Week 11/12: Documentary Filming Kick-Off

Okay, so last week I was interested in seeing what route our documentary was headed, and I have to admit, I'm pretty pleased with our trailer. I feel that the direction we're headed is anything but easy, but it's still worth it to go that extra mile to make a worth-while film that doesn't cut any corners. Our topic is kind of difficult to do any bashing without making us look bad as well. We definitely have to use sensitivity when we're talking about the Special Education Program here, but we can't be over-sensitive either. It's a challenge to find a balance between the two.

So last week we discussed the major differences between documentary directors' film styles, mainly contrasting the works of Michael Moore and Sacha Baron Cohen. Moore and Cohen both have unique styles of portraying a film the way they want a viewer to believe it. Moore utilizes this technique through careful wording and editing to trick the viewer. Cohen, on the other hand uses personas to trick the participants rather than the viewer. Cohen cleverly disguises release forms to fit the character he's portraying in order to get the participant to sign off on using their footage. Once he has permission, he creates scenarios using stereotypes and generalizations to put the participant in an uncomfortable position. In class we discussed whether or not this was really more ethical than any practices Moore uses in his films.

Another major difference between the two is the purpose behind the documentaries these two are making. This is what greatly separates Sacha from Michael. When Moore makes a film, the goals he sets out are to persuade the audience into believing the same thing as him. He finds a subject that he doesn't agree with, brutally attacks it until the viewer is left feeling like he's right. Baron Cohen really sets out for an entirely different purpose, pure entertainment. His one goal is to make people look like idiots and make other people laugh (and make a lot of money doing it). Cohen's not out to persuade anybody towards anything, he's just out there to get a laugh.

The one thing that is so similar between the two of them is their tendencies to give their audiences less than the entire story. Moore doesn't ever give you more than one side of an argument, and Cohen fails to mention to his victims that he's an actor. So with that being said, why do we tend to sympathize with one more than another? It really goes back to the motives behind the film. When someone is put in an awkward situation from Cohen's cleverness, it's funny. When someone is attacked on camera because of their political background, it's just plain mean.

This week we looked more in-depth at what companies go through to persuade viewers to buy their products. Whether it be a catchy jingle in a commercial or the layout of a store, far more goes into advertising than we typically realize. The developmental process looks at every aspect of the consumer process that they analyze in order for us to want what they're selling. We looked at Song Airways and why a potentially innovative airline came crashing down. The marketing was unique, but not nearly as effective as the marketing team had hoped. It left most consumers asking "What are you selling us?" Then we looked at Tupperware and how its marketing campaign created high demand for the product. The idea that one could get rich selling Tupperware had hundreds of ladies lined up to eagerly go door to door selling their product. What seems like a laughable strategy is what launched the company into the multi-million dollar range.

We were just assigned a project that has look closely on what sells. We are to investigate a store, look at its layout, pay attention to the music, and look for reasons why they place certain products in places. In interested in seeing what similarities stores will have with each other as well as figuring out who's doing what right/wrong. This week I'd like to find out what we as consumers aren't paying attention to that companies deliberately are throwing out in front of us as marketing ploys.

Sources:
Brownie Wise. Photograph. Bouldernet. Web.

Sacha Baron Cohen. Photograph. BangitOut! Web. .

Song Airlines. Photograph. Fsdome. Web. .

Week 10: Done with Documentaries

Last week, as we were watching Michael Moore Hates America, I noticed that I wasn't looking for every flaw in Mike Wilson's logic; I wasn't looking for every soundbite he used; and I wasn't looking for any type of fallacy that would make me think less of him. This week, I decided to pay a little more attention to the movie, and in all honesty, I still didn't find much. The only conclusions that i could draw are either he really tries to avoid any misleading notions, or I just don't pick up on it. It's a lot easier to dismiss something like that when it's done with good intentions. If I was a fan of Moore, sure I'd pick up on more of the blatant attacks and misleading information, but as it stands, Wilson just seems more innocent and appealing.

This week we finally finished up on the film Michael Moore Hates America and had a discussion on what made Mike Wilson so much more appealing than Michael Moore. What stuck out is Wilson's attempt to be as distant from Moore's film style as possible. He apologizes when he accidentally uses misleading information, he keeps as many of the facts in context as possible, and he just seems like a nice guy. What made Moore such a turn-off was his ego, he always came off as this jerk who thought he was saving America. Another was his appearance. He's this fat, rich slob that thinks that as long as he wears a baseball cap he can relate to the average American. Finally, his film making tactics are a major turn-off. He has this belief that it doesn't matter how much he tweeks something as long as it gets his point across, kind of the Machiavelli of movie-making.

