Friday, January 25, 2008

Seniors: Film as Propaganda

Propaganda, as illustrated in 1984, is the systematic propagation of a particular idea or doctrine. You have watched and analyzed Fahrenheit 9-11 as a piece of propaganda. Answer the following prompt: Since we are beginning research papers: What is Michael Moore's thesis? What objective arguments does he use to support this thesis? What subjective arguments does he use to support this thesis? In what way does Moore's characterization of our modern government parallel Orwell's characterization of the Party? Finally, offer your personal opinion regarding the film as propaganda and evaluate its value.

34 comments:

Glassman said...

Michael Moore's thesis is that our government is lazy and hypocritical. An objective argument he made was that all congressmen refused to have their sons enlist in the military. Out of all of them, only one had their son on active duty. A subjective argument by Michael Moore was interviewing all the parents whose son's were killed in Iraq. Obviously they are going to agree to being against the war due to their loss, making the argument
subjective. Moore states that our leaders are convinced that there are weapons of mass destruction in places like Iraq, which gives good reason to invade it. In 1984, the
propaganda of the foreingn soldier is a symbol of the same thing. A reason or motivation to declare war and hatered for another nation.

Personally I think Michael Moore is totally biast against George Bush. Obviously no one is perfect and George Bush still hasn't done that great of a job, but it isn't just him. You can't just blame the country's problems on the president. In the film not one good thing was said about Bush and only his mistakes were expressed.

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore's thesis talks about how George Bush is doing a horrible job in office. One objective argument he uses was how George Bush was sitting in the classroom for ten minutes reading to kids while the nation was under attack. After the second plane hit he still decided to read until he finally left the room to take action. A subjective argument would be how he talked to the families that lost a family member. This makes it subjective because it’s one sided and they don’t show those who had a family member return from service unharmed. Some people sign up for the military where others are forced to go but he just shows the families that had a son that was forced to go to Iraq.

Michael Moore uses this movie to talk about how bad our government is. He only talks about the negative parts and never looks at the positive things we have done, making it completely biased. This can relate to 1984 because the party tries to convince its people to believe in what they want. Michael Moore takes his one sided view of our government and made a movie about it to try to get people to believe in the lies he put in as well. I thought the film was an effective piece of propaganda because Michael Moore twisted some facts and made his view completed one sided to get people to hate our government. This didn’t change my view of our government but I think it can change the view of others who are unaware of what our government is like.


James Kellogg
Period E

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore’s thesis is the idea that our government is not doing what it has been set forth to do. Moore’s only mission when developing this movie was to try and make President Bush look defective in his work in the white house. Moore never looked at what Bush has done to better this country, and his film is very one-sided. Although he does a stellar job in making the president look deficient, the movie needs to be not so anti-bush or anti-government. An objective argument that Moore uses in his film is how he shows only the negative speeches and actions that the president has made in the white house. He tries to shape the mind of the viewer into thinking that the president doesn’t know what to say or what to do when our nation needs his leadership the most. A subjective argument that Moore uses is interviewing a mother of a solider who lost his life in Iraq. He places excessive emphasis on one's own moods and attitudes to try and sway their opinion on the war.
Moore’s characterization of our modern government can relate to Orwell’s party in 1984 due to the fact they both try to change the minds of the people. They both want the world to believe what they think is right and for an individual to not trust their own opinion. After watching this film, you realize how Moore is not a fan of Bush and how his opinions on the president are represented. They’re were only negative aspects of our government represented in the film and I don’t believe someone can truly develop their true opinion on the matter based on this film.

by Eric Olson

A Hart said...

Adam Hart
Michael Moore’s thesis is that President Bush is lazy and started an unbeatable war because of his lack of security before September 11th. He does this in many ways. One way by showing the president losing the election and then they showing Bush in a private jet with his brother Jed talking about how he will defiantly win in Florida. Then magically the day after that there was a problem with the votes in Florida and there was a recount and Bush won. I don’t know if that has anything to do with the fact that Jed is the governor of Florida but the film made it look like in the film. Then they showed the president on vacation weeks after his inauguration. They said he need a vacation and they didn’t show Bush working and doing his presidential duties before his vacation so that was one way the film was one sided and subjective. Then the movie had a clip of how Bush got the files on possible terrorist attacks and he was busy at the times in the movie so he didn’t read them. For all I know as the viewer he had various times he may have read them. They said he didn’t care about terrorist attacks and it stated in the report that there were plans to do the attacks. But it didn’t say when these attacks were going to take place, then when the president was reading to the children while the attacks happened it showed the president think of what to do and they put that moment in slow motion. Then there was a voice over of Moore making unkind statements about Bush. I find that scene of the real video objective but the voice over I find subjective that was not called for. Moore doesn’t know how to react to that situation either I bet I think that is a tough situation for anyone to be in. He had to assets the situation and he did a good job with it.
Then they show America at war and all the dead soldiers in Iraq and they make the US soldiers look evil when they are training to kill people and hunt people down. They make the soldiers look bad which I think is subjective but they don’t show you that this is what they were trained to do not that they are all psycho killers, its just something they have to do for there pay. Don’t get me wrong it’s a crappy thing and I would never do it but it’s a decision people make and they are helping out their country so I’m not going to make fun of them. They did show the family of a fallen soldier and the crippled soldiers in rehab and that was objected that helped out his thesis. But it was also subjective because they didn’t shoe the living soldiers who aren’t hurt. There are a plethora of possible other objective and subjective agreements in this movie but there are way too many.
The modern government as characterized in Moore’s perspective is that the government which was parallel with Orwell’s is the government is all controlling. They can do what they want when they want to and they can tell the average citzen what ever they want to and the public will believe it. This is showed when the government said that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction before 911, yet after 911 they said they did and everyone believed them. So that’s one instance another one is when the presidents military records showed James Bath on them before 911 then after 911 Baths name was blacked out. Then you have Moore fighting against the government and the president like the brotherhood standing up to the party. It shows that no matter how powerful and deceitful the government is there is always going to be someone standing up against it in a resistance.
I enjoyed the movie as a whole but I didn’t really find it a strong piece of propaganda. It was a good documentary overall but it didn’t not change my mind over anything. It really didn’t speak to me, some of the film was just an annoying fat man talk. The premise of the film was just anti-bush and Moore practically showed us that. He showed the time he met Bush and Bush told him to get a real job. That angered him and he made this movie. It seems like he would make a movie putting down Bush even if 911 never happened. It seems like the movie is just an odd vendetta toward Bush for that comment.

Rachael Maggiani said...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary directed and narrated by Michael Moore in 2004. The film won Best Picture at the Cannes Film Festival of that year. The Bush administration’s flaws are presented throughout the movie. In the film Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore’s thesis is that the current Bush administration should not be in power because of corruption and poor leadership skills.
Moore uses both objective and subjective arguments in order to strengthen and prove his points. He presented the fact that the FOX news network was the first to report that Bush was winning the 2000 election in the state of Florida. Bush’s cousin John Ellis made the call. However, the way Moore presents this is misleading. Just because a news station stated that Bush won, that would not influence the voters. If a Democrat planning to vote for Al Gore heard the news, they would not change their vote because they believed Bush was going to win. Furthermore, the news call does not matter; when the votes are tallied, a winner is determined.
The story of the day of September 11, 2001 was also told through the eyes of Moore, who said that Bush was informed of the attacks on the towers, but “decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity.” Of course, Bush should have responded right away, but that would have most likely upset the children in the class if the president left abruptly claiming an emergency. Moore also says that upon being informed of the second attack, the president continued to read My Pet Goat. This is true, and the president should have responded, but it is completely possible that he was contemplating what should be done.
On August 6, 2001, a security briefing was released informing president Bush that Osama bin Laden planned on attacking our country via hijacked planes. Moore states that Bush decided to go fishing that same day. But, what is not said is what times of the day these events occurred. If Bush went fishing prior to the information, then that is not such a horrible act.
Lastly, Moore walks up and down a sidewalk handing army brochures to different Congressmen, asking if they would like to sign their children up for the war in Iraq. None of the Congressmen accept the offer. Of course, what parent, Congressmen or not, would want to send their children off to war and put them in harms way? Besides, it is not the decision of the parents if their children join the army or not; it is the decision of the children themselves.
This film can clearly be considered a piece of propaganda. Moore does present facts, but he does not always present all of the facts, or both sides to a story. I do agree with Moore that the current administration is doing a horrible job dealing with everything that is happening in our country, but Moore manipulates information and video clips in order to influence the opinion of others. Thus, Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 is an example of propaganda.

