Amanda --->Cold dead hands (or a lawyer), was Bowling for Columbine

[Shaun Hately]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" <kcawte at b...>
wrote:

> Me -
> 
> Actually having just gone and read the Wall Street Journal article I
would
> have to say that it isn't exactly enamored with facts itself. I'm
not going
> to go into details here, as I'm sure most people would be bored but
I'd be
> happy to carry this on offlist with anyone interested. I noticed several
> statements in it that make me wonder if they watched the film. I
also notice
> that they gave the researchers for BFC 24 hours (possibly less) to
respond
> and went to press without securing a response so it is also one
sided and it
> does seem to be basing a lot of its opinions on the opinions of the guy
> responsible for the second site you linked to. Again I make no
judgements on
> his reliability but I'm not keen on its over-reliance on that one
source.

I see absolutely no sign that the Wall Street Journal chose to rely on
only one source. Indeed, I have seen dozens of articles about the
misrepresentations that Mike Moore made in his film - and I have
checked out those misrepresentations for myself. I had to. It's part
of my job.

I work for a large, Australian, public safety organisation. Our brief
is to critically examine any issue that relates to the public safety
of the Australian people, and to make use of any resources that would
help promote public safety within Australia. Since the Port Arthur
massacre of 1996, gun safety and issues of gun control have been one
of our major preoccupations (prior to September 11, 2001, it was
clearly our major occupation). We got a copy of Bowling for Columbine
as soon as it became available and watched it in the hope that it
might be useful to us in promoting public awareness of issues of
violence. Immediately we watched it, we could see obvious, basic
errors, which made us concerned about its veracity. While those basic
errors were not automatically self destructive to the films purpose,
they certainly indicated extremely poor attention to basic and simply
checked facts. So we decided to check out the film.

I didn't do most of the checking myself - I was working in other
areas, most of the time (technically speaking I'm supposed to be a
data analyst - but we move around a lot to avoid anyone becoming
hyperfocused on particular limited issues) - but some of it, I did. We
checked dozens of articles criticising the film, and hundreds praising
it. The fact is, while I think BFC is an excellent film, I do not
believe any film that makes such basic factual errors as that one
does, and which deliberately splices together unrelated statements
from different speeches to make it look like they were part of the
same speech (and I know this is true because I have seen the raw
footage of the speeches that Moore spliced) can call itself a documentary.

Basic factual errors - the most glaring to me was the fact the Mr
Moore claimed that there had been 65 gun homicides in Australia in a
given year. That claim is false - there is no single year (and no
single one year period) in Australian history when the number of gun
homicides was 65. That was glaring to me because I have to know those
figures. There was a year where it was 64 - and that was the lowest
number on record. Furthermore we checked every single published source
we could to try and find out where Mr Moore might have got a figure of
65 from - and we couldn't find one. Mr Moore also failed to respond to
requests from us - and others - to cite his sources. This was not the
only basic piece of factual information he got wrong by any means -
it's just the one I know off the top of my head, without needing to
check records.

In one sense, it doesn't matter if the number is 64 or 65 or 165 - but
if a person doesn't even take the trouble to check a basic number
readily available on the web, I think it casts considerable doubt on
the value of any dopcumentary he produces. If you can't even get basic
facts right, it's very hard to take your arguments seriously.
 
> The article talks about anti-Americanism (a very common you're with
us or
> against us attitude that the US media seems to be adopting) which may be
> true in regards to the French in general, but I doubt it was a
motivating
> force for the judges at Cannes (I could be wrong there, I don't know
much
> about them). 

You might want to check out the other films Cannes has awarded prizes
to over the years. Cannes is an incredibly politically motivated film
festival with very clear agendas. That doesn't mean films that win
there do not have real artistic merit - they do - but your chances of
winning are much, much higher if you present certain political viewpoints.

> Yes Michael Moore has political views - he is what you Americans
would call
> an extreme liberal and what we Europeans would call slightly left of
centre.
> He campaigned whoever the third presidential candidate was in 2000
(Ralph
> Nader I think) and is pro-gun control. However I would disagree with the
> view that that negates the value of the film. All news articles or
> documentaries or films produced due to one person are biased in some
way,
> whether it is deliberate or not, if we as intelligent adults cannot
> understand that and ensure we know what kind of bias we might expect
when
> watching/reading them then that is a failing on our fault.

First of all, I object to being referred to as part of a 'You
Americans'. I am not an American, I have never been to the United
States. I am an Australian.

Secondly, I share Mr Moore's views on gun control, and the level of
violence in the United States.

Thirdly, I do not believe that Bowling for Columbine is a film whose
value has been negated. Quite the contrary.

I agree fully that intelligent adults should be able to sort out
biases for themselves. And that is why I gave the links I did -
because there seem to be a lot of people out there who assume that
Bowling for Columbine is factual and accurate in all areas. It isn't
and I think people need to know that. If after reading the criticisms,
you still think the film has value, that's fine - and I would agree
with you. 

But I personally think it would have been a better film if Mr Moore
had stuck to the facts, without embellishment. He could have still
made his point extremely successfully, and it would be a lot harder
for people to dismiss his work.

Shaun Hately (my sig is missing in action)