Wilson, on the other hand, possesses none of these traits. He's a humble, average American man that actually wants to better the American people rather than scare them and make their lives miserable. Wilson doesn't convince himself that he has to be the voice of the people; instead, his job is simply to enlighten those who have been sucked in by Moore's misleading scare-tactics. Wilson also has another advantage: Penn Jillette. Penn can be summed up easily through a quote by Bob Dylan that he uses in the movie, "Fearing not that I may become my enemy, in the instant that I preach." He's this down-to-earth guy that can sniff out BS from a moment away. He's the reason Wilson didn't resort to using the same tactics as Moore while making this film.

Not that our documentary study is coming to a close, I'd be interested in seeing what direction my group heads in filming our documentary. Will we take the easy way out like Moore and make things look how we want them to? Perhaps we'll go a more "hands-off" approach, like A Perfect Candidate or This Divided State.

Sources:

Michael Moore "Loser" Photograph. Smh.com.au. Web. .

Michael Moore Hates America. Photograph. Arcade Action. Web. .

Week 9: Dislike Mike

So last week we looked at This Divided State and watched a large amount of opposition to Michael Moore as he he gave a speech at Utah Valley State University. I was curious to see how common this was for speakers to experience after I learned about a similar occurance that happened to Dick Cheney. The only difference between the two is that BYU is known for their conservative viewpoint, yet opposition was still heard towards Cheney. When "speech protest" is typed into Google, a large number of results appears. It seems understandable, even though every American has the right to their own opinion (even if they are a leader of a cop-killing terrorist group that wants to give a speech at the University of Massachusetts.) There are plenty of Americans that would argue that certain free speech needs to be censored, so long as it's not their's.

So this week we started Mike Wilson's masterpiece, Michael Moore Hates America. I thought Moore angered me before, but this some of what's in this movie just outraged me. Specifically, when Wilson approached Moore and Michael just attacked him for the documentary, when it is not slandering Moore any more than Michael did to the victims of his films. In fact, it's interesting to see how Wilson tries to avoid fallacies as much as possible. If he notices himself doing it, he points it out to his audience, which is much more respectable than Moore's techniques. Michael misleads the audience, and then when questioned about it, he convinces everyone (including himself) that everything happened just as he depicted it. Wilson has his producer and Penn Jillette hold him accountable for any propaganda that he might accidentally

I must admit, I'm enjoying the film a little more than I should be. Even though Wilson appears to avoid these fallacies as much as possible, they're still there. This man is using Moore's own techniques against him, but since my opinion of Moore was so negative from the start, it's hard to not side with sweet, innocent Wilson on everything. That's a very positive thing Mike Wilson has going for him. No matter what he's doing, Wilson has this innocent, common man appeal that Moore strives so hard to portray, but unlitmately fails doing. Perhaps that's why I find myself rooting for Mike Wilson.

As this week continues, I'd like to look a little further into how honest ans innocent Mike Wilson really is. I'm sure that most of my opinions on him won't change as we wrap the movie up, but there might be a few fallacies that'll slip through the cracks if I'm not looking specifically for them.

Sources:

"Dislike Mike." The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Comedy Central. 7 July 2004. Television

Michael Moore Hates America. Photograph. The Veiled Chameleon. Web. <http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/weblog/httpdocs/images/blogcontent/michael_moore_hates_america.jpg>.

Penn Jillette. Photograph. Downshore Drift. Web. <http://www.downshoredrift.com/.a/6a00d83451d87169e2011278d5491d28a4-500wi>.

"Rare Protests at Brigham Young Over a Planned Cheney Appearance." NY Times. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/11byu.html>.

My Political Party (Week 8)

So last week we looked at the local campaigns, and I couldn't help but wonder how informed the average American is on the actual issues. Based on the research I found, an overwhelmingly large amount of Americans simply vote on which party they think represents them, instead of looking at the actual issues. I polled my friends, family and people from my church and discovered that 9 out 10 of those who voted in the recent election knew next to nothing on the issues.

