I think you may need to see more documentary films. Watch Hearts And Minds and Harlan County USA; you'll see that Michael Moore is hardly the first person to take a significantly biased point of view in his films.

There is nothing inherently wrong with presenting a point of view with a documentary. And there is certainly no way to avoid bias altogether. The films you named are excellent examples of really good documentaries that both present a side to an issue and are completely biased.

However, the difference between those and Moore's films, is that no one (to my knowledge) disputes the accuracy of the facts each film uses to draw their conclusions. People may not agree with their conclusions, but that's a separate issue. In simple terms, a documentary can be seen as a filmed opinion (not all, but the kinds we're talking about here can). As with any opinion, the validity of it depends on looking at facts and drawing conclusions. The end conclusion can be different for everyone, but if facts are used to get there, it's valid. Moore doesn't do that. He twists the facts to fit his already come to conclusion. Understandably, that causes people to see him with less credibility. He attempts to turn opinion into fact by either distorting the truth or outright lying.

Moore is far, far from the only popular documentarian to do this, yet he's probably the only one that anybody can name. Why?

Waiting for Superman is as every bit as twisted, intentionally misleading and directly dishonest as any of Moore's worst moments are. The different is simply the haughty tone that Superman takes.

I love docs -- two make it into my all-time top 10. But docs are inherently flawed and biased and quite literally not real life.

I don't see that at all. The worst I've heard about WfS is that it doesn't acknowledge that not every charter school does as well as the one they profile. That's fundamentally different than Michael Moore's outright deception and falsehoods. Yeesh stop drinking the Teachers Unions kool aide.

That's true and a fair question. My first instinct was to say because he's one of the few documentary filmmakers to have a mainstream name, and because he makes political films. That may be partly true, but I'd also argue he only achieved mainstream fame because his films were the ones that have been attacked publicly for their tactics. That leads to a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario. Maybe he pissed the wrong person off, or maybe he's just lucky/unlucky (depending on how you look at it) and got attention.

What say you, Ken?

[/quote]I don't have a problem with the line of thinking used be either of you gents. However, I'd ask you what the point of Moore's documentaries are? While there are no rules saying docs have to be accurate or have to be journalism, Moore does pass his movies off as an accurate representation of the facts. Frequently, they are not. I don't think he has any obligation to stick to the facts by making a documentary, but when he makes one that he presents as 100% factual, he takes on that obligation. It isn't like he's making F For Fake and exploring an abstract concept. He's making movies designed to sway people over to his side of whatever debate is at hand. They are straightforward films designed to sway opinions based on the presentation of facts. To say it's ok for him to outright lie is ridiculous. I'm not saying to boycott the guy or anything, but I don't understand finding him entertaining when he's basically trying to fool the audience by presenting fiction as truth. For the life of me, I don't understand why the man is taken seriously.[/quote]

Because he had a TV show that exposed stuff that upset people and he wore a baseball cap while being unshaven.

Seriously, thats it. People assumed he was "one of us" and because this was that magic time "before the internet" noone had access to the infomation we know now about his politics/earnings etc.

I like Michael Moore too but that's party because I generally agree with him.

I would love to watch a movie where he tackled gay marriage. Moore is able to state his opinion, support it and brutally attack his opponents in a way few do nowadays; and what issue has opponents easier to attack then gay marriage?

My one concern is that he would only use Fred Phelps as the voice of the anti-gay marriage crowd. Not only would no one take him seriously (you know you're screwed up when Jerry Falwell called you a "religious nut," but that's probably only because Phelps dissed soldiers, which went against Falwell's politically conservative ideology), but it would make for a very short documentary. I would love for him to take on James Dobson and/or Donald Wildmon. Those are the real asses who need to be taken off their self-righteous perches. Bastards!