[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I never once stated that obfuscating facts and general mud-slinging were non-issues. As for telling one-side of a story, well duh- thats the whole point of doing opinion work. A news organization reporting the news has different standards than an opinion writer in my opinion. The problem is that Moore's opinion is being presented as fact. Based on what you're saying, you should be the first to stand up and point out the problem with that. An apples and oranges comparison. Apparently the apples and oranges analogy relies heavily on which side of the fruit stand your working from. [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh and here is what I described as a non-issue so the proper context can be assertained by the vewing public- Curious, I have read the critism's of the Denver speech scene in BFC, I have read Moore's rebuttal to the critism. I watched the movie again. I dont feel mislead. Its seems to me that your accusations of Moore being a liar about that scene is but an opinion, not a fact. True two different peices of rally footage were used, one after the other. One, a stock piece shown during an introductory narration, the next peice intertwined with citizens protesting outside that gun rally. I'm still not feeling mislead. Two different peices of footage used one after the other for different reasons. My opinion-NON-ISSUE! So what if they scaled down thier meeting, they still had one. So what if was planned in advanced or required by law in another state. I fail to see how ommitting this in the film constitutes deception. Another NON-ISSUE. So editing the film is a non-issue. No malicious intent can be proven. If editing the first three words of one sentance with the remainder of another sentance given at another convention isn't an issue, then you just don't want to see one. Omitting the NRA's meeting was planned way in advance and was required by law- another non-issue as this ommission doesnt constitue deception and I am unsure if it even qualifies as confusing the facts. The status of the NRA's meeting is just not mentioned. Perhaps an NRA spokeperson should have made statement to the crowd of protestors gathered in front of the meeting and explained these nuances...

If someone from the NRA did explain the nuances to the crowd, Moore wouldn't have shown it, unless he could make the representative look bad.

The ommission doesn't constitute deception? Are you kidding? Moore made it appear the the NRA continued with business as usual, and that they made no concessions. They were required by LAW to hold the other meeting. This must be another one of those apples and oranges issues. You know, the one that allows acceptions to or the complete ignoring of facts based on whether you agree with the apple or the orange.