Ben Hastings said...

In Micheal Moore's Farinhiet 911 film his thesis was how terrible out government is going about things,and how Bush is just a terrible president as a whole.An objective argument to that statement is that how Bush took almost 4 monts of for vacation right after he was put in office. Bush didn't take anything serious when he was first put in office and it showed when it came down to doing somehting serious he didn't know what to do. So he did what his "Daddy" would have done and just wen't to war.A subjectice argument would be how although when they inteviewed a family that had had a daughter return from Deseart Storm the same family had lost a son in the war in Iraq. They only showed a one sided argument. From personal experience a family member of mine who was in the war supports what they are doing over there, he may not support Bush, but he knows that his duties where good. So showing the one sided argument is subjective.Moore's characterization is in parallel with the way Orwell saw the party because you can see how the government tried to control you and make you think that what they are doing is good and they only show you the commercials of big tough Marines and not the ones who are dead. The recruiters are an example of brainwashing and a parallel to the party. I personally thinkt that the film was good and it did show some interesting things and some true facts about things. It is a really good example of propoganda and how it can be influenced on people.


Ben Hastings

Courtney Gallagher said...

Michael Moore's thesis is to say the least bold. His argument remains that our present president in office, George Bush, is basically a joke, and is behind the scenes doing inside jobs, and corrupting our government. It is evident that Michael Moore uses every issue that exists today against Bush, and some how links our countries problems to him, his father, our anyone in D.C for that matter. Few points brought up in the movie were factual one being that only one Congressmen had a son or child enlisted in the military. It is not fair of Moore to call these particular people out, many people are supporters in war, but why would they even want their own flesh and blood to go to war? Also, Michael claims that President Bush was on vacation during August, and the begining of September. However, they did not show any work being done, phone calls being made, meetings being held...All Moore portrayed was laziness, carelessness and stupidity on Bushs' part. I will admit he is not the brightest man, has not made the smartest, most logical decisions but all Michael Moore showed was one side to our President. The President was thrown under the bus yet again when his reaction to September 11 was shown while reading to elementary school kids on the morning roughly around 9:00 a.m. they captured his reaction in slow motion, making sure to get the point across that Bush took his sweet time while in response to September 11. I'm pretty sure that if I was told "my" country was being under attack, and that the twin towers had just been hit, I wouldn't know what to do immedietly either. A piece of Michaeal Moore's propaganda that relates to 1984 is the control the government has over its people, and citizen, which I do agree with. More and more of what we are told and fed through the media and the front page of the globe is controlling our every move, and how we go about our everyday lives. The government uses tactics to scare us, and threaten us into believing what they say, this is similar to the party in 1984 that controls their common people into changing their lives to their standards, brainwashing individuals into not thinking for themselves, but for how the party tells them to think.

Overall, I actually enjoyed watching Michael Moore's document, I did think it was a good piece of propoganda because many people would watch it, and believe everything they heard, and saw within his piece of work. However, I know better...Alot of people would automatically believe in everything said, and go along with his anti-bush "facts." Personally, I can not wait to push Bush out of office, but to create something so obviously one sided actually bothers me because at times in his document it was pathetic how opinionated he was about Bush and the way he runs office. All i believe is that Moore knew what topics to film about so he could make Bush look stupid infront of the country when Fahrenheit 9/11 hit theaters, and thats why it was effective.

Pipes said...

ALl in all Michael Moore's thesis that George Bush is the wrong man to be in office, in my eyes is accurate. I agree with the examples of how George Bush is doing jobs and deals behind closed doors that our people are unaware of, and don't believe he would do such a thing, but for billions of dollars? I think so. It is obvious from Moore's document that he is against George Bush, and everything he stands for, if he even stands for anything. I do believe the movie was one sided which is a downfall, but I am against George Bush and the decisions he has made for our country. One example that was completely biast against our President is when Moore interviewed the family who had lost a son while at war in Iraq. This is biast because it is obvious that the parents that lost their son at war will be against George Bush, and his belief in keeping troops deployed in Iraq. This woman was for war before her son died, but of course is now against it, and the idea of fighting in the Middle East. This film is related to 1984 because of the control the government has on the united states that Moore represents in the movie. In 1984 the form of government that controls Oceania brainwashes its people into believing anything they tell them to do or believe, much like our government today and how our media makes people believe just about anything that is put on air or published in a magazine article. Personally I thought the movie was fairly acurate on the corruption in our government today, but it was boring listening to Michael Moore film everything one way and one sided the entire time.

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore’s documentary, entitled Fahrenheit 9-11, depicts the perceived close, mutually beneficial relationship between George W. Bush’s family and the royal family of Saudi Arabia. Moore goes further and portrays the actions carried out post September 11th by the Bush administration to be corrupt and bias. Propaganda was effectively used by Big Brother in the novel 1984 and likewise, Michael Moore is using propaganda to persuade the American public to oppose the Bush administration. In his documentary film Moore uses scenes, such as President Bush’s reaction after learning the Twin Towers had been hit and a mother grieving for the death of her son in the military, to play with our emotions and skew the truth.
Although the movie is obviously one-sided and biased against our current government officials, Michael Moore does utilize objective arguments to strengthen his opinions. Stating simply facts, not fallacies, about situations in America are strategically placed by Michael Moore, as a form of propaganda. The number of troops that were killed over seas and the footage of the Marine recruiters talking to kids at the mall were nothing that Moore invented. In these scenes, Moore is presenting objective facts that can not be disputed.
Michael Moore does bring his own opinions into the film in the form of subjective arguments. Moore shows “The Willing Coalition” or the countries that we consider allies, to be weak and comical in Fahrenheit 9-11. When the movie displays 200 monkeys from Morocco going to help the American cause, it is clear that these are the subjective views of Michael Moore.
Juxtaposing Orwell’s characterization of the Party to Michael Moore’s documentary one can find numerous similarities. Both groups aimed to control young people in their forms of propaganda. In 1984, the Junior Spies were easily influenced by the wants of Big Brother and taught at a young age to love the government. Moore’s video depicts the opposite where he is playing to a target audience of the young to preach the government is corrupt and untrustworthy. Symbols are a popular outlet for propaganda and can be seen in Orwell’s novel with the portrait of Big Brother looming over the city. Like Big Brother’s face, Michael Moore uses the symbol of America, the American flag, as a constant image associated with freedom and liberty.
Upon viewing Michael Moore’s film, I must consider the image portrayed of our current President. He is not allowed to show fear or pain like a normal citizen. Remember how you first learned of the attacks and how it made you feel. It was incomprehensible. All in all, I feel that the movie must be taken with a grain of salt just like all news or propaganda we are exposed to. The more opinions or facts we have, the better; the less “ignorant” we will be and the better equipped to understand the truth.

