It's Okay To Get Facts Wrong?

[Eyeron]

Is it okay to get facts wrong as long as the political ideology is correct?

Here's the context. People like Michael Moore. When Farenheight 911 came out, there was a paper that came out called "The 59 Deceits of Michael Moore" which lists a good 59 details that he got wrong in Farenheight 911. Here the actual paper if you're interested:

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

this is not the focus of my question.

When this paper came out, fans of Michael Moore were upset because they say it was the wrong thing to do so the insinuation seems to be that it is okay to get facts wrong if the political ideology is right. By right I mean that the political ideology presented in the documentary agrees with your (general you not specific) own political ideology.

So the question I put to you is is it okay to present a documentary with incorrect facts as long as the political ideology is right?

[Rasmus]

I might comment more if and when I get a chance ot read that thing. Only so much: "Getting facts wrong" is not the same as "deceit", the latter implies intentional lies about the facts rather than honest mistakes.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Is it okay to get facts wrong as long as the political ideology is correct?

Here's the context. People like Michael Moore. When Farenheight 911 came out, there was a paper that came out called "The 59 Deceits of Michael Moore" which lists a good 59 details that he got wrong in Farenheight 911. Here the actual paper if you're interested:

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

this is not the focus of my question.

When this paper came out, fans of Michael Moore were upset because they say it was the wrong thing to do so the insinuation seems to be that it is okay to get facts wrong if the political ideology is right. By right I mean that the political ideology presented in the documentary agrees with your (general you not specific) own political ideology.

So the question I put to you is is it okay to present a documentary with incorrect facts as long as the political ideology is right?

.
Most of the crap I get on e-mail from the rightwingnuts is incorrect, if not downright intentionally distorted.
Liberals are just as sensitive to being forced to review information and sources for bias/deceit as the rightwingnuts.
If it agrees with one's intolerance, then pass it on.
Don't check it out.
Moore is hardly innocent of deceit.

[LTC8K6]

If they are wrong, then they aren't facts. They are something else...

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Is it okay to get facts wrong as long as the political ideology is correct?

To an ideologist, yes. That's why I don't have much use for ideology.

[HansMustermann]

Well, I'm not qualified to judge most of them, but at least towards the end, it's just emotional list-padding.

E.g., 58 isn't actually about some falsehood said by Moore, but pretty much the standard rap of accusing him of being unpatriotic.

E.g., 59 again isn't about something Moore actually said, but just guilt by association. I don't think Moore is responsible for who likes his movie, and for what reason, even if it's supposedly the Hezbollah.

Also,

Number 33 is... well, debatable. We've all seen how much of "free elections" Afghanistan actually got in their recent elections, and it's hardly something to brag about.

28 and 29 are at best handwaving. It's saying, basically, "no, Afghanistan wasn't about building that pipeline... erm... it was about building a different pipeline between the same two countries, but it's not through the same place!" Heh.

That said, I'm no fan of Moore's anyway, and his grand claims often do trip suspension of disbelief majorly.

[madurobob]

FWIW, Moore provides his factual backup here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/fa...11-section-one

Reading Moore's "facts" and Kopel's "facts" makes it clear that the dispute is not really over facts, but over how they are interpreted or presented.

[Hux]

I personally resent being presented with anything that turns out to be known crap. It is entirely appropriate to point these things out.

Much like Sarah Palins new book. Fox noise is pointing out how wonderful it is; Rush Limbaugh is claiming its one of the most 'substantive' political books he has ever read. (FFS)

But other channels are spending an awful lot of time pointing out every error and downright dishonesty in it. So I would be pissed off to spend the money on that book just to find it full of lies.

[GreyICE]

No. Any ideology or idea worth subscribing to is supported by supportable facts.

That being said, that 59 deceits list is clearly shoddy. For instance 3 is irrelevant - a full recount showed Gore winning, and Moore's point that the recount wasn't allowed was valid. The fact is, we don't know the results if a full official recount would have been done.

17 isn't a valid criticism (Tu Quoque, literally), 18 is a quibble not a falsehood, 19 itself is false (didn't get convicted in court and 'no evidence' are manifestly different things), 27 wasn't a claim made in the movie... yeah.

