This document analyzes several documentaries produced and directed by Michael Moore, including Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11. It argues that Moore uses partisan rhetoric, fallacious arguments, and misleading editing techniques to promote his liberal political views. Specifically, it asserts that Moore employs emotional appeals, post hoc fallacies, and ad hominem attacks to vilify his opponents and provoke strong reactions from viewers. While Moore addresses important social issues, the document concludes he undermines his credibility and journalistic integrity through these hyperpartisan and extremist tactics.

1. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore
Bradley A. Johnson
Illinois State University
Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore

2. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 1
Michael Moore has been making thought provoking documentaries for decades. His
authorial tactics have helped augment his position as an auteur filmmaker in the genre of
documentary filmmaking. His hard-hitting and fast-paced style fosters a sense of uneasiness and
anxiety in audiences, and forces viewers to think twice about the people and institutions that are
deeply rooted in contemporary American culture as moral and upstanding. These tactics,
however, have received criticism for being hyperpartisan and vehemently liberal. This sort of
political extremism has been clearly defined by Avlon (2010) as “Someone on the far-right wing
or far-left wing of the political spectrum. They are the professional partisans and the unhinged
activists, the hard-core haters and the paranoid conspiracy theorists.” Moore fits this description
perfectly and should be viewed as a liberal wingnut in light of his heavy use of various fallacious
claims, and his partisan authorial voice which perpetuates the hegemony he seeks to abolish.
Michael Francis Moore was born on April 23, 1954 in the industrial town of Flint,
Michigan (“Michael Moore,” 2015). Moore grew up in the post-World War II era living in
relative comfort and financial security due in part to his father’s job at the General Motors plant
in Flint (Roger & Me, 1989). A muckraking journalist by nature, Moore got his start in
alternative print media covering social issues and quickly moved his way up the media ladder to
become editor-in-chief of the Michigan Voice, one of the biggest periodicals in Michigan at the
time (Mattson, 2003). After a brief stay at Mother Jones, a popular newspaper in San Francisco,
Moore returned to Flint in time to see thousands of workers at General Motors laid off, causing
him to grab a camera and investigate the situation (p. 75).
Moore’s talent behind the camera began to attract attention after the release of his film
Roger & Me, a documentary focused on the layoffs at General Motors during the 1980s. In the
movie, the audience is bombarded by several fallacies that encourage a heartfelt response from

3. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 2
the viewer. These scenes, however, are put together in such a way that elicit strong emotional
responses by Moore. Although Moore’s efforts are emotionally captivating, his techniques bring
about moral absurdities that provoke strong political feelings from viewers and encourage
audience members to believe things that may not be true after further inspection. He uses
cinematic techniques in an effort to incorporate himself as “one of us” and goes to great lengths
to get the viewer to further empathize with those he chooses to interview, often using a bum-rush
technique to catch individuals off-guard (Spence, 2010). There are many moral dilemmas in
Moore’s work, and they ultimately detract from his journalistic and cinematic endeavors.
Moore is a practical example of what it truly means to exhibit freedom of speech (Misiak,
2005). His rhetoric, however, is on the verge of being harmful for the consumer viewing his
documentaries. A common example of Moore’s use of extremist rhetoric is exemplified by his
frequent use of cinematic juxtaposition in order to deceive the viewer (Poindexter, 2011). During
the course of Roger & Me, Moore captures evictions taking place in the Flint metropolitan area
by a veteran deputy. These instances of disparity and sorrow are then intercut with scenes of
affluent members of the Flint community living comfortably at a garden party, completely
oblivious to the problems in their own community (Roger & Me, 1989). Going back and forth
between the two polar opposites, Moore creates a sense of otherworldliness and
discombobulation between the two dividing sectors in Flint’s society. Moore uses this emotive
fallacy (Zompetti, 2015) to steer his argument toward an explanation of what he thinks General
Motor’s executive action really meant. In reality, however, Moore’s claims warrant no
prescription to the problem and ultimately confuse the line between investigative journalism and
soap opera drama, a fallacious action that detracts from the real issue of the film.

4. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 3
Later in the film, Moore interviews one woman who was a victim of a General Motors
layoff. She is forced to kill and sell her pet rabbits for their meat because that is her main source
of income now that she doesn’t work at General Motors. She explains that her Social Security
check does not cover her month’s rent and killing her rabbits is her only other source of income
(Roger & Me, 1989). In this example, Moore illustrates what is commonly known as an appeal to
pity (Zompetti, 2015). This appeal takes shape as the woman explains her situation and her
essentially barbaric means of survival. Closing the scene, Moore captures footage of the woman
killing and gutting one of her rabbits, showing the audience just how awful her living situation
truly is. Poindexter (2011) puts forth the argument that the rabbits represent the General Motors
employees being laid off, and the club being beaten over the rabbit’s head represents the
automobile company’s efforts to terminate the employee’s term with the company as easily as
the woman ends the animal’s life.
The woman’s pitiful situation illustrates the animalistic state in which Moore wants the
viewer to see the woman. The use of this misleading content was undoubtedly used in order to
provoke an emotional response from the viewer, possibly even an aggressive response imparting
hatred for the automobile company responsible for the woman’s sorrow. This instance in Roger
& Me is one of many scenarios that involve Moore’s use of an emotive or emotional appeal
(Zompetti, 2015) to deliver his stance on an issue.
Another example of one of Moore’s cinematic techniques used to bolster an emotional
response from the viewer is demonstrated in his final interview with Charlton Heston at the end
of Bowling For Columbine (Bowling For Columbine, 2002). Throughout the film, Moore
intermittently shows Heston giving speeches to members of the National Rifle Association at ill-
fated times, an intentional tactic utilized by Moore to cast Heston in an unflattering light. In a

5. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 4
last ditch effort to bring some excitement to the film, Moore confronts Heston about the girl that
was killed just days before his speech to the NRA. Heston is shown disgruntled and aggravated
by Moore’s probing questions and leaves the scene. What the audience doesn’t realize, however,
is that Moore edited the scene in order to intensify the situation via tricky camera angles and
editing techniques to once again evoke an emotional reaction from the audience. Moore’s efforts
to vilify Heston is a fallacy described by Zompetti (2015) as a tactic used to (mis)characterize the
opponent by using absolute negative words. Obviously Heston’s intent was not to harbor any ill-
will towards the victims of the Columbine shooting, nor the family of the girl who was killed just
days before his speech. This false dichotomy, as described by Zompetti (2015), creates a forced
choice in which the viewer is presented with Heston’s stance on gun control, and Moore’s, which
is contradictory by nature. Moore’s use of this rhetorical technique is debilitating for those who
might be uneducated on the issue, and certainly helps to subliminally reflect his personal
opinions on the viewer.
Zompetti (2015) asserts that a post hoc fallacy is often employed by political extremists
in order to place the blame on another entity, usually one that transpired previously to the current
affair in question (Zompetti, 2015). Poindexter (2011) comments on Moore’s incorporation of
this fallacy in Roger & Me when he points out the discontinuity in Moore’s portrayal of Flint
before and after the plant’s closing (Pondexter, 2011). Starting from the opening credits,
representations of a better life are presented to the audience through various filmmaking tactics.
Montages involving antiquated images and home videos of Moore’s own family are assimilated
into the film in order to instill a sense of previous bliss enjoyed by families before their loved
ones were laid off by General Motors. Furthermore, “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” by the Beach Boys is
heard playing over images of dilapidated buildings in Flint in an effort to introduce the viewer to

6. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 5
the current situation in Moore’s hometown (Mattson, 2003). Moore makes an effort with these
scenes to instill a hatred for the automobile company, and does his best to try and make
assumptions about the actions taken by the company. This post hoc fallacy assumes the worst of
General Motors’ actions without showing the other side of the situation (Zompetti, 2015).
Much like an emotional appeal can blur the line of truth regarding an important issue,
Zompetti (2015) illustrates that a slippery slope fallacy can hyperbolize the negative
consequences of a particular position. Moore can be found guilty of this fallacy in his film
Bowling For Columbine. The film proposes that there is a connection between gun violence in
America and the institutionalized climate of fear that has been indoctrinated into the minds of the
population (Wilshire, 2004). Moore puts forth several fallacious claims throughout the film. One
claim which substantiates this idea is his subliminal argument that the bullets produced and sold
by Kmart are synonymous with the massacre at Columbine High School taking place. Moore
incorporates comedy into Bowling For Columbine to perpetuate this particular claim with the
integration of popular comedian Chris Rock reinforcing Moore’s position (Bowling For
Columbine, 2002). Rock’s prescription for gun problems, as shown in the film, is one that
involves the extreme price hike of all bullets being sold in the U.S. (Bowling For Columbine,
2002). Rock’s cure for the gun problem in America is highly improbable due to the large scale
uprising which would inevitably take place. A well-versed viewer should be able to see through
the comedic action taken by Moore to further his argument. Not only does Rock’s argument
create an unrealistic outlook for the problem, it also degrades Moore’s credibility in his search
for the complete story by taking the easy way out through Rock’s comedic hijinks.
Bowling For Columbine succeeds in bringing to light the important issue of gun-related
crimes in the U.S. The film does, however, derail quickly into a microcosm of unrelated issues,

7. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 6
resulting in a documentary that fails to fully prescribe a solution for America’s incessant firearm
debacle (Poindexter, 2011). This rhetorical dilemma causes the viewer to be bombarded by a
plethora of unrelated issues at a time when the issue being examined should be gun-related
violence (p. 1283). This can spell disaster for individuals hoping to be informed by the title of
the film. This form of “bait and switch” lures the viewer into a film in which they feel deceived
by the false name and contents of the film, and helps to slowly degrade the reputation of Moore
as an investigative journalist as the film progresses (p. 1283).
Galloway, McAlpine, and Harris (2007) state that documentaries have always been a
persuasive, subjective and biased media form – albeit in varying degrees. Moore engages in this
subjective and partisan rhetorical technique in all of his films. He has stated that his purpose in
filmmaking is “to make a movie where, on the way out of the theater, the people ask the ushers if
they have any torches” (Toplin, 2005). His endeavors to uncover the truth about a particular
situation and instill a sense of change are, however, muted by his rhetorical techniques which
denigrate the opposition and, much like his efforts against Heston, eventually result in vilifying
his opposition.
Farhenheit 9/11 is an excellent example of this sort of political discourse gone awry. As
Levin (2004) purports, “the film blurs the line between justified filmmaking and political
demagoguery.” Time and again, Moore’s tactics in Farhenheit 9/11 produce feelings of
partisanship and sarcasm which reek of hypocrisy (Hoskin, 2008). Throughout the film, Moore
incorporates clips of various Fox News stories involving the climate of fear which the news
outlet induced upon the country following the September 11th terrorist attacks (Farenheit 9/11,
2004). This tactic, however, is counterproductive in terms of reversing the alleged climate of fear
which Fox News produced because Moore himself induces the same element of fear through

8. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 7
Farehneit 9/11 when he vilifies the Bush administration. In this ad hominem attack against
republicanism and those who encompasses it, Moore propagates the same hegemonic ideals he
wishes to dismantle (Zompetti, 2015).
Moore posits that the title of Farenheit 9/11 could be described as the temperature at
which morality burns, but based on the evidence in the film, it also seems to have an
inflammatory effect on truth, reason, and argumentative sophistication (Hoskin, 2008). Moore’s
hate for the Bush administration reiterates Hoskin’s (2008) argument and succeeds in
demonizing those whom he thinks were responsible for the war in Iraq. Moore’s economical use
of an alternative side to the argument results in loosely put together arguments which ultimately
digress to an appeal to the viewer’s emotions. An example of Moore’s use of extremist partisan
discourse is shown during Farenheit 9/11 when U.S. Marines are seen taking pictures with
captured Iraqis (Farenheit 9/11, 2004). The demeanor of the Marines is one of joy and humor,
despite their position. Behind the footage, Moore’s voice is heard saying, “Immoral behavior
breeds immoral behavior. When the President sends good kids to war based on a lie, this is what
you get” (Farenheit 9/11). Not only is this a fallacious statement, but Moore’s credibility as an
unbiased filmmaker is tarnished in the process. If Moore’s sole purpose was to influence the
2004 presidential election, then this cinematic tactic regarding President Bush as immoral was
not in vain, because the timing of the release of the film was perfect for those who needed a
second opinion about the Bush administration (Levin, 2004).
Bowling For Columbine also perpetuates Moore’s political ideology of partisanship via
the interviews he conducts. In the film, Moore travels to Canada in search of a reason for the low
crime rates in the country (Bowling For Columbine, 2002). His effort to discover the true nature
of Canada’s peaceful exterior culminates in various one-sided interviews in which he sets the

9. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 8
interviewees up for success. The underlying thesis Moore is implying by conducting these
partisan interviews is that the Canadian stance on gun control is the optimal stance to take in
light of their low crime rates and seemingly peaceful country. Again, Moore incorporates
fallacious ideas when he chooses to cover one neighborhood in Canada in which the crime rate
happens to be low. Moore’s usage of these interviews harbors partisanship because the other side
of the equation is not presented properly to the viewer. Furthermore, Moore fails to admit that
the American people had every right to be fearful following the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, and that they might take necessary precautions to arm themselves against another attack
(Wilshire, 2004). Beyond that, Moore fails to bring to the film the indication that Canada does
not have an amendment to their constitution giving citizens the right to bear arms, nor does he
mention the ease at which a citizen of Canada can obtain a firearm (Wilshire, 2004).
In summation, Michael Moore can be characterized as a liberal wingnut in light of
several rhetorical styles and strategies, as well as his fallacious arguments in which he bolsters
his partisan position. His cunning editing techniques help to enhance his cinematic abilities, but
at the same time, they enrich the hatred he displays through those abilities. Moore’s partisan
voice tows the line between respectable journalism and sarcastic name-calling, which vilifies not
only those who oppose him, but also aids in vilifying himself to those intelligent enough to
understand his strategies as a political pundit. Suffice it to say, Michael Moore obstructs the path
for those who wish to discover and consume political discourse without being bombarded by
partisan and malicious content.

10. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 9
References
Avlon, J. P. (2010). Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijaking America. NewYork: Beast
Books.
Galloway, D., McAlpine, K. B., & Harris, P. (2007). From Michael Moore to JFK Reloaded:
Towards a Working Model of Interactive Documentary. Journal of Media Practice, 8(3)
Hoskin, D. (2008), “I Like Your Old Stuff Better Than Your New Stuff: Farenheit 9/11.” Metro
Magazine,
Levin, J. (2004). Fahrenheit 9/11: Powerful Exposé or Pulp Fiction? Screen Education, (36), 26-
32.
Mattson, K. (2003). The Perils of Michael Moore: Political Criticism In an Age of
Enlightenment. Dissent, 50(2), 75-80.
Michael Moore. (2015). Retrieved 3/6, 2015, from http://www.biography.com/people/michael-
moore-9542483#provocative-documentaries
Misiak, A. (2005). Not a Stupid White Man: The Democratic Context of Michael Moore's
Documentaries. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 33(3), 160-168.
Moore, M. (Producer), & Moore, M. (Director). (1989, December 20, 1989). Roger &
Me. [Motion Picture] Dog Eat Dog Films.
Moore, M. (Producer), & Moore, M. (Director). (2002, November 21, 2002). Bowling For
Columbine. [Motion Picture] Dog Eat Dog Films.
Moore, M. (Producer), & Moore, M. (Director). (2004, June 24, 2004). Farenheit 9/11. [Motion
Picture] Dog Eat Dog Films.
O'Connor, J. E., Toplin, R. B., Mintz, S., Briley, R., & Nolley, K. (2005). Michael Moore:
Cinematic Historian or Propagandist? Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
Poindexter, M., & POINDEXTER, M. (2011). Art Objects: The Works of Michael Moore and
Peter Watkins. Journal of Popular Culture, 44(6), 1268-1288.
Porton, R. (2004). Weapon of Mass Instruction: Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. Cineaste, , 1-7.
SPENCE, L. (2010). Working-Class Hero: Michael Moore's Authorial Voice and
Persona. Journal of Popular Culture, 43(2), 368-380.
Toplin, R. B. (2005). The Long Battle Over Farenheit 9/11: A Matter of Politics, Not Aesthetics.
Volume 35.2, 8-10. Center for the Study of Film and History

11. Dissent: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore 10
Weber, C. (2006). Farenheit 9/11: The Temperature Where Morality Burns. 40(01), 113-131.
Wilshire, P. (2004). Presentation and Representation In Michael Moore's ‘Bowling For
Columbine’. Australian Screen Education, (35), 91-95.
Zompetti, J. (2015). In Giganti J. (Ed.), Divisive Discourse: The Extreme Rhetoric of
Contemporary American Politics. United States of America: Cognella, Inc.