Lauren Southworth
English D

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore’s thesis statement for Fahrenheit 911 would say our government and administration are not making the best decisions and choices that they should. Michael Moore’s goal with his film was to show the world how our president has failed to do his duty; failed to keep our nation safe. Moore uses facts, interviews, and real life footage to illustrate how President Bush did not take immediate action on the day of the 9/11 attacks and how he has led the United States into even more trouble than before. Through these clips, Moore hopes the public will see how Bush’s poor decisions have unfortunately led to countless, deadly consequences and that our nation should no longer stand for it.
An objective argument that Moore’s incorporates into his film would when George Bush is sitting in a Florida elementary school classroom and was informed of the first plane crash at 9:07 am. Bush just keeps on reading the book “My Pet Goat”to the children, acting as if nothing traumatic has happened. Moore uses this clip to illustrate how Bush did not take immediate action to defend our nation and instead believes that reading to little children in a time of a crisis is the right thing to do. This can also be viewed as a unsubstantiated argument. A subjective argument that Moore uses in his film is when he interviews the families of the soldiers who lost their loved ones in the war, one in particular is Michael Patterson’s family. Michael’s family claims that in their son’s letter, Michael wrote “Bush got us out here for nothing”. The Pattersons, along with all the other families of lost war heros are examples of subjective They are opinions that draw the attention of the viewer to just one person in particular, proving to people that this is what the war does to you.
Moore’s characterization of our modern government parallels Orwell’s characterization of the Party because both of the pieces of work want to make the reader see how the government is shaping how we think and want us not to have our own opinions, just the facts we are given. “The war is not meant to be won, it’s meant to be continuous.”(George Orwell) After watching Fahrenheit 911, I learned how Michael Moore despises George W. Bush and how he handled 9/11. This is defiantly a form of propaganda because Moore is trying to preach to America how Bush is a horrible president who has turned our great nation into a bunch of chaos. By taking bits and pieces of speeches and clips of Bush, Michael Moore hopes to use this form of propaganda to sway the publics opinion, shining a negative light onto Bush.

-Brielle Bowman, D class

Anonymous said...

Fahrenheit 9-11 is Michael Moore’s attempt to press his views of this controversial issue into the minds of the masses. Throughout the film Moore makes it clear that the reason the attacks were successful is undoubtedly due to the negligence and laziness of George W. Bush and his administration. With the support of both objective and subjective pieces of evidence, he attempts to prove that the public’s election of President Bush did nothing but cause harm to the United States.

It is undeniable that there is in fact concrete evidence to back up the accusations against our President. Moore’s first step was to portray Bush as an imbecile who “stumbled” into office through the manipulation of our government. This is evident specifically in the scene where Bush and his brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, are discussing how confident George W. Bush is about winning in Florida. Conveniently he does. After convincing the audience that our President was never fit to hold office, Michael Moore proceeds to present evidence of his negligence and laziness. In the film it is stated numerous times that President Bush was on vacation the majority of his first year as President. Further more, Bush’s decision to continue reading to the children when he receives news of the attack is strong point in Moore’s diatribe. To top it off, revealing that Bush allowed a small number of planes, with Bin Laden’s family onboard, to leave the country immediately after the attacks plants a malignant seed in the minds of the viewers. People begin questioning whether our President cares more about this nation or his business.

But relying on just only this solid evidence would present a good argument, but it still is not convincing enough. Moore goes on to present further evidence of a “scandal” hidden beneath September 11th. By showing the film clips of his choosing, Moore can manipulate people into believing our soldiers are completely against being overseas and have no true knowledge as to why they are there. Moreover, by using specific quotes and moments that depict Bush as an unfit leader, he is able to convince many people that George W. Bush does not possess the necessary intelligence to command the United States. It is mentioned several time that many of Bush’s friends and colleagues stood to benefit from the attacks and the war that would ensue. Was President Bush truly negligent of the pending threats for the sole purpose of putting money in his pockets and the pockets of his friends?

This piece of propaganda portrays the current Presidential Administration almost as a virus to this country. Much like the Party in George Orwell’s 1984, Moore makes it seem as though the government uses propaganda and excuses to benefit itself rather than the entire country. Personally, I think this film is one extreme view and an excellent job at editing the right pieces of footage together. By doing so, Michael Moore is able to paint whatever picture he pleases, and those ignorant to the other side of this argument are often convinced.

Ryan Kok
D

Anonymous said...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is certainly a film that can be viewed as a piece of propaganda. It describes George Bush and the government during events such as the September 11 attacks and the War on Terrorism. Michael Moore uses this film to illustrate his opinion and bring about awareness of the corruption of the Bush administration.
Throughout the film, Moore uses many examples and arguments to help support his thesis.

Of these arguments, many of them are objective and definitely help to make his point believable. One example is when Moore shows the documents in which Bath’s name has been removed. Clearly, the government was attempting to hide something from the public. This helps to support Moore’s thesis by revealing some corruption within the Bush administration. Another objective argument is when a member of congress admits that they do not actually read the bills that they pass. This fact is completely alarming and shocking. It also points out more corruption in the government. These objective arguments among many others help to support the basis for Moore’s thesis.

While these initial examples seem convincing, Moore’s thesis begins to lose its credibility with the introduction of more subjective opinions into the film. One example is when Bush is seen reading to a group of children and he is told about the attacks on the country. Moore criticizes his reaction and believes that he should have taken immediate action. However, nobody actually knows what was said to Bush. He may not have had all the details about what happened. Also, everybody reacts differently to certain situations which is something Bush should not be criticized for. Another subjective example is Moore’s use of the opinions of families of fallen soldiers. Clearly, the majority of families in these circumstances are going to be upset and against the war. These examples added to a plethora of others are much too subjective and they reduce the quality of Moore’s thesis.

Michael Moore’s opinions of the corrupt Bush administration are supported by some solid examples, yet they become somewhat discredited by the use of subjective arguments. Throughout the film, Moore attempts to prove this corruption which mirrors the image of the government that Orwell portrays in 1984. Both Moore and Orwell illustrate governments that are striving for power yet their inner workings and hidden ambitions are completely corrupt. In my opinion, Moore’s argument is not completely convincing and I feel that his film was manipulated to coincide with his beliefs. Overall, Moore’s film fails to fully prove his thesis mainly in part to the integration of his personal opinions as opposed to factual evidence.
-Brianna Cote
Block:D

Anonymous said...

Fahrenheit 9-11, directed by Michael Moore, is a humorous yet subjective documentary about the Bush administration and its reign on Americans or lack there of. Michael Moore created this movie in 2004, three years after the 9/11 attacks. He made this film to try to allow others to see and realize what George Bush is doing in his eyes. However, Moore greatly exaggerates what out president has done and openly mocks him as the leader of this country.
Michael Moore sent many messages to the viewers of his movie. All of these messages revolved around one thesis: that by electing George Bush as a leader of this country, only pain, death, and awkward speeches would come to our home. Moore’s point of view is very one sided and very subjective. The most subjunctive scene that Moore used in his film developed when George Bush was informed that our country was under attack. Michael Moore, being all knowing and intelligent, could actually hear the president think. He said the president had no emotions when the twin towers were hit. He didn’t care and just read a book. To me, this is taking a point too far. No one can truly know what Bush was thinking, (except Moore of course). However, I do believe that the president was in horror and terror. Our country never had this happen in a plethora of years. To say he didn’t care was uncanny.
However, Michael Moore did use true objective material in his documentary as well. Moore, in the very beginning of his film, talked about the 2000 election. It was proven that George Bush and Al Gore had very close voting scores and that Bush had a member of his family working for the Florida voting polls. Also, FOX and NBC did have alternate winners for Florida at one point. However, this does not necessarily mean Bush won by cheating. This was just a slight error on the stations.
Compared to Orwell, Moore greatly predicts what our country will be like in years to come. Moore says how Bush has installed fear in us all in order for us to bow down to the government. He also says how Bush will never give up Iraq to keep us at a constant war that will not end. In some ways, Moore has a point. Why does Bush continually reject relieving soldiers from Iraq? Another way this documentary relates to Orwell’s 1984 is how Orwell said that after the party switched enemies, the people were forced to be enemies of that nation as well. Well, look what happened in Afghanistan. WE all were angry at that country, hating everything about it. Then, Iraq came into the picture, and we all hated Iraq and went to war with Iraq. I’m not saying we forgot about Afghanistan, but we certainly made a change in our enemy quickly.
Moore did a great job at making this documentary. Although I greatly disagree with almost all of his points, I believe he did a great job in making this film of propaganda. He did have great impact on many people and proved his point strongly. However, Moore will only show the bad things about Bush for he wants us to despise him. However, in my opinion, you don’t have to like or agree with a president of a country. But to brutally bash and humiliate a leader of our country, I believe, is one of the most unpatriotic things citizen can do. I don’t agree with Bush on many matters, but I do respect him. I will support our leader because he is the biggest representative of this nation. Moore did a good job on this film, but I believe it was done a little too subjectively.