After some discussion in class this week about political issues, we all took tests to determine our political parties. Expecting to be more of a libertarian conservative, I was blown away that I was the exact opposite. Most of the class had similar reactions. It just goes to show that we as Americans aren't educated on our political viewpoints as well as we need to be. Washington feared that a party-system would be detrimental to society and would split the country. His ideas were a little extreme, but try to think about a government where the candidates aren't affiliated with a party. Would there be so much bitterness between voters? We might even start paying attention to the real issues if we take out the ability to blindly choose sides. Are political parties even that important? Not really.

Okay, so this week we started to watch This Divided State, which focused on events that occured at Utah Valley State College in 2004. The controversy occurred when the student board asked Michael Moore to speak at their university. The citizens of Utah, being a primarily conservative group, didn't handle this gesture lightly.

This relates directly back to what I stated previously. I'm not saying that our government needs to get rid of our two-party political system. However, this event and all its absurdity wouldn't have occurred had it not been for this idea of blindly following one party. It all seems kind of ridiculous when you think about it. Mind you, Moore is not an innocent man, and I can kind of understand where these people are coming from, but a lot of the people in the film blow things way out proportion without even having all the facts first.

It is my understanding that a similar occurrence took place at BYU with Dick Cheney not too long ago. For next week, I hope to look a little more into what went on in that situation and if this is a pretty common situation speakers deal with.

Sources:

Political Compass Graph. Photograph. The Politcal Compass Test. Web. .

This Divided State Cover. Photograph. Flickr. Web. .

Your Quiz Score: Conservative. Photograph. World's Smallest Political Quiz. Web. .

Week 7: The Virginia Gubernatorial Race

Last week, I wanted to know what kinds of propaganda were used by the candidates for governor in this year's election. Watching the commercials alone, I found a laundry list of fallacies and propaganda that both candidates (and the candidates for other offices) used. The most common form, which seems to be the most common in any political campaign, is this idea of name calling and attacking the other candidate without even talking about the real issues. In fact, had we not watched the gubernatorial debate in class, I probably couldn't have told you either candidate's views on any of the issues. It seems like a common pattern that after one candidate is done slamming another, the music changes and suddenly switches mood from bashful to modest. Thus the plain folks appeal kicks in. Whether it's Deeds bringing up his speech impediment or McDonnell is talking about his daughters serving in the Iraq War, it makes it's way into almost every campaign ad. My favorite ad has to be this one, which consists of Deeds making McDonnell look bad for no longer being a citizen of Fairfax County. Ridiculous? Yes.

As you may have guessed, the focus this week was on the Virginia Gubernatorial race, as well as the local elections that are also taking place today. the main idea was to actually research the candidates before making a decision on which one we'd like to vote for. In class we watched a debate featuring Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell as they were questioned on their viewpoints and planks. Although I did get to learn a little about each of the candidates, I got lost during some of the questions because of the amount of loaded language that was used by the moderator. Not only did the 3-part question format confuse the viewer, but it appeared to confuse the candidates at times as well. In that scenario, they would completely avoid the question by changing the topic and throwing in an attack or two on the other candidate. This occured throughout the entire debate and was upsetting because it made it difficult to learn about the issues.

Outside of class, we were doing our own research on the candidates and looking at the facts instead of the fallacies that they keep throwing out at us. The research helped greatly with deciding a candidate because it was the first time I actually understood the issues within the community and what each candidate was doing about it. I also learned what the other offices running in this election actually did. A week ago, I couldn't tell you the role of the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, or State Delegate. I'm sure a lot of Americans are still on that level, which is kind of sad when you think about it. Why should we vote for a position when we have no idea what their job in our community is?

This week, I'd like to take a look at how well America is informed on what we're really voting for. I'd like to find some statistics to see how many Americans are informed on the candidates' views on the issues in any race, and I'd like to see how often we actually know what we're voting for. I'm sure what I find out will be disappointing but not very shocking.

Sources:

Advertisement. Youtube. Web.

<.">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGSTRN8Q3c>.

Bob McDonnell. Photograph. Hapton Roads.com. Web.

<http://hamptonroads.com/files/images/66341.jpg>.

Creigh Deeds. Photograph. The Weekly Filibuster. Web.

<http://dailyfilibuster.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/deeds.jpg>.

A Perfect Candidate Wrap-up (Week 6)

So last week I wanted to know whether the editing crew had anything to do with my emotions towards either candidate. As far as I noticed, there wasn't really that much that the editors did to tweak the movie in either direction. The film was different from Bowling for Columbine in the sense that the footage was uncut and raw. However, we still don't always see both sides of the issue in the movie. It's of no fault to the producers; it would just be too difficult to document Senator Robb's side of every issue along with North's. Other than that, all the fallacies and propaganda displayed in the film was expressed directly from the candidates rather than the producers of the film.

