Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary directed by Michael Moore. This documentary is basically based on George Bush’s presidency, the September 11 events, war on terror and how it was covered by the mainstream media. Moore also explains how the Bush administration used the tragic even of September 11 to push forward its agenda for its wars “against terror” in places as Iraq and Afghanistan. His focus on the media concerning its role in this Bush’s war against terror was that the media acted as “cheerleaders” in the Iraq invasion on did not provide accurate information concerning the proceedings of this war.
Basically, Michael Moore argues that the Bush administrations had failed to take relevant action in defending America after the events of September 9/11. Instead, as he explains, he used the events in setting his agenda of backing his “corrupt practices”. In this film, he employs footages, facts, and interviews from various figures to illustrate this argument that the then president Bush and his administration actually got Americans into more trouble from the war on the terror agenda instigated by his administration. The title “Fahrenheit 9/11" is derived from a popular novel title by Ray Bradbury "Fahrenheit 451” which is translated to mean a society with repressive, authoritarian regime where books are outlawed
…show more content…
This aspect has continued to become rare, thanks to the rapid development of the internet and cable news stations. Though Michal Moore pokes fingers to media men in his “Fahrenheit 9/11", for contributing to the Iraq war, he ironically becomes an example of impartiality in this documentary for being biased in his reporting. To claim that the media joined hands in promoting the Iraq war is totally an exaggeration. It is acknowledged that the media in US at that time held the government responsible for the Iraq
Moore insists that all his facts are correct and even hired an old fact checker for the New Yorker to make sure. But this, of course, doesn't come to grips with the fact that much of the Bush statements he objects to are also, strictly speaking, factually correct. The truth about facts is not self evident, as he knows; the significance of facts can be manipulated by those with just a camera just as easily as by those in power. In an era of mass-media politics-a far cry from the original political debates in Athens-"Fahrenheit 9/11" is an uneasy compromise between populism and propaganda. The things it has to say are relevant and important and should be heard - but hopefully, they are just part of a larger, more even-handed discussion. Perhaps, the success of this movie is a recognition of the fact that the way this discussion gets carried out in the modern age is by turning it into a form of entertainment.
Bush and the Saudis for all the events that occurred. He pointed his finger too much without having evidence and it seemed as though he had a very biased viewpoint. I feel like he should have looked at this situation with an open mind and conducted more research on the event before blaming the President. If there was non-biased information used, then I could see people taking this documentary much more seriously. However, Moore simply stated his opinion and used his hatred of the President to discuss this issue. This film showed that the American people potentially could have been lied to in order to push for war. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was not a threat. Moore blames Bush for 9/11 because he had a great relationship with Al-Qaeda and 9/11 was simply due to financial profits and gains to the Bush family. In West Wing could have been strengthened by discussing more roles in terrorism and not just blaming Islam for the entire event. I do not feel like anything in CSI could have been strengthened because that episode did not emphasize 9/11 and it just focused on explaining the idea that people are not in control in events that
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Fahrenheit 451’s Relevance to Today Fahrenheit 451’s relevance to today can be very detailed and prophetic when we take a deep look into our American society. Although we are not living in a communist setting with extreme war waging on, we have gained technologies similar to the ones Bradbury spoke of in Fahrenheit 451 and a stubborn civilization that holds an absence of the little things we should enjoy. Bradbury sees the future of America as a dystopia, yet we still hold problematic issues without the title of disaster, as it is well hidden under our democracy today. Fahrenheit 451 is much like our world today, which includes television, the loss of free speech, and the loss of the education and use of books. Patai explains that Bradbury saw that people would soon be controlled by the television and saw it as the creators chance to “replace lived experience” (Patai 2).
George W. Bush’s “9/11 Address to the Nation” is a speech in which he talks about the catastrophic event on September eleventh, 2001. Two airplanes crash into the Twin Towers in New York City on this day, shocking the entire world. He addresses this speech to the people of America on the night of the disastrous event, to let the people of the United States know what is going on. This speech explains how the United States is a strong country, the motives behind the event, as well as to bring the United States together and stronger.
What lessons have we learned in the post-9/11 world? What actions and organizing techniques should we discard, and what methods should we revisit? Again, the problem is that the antiwar movement is lacking actual organizers, particularly at the community level.
The novel 1984 by George Orwell is an exaggerated and unrealistic story, blown out of proportion to seek people’s attention and alarm the world of the dangers of a totalitarian society. The novel takes place in a world where no personal freedoms exist and the government, known as the Party in 1984, has no hesitation to lie to Oceania and its people. It’s those lies that allow the Party to maintain dictatorial control over Oceania. Some people believe the United States has lied about some government acts, such as September 11, 2001. Blurry and fuzzy images, quotes taken out of context, and sketchy eyewitnesses influenced many theories which include: that the world trade center was demolished by bombs, phone calls from the planes were faked, George W. Bush secretly profited from the attack, the Pentagon was struck by a missile, and several other theories. Like September 11, 2001, Oceania’s people question their government. Was September 11, 2001 a false flag operation conducted by the United States? Did the United States lie to its own people like Oceania to increase the government’s power?
