After watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, I was impressed with the research he conducted and his effort to interview a variety of subjects. It is obvious that he is biased, and this slanted take on all the events related to Bush can be a little off-putting at times, but I found the majority of the documentary shocking and thought-provoking. We have learned about fallacious arguments, and a common error is to use an appeal to an improper authority. Moore interviews many subjects, and most are qualified to speak on the subject matter (e.g. the Oregon border protection official on the topic of Oregon's border security). Fallacious arguments do not logically support their conclusions, but Moore is good at using facts and his research to back up claims. For example, he notes the difference in sources of income from the Saudis and from Bush's presidency ($1.4 billion vs. $400,000) to argue that there is a conflict of interest. I was impressed that he located an old military record that did not black out "James R. Bath" in order to raise suspicion about a recently released document. I have heard that some of Moore's statements are not factual, so I would want to do more research before completely accepting some of his claims. An example of his obvious bias is when he states that Bush went to sleep on "fine French linens" the night before 9/11. This is extraneous information that is a kind of personal attack- portraying Bush as rich, spoiled, and implying he is someone who sleeps soundly even though he knows our country is in trouble.
Moore's bias seems very tame after watching Ann Coulter's incessant word-flow. She comes across as a self-absorbed person who likes to hear her own voice. Throughout the multiple interviews we saw (except for the last where respect of the other speaker appeared to be a ground rule), she was constantly talking even while being asked questions! She relies on ad hominem way too much (e.g. calling Hillary Clinton and Lewinsky "chubby," and calling her opponent's revelation of an incorrect quotation as one of his "long boring stories"). Coulter lacks logos in her arguments, and it is hard to understand why her books have become best-sellers.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that Michael Moore is more convincing and persuasive than Ann Coulter. Michale Moore provides good evidence for his arguments and goes through all aspects in his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, never answered a direct question, and when confronted with false proof that she provided, she slyly ignores the question and changes topic. If I had to support either Michael Moore or Ann Coulter, I would go for Michael Moore.
I also agree that Moore is more convincing the Coulter just because he is much more composed and his arguments at first glance are extremely convincing. He provides evidence while she tends to just change the subject, however, we did not see him in interviews and we did not see her ina documentary... so it is really hard to compare them
Post a Comment