This week we wrapped up A Perfect Candidate and discussed more in-depth some of the techniques used by the candidates to gain votes. We also discussed the idea of a real perfect candidate and why they don't exist. The main thing we looked at throughout the week was the principles of political propaganda as we analyzed the final moments of Oliver North's campaign. The main appeal North tried to exert through his entire campaign was the appeal to the common man, or the "plain folks appeal". such is apparent at picnics, in commercials, and in sanctuaries, where North tries to blend in with the average Joe through physical appearance and religious standpoints. Another very common form of propaganda used throughout the film was name calling. Whether it was Robb and North going back and forth at a debate or Robb's spiel at the end of the movie, the candidates often spoke negatively about each other more frequently than they actually talked about the issues.

Less common, but still effective, was the use of transfer. The best example was Robb's campaign tying North to racism because a former Klan leader "like some of his ideas". It sounds ridiculous to tie the two together, but as the polls show, it works. This one stuck out the most for me because it seemed like the least common and the harshest. It's a direct attack on a candidate by linking them to something completely irrelevant. The average American might completely miss the manipulation behind these statements. Although it's not used very often in the movie it can be seen all the time on telivision during a political race. I see Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell use it all the time in their political ads.

As we move forward in our discussion of political propaganda, I'd like to pay more attention to the propaganda that is used by the candidates for governor. How often is it evident? What types of propaganda do they use? Is it effective? My hope is that the project assigned for Friday will help answer some of these questions.

Sources:

A Perfect Candidate Cover. Photograph. Jason O'Mahoney. Web. http://jasonomahony.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/a-perfect-candidate.jpg.

Senator Robb Portrait. Photograph. Salon.com. Web. .

Moore No More (Week 5)

So last week we finished up on our study of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. While wrapping up the blog, the question I wanted to know was whether these techniques would be used in Michael Moore Hates America. Unfortunately, I thought we would be starting that documentary this week, but that wasn't the case. I was too afraid that I would spoil the movie if I went digging around looking for answers to the question, but I did find this interesting video.

Anyways, this week we started looking at the other side of propaganda, through the film A Perfect Candidate. The movie tackles a more conservative view point than what we've been looking at recently, but more interesting is the way the film is presented compared to the works of Michael Moore. It focuses on the way Oliver North uses persuasive techniques on his audiences rather than having a narrator persuade the viewer. The film explicitly uses raw footage, where as Moore would provide commentary, background music, and soundbites to get his point across. The point of A Perfect Candidate is more to document the campaigning process than to persuade the viewer in any direction.

That being said, there is still a variety of fallacies and propaganda to be found throughout the film. Most notable is North's appeal to the common man. He's provided a few examples so far, but most notable is when he hosts a picnic in all casual attire and even shows off his skills with a gun. He's trying to appeal to folks by showing them that he's just like them, which is not the case. Politicians try desperately to relate back to the common man, when in reality, they have very little in common.

Another good example is North's testimony in church. The way he words his testimony makes it sound like he's struggled with difficult obstacles and forced to unjustly serve two years in prison for a what he believed wasn't a crime. His wording created an emotion of pity among his audience, even though he's not this innocent, average American. He lied to the US government and embezzled money, yet he believed that because his intentions were innocent, his actions were justified. Religion also plays a large role in this public facade he puts on. As seen in the political debate as well as the aforementioned testimony, North makes it appear that he holds religion at the forefront of his political campaign. Now I'm not saying that's entirely an act as well, but he certainly makes his religious standpoints clear.

North is also quick to jump on other candidates for hiding parts of their personal lives from the public. He makes Chuck Robb look like an unfit candidate for senator because he's not trustworthy. The irony behind this is that North lied to the entire country and even put lives at stake, but is attacking this man for keeping a mistress a secret. The only viable argument he has in this situation is that the Iran-Contra Scandal was in the past, and we need to move on and look at the present. Does this justify his attacks on Robb? No.

After looking back on it, I realized that I really only paid attention to the fallacies that North was committing. I wasn't paying any attention to any specific editing techniques. This week I'd like to pay a little more attention to see if the editing crew has any effect on the viewers' opinions of North. Is this a legitimate documentary or are there some techniques in the same vein as Michael Moore?