-John Cummings

Anonymous said...

“When Bush was failing in office he did what every other president did; he went on vacation.” Michael Moore subjectively presents factual events of the Bush presidency in his movie, Fahrenheit 911. The movie primarily focuses on the flaws of the Bush administration and makes them overt to the public. Throughout the movie, Moore’s thesis of government corruption and failure of leadership is ever present.

Along with his quirky, subjective one-liners, Moore presents objective facts. Such as, the FOX news reporting of Bush’s win in the state of Florida in the 2000 election. It was John Ellis, his cousin, who made that call to the station reporting Bush’s lead. Moore presents this as ambiguous because of the influence it might have on voters and people in general. Also, there is a scene where Moore is talking to a Congressman about the passing of the Patriot Act and the man simply states that the government does not read every act it passes. Although it’s an actual statement, Moore makes it seem as if the government does not view any of the acts it’s presented with and will carelessly pass anything. Although Moore presents his case against the government’s lack of concern with a bias and skewed attitude, Congress should carefully review everything before merely passing it. On September 11, 2001, Bush was spending the day with an elementary school classroom, and when informed of the attack on the Twin Towers he sat there and then continued on with his reading of My Pet Goat. This particular clip in the movie is displayed in slow motion as to get the point across of Bush’s nonchalant attitude towards the attacks. Thus, the scene only demonstrates the subjective view of the day’s events. Had Bush immediately responded and left, the classroom full of elementary school students would be left with a feeling of uneasiness and worry. However, Moore appears to be one-sided on the situation and does not present that possibility. To further promote his disgust towards Bush’s lack of a reaction, he adds in that Bush went fishing during the week of 911.

Both Orwell and Moore characterize our government as controlling and all powerful. Our government reassures us that security in our country is at a high level of protection but in Fahrenheit 911, Oregon is depicted with only eight state troopers covering the whole state at one time. This scene corresponds with the line, “Homeland Security is not as secure as we believe it to be.” Our government is feeding us lies like Orwell’s representation of government in 1984 did. Also, after the 911 attacks, the government got people to fear something that was not there nor going to happen through putting high terror alerts all over the news. Therefore the government had the power to control what we felt, like the control Oceania’s government had over their people.

Overall, I think the movie portrays propaganda thoroughly. Propaganda is the spreading of ideas, which Michael Moore does in his controversial movie, Fahrenheit 911.He mostly presents his thoughts as one-sided, and either misleads the public into believing them or raises questions in people who once believed something very different. The film therefore exhibits a strong sense of propaganda.

Jordan Penney
Period: D

Anonymous said...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary created by Michael Moore. He depicts Bush and his administration as being the worst there ever was. Michael Moore’s thesis statement is about Bush being an appalling president, and the result of that is why America is at war today.
Michael Moore presents a lot of subjective and objective arguments to support his thesis. When Bush drove up to the White House after he won the presidency, people were holding up hate signs, screaming and yelling, chasing after the car, and even throwing things. Moore tries to prove that even from the very beginning citizens of the United States didn’t want Bush to be there president. Another argument was when Bush was at an elementary school on 9/11, reading books to a class. He found out that planes had crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. Then a while later while still at the school, he was told America was under attack. Bush never stood up and tried to explain that he had to leave, he stayed there. As America was under attack, Bush just sat there like nothing was wrong. As a result of 9/11 Bush started the War on Iraq. This has caused many soldiers to die and be severely hurt. A mother of a solider that passed away from serving in the war spoke in the documentary. She was a real person with a real loss. Her son died because of the war that Bush started. She tires to explain to people what it feels like to say goodbye to your child for the last time and then bury them to there resting place. She is in Washing, DC where another lady tries to tell her that the war is not a bad situation. Needless to say, the mom of the soldier fought back for her son and what he did for his country. Moore interviewed some soldiers in that were present in the war. They explained how they pumped themselves up for killing people and blowing things up. He is trying to show that Americans are turning into people who think it is ok to kill innocent people just because they live in a country that tried to take down ours. He also tried to prove that Bush knew Osama Bin Laden’s family and that he had a financial tie with the Bin Laden’s.
Everywhere there is a government or some kind of law force. It may be like the Party from Orwell’s 1984 or just a government system like today. People are going to disagree and agree. Not everyone is going to agree and have the world be perfect. Overall, the film Fahrenheit 9/11 was a great documentary and Michael Moore showed a great amount of propaganda that was highly supported

Alyssa Ruta
Period D

Anonymous said...

Alicia Scanlan
Period D English
2/5/08


Michael Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9-11” is a film that introduces the theory that the current administration should not be in power by stating that President Bush is a lazy person, a liar, and a back stabber to his nation. His theory is proven through many different topics through out the film. He first introduces George Bush and starts talking about the fact that he was losing in the presidential race and it depended on whether or not he won Florida. And Michael Moore shows George Bush talking to his brother on the plane down to Florida confidently saying that he was going to win Florida. Moore shows that during Bush’s presidency he was more lackadaisical than anything else. He was featured in the film golfing and taking a trip to his ranch. And the biggest topic in his film was that George Bush set up a war that did not need to happen. He had a connection with the Bin Laden’s and with the royal house of Saud of Saudi Arabia.


He used multiple types of arguments in the film in order to persuade you to believe what he thought. He used some subjective arguments where he points out his own point of view and he uses a few objective arguments as well where he points out what everyone is thinking. He presented the fact that when Bush found out about the first 9-11 attack he didn’t do anything he just stayed around to get picture time. But the thing that Moore doesn’t take into affect is the fact that he was in front of a bunch of children reading a story and he probably didn’t want to scare the children. Then Moore brought into account that even after the second attack he still stayed and read to the children. But the thing that he doesn’t know is what Bush was thinking. Bush could have been thinking how to deal with the problem at hand and not get the children completely panicked. Moore also brings into the film that Bush was warned that Osama Bin Laden was going to attack the US and he was going to do it by using hijacked planes. He was told this information on August 6, 2001 and Moore told the viewers that he went fishing on the same day that he found out about the attack. Moore doesn’t say what time he went fishing at or what time that the information was brought to Bush, so it is very possible that he could have fished before he found out about Bin Laden.


He uses the approach of talking to many different people that are affected by the war going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. He talks to a family that is really proud and excited that their children are in the war. This family was proud to have Bush in office and took a patriotic view on everything. Even though he brings in this evidence to make it seem that he was making the film from a non-bias stand point, you can tell that his stories about the people who don’t want Bush in office and don’t want the war to happen is a lot more compelling and emotional. He filmed a family that lost their son in Iraq. They talked about how their son was so pro-Bush and pro-war, but then he changed recently after he went to fight in Iraq. The family read the last letter that he wrote to them and it was all about how he was so glad to get mail from them and how he couldn’t wait to come home and see his first nephew. He said that he doesn’t understand why people think Bush is doing a good thing and how he hopes they don’t re-elect him. This letter literally made me cry and that was why he put this into the documentary.


