Michael Moore the liar.
I didn't know much about him, or his work, other than that there were people saying he was making stuff up. To be honest, I simply disregarded the critique as a smear campaign by fringe groups who felt targeted by Moore. After all, his films were marketed as documentaries and not fiction, fantasy and/or drama. However, after seeing stuff like this and actually trying to listen to what the people giving him critique are saying, there does in fact seem to be some truth to the claims about him.
I find him despicable, a horrible person who shouldn't get to poison people's minds with his fabrications ever again. Yes I'm hurt by the lies he told and I foolishly believed.

I have to admit, that I had a fairly blue-eyed approach to both Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine. The films were well cut and entertaining, and had a message that I found, and still find, appealing.

However, with Fahrenheit and Sicko (especially Sicko), it became apparent that he was being very selective with facts in order to further his own cause. When most of his criticism seems to boil down to how politicians, the media and coorporations are misleading the public for their own agendas, I can't see why I should trust him. Even though, deep down, I really want to.

The video summarizes my problem with Michael Moore, when it points ou that the ends don't justify the means.

Moving this video to Mysling's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 3 days.

Beggity *beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter Mysling.

That clip never show's anyone responding to a question that Michael Moore asks and thus proves nothing. Sure it shows the audience laughing but if the video is so easy to find, then why can't they show Roger Smith respond to anything he says for even one second?

I'll tell you why: Because the poignant fact of the movie is that no matter what they said in private, he wouldn't answer Michael Moore's questions in public; in front of the people that wanted to know and couldn't get a private interview.

The disturbing thing is that this clip clearly does exactly what it's accusing Moore of doing. They're trying to make it look like Roger Smith said something in response to Moore's questions at that press conference.

He didn't.

That transcript that they show is from a private interview at a different time.

Just a bunch of talk.

But the entire premise of Roger and Me was that Michael Moore wanted to have a private conversation with Roger Smith, about the troubles in Flint. The article and transcripts clearly show that they had such meetings. Even though they took place before Roger and Me was made, the subject matter was the same.

Wether or not Roger Smith actually answered Michael Moore at the shareholders metting is irrelevant. Michael Moore already had the footage he tried to obtain during Roger and Me, but chose not to use it because the final product wouldn't be as clear-cut and entertaining.

When you call something a documentary, you enter an unspoken agreement with the audience that the contents are true to the best of your knowledge. Ignoring this, Michael Moore chooses to produce entertainment, and label it as a documentary. That is what is unacceptable.

I still find Michael Moore to speak a lot of truth, I mean when I look at what's shown in Sicko, and even if you can nitpick bits of it, I think it's safe to say it's a good demonstration of the US medical system... well, as an Australian I cringe thinking that our past government wanted to go more down the US route. We can walk into an emergency room here, have all sorts of tests and treatments and walk out again, nothing paid (have done so a number of times with our kids).

Can you do that in the US?

No?

Why shouldn't you be able to?

Why is it wrong that someone like Michael Moore wants that to be shown as a ridiculous state of affairs.

If the best they now have is picking on his FIRST film, now that he has several under his belt... well, it only goes to show they don't have much they can whinge about with his big successes.

I live in a country with socialized medicine, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Trust me

That being said, I thought SiCKO gave a really one-sided perspective on socialized medicine, without mentioning any of the drawbacks. The long waiting periods on some surgical procedures, the lack of doctors (at least in my country ) and nurses.

Ofcourse these are only minor problems compared to privatized medicine, but I still feel that they have to be mentioned in a documentary about this subject.

I don't find this a scrutiny of Roger and Me as a documentary, but of Michael Moore as a documentary maker. If he is willing to substitute fact for entertainment once, he has probably done so a number of times. And this reflects very poorly on the work he has done since then.

I’m not a fan of Michael Moore, because his way of presenting things is too simplistic for my taste, and I wonder who would still believe that documentaries show “the truth”, but I’d really like to know why this comes up after all these years. And who is this talking head?

The talking head is introduced as "James Musselman, Former friend of Michael Moore" in Manufacturing Dissent. Not exactly the most trustworthy credentials for an interview about Michael Moore.

But Michael chose to use that clip of him in Roger and Me, wich means they must have been working somewhat closely together on the project.

One critique about Moore no one seems to mention is that he puts himself in the documentaries. Very few, if any, filmmakers do that.

The more films he makes, the more he is in the film.