Michael Moore is like the inverse of Dennis Miller to me...
Dennis Miller, I rarely ever agree with, but I think he does a good job getting his points across eloquently. I disagree with virtually every statement he states, but he's entertaining and can bring up valid arguments that I have to carefully consider.
Michael Moore, on the other hand, is heavily sensationalistic, and although I agree with most of his concepts, I feel he mostly just ends up doing so in such a way that the only thing he's capable of doing is preaching to the choir. His style is one which creates fanatics out of those who already believed, and just chases those who don't believe further away by his flawed reasoning, poor judgement, and terribly overdone and often rude forms of interviews. He's about the last person I want on my side, because he kills the message so effortlessly. I think I'd be better off if he were not on my side most of the time.
About the only thing Michael Moore can be completely credited with, is being like Al Gore; he goes in such an outlandish manner, that he draws attention to topics that need to be looked at. By doing so in such a controversial way, it pulls it into the spotlight, and whether I like that or not, it's how society works right now. Anyone remember whot started the "ZOMG TRANSFATS!!!!!!" craze? Some lawyer sued OREO COOKIES for being UNHEALTHY. Well REALLY, who would've thought cookies wouldn't be healthy >.>; But it was so outlandish and ridiculous, and really rather stupid, that it got massive media attention, which was the whole point. It wasn't even aimed to be against oreo at all, the guy didn't even care, and he liked oreo cookies, but they were an obvious target and made headlines because of the absurdity.
This is how the western world works, though I'm not sure about elsewhere. It's stupid for the most part, and I'd much rather know about topics based on VALIDITY rather than how sensationalistic the news can broadcast it for more ratings... but whot can yeu do. Unless yeu make a huge fuss out of nothing, yeu'll never get yeur message public.
So as much as I hate Moore's tactics, his overall strategy at getting the topic publicity in general is sound. Sure he kills his own side of the argument in the process, but once there's enough people who actually know WTH they're talking about, they can usually drown out his horrible initial representation.
Unfortunately, those who are against the ideas, will point to him as an example of why the other side's wrong, even if it's obvious to both sides the guy's clueless. He's not doing it to be right, or prove a point, he's doing it to get attention for a topic, and he excells at that one task. Beyond that though, he fails hardcore. If people would stop being retarded and needing to have people dance like absurd monkies before they even stop to listen, we wouldn't need this kind of pathetic 'journalism'.
But sadly we do.
That being said, accept that Moore has a topic he wants brought to light, but ignore practically every word he says. Virtually all of it's misquoted, misrepresented, misunderstood, or just flat out wrong. And it makes anyone who actually knows about the topic at hand annoyed when they get compared to him.