In a way Orwell’s thoughts of the inner party and outer party are very similar to how Moore looks upon our presidency. Moore thinks that Bush is trying to only help himself no matter the pain or sufferance that his nation will undergo. And Orwell believes the same about Big Brother, he erases history to suit it for himself. Bush is connected to Bin Laden and is gaining profit from this war and Michael Moore is pointing this all out. The same way that Orwell was trying to point out that Big Brother was only looking out for himself.


Even though I do agree with the fact that the administration is extremely bad and that Bush is a horrible president but Michael Moore’s portrayal of this story is complete propaganda. Moore never uses both sides of the story and always conveniently leaves something out. I don’t agree that Bush should be in contact with Bin Laden’s but I’m sure this is another side to that story. So all in all “Fahrenheit 9-11” is a complete act of propaganda but if Michael Moore took out a few of the humorous things it could really pass off as the real thing and would influence people more then what he presented to us in this documentary.

Anonymous said...

-Joe Mitchell
Class D

Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary made by Michael Moore, depicts the flaws and shortcomings of the Bush administration and our government at large. The critique shows Moore’s skepticism of President Bush and his political cabinet, as well as the credibility of the 2001 Presidential elections. The thesis of Fahrenheit 9/11 is the questionable validity of the results from that election, as well as the true intents of the war in Iraq.
In the film, Moore starts off by describing how President Bush frequently takes vacations and is somewhat of a political puppet. By this, I mean that the President is not qualified for said position, and that the true leaders of the country are people like Vice-President Dick Cheney, with Bush simply acting as a poster-boy figure from a prestigious and influential family. Bush left the U.S. Military in disgrace, a shame that was covered up from the public. If the President cannot put his faith in the people, how can he expect the people to put their faith in him?
One other big question mark, perhaps the biggest goof of all, in the Bush administration, is their adamant belief of there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Saudi Arabians terrorize the United States, yet it is Afghanistan and Iraq that we make suffer for it. Countless people, both American and Middle Eastern, died because of a war that should never have been started in the first place. Our fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, etc. are fighting overseas for a cause that they no longer believe in, yet more troops are still being deployed to Iraq. The lower and middle class Americans enlist in the army out of their sense of national pride, yet the family of the leaders of our country do not because their daddies’ are important. It simply does not make sense. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore depicts the incompetence of President Bush and his cabinet, as well as criticizing a pointless war that cannot be won.

Anonymous said...

Propaganda, as illustrated in 1984, is the systematic propagation of a particular idea or doctrine. Fahrenheit 9-11 is a perfect example of propaganda that our society is subjected to today. Michael Moore's thesis in Fahrenheit 9-11 argues that the United States of America conspired in a major conspiracy to cover up actual events of 9-11. Throughout the movie, Moore uses many objective arguments in order to prove his point. First, he stated that as everything began to go wrong, President George Bush went on vacation 42% of his first 8 months in office. Michael Moore uses his over-the-top details in order to sabotage Bush's presidency. Moore informed America of President Bush's whereabouts during the first plane crash on 9-11. Bush was at an elementary school when the first attack hit and, to everyone's surprise, Bush didn't react; he continued to sit and read, not knowing what to do. Along with Moore's objective arguments, he also uses subjective arguments to confirm his thesis. For example, on election night, George Bush won against fellow candidate Al Gore. According to Moore, Gore was beat out of the presidency unfairly. I believe that there was too much blatant controversy in the state of Florida, which could have made a change in the outcome of the election had the discrepancies been thoroughly investigated. I agree with Moore in saying that Bush won unfairly. Another subjective argument used by Moore was shown by interviewing soldiers in the east. The soldiers said that they were sent there for nothing. Bush sent them there to lie out in the sand. Is that the kind of president we want to run our country? Moore used the best of his knowledge to prove to our society that Bush isn't who we want as president.

Michael Moore, as well as Orwell, author of 1984, try to bring to light the back-handed way that our government manipulates and controls us. They both accuse our government of being sneaky and devious. I feel that both opinions are strong but a bit over the top. Michael Moore's controversial ideas do make us think but, unfortunately, they bring us down at the same time. Moore's views definitely parallel those of Orwell. For instance, they both try to prove that the government controls everyone. I believe that the film, as well as the book, 1984, are both forms of propaganda that can effect and alter the minds of our society. Both invade the minds of the general population, brainwashing average citizens with their single-minded views of what is wrong with our world and how our government is totally to blame.
-Katie Adler Period D

Anonymous said...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary about our country and was directed by Michael Moore in 2004. Moore’s thesis in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is that President Bush does a lazy job running our country, and our government is not what we think it is. In this documentary Moore tries to show everyone what really happens in our government and tells us things that we would never know by using objective and subjective arguments.
George Bush was on vacation for 42% of his presidency. This shows how much Bush really “cares” about the U.S. and what is going on with the people that are living there. Also a little over a month before the September 11th attack, Bush was informed that Osama Bin Laden planned on attacking our country by hijacking planes. If Bush was informed of this you would think that he would have done something to try and stop Bin Laden, but instead he decided to go fishing. There is no evidence of whether Bush was informed before or after he went fishing, but with Bush’s past behaviors we would not be surprised if he was informed before. Also on the day of the September 11th attack, Bush was sitting in an elementary school in Florida reading books to the students. After he was given information of the first attack on the Twin Towers, Bush continued to sit there and listen to the story that was being read. Then it was not until a few moments after he was told about the second attack that he decided to leave the school and tend to our country that was being destroyed.
Out of 539 congressman, only one had a child that was enlisted in the war. They go around chanting and praising about how good the war is, but how come none of their children are enlisted? Moore walked around Washington, D.C. asking congressman if their children would enlist. Not one of them wanted there children to. Then it comes to find out that 5,000 soldiers were wounded in the first three months of the war. If the war was such a good idea then why were they letting all these men and women get injured?
Moore’s characterization of our modern government parallels Orwell’s characterization of the Party in 1984. Moore is trying to make you believe that our modern government is the enemy and that they are doing things and planning things that we do not know about. He is trying to make us believe that our President George Bush is lazy, a liar, and does not care about our country. In 1984 Orwell tries to trick us into thinking that you should always trust the government and everything they say and do is correct. He tries to corrupt the people into thinking that the government is always right and is better than the people below them.
Overall, I do believe that Moore’s documentary is definitely a piece of propaganda. There are some things that are proven to be exact but I also feel that Moore looked way too deep into things that were small and insignificant. I just feel that Moore does not like George Bush on a personal level and did not want him to be reelected. To get back at the people who voted for Bush, he made Fahrenheit 9/11.

Brittney Costa
E Block

Good looking jeff moore said...

You could say Fahrenheit 9/11 is just about the soldiers, but it’s not. Michael Moore attempts to deface any credibility to George Bush’s intelligence with his use of propaganda in Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore takes small quotes out of context to make Bush and others look like fools and also mocks Bush of his 42% vacation time. Michael Moore’s main goal is to prove that the government of the United States has made the wrong choice to invade Iraq and risk the lives of thousands.
Moore uses a cornucopia of subjective arguments to make Bush and the government look unprofessional and unintelligent. He uses Bush’s vacation time to prove that Bush was out of office 42% of his first eight months as president. Also he tries to make Bush seem like he doesn’t care when he hears about the terrorist attack on the twin towers, But in front of about twenty students would it be professional for Bush to freak out among adolescents. Moore makes the point that there are more police in Manhattan than troops in Afghanistan. This makes the people think that the government doesn’t really care about our troops safety in Afghanistan. There are more dangerous people in Afghanistan than Manhattan and also more people. There is another point where it is said the Saudi ambassador was dining with Bush two days within 9/11. This makes the people think about a conspiracy also. He also makes fun of the government for not allowing specific items on an airplane even though a person can bring on four matches and two lighters. Moore uses little tid-bits to make the populations facts not flawed but tainted.
Moore characterizes our government sort of like Orwell does to the party. The Patriot Act takes away basically all privileges a person has for privacy. This is exactly like tele-screens for the party. The way Moore quotes bush and other government figures he makes them seem as if they contradict themselves. This is an accord with the speech where the man in 1984 contradicts himself by changing who Oceania is in war with mid speech. As Kefor once annoyingly said, “1984 relates to everything and is a life changing experience.”
In my opinion Michael Moore did an awesome job of making Bush look ridiculously stupid. I laughed numerous times from the “Smoke Em’ Out” slogan of Bush that was in several of his speeches. Michael Moore only shows one side of the story, but that’s exactly what he’s suppose to do in order to make his opinion be heard the most. From a rating of 1-10, 10 being the highest, Moore would get a solid eight, but then a bonus point for his incredible last name. This propaganda movie is a nine and was well documented. If Abe Lincoln was still alive we wouldn’t have these issues.

