"Stupid White Men" - Michael Moore

[ScabbyDouglas]

I searched through the previous posts, but couldn't find any discussion of this book ( I may have missed it). I've been re-reading this recently, and while I feel that some parts are better than others, on the whole, it's a good piece of work. Not a great piece of literature, but a worthwhile book. I can't quite work out why it has become so very popular on both sides of the Atlantic.

Either people who hate MM are buying the book in their droves just to see what he is up to, or else there are many more people who agree with what Moore is saying, but are just keeping a low profile for now.

I thought that the description of the "irregularities" surrounding the Presidential election were particularly interesting, as was his take on the immediate aftermath of 11th of September 2001.

Anyone else read it? Anyone else have an opinion?

[HollyElise]

ew.

I read it as part of an online book discussion group and my conclusion was it is written by a very stupid white man.

i have a distaste for an author who comes off sounding like they are providing accurate information when they are actually quite liberally bending the facts or eliminating facts to put forth their argument in a "witty" way. He is responsible for a lot of disinformation, and there is good reason critics went after the inaccuracies in his book. I even hold the liberal positions that Michael Moore is trying to argue, but i found his support of the issues to be quite embarrassing! I would rather he were on the "other side."

I hadn't gotten past the first chapter before spotting so many ommissions and inacuracies in what he was saying about the presidential election and the environment as to cast obvious doubt on his being a credible author. How could he do a whole chapter on the election and leave readers with the belief the U.S. President is elected by popular vote? He is educated. He knew damned well he was passing misinformation. And it's totally a shame... because the book COULD have been good. And i would have LIKED to have been able to trust the information i hadn't seen from other credible sources, but i could not. He just couldn't resist bending the truth to make jokes.

[ScabbyDouglas]

HollyElise, I didn't gain the impression you spoke of in relation to the election of the President.

And I'd suggest that Moore isn't setting out to be fair or even-handed. He pretty much sets out his stall and he hits the targets that he aims for. You're right, he does take the facts that suit him. And he certainly puts interpretations upon those facts that others might not feel were warranted. That's why I wondered why the book has been so incredibly popular. Seems to me that plenty people must share his views...

[HollyElise]

Well of course Moore isn't setting out to be even handed, but this isn't the Daily Show on the Comedy Channel we're talking about. I love that kind of lampooning. This is more like the book and movie JFK, which left millions of people thinking the content of the movie was the truth when even the author stated it was purely invented for the sake of entertainment and to make a buck and not remotely plausible. That's what i feel makes this kind of writing irresponsible.

Moore puts forth "facts" in dizzying detail, it is obviously central to the book, and there is nothing in the forward to indicate the liberties he takes for the sake of humor. Too many people are reading this and absorbing many of his false statements as true.

Again, i'm not saying this because i disagree with where Moore is leading the conclusions, but rather it's his methods for getting there as a writer that i find distasteful.

[Clash20]

Not agreeing particularly in the things he writes I have to agree with Holly that the whole idea is as distasteful to reasonably intelligent folk as parts of the bible can be.

It's the sort of off the wall idea that I would have thought Sigurd would have had something to say about by now.

[HollyElise]

Well, hopefully he will, but maybe you've scared him off.