Nanuk of the North was a considered to be on of the great documentaries on Native development in Northern Canada--it turned out it was all play-acted. Nevertheless, it still gives some insight into how Inuit lived before European colonization.
Mike's documentaries are not play-acted but they 'stretch' the facts. His work is still considered insightful in many ways.
Putting aside the fiasco over his Heston-bashing in BFC, most of his info on the links between Corperate America--George W. Bush being a spawn of the worst aspects of that America--and the problems now facing America are quite factual. He just spells it out using a format that the average Big-Mac-munching American can swallow.
Propaganda implies a form of coersion. Coersion implies one party trying to alter the actions of another by convincing the other party that this is the best way to go. Mike's work concerns revealing the actual nature of certain aspects of American society through satire. If there is a change in the vote (ha) as a result of F911 then it will only be because more people were made aware of a situation that they were not aware of before. Mike will not have 'convinced' these people as there was no effective counter-arguement--there is no Bizarro-Mike that reveals the underlying evil in Left-wing politics (you know like fighting--or more like trying to fight--for the welfare of citizens and all that morally repugnant stuff). There is no real counter-arguement that says Bush does not represent the interests he represents--no need to mention what those interests are because many people already know, which is part of the reason why there is no counter arguement except for that of a small fraction of the American population who see it as their duty to protect Corperate America from the evils of "socialism." The reason for doing all of this 'propaganda' is to inform the many who do NOT know (i.e. they have no agenda but are simply unaware of the situation). They are not being convinced but rather informed. So, Mike's work is for the purpose of informing and not simply a clever means of propaganda. Why? Because what he's saying is mostly based on fact and not pulled out of his ass for his own profit.
Someone compared Mike's work with Nazi propaganda. Nazi propaganda was used for either covering up Nazi atrocities or justifying attacks by depicting the other side as the aggressor. Mike's work reveals rather than covers up and he is not depicting Bush as an aggressor, Bush IS an agressor. If anything, Bush's tactics up to now have coincided far more with the Nazi propaganda war machine than Mike's criticism of Bush could be by any stretch of the imagination. The right wing American media's limted coverage of American deaths in Vie...Iraq is similar in some ways to fascist use of propaganda to make even the most disasterous situation seem like a walk in the park or even defeat seem like victory.
Mike's documentaries are not play-acted but they 'stretch' the facts. His work is still considered insightful in many ways.
Putting aside the fiasco over his Heston-bashing in BFC, most of his info on the links between Corperate America--George W. Bush being a spawn of the worst aspects of that America--and the problems now facing America are quite factual. He just spells it out using a format that the average Big-Mac-munching American can swallow.
Propaganda implies a form of coersion. Coersion implies one party trying to alter the actions of another by convincing the other party that this is the best way to go. Mike's work concerns revealing the actual nature of certain aspects of American society through satire. If there is a change in the vote (ha) as a result of F911 then it will only be because more people were made aware of a situation that they were not aware of before. Mike will not have 'convinced' these people as there was no effective counter-arguement--there is no Bizarro-Mike that reveals the underlying evil in Left-wing politics (you know like fighting--or more like trying to fight--for the welfare of citizens and all that morally repugnant stuff). There is no real counter-arguement that says Bush does not represent the interests he represents--no need to mention what those interests are because many people already know, which is part of the reason why there is no counter arguement except for that of a small fraction of the American population who see it as their duty to protect Corperate America from the evils of "socialism." The reason for doing all of this 'propaganda' is to inform the many who do NOT know (i.e. they have no agenda but are simply unaware of the situation). They are not being convinced but rather informed. So, Mike's work is for the purpose of informing and not simply a clever means of propaganda. Why? Because what he's saying is mostly based on fact and not pulled out of his ass for his own profit.
Someone compared Mike's work with Nazi propaganda. Nazi propaganda was used for either covering up Nazi atrocities or justifying attacks by depicting the other side as the aggressor. Mike's work reveals rather than covers up and he is not depicting Bush as an aggressor, Bush IS an agressor. If anything, Bush's tactics up to now have coincided far more with the Nazi propaganda war machine than Mike's criticism of Bush could be by any stretch of the imagination. The right wing American media's limted coverage of American deaths in Vie...Iraq is similar in some ways to fascist use of propaganda to make even the most disasterous situation seem like a walk in the park or even defeat seem like victory.
But seriously, I'd say he's much more of a propogandist than a documentarian.
How dare he!!! 