Anonymous said...

Moore's thesis is that our President George Bush is an unmethodical leader who is self centered and lackadaisical. Michael Moore is obviously very good at getting people to see his point of view and believe everything he says. Everytime I watch Fahrenheit 9/11 it just makes me feel ashamed and embarassed that George Bush is our President. And that is its purpose, most of the documentary is subjective towards Moore's views. For example, when Michael shows Bush after he just hears the news on 9/11 and he continues to sit and read with the children. This is very subjective because what else can you expect out of someone after you tell them of a great tragedy, but shock and disbelief. Also, another subjective argument made by Moore is when he shows the President vacationing. I know for a fact that President Bush did alot of work while he was away he was just enjoying the privileges of being the President. An objective arguement is when Moore interviews the Congressmen and the are taken back and dumbfounded. Moore does bring up a good point that only one Congressmen has a son or daughter in the Armed Forces, which is quite saddening. The very people that make the descsion to send thousands ofyoung American off to war won't offer there own children to go.

Moore's view of our goverment and Orwell's view of the party are in fact very similar. Moore sees are government as untrustworthy and lazy, well paid men in suits. Orwell sees the party as neglectful and uninterested in its peoples problems and very intrusive in peoples everyday lives. In my opinion, I know that what Michael Moore puts together in his films is very biast, but it cant be all completely bias and there has to be some truth behind it all. I will admit I dont like President Bush, and he has done alot of dumb things during his time in office and I think this video is an accurate interpration of how the average American sees there President. So in conclusion, I liked the documentary and thought it was entertaining.

~John Ricca

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore's thesis is that our President and his adminisration have created problems that plague America to this day as a result of poor management and lack of expertise. An objective argument would be when George Bush sits in the class room, continuing to read a book to some children, while he hears the news that his country is under attack. He continued reading the book and wasting time until he finally realized that he needed to take action. A subjective argument would be when Michael Moore presents us with the families of fallen soldiers in Iraq. This creates much opinion from the viewer and attempts to sway your view on President Bush and what he has done to cause horrible problems.
Michael Moore's characterization of our modern government parallels Orwell's characterization of the Party in 1984. The government created in 1984 is one that is run by the ignorance of the suppressed citizens of thier society. They are kept ignorant by allowing them to drink themselves numb. Next, they are given the opportunity to watch all the pornographic and violent films that they desire. Then the government finishes the process by subjecting these ignorant and violent people with their own propaganda every single day. These proles do not hesitate to stand behind their government at all costs.
Michael Moore attempts to capture the image of our society. He takes us to the poorest sections of our cities and shows us the people there. Much like the proles in 1984, many people are very poor and left subject to our government's needs. Mr. Moore attempts to portray our military recruiters as the bad guys who try to scoop up these ignortant poor people and send them off to die. As much as this has been proven, the recruiters were only doing their jobs, and they knew that if they went to the poorest and most suppressed areas of our country's cities, people would join. People did join, and people did rally behind our government. It wasnt just the poor and seemingly ignorant people that Michael Moore seems to depict. It was the majority of the United States that rallied behind our government after 9/11, and the majority of Americans elected George Bush for a second term.
This film was definately Michael Moore's chance to take control of America's views on our "chaotic society" and our government. As powerful as this film is, I can see how some people are sucked in by our government's web of lies and corruption. Farenheit 9/11 is an effective use of propaganda that could most definately sway the opinions of many. I learned much from watching the film. Even though our government is so messed up from what Michael Moore says, I still believe that our government is there for the greater good of our nation. Mr. Moore is not the one who will be changing our government any time soon. Our generation is the one that will need to seek change and find prosperity for our nation. To be completely honest, I find Michael Moore to be a repulsive slob. I would much rather listen to our president, whoever it may be, than trust in what Mr. Moore has to say about our President, our government, or our country as a whole. Im still proud to be an American citizen even after watching Farenheit 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Moore's thesis is that our President George Bush is a terrible president who is making changes for himself and not thinking of others.. Michael Moore is obviously very good at getting people to see his point of view and believe everything he says. As I watch this movie he made it can make you seem in other different point of views on our president, but its 1 point of view that is. And that is its purpose, most of the documentary is subjective towards Moore's views. For example, when Michael shows Bush after he just hears the news on 9/11 and he continues to sit and read with the children. This is very subjective because what else can you expect out of someone after you tell them of a great tragedy, but shock and disbelief. Also, another subjective argument made by Moore is when he shows the President vacationing. I know for a fact that President Bush did alot of work while he was away he was just enjoying the constitutional rights of being the President. An intention disagreement is when Moore interviews the Congressmen and the are taken back and are turning him down for putting their kids into the army. Moore does have a point I suppose saying that they will not enlist their children in the arm forces, but if their children don’t want to why should they?

Moore's view of our society and Orwell's view of the party are in fact very similar. Moore sees are government as dishonest and indolent, well paid men in suits. Orwell sees the party as a huge propaganda who keep the people in line and always in fear. Moore shows how the government did that to its people with the threat warnings on the news and such. I personality am not a fan of Michael Moore himself is propaganda in showing the other ways. In a way he creates propaganda himself.


Josh Spilewski
Class: E

John Cunniff said...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great example of propaganda in today’s society. The film is an award-winning documentary that attacks the current president and his administration. Michael Moore’s documentary explains that President George W. Bush is in Iraq mainly for business purposes, and that because he neglected to deal with Iraq in his first years in office, the September 11th terrorist attacks were successful. To support his thesis, Moore provides more than enough information, both objective and subjective, throughout the film.
From the beginning, it is clear that Michael Moore is not a fan of the current administration. While Moore speaks negatively about Bush for the majority of the film, it is clear that he does use some objective arguments. He states the number of Americans that have died in Iraq to date. This number was not tampered with, and thus, is an objective argument. Moore also captures footage of military recruiters trying to persuade as many teens as possible to join the military. Another objective argument begins when Moore shows George Bush just after the Twin Towers were hit. It is true that Bush just sat in the room and continued to read the story. Moore believes that the president of the United States must take action in times of crisis, and showing that he did nothing proves Moore’s point that Bush neglected the matter.
Just as there are plenty of objective arguments in the film, there is a plethora of subjective arguments as well. One man who eventually lost his life in Iraq claimed that Bush sent him and others to Iraq for no reason. He claimed that their presence over seas is useless, proving Michael Moore’s thesis that Bush and his administration have neglected to deal with many issues in Iraq. This man’s story is clearly subjective, as many people have argued and will continue to argue that Bush has made the right decision in shipping so many soldiers to the Middle East. Moreover, Michael Moore tries to prove that no U.S. congressman wants to send their own children to Iraq, yet they all support the war. This is a one sided statement in that there are known Congressman, although few in number, that have children in Iraq.
Michael Moore’s documentary is comparable to George Orwell’s “1984.” In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore explains that the entire state of Oregon only had eight state troopers on duty at one time. After hearing this, it is hard to believe that security in the U.S. is at such a high level. Our government is constantly reporting lies to its citizens, just like in “1984”, where the Party tells lie after lie to benefit Big Brother.
Overall, I enjoyed the film. Because I agree with Moore that Bush is indeed a bad president, I can relate to many of his arguments. In seeing some of Moore’s other documentaries, I am fully aware the he exaggerates to a great extent, yet in doing so he delivers a more persuasive argument. Finally, I learned some good pieces of information about what actually went on when the Twin Towers were hit. Back in sixth grade, I was in school when the Towers came crashing down, and although I knew our country was in danger, I wasn’t old enough to understand the full effect that the terrorist attacks had on America.