Sources:
Oliver North, Iran-Contra Scandal. Photograph. Scrape TV News. Web. .

Perfect Candidate. Photograph. Actual Reality Pictures. Web. .

Stewart, Jon. The Daily Show Episode #9002 (7/7/04). Television.

Bowling for Columbine End Credits (Week 4)

Last week I ended the blog asking what the general public's opinion on Michael Moore was. Is he saint? Is he the devil? I've already formed my own opinion on him, so I wanted to see what people outside of the classroom thought of him (those who don't have a teacher pointing out all of his fallacies). I found an online poll that was pretty evenly split down the middle. I decided to ask the same question on yahoo answers. I was hoping that the question would get a few hits. Unfortunately, it looks like if the question isn't about Michael Jackson, nobody on Yahoo! Answers cares. The general consensus seems to be a pretty even split, with political parties not really playing a huge role in opinions. Liberals that have really taken the time to analyze his works have a negative opinion on him, and some conservatives think his movies are clever. When I looked on the internet to get some more opinions, the search was just too vague to yield any usable results.

Okay, so this past week we finally wrapped up Bowling For Columbine. What stuck out the most during the final scenes was Mr. Moore's interview with Charlton Heston. A year after the interview, Heston was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, still prior to the release of the film. During the interview, Moore twists Heston's words in different ways, at one point making Heston looking like a racist pig. The movie fails to state at any point Heston's large involvement in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. The questions asked were mainly rhetorical or worded in such a way to even confuse the most prepared interviewee. After previously answering Moore several times, Heston still finds himself being asked "why we were the only country that kills each other at such a large capacity with guns." Not only is the question a fallacy of a complex question (Moore assumes that Heston agrees that there is a large level of violence because he answered the question), but he also asks it multiple times until he gets a controversial answer.

Another scene that stuck out was when Moore went to K-Mart with two victims of the Columbine Massacre. It was probably one of the most blatant examples of the Guerrilla Interview expressed in the film. Moore and the students entered K-Mart headquarters unannounced demanding to see the president of the company. When a manager stepped in the line of fire, she found herself unprepared to answer any of Moore's questions. Although she handled the situation at hand as logically and as well as she could, the interview still made her look bad, which was Moore's main goal in the first place. A day later, when Moore returns with the media and a van full of ammunition, K-Mart felt obligated to issue a public statement. The vice-president barely started her statement before Moore kept interupting her with ambiguitious statements that were only meant to confuse her and make him look good.

Now that we're done with Michael Moore's side of this study, I'm interested to find out what the opposite side is like. Will the director of Michael Moore Hates America use the same techinques we just witnessed in Bowling for Columbine? Will he fall into the same usage of manipulation that he's pointing out and disproving? Hopefully not, but we'll have to wait to find out.

Sources:

Cooper, Scott. "What do you think of Michael Moore?" Yahoo! Answers - Home. Web. 11 Oct. 2009. .

Michael Moore and Pizza. Photograph. Photobucket. Web. http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20moore%20sucks/Opinionnation/michael-moore-pizza.jpg.

"Poll: What is your opinion on Michael Moore?" City-data.com. Web. http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/92008-poll-what-your-opinion-michael-moore.html.

Week 3 at a glance

So, last week we talked about more media fallacies and the beginning of Bowling for Columbine. The topic got me wonder how many times fallacies lead to civil court cases. Looking at Moore in general, there are quite a few google results. As it turns out, Mr. Moore is a pretty popular regular within the lawsuit community. Michael is pretty infamous for skewing facts and misquoting people, so what you probably don't understand is why he keeps winning these civil cases. The problem is, he's technically not altering anything anyone has said, nor is he lying about information. The reason the cases against Moore never hold up in court is because what he's doing isn't wrong. From a moral standpoint, yes. But from a political standpoint, he hasn't committed any crimes. Every clip he uses has really been spoken by the plaintiffs, but he has been in the business long enough to know how to manipulate what is said into what he wants to be said. Confused? It's simple, because he never changes what is said, only the context, there is no case against him. As far as his bogus statistics go, he always makes them so broad that it could be argued either way.

Michael has set a precedent for other civil suits, including the many civil cases against Sacha Baron Cohen, creator of Borat. Countless people that appeared in his film claimed that he tricked them into believing that he was from Kazakhstan. Although this statement may be true, what saved Cohen from losing these cases was the fact that the plaintiffs had each signed a waver that was cleverly disguised as a Kazakhstan TV show permission form. if the plaintiffs had actually read the paperwork, they would've know what they were in for. There are countless other examples, but I'll spare you the frustration and move on.