I have no love for Moore, but that document is garbage too. I'm not even fact checking it, I'm just skimming.

[shadron]

Ideology is a war for hearts and minds, it is not a systematic way to build a history that will stand up to hindsight's 20-20 gaze. Success is built upon your voting nose count, not on what the unguessable verdict of history will show. If it takes a lie, an artfully embellished exaggeration, or an insufficiently researched fact, or just a mistake left in after it is pointed out, then that's what it takes.

Creationist websites have tons of poorly researched facts and downright lies, which their webmasters have admitted are wrong, but which are and will not be removed. The ends justify the means, regardless of how one feels about lies.

Originally Posted by Robert A Heinlein

What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

[TimCallahan]

Shouldn't this thread be in a forum on politics and social issues?

[jimtron]

Quote:

When this paper came out, fans of Michael Moore were upset because they say it was the wrong thing to do so the insinuation seems to be that it is okay to get facts wrong if the political ideology is right.

This smells like a straw man to me. I highly doubt any Moore supporters believe that it's OK to misrepresent facts in the name of their ideology. In fact I find it unlikely that anyone would support this position--on the right or left--that it's OK to lie if it's in the service of your views. If you have evidence that Moore fans or anyone else does believe this, feel free to post it.

If the issue is about whether Moore is factually accurate or not, there are plenty of threads here addressing that.

eta: Supposedly Ronald Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things."

[GreyICE]

There's plenty of views about 'airing dirty laundry in public.' Look at the criticism leveled at Little Green Footballs.

[jimtron]

Quote:

When this paper came out, fans of Michael Moore were upset because they say it was the wrong thing to do so the insinuation seems to be that it is okay to get facts wrong if the political ideology is right.

Could you please elaborate on this, and provide a specific example if possible? They said it was wrong why?

[Wolfman]

I share Moore's ideology, but have long been a critic of his work. He intentionally distorts information, or sets up scenes to make things look other than they are -- one of the more blatant ones, when he shows a bank that gives a gun away in return for opening up an account in their bank. He walks in, opens an account, and they give him a gun. It turns out, though, that while it was true the bank was offering guns, it was nowhere near as easy as he'd supposedly demonstrated to actually get one of those guns...he'd talked with the bank management in advance, and worked out a deal where they'd give it to him right away especially for the camera (the bank obviously being entirely unaware of how such footage would be used).

"We" (the left or left-ish types) tend to be very vocal when the right distorts and misrepresents information in order to criticize/condemn us...how can we then condone someone on our own side who does exactly the same thing?

In my opinion, Moore is becoming the left-wing's version of a Rush Limbaugh. Tons of loyal fans who listen to him faithfully, not questioning anything he says, and jumping on anyone who criticizes him. Tending towards a more irrational, extreme perspective where anything that makes the 'other guys' look bad is fair game, regardless of its truth.

And, not so coincidentally, getting quite rich from doing so.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Is it okay to get facts wrong as long as the political ideology is correct?

Here's the context. People like Michael Moore. When Farenheight 911 came out, there was a paper that came out called "The 59 Deceits of Michael Moore" which lists a good 59 details that he got wrong in Farenheight 911. Here the actual paper if you're interested:

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

this is not the focus of my question.

When this paper came out, fans of Michael Moore were upset because they say it was the wrong thing to do so the insinuation seems to be that it is okay to get facts wrong if the political ideology is right. By right I mean that the political ideology presented in the documentary agrees with your (general you not specific) own political ideology.

So the question I put to you is is it okay to present a documentary with incorrect facts as long as the political ideology is right?

Much of the 59 deceits has itself been debunked.

Moore doesn't have every fact right but in general he gets a much higher score than the current right wing does.

Your thread appears to be a thinly veiled cliche attitude that each side dismisses the factual errors they agree with. That is overgeneralizing people's real positions on these matters.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

When this paper came out, fans of Michael Moore were upset because they say it was the wrong thing to do so the insinuation seems to be that it is okay to get facts wrong if the political ideology is right.