Stephanie Bryant said...

Propaganda, as illustrated in 1984, is the systematic propagation of a particular idea or doctrine. Having watched and analyzed Fahrenheit 9-11 as such a piece of propaganda, I have arrived at the conclusion that Michael Moore’s thesis in the documentary revolves around the idea that today’s government is seemingly incompetent, as well as devastatingly flawed and detrimental to the overall good of our country and society in general.

However, a thesis is nothing at all without support to back it up. So we first look to Michael Moore’s objective arguments. A few mentioned were Bush’s decision to cut terrorism-funding, documents from 2000 that differed from those released in 2004 (blocking out names such as James Bath), Bush meeting two years after 9-11 with the Bin Ladens while Osama remained a wanted terrorist, no member of Congress having read the Patriot Act, but signing and passing it anyway, Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, when it had never attacked the U.S. in the first place, the war in Iraq having the highest number of troops killed since Vietnam, and Bush not giving any benefits to Veterans. All go to show the downfall of today’s government.

But there’s more. In addition to Michael Moore’s list of objective arguments, the documentary also included many, various subjective arguments as well. For instance, Moore argues shortly into the film that as soon as Bush began his term as President, he went on vacation, and remained in such places of luxury 42% of his entire Presidency. Moore also holds Bush responsible for his reaction to the devastating news of 9-11, and how it took him and entire 7 minutes before he did anything at all, remaining a quiet spectator reading with the Elementary School class as he tried to figure out what to do next. The argument that Bush was more concerned with what makes the Saudis happy over the good of his own country, and in making money on investments was also a subjective argument made by Moore. Two last examples would be the argument that security was more concerned with petty things like peace group spies, and breast milk being poisoned, than matches and lighters being allowed on planes, and the idea that no Congressman wanted to sign up their own children up for the war in Iraq.

Such a characterization of our modern government can be paralleled to Orwell’s characterization of the Party in that both suggest the two to be “all powerful” and “knowing” over that of their people, and have complete control. Today’s modern government is depicted as a group of individuals slyly deceiving the masses to believe and see only what they want them to see by use of media coverage showing the triumphs, not perils of war, and documents that would not incriminate or bring negative attention to the possible flaws in its creation. Such can clearly be equated to the use of telescreens, Thought Police, and memory holes seen in 1984 used by the Party to rid Oceania of any and all evidence that might possibly prove the Party wrong.

Thus, after having watched and analyzed such a film as this, I can agree that it’s a classic example of propaganda at its finest. For despite the fact that such a documentary does present truth, it does so in a way to better support its point, often skewing facts and injecting biased opinions in order to sway its audience into believing their side of the story. However, in turn, because of such findings, the film loses some of its credibility, and makes it hard to trust completely. And although the facts may overpower the opinions in some cases, in the end propaganda is propaganda is propaganda…lets not be hypocritical here.

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore's thesis is that our government today is lazy and George Bush has started a, so to speak, pointless war. One objective argument he made was when he went around asking the congressmen to enlist their sons/daughters into the military. The congressmen either walked faster, saying nothing, or they didn't feel that their children should enlist in the military. One subjective argument he made was when he interviewed a mother of a soldier who had lost his life serving our country in Iraq. In a way, Moore's characterization of our modern government parallel's Orwell's characterization of the Party because they both challenge us. They both want us to believe that what is being said is true, and that's all.

Personally, I believe that Michael Moore is completely against George Bush. Sure, he may not be the brightest man, but this video only showed one side of him. I mean, you can't just point your finger at Bush whenever something in the country goes wrong, and be satisfied with that. I'm not completely for or against Bush, but all I know is all of his flaws were expressed and nothing more.

Ashley LaRochelle
Class: E

Act 1 Fun Crew said...

Mr. Kefor,
This is your students. It is now 10:35 p.m. on Sunday. We just stopped in to let you know that we are having a crazy Hamlet Act I party. It's going well, so we thought we would drop you a line.
Love and Kisses,
Jeff, Brian (mwua mwua mwua), Lauren, Jordan, Katherine, and Rachel
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Katherine Amara said...

Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9-11” presents the notion that the problems in the United States are only a result of the poor choices made by our president, George W. Bush. This movie, released in 2004, uses both subjective and objective arguments to support this thesis, and many of his opinions closely relate to George Orwell’s 1984.
Moore uses several objective arguments in his documentary, but frames these facts strategically so the viewer will perceive them in a certain way. For instance, he talks about how many families have kids who are dying over in Iraq, but fails to mention the hundreds of families who have kids that have returned home safely. Moore also brings up the relationship between the president’s family and the Bin Laden family, and tries to blame him for 9-11. He takes these arguments, and many more, and presents them in such a way so that they will work in his favor.
There were a lot more subjective arguments in the film than there was objective. One of these arguments is when he shows George Bush finding out about the terrorist attacks. Moore argues that he waited 7 minutes until he actually did anything, and that was a poor judgment. Not everyone would view it that way, so that makes his argument subjective. He also presents the opinions of others who are against Bush. When he chose to put a pro-Bush interview in the movie, the only person he showed was Britney Spears, who is viewed as na├»ve, and is definitely not known for her intelligence. Lastly, he talks about how Bush was taking “too much” vacation time at the beginning of his administration, which although he states as a fact, is really an opinion. This aspect of the film is what makes it believable, and these one-sided arguments are what make this movie propaganda.
Many of these arguments are parallel with George Orwell’s 1984. The argument that Moore presents about how the Bush administration was crossing out names in past documents could be compared to Orwell’s “doublethink” theory. Also, the concept of war all of the time in America was related to Oceania and its war with Eurasia. The Bush family and the government are shown to be completely corrupt in this movie, and Moore tries to prove that, like in 1984, they are an “inner party”, who presents false facts and tries to create fear among America’s citizens.
In my opinion, Michael Moore’s documentaries are of no value. I have seen “Fahrenheit 9-11” and “Sicko”, only because of school, and I have yet to believe anything that he says. Moore complains that the government does not tell America the facts and that they are just trying to make us think a certain way, when in reality, he is doing the same thing. He will take a handful of people who’s stories are tragic, and present them to the public so that he can have an influence on the viewer. I personally will not allow myself to be influenced by a movie that shows me one side of an argument. I do, however, think that it is Moore’s right to put out whatever movies he wants. He is only making a fool of himself. As for me, I have my own opinions, and I choose not to listen to people who try to impose their views and values on me.

Justin Bliss said...

Michael Moore’s Thesis is that the United States Government is destroying the Country. Moore uses subjective arguments like talking to parents and Family members of soldiers who have died. Although some parents would say their child died for a good cause and something they believe in, Moore chose families that were resentful of Bush and the Government. Moore also showed people being blown up everywhere and dead children to sway the viewer’s opinion and give a negative connotation about war.
Mr. Moore also did use objective arguments like showing the reality of war and how people come back extremely screwed up emotionally and physically. Moore went up to a large amount of politicians and asked them if they wanted there kids to be in the army and of course they said no because it is a dangerous reality that they could die.
I liked the film but I didn’t like how it was so bias and told one side of the story. I don’t like that the movie tried to tell me what to think I would rather get both facts and come up with my own judgment. He did have a lot of interesting facts but they were all swayed one way.

