Originally Posted by
Hobbit
I've seen a couple of Moore documentaries (not by my own will, either, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11) and the two are not at all comparable. Yes, both have a view and use the documentary as a tool of persuasion rather than solely as information, however, here are the 2 PRIMARY differences.
1) Moore claims to be presenting nothing but facts and that the reason the movie makes things look a certain way is because they are. Stein comes out at the very beginning and says that he has a certain view, and that if you think differently, that's ok. He makes no claims of total impartiality (thought he tries to be fair, which leads me to number 2).
2) Moore took clips from various interviews, photo ops, and his own footage, and chopped it together, often sans context, to paint whatever kind of picture he wanted. For a good example, in 'Mike and Me,' he claimed throughout the movie to be seeking an interview with what's-his-face when, in actuality, he had already been granted said interview before they even started filming the movie. He just left that part out. On the other hand, in Expelled, Stein gives at least some context to all of the quotes from his opponents, and if it is a hatchet job, then it's the most beautiful hatchet job I've ever seen and I'll readily admit to being taken in by it. In all of the interviews with his opponents, he gave ample opportunity for them to clarify anything that sounded implausible or just plain stupid, while he challenged many of the claims of those he agreed with. As I said, he makes no claims at impartiality, but he does TRY quite hard to be very even handed. If anything, I'd say he was nicer to the Darwinists than he was to the IDers.