Is this fact correct? I am not aware of any Michael Moore fans being upset about this or saying it was the wrong thing to do.

Can you back up that claim?

If not then you should ask yourself if it is OK get facts wrong.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

To an ideologist, yes. That's why I don't have much use for ideology.

[jimtron]

Just to clarify, afaik the topic is not whether Michael Moore's arguments hold water; the topic title is:

It's Okay To Get Facts Wrong?

and from the OP:

Quote:

So the question I put to you is is it okay to present a documentary with incorrect facts as long as the political ideology is right?

It's hard for me to imagine anyone answering yes to that question. Have political docs with bad facts been made? Of course. Does anyone say it's OK to get the facts wrong to support one's political agenda? Not that I know of--anyone have examples of this?

[athon]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Is it okay to get facts wrong as long as the political ideology is correct?

Nope. Never.

I liken it to people who have to hyperbolise and use alarmist strategies to get their point across. If you have to lie or exaggerate to get people to listen, your point simply isn't important enough. Sure, your values might say it's significant...but using lies to convince others means they're only crusading for something they don't really believe in.

Athon

[Wolfman]

I'll add to the above comments:

Not only is it wrong, it is counter-productive. As far as I'm concerned, if someone has to lie or distort facts to make their argument, then their argument itself must have some serious problems. Why can they not find real, true, undistorted facts to support their position? And if they can...why do they need to resort to such tactics?

The reason that people like Limbaugh have to rely so much on lies, exaggeration, and distortion is because they don't have much in the way of actual truth to support their positions. All they have is a blind adherence to an ideology that all too often comes into conflict with hard, cold facts.

Regardless of their position on the political spectrum, I will condemn such tactics, and the people who use them.

[Eyeron]

Quote:

Could you please elaborate on this, and provide a specific example if possible? They said it was wrong why?

I'm not being sarcastic, why would this be important?

But if you must know, there was a big ruckus over it at a site called the Democratic Underground some time ago. The DU is primary for partisan politics for liberals.

Quote:

Much of the 59 deceits has itself been debunked.

By whom? Any independent criticisms of it? Whenever I hear that claim i'm always suspicious of it.

Quote:

Your thread appears to be a thinly veiled cliche attitude that each side dismisses the factual errors they agree with. That is overgeneralizing people's real positions on these matters.

I have never heard of that cliche' before. Are you sure it isn't that each side just dismisses each fact that doesn't agree with their ideology?

Quote:

Just to clarify, afaik the topic is not whether Michael Moore's arguments hold water; the topic title is:

It's Okay To Get Facts Wrong?

Thank you. I thought I had made it clear that it was my question that I wanted some answers to.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

I'm not being sarcastic, why would this be important?

It would be important because if you got the facts wrong yourself then you would hardly be in a position to criticise others.

Quote:

But if you must know, there was a big ruckus over it at a site called the Democratic Underground some time ago. The DU is primary for partisan politics for liberals.

If they really said that it was OK, to get facts wrong then of course, they were wrong.

But I am somewhat suspicious of vague second hand claims like this - always like to hear what they said in their own words.

Quote:

Thank you. I thought I had made it clear that it was my question that I wanted some answers to.

Well of course it is not OK to get facts wrong, I have never come across anyone who ever said it was, short of Muslim fanatics who say it is OK to lie to kafirs.

[Eyeron]

Quote:

It would be important because if you got the facts wrong yourself then you would hardly be in a position to criticise others.

Except that never really stops anybody from being critical. And even if they don't have any credibility, that doesn't mean that they can't be right.

[jimtron]

Eyeron:

In answer to the thread title's question, of course not. I'm skeptical that anyone would make such an argument, that it's OK to be factually inaccurate as long as it supports your ideology.

Quote:

When this paper came out, fans of Michael Moore were upset because they say it was the wrong thing to do so the insinuation seems to be that it is okay to get facts wrong if the political ideology is right.

I'm skeptical of the above--do you have evidence to support this? Are you saying that some Moore fans advocate getting facts wrong in the course of presenting their political views?

Quote:

I'm not being sarcastic, why would this be important?