- Justin Bliss

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore writes, directs, and produces his own movies. In one movie however, he displays a lot of propaganda. In Fahrenheit 9-11, Michael Moore’s thesis is the United States government is not doing what it is supposed to do and that the war in Iraq is pointless. He shows how the government is destroying the United States and that George Bush is the worst president. Moore interviews people, like Family members and friends of soldiers who have died. Moore also asks Congressmen, who are for the war in Iraq, to enlist their son or daughter. However every single Congressman denies the invitation, however, one Congressman has there son or daughter enlisted. Moore also shows how Bush works behind close doors and makes cover ups. He also shows how incredibly lazy Bush really is. However Michael Moore only shows the one side of the story, which considers it propaganda. We do not know if all Moore is saying is true but he does have a lot of evidence to back it up.

Moore’s Movie compares with George Orwell’s book 1984 because of all the propaganda displayed in them both. Both pieces of propaganda compare because both Authors are trying to get you to believe what they are saying, but in reality no one knows if there words are true. Also both authors, show different types of government. Orwell shows a government that is completely controlling. Michael Moore show our government as being lazy and not doing a good job. I liked the movie a lot, however I would like to hear the second side to all these stories Moore is showing. I want to see some more proof to see if Moore is telling the truth. I liked the film a lot, because it shows what really goes on. It shows that our government is not as perfect as it is depicted to be. So overall, this is a good movie.

Zack Schleicher
Period E

Anonymous said...

Farenheit 9/11 is a documentary directed and narrated by Michael Moore. Bush's problems are demonstrated in this documentary. Michael Moore's thesis is that the Bush Administration should not be in power because it does not have the leadership abilitiy to control this country.

An obejective argurment that Moore incorporates into his fild would be when George is sitting in a Florida elmentary school classrom and was notified that the first plane crashed into the first tower. Bush just kept on reading the book to the children, acting as if nothing just happend to the country. Moore incorporated this into his film to show that Bush didnt take immediate action to protect and defend our country. Instead he believed that the right thing to do was keeping reading to the children.

A subjective argument that Moore uses in his film is when he interviews the families of the soldiers who lost thier loved ones in the war. There was one family in particular that Michael Moore focused on. This family was the family of Michael Patterson. Michael Patter wrote a letter to his family saying "Bush got us out here for nothing." Many other families felt the same way the Pattersons felt.

The government today and the government in George Orwells 1984 are similar because both percieve the governement in differenet ways than what they truely are. They dont want us to have our own opinions. After watching Farenheit 9/11 I realized that Moore truely hates President Bush. Michael Moore is trying to show America how bad of a presdent George Bush is.

-Nadya Kaltsunas

Anonymous said...

I believe Michael more perceives the people of the government to be corrupt. Not just corrupt in the way they make war’s that look like a baby “1984” but they believe they, by some divine right; are better than the people they “control”. Most people in the government think that they hold the power. The thing is they actually do, yet this “power” isn’t something physical, it is mental. There power comes from the thing they “control”, the people. Most of the people of the US have yet to realize or refuse to acknowledge that the power of the government is so transient. Like in George Orwell’s novel “1984” the common people do not realize that the government exists only to protect its people who are the real leaders.

Michael believes it is his job to bring the truth of the US to the people of the United States. He argues that head’s of our country are only thinking of bettering themselves whether it be by money or earning a place in history. Michael picks out one family in particular, the Bush family. He explains in his own way that if you dig deep enough you might see a connection between the Bush’s oil business and oil rich areas we are at war with.

Moore explains how the war in Iraq is in a way like the war in “1984”. He shows that by continuing to use up materials and not having a surplus the defense manufacturers are making a lot of money.

My personal belief is obscured. I do think he has good points but I also understand he is a belligerent extremist. I’m still not to sure of things in the “grown-up” world. I have my thought and feelings but I haven’t found out through trial and error if they are right or if I’m misinformed.

David Cooksey
Class E

John Todd said...

In the film Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore’s thesis is that the current Bush administration should not be in power because of corruption and poor leadership skills.
Moore uses both objective and subjective arguments in order to strengthen and prove his points. He presented the fact that the FOX news network was the first to report that Bush was winning the 2000 election in the state of Florida. Bush’s cousin John Ellis made the call. However, the way Moore presents this is misleading. Just because a news station stated that Bush won, that would not influence the voters.
Stating simply facts, about situations in America are strategically placed by Michael Moore, as a form of propaganda. Michael Moore does bring his own opinions into the film in the form of subjective arguments. Moore shows “The Willing Coalition” or the countries that we consider allies, to be weak and comical in Fahrenheit 9-11. When the movie displays 200 monkeys from Morocco going to help the American cause, it is clear that these are the subjective views of Michael Moore.
Michael Moore’s documentary contains obvious similarities of the characteristics of Orwell’s Party in 1984. Both groups aimed to control young people in their forms of propaganda. In 1984, the Junior Spies were easily influenced by the wants of Big Brother and taught at a young age to love the government. Moore however, tries to present an opposite perspective in which the government is the one that is corrupt.
Overall I think the film Fahrenheit 9/11 is an excellent example of propaganda. I feel that if I didn’t already have knowledge of Moore’s intentions and I was form another country, I would 100% believe that the United States government was corrupt. I remember last year in History when we saw the propaganda that the attacks on 9/11 were a conspiracy, I believed them. But upon gaining further knowledge, I learned how propaganda is strategically used to persuade the viewer into believing the author’s thesis.

Anonymous said...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great example of propaganda in today’s society. The film is an award-winning documentary that attacks the current president and his administration. Michael Moore’s documentary explains that President George W. Bush is in Iraq mainly for business purposes, and that because he neglected to deal with Iraq in his first years in office, the September 11th terrorist attacks were successful. To support his thesis, Moore provides more than enough information, both objective and subjective, throughout the film.
From the beginning, it is clear that Michael Moore is not a fan of the current administration. While Moore speaks negatively about Bush for the majority of the film, it is clear that he does use some objective arguments. He states the number of Americans that have died in Iraq to date. This number was not tampered with, and thus, is an objective argument. Moore also captures footage of military recruiters trying to persuade as many teens as possible to join the military. Another objective argument begins when Moore shows George Bush just after the Twin Towers were hit. It is true that Bush just sat in the room and continued to read the story. Moore believes that the president of the United States must take action in times of crisis, and showing that he did nothing proves Moore’s point that Bush neglected the matter.
Just as there are plenty of objective arguments in the film, there is a plethora of subjective arguments as well. One man who eventually lost his life in Iraq claimed that Bush sent him and others to Iraq for no reason. He claimed that their presence overseas is useless, proving Michael Moore’s thesis that Bush and his administration have neglected to deal with many issues in Iraq. This man’s story is clearly subjective, as many people have argued and will continue to argue that Bush has made the right decision in shipping so many soldiers to the Middle East. Moreover, Michael Moore tries to prove that no U.S. congressman wants to send their own children to Iraq, yet they all support the war. This is a one sided statement in that there are known Congressman, although few in number, that have children in Iraq.
Michael Moore’s documentary is comparable to George Orwell’s “1984.” In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore explains that the entire state of Oregon only had eight state troopers on duty at one time. After hearing this, it is hard to believe that security in the U.S. is at such a high level. Our government is constantly reporting lies to its citizens, just like in “1984”, where the Party tells lie after lie to benefit Big Brother.
Overall, I enjoyed the film. Because I agree with Moore that Bush is indeed a bad president, I can relate to many of his arguments. In seeing some of Moore’s other documentaries, I am fully aware that he exaggerates to a great extent, yet in doing so he delivers a more persuasive argument. Finally, I learned some good pieces of information about what actually went on when the Twin Towers were hit. Back in sixth grade, I was in school when the Towers came crashing down, and although I knew our country was in danger, I wasn’t old enough to understand the full effect that the terrorist attacks had on America.
John Cunniff (fixing mistakes for EC)