[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Canadian editions, Moore, Jarmusch

[Shaun Hately]

On 4 Aug 2003 at 8:13, Dan Feeney wrote:

> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
> 
> Shaun, add up the handguns and other guns. This is from the US bureau 
> of justice.
> 
> Seems you didn't do what you said was so easy to do. According to 
> these official US stats, Moore's figures are way more accurate than 
> yours.

Dan, please point out to us which year on that chart shows 11,127 gun 
homicides?

That is the number that Mike Moore claims. That is a number that cannot 
be substantiated.

Mr Moore is the person who chose to give a precise number. Mr Moore is 
the person who has refused to give his source.

I am well aware of the US BoJ figures - I consider the FBI figures to be 
more accurate as the method used to gather those numbers is more 
academically rigorous - BoJ figures are always rough. Uniform Crime 
Reports figures are more rigorously checked for accuracy. That doesn't 
mean they are always precisely right - but they are better figures. 
IMHO.

The difference can be substantial - one example:

1999 - according to the UCR:

There were 8480 total gun murders in the US.

The BoJ page states:

There were 10117 total gun murders in the US.

When Michael Moore was asked for his source information, he has told 
people to check the UCR. So, frankly, I don't think it's unreasonable to 
assume that is his source.

Now - if he had simply used only the BoJ figures, that would not be a 
major problem. Different figures yield slightly different results. But 
it is a simple fact that he doesn't even use accurate figures from the 
BoJ.

There is no year where his figure of 11,127 gun homicides in the US is 
true. At least not that I can see.

Using accurate figures would not have been hard.

Now - if it was just the US, I might be prepared to cut him some slack. 
The numbers are large enough that some variation is reasonable.

But he doesn't get the figures for Germany or Australia right either - 
and those numbers are quite small and *not* easily confused.

He claimed 65 gun homicides in Australia in a single year. The closest 
matches was 64 in 1993 and 67 in 1995.

The man is not accurate. And he should be.

If he had said 'Around 11,000' cases, or 'Around 10,0000' cases or 
something similar to that, there wouldn't be an issue.

But he chose to use the number 11,127.

And that number cannot be substantiated.

If for Australia, he'd said 'Around 60', there wouldn't be an issue.

But he chose to use the number 65.

And that number cannot be substantiated.

His accuracy is questionable when there is no need for it to be.

And for a documentary maker who chooses to publically attack governments 
for presenting inaccurate information, while receiving an award for a 
film in which he does just that is, IMHO. Unacceptable.

Fact is, I could even accept that Mr Moore simply made a mistake - there 
is one scene in the original Bowling for Columbine that was removed from 
later releases because of problems with its factual accuracy. That's a 
responsible position.

But even after Mr Moore's errors have been exposed on other issues, he 
has consistently failed to correct them. If he came out now and simply 
said "I got the numbers wrong - here's the real ones", I'd be happy - 
and his arguments wouldn't be weakened at all because the differences 
aren't profound.

Inaccuracy in the media is hardly unusual.

But Mike Moore has deliberately chosen to attack others for their 
inaccuracies.

You reap what you sow.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia