quote: Originally posted by Lucius
Read it. Some of it is spot-on on Moore; he does tend to take footage or information and warp it to his purposes.
On the other hand, a good deal of those "deceits" are nitpicking. Documentary filmmakers since Robert Flaherty have either staged or massaged their images or details to help make a stronger case. If the basic idea is accurate, well...
And Kopel goes overboard with some of the attacks (well, going overboard seems the name of the game here). Deceits, fine, but cheap shots? What's wrong with them and so what if Moore uses them?
Kopel also flies in the face of what's known at certain points. No, despite all of Kopel's insisting and presenting thin evidence, Saddam has no direct connection with 9/11; no, invading Iraq was not an urgent priority or next step for the USA. Kopel makes a fairly good case, overall, but he destroys it by overselling (again, admittedly, the name of the game both Kopel and Moore--and Bush, for that matter--are playing here).