The reason I asked, "they said it was wrong why" is that I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. Moore fans said it was wrong to criticize him? Or wrong to correct him? Or that he didn't get facts wrong? Maybe you could link to the ruckus you mentioned. Any specific examples would help.

[Eyeron]

Quote:

In answer to the thread title's question, of course not. I'm skeptical that anyone would make such an argument, that it's OK to be factually inaccurate as long as it supports your ideology.

The exact words were not used. As I said, it seemed to be an insinuation because of some of them getting upset over the paper. And these reactions to the paper inspired the question, because of how upset some of them seemed to be.

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

The exact words were not used. As I said, it seemed to be an insinuation because of some of them getting upset over the paper. And these reactions to the paper inspired the question, because of how upset some of them seemed to be.

Again, it would help to have an example of someone making such an insinuation. Were they upset because they thought it wasn't fair to question Moore's accuracy, or were they upset because they found fault with the paper (ie, disagreed with its arguments)? Or something else?

I ask because I've followed arguments about Moore's books and films before, and while there is certainly disagreement about factual accuracy, I've never gotten the impression in any way that any Moore supporter believes that some of his facts are wrong, and that's OK.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Most of the crap I get on e-mail from the rightwingnuts is incorrect, if not downright intentionally distorted.
...

.
I received the first picture from outraged righties.. whom I've told to check Snopes at least before passing this crap on.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...eteransday.asp
.
Obie would hardly be saluting himself during that part of the ceremony.

[cwalner]

I am not a big fan of Moore, but I never bothered to question his 'facts' because it is not relevent to my particular issues with his work. For me, he seems to be more guilty of 'lies of omission' or twisted interpretation of facts presented to fit his ideology.

As an example of the latter is his claim in Farenheit 911 that the purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was not to get rid of the Taliban, but to build the oil pipeline in order to help out Bush's coorporte cronies. He supplies the following facts in support of his claim.
- Charzai was placed in power by the Bush Administration after the invasion
- Charzai had previously worked with Bush & Cheney in the private sector.
- Charzai supported the plan to build the pipeline.
You don't need to challenge the validity of the facts to see this as rubbish, because even if accepted as true, they really are not proof of the claim that Moore makes.

To me the more reasonable interpretation is that the invasion was to get rid of the Taliban. Once accomplished, in order to prevent a power vacuum, the administration needed to set up an Afghan government quickly. They therefore turned to somebody they worked with in the past and knew they could work together with. This shared history explains the shared interest in the pipeline. This explanation also encompases the presented facts, but just does not come across as quite so nefarious as Moore wants to portry the Bush administration.

When the logic and conclusions are so flawed, why bother examining the facts, because thier accuracy at this point is no longer relevant.

[jimtron]

A reminder: this thread is not about the accuracy of Moore's arguments. I just did a search, and there are 36 threads here with "michael moore" in the title. This thread asks if it's OK to get facts wrong; it's not asking if Moore's arguments are wrong.

From the thread title and OP:

1. It's OK to get facts wrong?
2. So the question I put to you is is it okay to present a documentary with incorrect facts as long as the political ideology is right?

My take is that both questions are basically straw man arguments, as no one would argue yes to either point. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please provide it (including Moore fans saying (eta: or insinuating) it's OK to get facts wrong in the service of arguing the "right" ideology).

[Robin]

Originally Posted by cwalner

I am not a big fan of Moore, but I never bothered to question his 'facts' because it is not relevent to my particular issues with his work. For me, he seems to be more guilty of 'lies of omission' or twisted interpretation of facts presented to fit his ideology.

As an example of the latter is his claim in Farenheit 911 that the purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was not to get rid of the Taliban, but to build the oil pipeline in order to help out Bush's coorporte cronies. He supplies the following facts in support of his claim.
- Charzai was placed in power by the Bush Administration after the invasion
- Charzai had previously worked with Bush & Cheney in the private sector.
- Charzai supported the plan to build the pipeline.
You don't need to challenge the validity of the facts to see this as rubbish, because even if accepted as true, they really are not proof of the claim that Moore makes.

