Fahrenheit 9/11

3 Pages 655 Words

Fahrenheit 9/11 vs. Fahrehype 9/11


There has been a lot of controversy over the past several months with the release of the movies Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenhype 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11 was made by director Michael Moore, and was created to examine President Bush’s actions before, during, and after the 9/11 attack on the United States. President Bush counteracted this movie with his own version, called Fahrenhype 9/11, in an effort to expose Michael Moore’s movie as being untruthful.

In watching both of these movies, I feel first and foremost that no one should look at either one as being totally truthful and factual. Mainstream media will tell you anything that they want you to hear, if they feel it will help their ratings. I feel that a person should base their opinions and thoughts on politics by finding out information and viewpoints from reliable sources. In both of these movies it was quite obvious that they only interviewed people that supported their ideas and feelings, they only showed scenes that would help their argument, and that they both took small portions of statements made by people, and edited it to their liking. Although both of the movies did have some truth to them, I personally feel that no one should base any decision on what they saw in either movie.

In watching Fahrenheit 9/11, it seemed a little childish a lot times, in that Michael Moore spent more time trying to make fun of George Bush than actually trying to make a convincing argument. I didn’t agree with Moore about how the President reacted to the 9/11 attacks while at the school. I feel that he was right in collecting his thoughts and not instigating a national panic by rushing off while on national television. When something of that nature happens, everyone turns to the leader for guidance, and if he had been in panic mode, it would have reflected panic onto the nation. Bush is made out to be this heartless, totally support...