5 ms·

Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction. I guess you could argue it is really commentary

Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction. I guess you could argue it is really commentary more than documentary.

sharkweek 8y ago
It's like the opinion editor versus the daily beat editor. One is writing arguments and defending them, the other is trying to just present the facts of what happened. Both are journalists, just different types.
- bosie 8y ago
  I thought that what you just wrote is literally the definition for journalist vs reporter. if all you do is reporting the facts since you are a daily beat editor, you aren't a journalist?
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    Even reporters through the choice of facts can give a slant. "Man saves kitten from housefire" is different once you throw in "that he lit."
    - bosie 8y ago
      That doesn't change the definitions. Doing a terrible job (by neglecting to mention vital facts) doesn't change what reporting is (and/or should be) and how it differs from journalism.
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  No documentary in history has "just presented the facts of what happened". Footage is edited. Even documentaries that are exclusively interview footage are edited down from huge surpluses of material. When you choose the 1% of material to present, it is not possible to just present facts.
  - mprev 8y ago
    That’s not the point. It’s about whether the film maker sets out to be balanced or to act as an auteur.
    - rodiger 8y ago
      Regardless of intent, it is inherently biased
seanwilson 8y ago
> Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction. One movie I saw of his was intentionally misleading to a high degree in my opinion so I don't watch any others from him. To me, a point of view is to do with your subjective thoughts and value judgements. This should never involve twisting, hiding or being selective about objective facts.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > To me, a point of view is to do with your subjective thoughts and value judgements. This should never involve twisting, hiding or being selective about objective facts. You cannot avoid that, as subjective point of view cannot avoid impacting perception of the relevance and importance of objective facts (which directly effects selection and the perception of “hiding”), and also what the important relations between those facts are, which affects organization and thereby the perception of “twisting”.
  - seanwilson 8y ago
    > You cannot avoid that, as subjective point of view cannot avoid impacting perception of the relevance and importance of objective facts (which directly effects selection and the perception of “hiding”), and also what the important relations between those facts are, which affects organization and thereby the perception of “twisting”. Even though it's hard to 100% avoid bias, you shouldn't lump all attempts at telling a point of view as being equal. There's clearly a spectrum with the far end being propaganda and intellectual dishonesty. I value the opinions of people who can objectively present both sides as well as they are capable of and who separate out which parts are subjective and their opinion. If someone shows the facts that go against their point of view, that makes them more credible to me. Yes, avoiding all bias is close to impossible but that doesn't mean all people are worth listening to or can be trusted equally.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Even though it's hard to 100% avoid bias, It's not hard, it's impossible. > you shouldn't lump all attempts at telling a point of view as being equal. There's clearly a spectrum with the far end being propaganda and intellectual dishonesty. Attempting to tell a point of view is propaganda, whether or not it is dishonesty. > I value the opinions of people who can objectively present both sides What “both sides”? There's one set of facts, and often as many set of viewpoints as observers, even if there are two dominant clusters in public debate. > If someone shows the facts that go against their point of view, that makes them more credible to me. Yes, that's a common perceptual bias that skilled propagandists exploit.

Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction. I guess you could argue it is really commentary more than documentary.

sharkweek 8y ago

It's like the opinion editor versus the daily beat editor. One is writing arguments and defending them, the other is trying to just present the facts of what happened. Both are journalists, just different types.

bosie 8y ago
I thought that what you just wrote is literally the definition for journalist vs reporter. if all you do is reporting the facts since you are a daily beat editor, you aren't a journalist?
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  Even reporters through the choice of facts can give a slant. "Man saves kitten from housefire" is different once you throw in "that he lit."
  - bosie 8y ago
    That doesn't change the definitions. Doing a terrible job (by neglecting to mention vital facts) doesn't change what reporting is (and/or should be) and how it differs from journalism.
UncleMeat 8y ago
No documentary in history has "just presented the facts of what happened". Footage is edited. Even documentaries that are exclusively interview footage are edited down from huge surpluses of material. When you choose the 1% of material to present, it is not possible to just present facts.
- mprev 8y ago
  That’s not the point. It’s about whether the film maker sets out to be balanced or to act as an auteur.
  - rodiger 8y ago
    Regardless of intent, it is inherently biased

seanwilson 8y ago

> Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction. One movie I saw of his was intentionally misleading to a high degree in my opinion so I don't watch any others from him. To me, a point of view is to do with your subjective thoughts and value judgements. This should never involve twisting, hiding or being selective about objective facts.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> To me, a point of view is to do with your subjective thoughts and value judgements. This should never involve twisting, hiding or being selective about objective facts. You cannot avoid that, as subjective point of view cannot avoid impacting perception of the relevance and importance of objective facts (which directly effects selection and the perception of “hiding”), and also what the important relations between those facts are, which affects organization and thereby the perception of “twisting”.
- seanwilson 8y ago
  > You cannot avoid that, as subjective point of view cannot avoid impacting perception of the relevance and importance of objective facts (which directly effects selection and the perception of “hiding”), and also what the important relations between those facts are, which affects organization and thereby the perception of “twisting”. Even though it's hard to 100% avoid bias, you shouldn't lump all attempts at telling a point of view as being equal. There's clearly a spectrum with the far end being propaganda and intellectual dishonesty. I value the opinions of people who can objectively present both sides as well as they are capable of and who separate out which parts are subjective and their opinion. If someone shows the facts that go against their point of view, that makes them more credible to me. Yes, avoiding all bias is close to impossible but that doesn't mean all people are worth listening to or can be trusted equally.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Even though it's hard to 100% avoid bias, It's not hard, it's impossible. > you shouldn't lump all attempts at telling a point of view as being equal. There's clearly a spectrum with the far end being propaganda and intellectual dishonesty. Attempting to tell a point of view is propaganda, whether or not it is dishonesty. > I value the opinions of people who can objectively present both sides What “both sides”? There's one set of facts, and often as many set of viewpoints as observers, even if there are two dominant clusters in public debate. > If someone shows the facts that go against their point of view, that makes them more credible to me. Yes, that's a common perceptual bias that skilled propagandists exploit.