This week we focused primarily on one clip of Bowling For Columbine, the Wonderful World montage. At first glance, the U.S. looks like an awful country that hides more from us than we realize. However, when we analyzed each event individually, the class realized that the captions under each clip weren't as truthful as one might think. When first watching it, you don't have enough time to think about one of the captions before he moves on to his next point. This form of manipulation is also prevalent in the segment A Brief History of the United States of America. When we took the time to actually analyze each event in history, they weren't quite the way Moore described them. For example one of the captions states: "U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed." The fallacy in this statement is that the 200,000 civilians were killed within the 4 decades of fascist leadership that followed the overthrow of Arbenz. If you didn't do your research though, you probably would've assumed their deaths were a direct result of the CIA sponsored Coup.

As we discussed the clips in more depth, it seemed to be a very common pattern throughout the montage. In fact, the more time discussing just this segment in class, the less respect I had for Michael Moore. This got me thinking. Even though I lean more towards the right, do any leftists share my opinion? This week I'd like to do some research to see what the general opinion is on this radical liberal. He's won plenty of awards, and a large amount of people go see his films, but what is the general opinion on him? How many people take the time to see through his manipulation?

Sources:

A Brief History of the United States of America. Photograph. YTIMG. Web. .

"Humiliated frat boys sue 'Borat'" USA Today. Web. .

Michael Moore, Captalism: A Love Story. Photograph. BV on Movies. Web. .

Blog Numero Dos (week 2)

Last week I posed the question, "How often does media intentionally use fallacies and informal logic in their favor?" Although no one I know sits in front of their television, counting the use of fallacies, I found myself doing it for the two popular satirical news shows, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. After averaging the tally marks, I found that each show uses an average of 23 techniques per night. (This was done over the course of this past week.) Both hosts go through about 10 soundbites a night, and they both use selective wording and rhetorical questions in almost every interview, leaving the interviewee with little option but to awkwardly laugh and avoid the question. There was even an episode of Colbert where his original question was removed, and the producers edited in him asking something completely different. (It was just for laughs and made purposefully obvious, but still a little manipulative).
As for the rest of the media, aka "the real" media I looked for some statistics of how often fallacies are used, but with no luck. The closest I could find was Mediahell, unfortunately only documents fallacies in the British media. It was still a great reference, though. I recommend checking it out.
Ok, so this week was still heavily based on identifying fallacies, much like last week. It opened with an episode of The Awful Truth, where Moore attempts to run a ficus against candidates for Senate. In the episode, Moore uses his normal techniques to persuade the audience in his favor, but he ends up just getting really obnoxious. He also made claims that candidates were running unopposed, when he never counted an incumbant as opposition.
We also started taking a look at Michael Moore's film Bowling For Columbine and looked at the common techniques of manipulative logic used by Moore. One clip in particular that stuck out for me was Moore's interview with James Nichols, brother of one of the conspirators involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing. During the interview, it only shows Michael ask one or two questions, but the interview is good ten minutes. It was a good example of both the Phantom Question and Editing for Sound Bites. Moore didn't show the question that prompted Nichols' response, and he only used segments of the entire interview, edited together to make Nichol's sound crazy.
Another part of of the segment that stuck out was the clip when James took Michael into his room. Conveniently, the cameras weren't allowed in. Moore made it appear as though Nichols had put the gun to his own head at this point, yet it never appears on camera. One thing I found interesting was, after doing a bit of research, I learned that Nichols actually filed a lawsuit against Moore. Ultimately, he lost, but his argument was that Bowling For Columbine made him look like he had part in the Oklahoma City Bombing. The court ruled in favor of Moore because, even though they were delivered in a misleading manor, all the statements in the film about Nichols were "factually and substantially true."
This got me thinking. Obviously fallacies cause plenty of civil lawsuits (just look at Borat). I began to wonder how often cases like these appear in court. Also, how often does the Plantiff prevail over the Manipulator? After all, our Constitution protects the freedom of speech.

Sources:
Associated Press. "Court quashes lawsuit against filmmaker Moore." CBC News. 20 Feb. 2007. Web. 27 Sept. 2009. .

Bowling For Columbine Poster. Photograph. Abnoxio. Web. .

Dean, Brian. Media Hell. Web. .