You know this because...
...I've read the book.
Sounds like an Ann Coultier book.
My point exactly: Moore is using the same sort of method Coutler does--only he's better at it, which is not exactly a big compliment. So why do you believe Moore and not her? Surely both are unreliable.
Except the right can't do it without fabrication that would by default make Moore look even more reasonable.
"Even more" reasonable than what, exactly?
What I am saying is that you make yet another assumption. That such a movie is possible without completely and immediately backfiring.
Moore's "9/11" is rather good evidence that it is. Try Soviet-era "anti-capitalist" films and nazi-era German films and you'd see it's possible, too. Do you REALLY think ALL those who admired the wonderful, humane, moderate man who was the hero of Lenni Reifenstahl's "Hitler Over Germany" (to name one) were just scared of the Gestapo? No, they believed it.
The truth is, people can--and are--fooled by the crudest propaganda; and the more they think they're too smart for it, the more easily they fall for it. It's quite possible to be brainwashed by propaganda without any coersion, or for that matter realizing it; in fact, that's what it's trying to achieve.
Advertisers know this damn well. Think about it: you see a 30-second broadcast on television that you KNOW is sent to you by those who have a vested interest to buy X, that you KNOW have no way to force you to buy X, that you KNOW will only tell you what they think will make you buy X regardless of the truth...
...and you still go and buy X. How much more easily can you be brainwashed if you don't know--or refuse to believe--that the advertiser (Moore, in this case) is only telling you what he wants you to see with the purpose of making you vote for X? In fact, it's effective even if you DO know that.
I'm sure (not really, I'm guessing) someone will try, that it will be a stinking piece of crap, and righties will whine about liberal dominance of whatever when it goes over like a lead balloon.
They already did. There was a movie, very similar to Moore's, "connecting the dots" about Bill Clinton and "proving" he is a murderer, a drug runner, etc., etc., etc.
Not only did it flop, but it was the republicans and other conservatives themselves that renounced it as utter nonsense, fearing that such conspiracy theory loony idea will rub off of them. Nobody in the conservative circles claimed there was a "liberal conspiracy" against it (at least not in mainstream republican party people or other reputable organizations), and they actually breathed a sigh of relief when it flopped.
The truth is, that while the liberals keep ranting about republican "lies", the record shows that it is them, not the right, who are masters of stretching and manipulating the truth for their purposes, or embracing those (like Moore) who do.
People get upset when they think they are lied to or misled. If it turns out Moore is lying, it will come back around, don't you worry.
Indeed so. After all, once it became totally clear that the Marxist revolution has been an utter disaster--the mid-30s at the latest--it didn't take longer than, oh, 50-60 years for most marxists in the west to renounce it.
You're quite wrong, Suddenly. People WANT to be lied to and mislead--as long as the lies are pleasant to their self esteem. Moore capitalizes on this fact (in both senses of the word). Even if it turns out (as is already the case) that Moore's "Bush is evil and we liberal people are the true heroes of America" schtick is, to say the least, inaccurate, getting them away from this comforting fantasy would be like taking a chicken bone from a dog. Look how long it took to get them to let go of the "capitalists like them evil, socialists like us good" mantra.