1. Although most journalists would state that their main objective in reporting on a story is to maintain impartial, this with the onset of cable news stations as well as the internet has become increasingly rare. Cable news stations such as CNN and FOX news are increasingly influenced by the politicians and corporations which control most of their funding. As Michael Moore states in his documentary “ Fahrenheit 9/11”, which ironically is another good example of bias in the media, the man in charge of Fox News’ decision desk on election night was none other then George Bush’s first cousin. I would seem impartially may be compromised in this situation. To say that the media worked together with the media to promote the Iraq war may be an exaggeration, however the media in know way held the government responsible for the fraud that they committed in invading Iraq. The media, whether knowingly or not, promoted the Bush Administrations agenda in Iraq by arousing overwhelming feelings of nationalism in the American people. It then became unpopular, or un-american to oppose the war. In the case of the Iraq war the media failed to properly fulfill its responsibility of maintaining accountability in government as well as most importantly reporting in an impartial style.
When the US initiated the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it gave the justification that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam aided the perpetrators of the September 11 attack on United States soil. The Bush administration also accused Saddam of engineering a nuclear program and amassing destructive weapons. All the US justification and the entire war have been highly criticized on many fronts. The media has taken the lead on shaping public opinion on both sides of the war, that is, the US or rather North America and the Middle East. It is a fact that citizens get to understand an issue such as the Iraq war through the perspective of the media (Al-Rawi, 2013). This paper focuses on the media, its portrayal of the war and the effect of its perspective.
One of the most infamous dates in American history, September 11, 2001 is also one of the darkest and controversial dates. September 11, 2001 or 9/11 is remembered as a tragic terrorist attack by al-Qaeda, a Muslim extremist group, primarily on the World Trade Towers. Directed by al-Qaeda, 19 hijackers took over four passenger planes, American Airlines- Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines- Flight 175 and Flight 93. These hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and Somerset County, Pennsylvania. With devastating impacts, the U.S was scarred. From the 9/11 building attacks alone, 2,753 people died and in total, close to 6,000 deaths (CNN Library). As demoralizing these reports are, what is more shocking is that 911 was part of a vast conspiracy and mass criminal cover-up by the U.S. government.
September 11, 2001 marked one of the most tragic events in United States history. As a way to assure the safety and wellbeing of U.S. citizens shortly after being attacked by al-Qaeda, President Bush stated, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts may shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve”. Although President Bush was seen a source of security during a time of need, many citizens felt that his words were not genuine and part of a dramatic story the government wanted its people to believe. Despite the side taken, both perspectives of the argument can agree that the U.S. was attacked by a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda. On that Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and the fourth into a field in rural Pennsylvania after passengers fought back against the terrorist to try and regain control of the plane. This is the story the government wants its people to believe. However, the truths about the attacks on 9/11 are much more frightening. On September 11th, 2001, the United States government betrayed its citizens by allowing the destructive attacks on the Twin Towers, WTC-7, the Pentagon, and Shanksville.
Michael Moore brilliantly manipulates the conventions of film to make the audience see and feel these political and moral issues the way he does. Moore, an outspoken loather of the President has shaped his film like a cinematic bullet, with character assassination as his priority. “Fahrenheit 9/11” shows a series of solemn images and sound bites, arranged as a critical history of the President’s actions since he took office, including the abuse of power and use of fear tactics that have been employed for his monetary and narcissistic gains. Regardless of personal political leanings, “Fahrenheit 9/11” is an amazing accomplishment of individual expression and anti-government aggression.
The War on Terror was a campaign instigated by the United States as a result of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA and is on-going. The international military campaign was joined by many nations including Great Britain to eradicate the threat of global terrorism, Al-Qaeda and other radical organizations. The term ‘The War on Terror’ was first coined by George Bush in a speech on 20th September and since been used largely by the Western media to denote the battle to find and defeat the terrorists culpable for the attacks on the World Trade Towers now known as 9/11. 9/11 has been considered a symbolic attack on the west and in uniting the people of USA in particular against a common enemy; it generated a strong sense of nationalism. Nacos states, ‘…watching television, listening to radio, reading the newspaper, going online gave them the feeling of doing something, of being part of a national tragedy.’ This demonstrates the unity of the American people after in response to such a tragedy. Though also regarded an international event whose scope was far-reaching as more than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks on the World Trade Centre, the September 11th attacks signalled a powerful patriotic response from the USA.
The year is 2006,watching TV, you flip through the various news stations to learn about the recent news in Iraq, the majority of the news simply says that ‘x’ amount of soldiers or marines were killed in such and such attack. You don’t like what you are hearing so you go online to read an independent embedded (embedded refers to news reporters who are attached to military units) reporters story. Online you read that two new schools were built, and the Iraqis, supported by US forces, led an attack to capture an insurgent leader. The big media corporations such as FOX, NBC, CNN, and many others distort the facts that are on the ground. Small, mostly independent, reporters generally try to get a first-hand account of the situation on the ground.
It is obvious that the media played an incredibly vital role in redirecting the public opinion of the Vietnam War and also to end it. Although the American military would have eventually withdrawn from Vietnam due to its poor assistance; it is a sure fact that it would have taken a lot longer if the media didn’t have as much freedom to present information as it did. Because the media was able to provide the American public with cold hard facts and graphic imagery, the public was able to understand what was truly happening in Vietnam. The media coverage of the Tet offense, the My Lai Massacre, Kent state University, and the Pentagon Papers led to disbelief and anger in the United States Citizens. Due to the pressure on government officials to end the Vietnam War from the citizens and media the war was eventually put to an end.