just ignore it. Again, thanks.

Who said?
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Odd, people were not aware that terrorists are plotting to kill us and a tyrant was murdering 100s of thousands of people and there was reason to believe this man was dangerous so we invaded. No, I think they knew that. I also think they knew that Bush's detractors disagreed and made allot of arguments in opposition. Hell there were protests all over America. Moore was not needed for that. Tell me anything new that Moore brings to the table?

How about, that FBI investigators who were investigating the 9/11 attacks were frustrated because they didn't get the chance to at least interview Bin Laden's relatives before they were shipped out of the country? How many people know that one?

 

[RandFan]

As the other thread here shows, your assumptions that the Palme D'Or represents a "French prize" are on shaky ground.
However, if we give you the benefit of the doubt and the French people/government really are "virulently anti-Bush" and his policies, just why might that be? Do they just hate freedom and democracy?

I was just watching MTV and a reporter said the award was not a surprise given the politics and current environment. Apparently he didn't get the memo that politics and French sentiment did not play a part. No, its not proof that I am correct but it is proof that most will see it this way for obvious and correct reasons.

There are any number of reasons as to why the French are so angry that we deposed a murdering dictator who raped, tortured and maimed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

A third of the French people wanted Saddam to be victorious. They wanted Americans to die and Saddam to continue to oppress his people while he spent the oil for food money on palaces.

You tell me why?

 

[RandFan]

How about, that FBI investigators who were investigating the 9/11 attacks were frustrated because they didn't get the chance to at least interview Bin Laden's relatives before they were shipped out of the country? How many people know that one?

I'm sorry, can you document a lie?

 

[RandFan]

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

A commonly held belief by many. This does not prove a lie.

One can have "no doubt" and be sincerly wrong. Bush was sincerly wrong. Or at least not proven right.