Paragraph: (Society_Law_and_Justice/masc-A_defense_of_Michael_Moore-7.txt)
Sent 1: You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview."
Sent 2: No, he doesn't.
Sent 3: You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself.
Sent 4: The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie.
Sent 5: After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating.
Sent 6: These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree".
Sent 7: This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective.
Sent 8: Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?"
Sent 9: Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras.
Sent 10: From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!'
Sent 11: to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left."
Sent 12: Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview.
Sent 13: You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.