At 6/6/03 06:52 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:
Not because he disagrees, but because he slants his works to present only a select side of an issue, (his side). They're not documentaries, they're editorials on film. He asks leading questions to the "right" (read: left) sort of people.
I'd love to see some examples directly taken from one of his documentary of books.
Even the New York Times says he uses "slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery." And that's from a left-wing paper!
Please provide us skeptics with a link to that quote.
His style is lazy, his reasoning that he presents and his methods are slipshod and clearly slanted.
"His style is lazy"? that sounds a lot more like an opinion than a reason.
His movie doesn't even really answer the question of violence in America, it's just another "Let's Hate America" piece.
NOT ONCE were the words "hate America" or anything else similar heard in his documentaries or books.
Did you even see "Bowling for Columbine"? The question of violence was answered in a straightforward manner; the media focuses only on new and exciting events [good news or even no news is boring and bad for ratings ] thus creating a paranoid nation which goes out and buys guns to defend its household but ends up creating situations like columbine high schools. By the way, violence in America wasn't the only issue adressed in his documentary.