To me the more reasonable interpretation is that the invasion was to get rid of the Taliban. Once accomplished, in order to prevent a power vacuum, the administration needed to set up an Afghan government quickly. They therefore turned to somebody they worked with in the past and knew they could work together with. This shared history explains the shared interest in the pipeline. This explanation also encompases the presented facts, but just does not come across as quite so nefarious as Moore wants to portry the Bush administration.

When the logic and conclusions are so flawed, why bother examining the facts, because thier accuracy at this point is no longer relevant.

He lost me with the bit about Bush sitting in stunned silence when he heard the news of the terrorist attack. Why wouldn't the President sit in stunned silence at that news? That is pretty much what I did when I heard the news.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Except that never really stops anybody from being critical. And even if they don't have any credibility, that doesn't mean that they can't be right.

If your facts are wrong then your facts are wrong.

Are you saying it doesn't matter if your facts are wrong?

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by jimtron

eta: Supposedly Ronald Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things."

I have heard the following quote attributed to Albert Einstein.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by cwalner

I have heard the following quote attributed to Albert Einstein.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

I had a theory he said something like that!

[GanipGnop]

Originally Posted by jimtron

In answer to the thread title's question, of course not. I'm skeptical that anyone would make such an argument, that it's OK to be factually inaccurate as long as it supports your ideology.

I have to disagree you must not be acquainted with the writings of "Whale Whore" Paul Watson:

“If you don’t know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then ... make it up on the spot.”
— Paul Watson, in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by GanipGnop

I have to disagree you must not be acquainted with the writings of "Whale Whore" Paul Watson:

“If you don’t know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then ... make it up on the spot.”
— Paul Watson, in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! You're right, I was not familiar with this guy. More from the Paul Watson Wikipedia page:

Quote:

Watson was explicit on this score: “If you do not know an answer, a fact, or a statistic, then simply follow the example of an American President and do as Ronald Reagan did—make it up on the spot and deliver the information confidently and without hesitation.”[26] This has been noted and reported by the news media.[27] In a subsequent book, Ocean Warrior, Watson reiterated this view, saying: “Survival in a media culture meant developing the skills to understand and manipulate media to achieve strategic objectives.”[

What a great way to destroy one's credibility...

[Eyeron]

Quote:

Again, it would help to have an example of someone making such an insinuation. Were they upset because they thought it wasn't fair to question Moore's accuracy, or were they upset because they found fault with the paper (ie, disagreed with its arguments)? Or something else?

Specific examples include people calling it things like a red herring and that it deliberately avoids the point Michael Moore was trying to make in the film. Others include simply dismissing the paper outright without even examining the paper itself. Is that specific enough for you?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Robin

He lost me with the bit about Bush sitting in stunned silence when he heard the news of the terrorist attack. Why wouldn't the President sit in stunned silence at that news? That is pretty much what I did when I heard the news.

.
ISTR that informing was done and video-taped. W was teaching a class of 2nd graders? something... and an aide whispered in his ear. W kept on teaching for a few minutes and then left the room.
I do believe any "stunning" effect occurred many years before that.
My personal take upon hearing that a plane had hit the WTC was... it's been done.
I saw the hole in the Empire State building the day after the B-25 hit it back in 1945.
When the 2nd plane showed up on 9/11 flying towards the WTC, then it became more than an accident.

[Eyeron]

Quote:

Are you saying it doesn't matter if your facts are wrong?

I'm not making a claim. I was asking a question to find out for myself.

[GanipGnop]

Originally Posted by jimtron

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! You're right, I was not familiar with this guy. More from the Paul Watson Wikipedia page:

What a great way to destroy one's credibility...

Thank you, thank you I wasn't either until I saw the "Whale Whores" South Park episode. I looked into him afterward with a critical eye and I must say SP got his number. As for his credibility you'd think his efforts would fail without it but apparently his donors don't care or they just care more about whales than his deceitful actions. This will be his shows third season this year I might have to rent it if Netflix has past seasons. The Discovery Channel's Whale Wars forum is full of criticism against Watson and his tactics. If you want an interesting read I would suggest reading this New Yorker article on Watson.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...khatchadourian

If you have a fast enough connection you can watch the episode at http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/ just search for Whale Whores.