Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Does Moore have his finger on the pulse of the nation?

▼

Does Moore have his finger on the pulse of the nation?

from JoeUser Forums
I finally got one of the statistics I wanted to see for a long time: the domestic gross for Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" came in at $118 million dollars. While this is impressive for a "documentary" (although I really wish they'd quit calling it that), I think a fair analysis of the numbers are in order for those who insist that the numbers show the majority of Americans to believe Moore's view:

*Assuming a ticket price of $7 a ticket (averages are higher than this, I believe; I haven't been to a movie in a long time), this translates to fewer than 17 million tickets sold.

*Assuming that everyone went to see the movie only once, this translates to just over 6 percent of the population.

*The above number doesn't factor in spouses taking their spouses with opposing views to the movie to try to prove to them that Bush is who Moore says he is. It also doesn't take into account students who were encouraged to watch it as an extra credit assignment, or conservatives who saw it just to find talking points to disprove.

*There were also individuals who went to see it as many times as they could; I know of at least one.

While 6 percent of the population is a sizable faction, it does not represent anywhere close to a majority. And my suspicions, for the reasons stated above, would be that the numbers are more like 2-3 % of the population that actually support Moore's flawed analysis. There's no real way of telling, but the fact remains that Moore's movie does not represent a mandate for this, or any president.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish
4,241 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting point, Gideon. But I have reservations about the assumptions undergirding your methodology. I decided to test it out on another hot topic film of the past year.

The domestic gross for "The Passion of the Christ" was an impressive $370,274,604. Preserving all of your assumptions (even though we know some people were taken to the film by caring relatives and others saw it many times), I am able to conclude that 17.6% of the country saw this film. Could I also then assume that only 17.6% of the US is Christian? I am not even factoring in the number of theaters it showed in or the differential in advertising budgets or the staggering difference in cost of production. Qualifier, qualifier, qualifier.

If only 17.6% of us are Christians, why do we constantly assert that the majority of us are Christians? Should the Christian views of such an apparent minority guide our policies?

Of course I don't really think that the Christian (even evangelical) population is so low in this country. Nor do I think the number of people sympathetic to (some of) Moore's point of view is only 6%. But I am sure it is comforting for some to think that way, and so much more comforting when you can generate a number to support it.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, I didn't say that the number of people sympathetic to some of Moore's point of view is only 6%. I was discounting the importance it has been given by media pundits. My analysis was to counter the seemingly prevalent assumption that the gate off of this film somehow represented a mandate for the nation.

I am not even factoring in the number of theaters it showed in or the differential in advertising budgets or the staggering difference in cost of production.


Good, because those numbers do not affect the GROSS of a film. Gross is income BEFORE expenses, just so you know.

Frankly, I don't see where you're going with your argument except to rebuke me for daring to suggest that we shouldn't crown Michael Moore king just yet. What I provided was a reasonable analysis to estimate how many people actually viewed this film as a percentage of the population; there is no way to tell how many are ideologically aligned with Moore.

If this is going to turn into a "Michael Moore is right" debate, I would suggest it would make a better topic for your own blog. If this was about a challenge to my thesis (that Fahrenheit 9/11 hasn't had the impact that liberals have stated it has had), then I suggest you go after the facts. In no way did my numbers construe that only 6% of Americans are liberals. Frankly, I know many liberals who wouldn't go see a Michael Moore film if you paid their way and offered them a Swedish back massage after. My numbers were a statistical analysis of the impact of this film as a percentage of the nation, that's all, nothing more.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
also it would be smarter to consider the age of the population going to see the movie and also the population aged enough to vote.

a lot of things to compute as it means that mostly people going to see this movie are not teenagers and are able to vote usually.

then with only that it can go up to 10% instead of 6
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Good, because those numbers do not affect the GROSS of a film. Gross is income BEFORE expenses, just so you know."

Granted. Good thing I wasn't considering those factors, as I said. Of course, I was pointing them out at the same time I was dismissing them. Naughty me!

"If this is going to turn into a "Michael Moore is right" debate, I would suggest it would make a better topic for your own blog."

No, my point is not that "Michael Moore" is always and only right, Gideon. I'll be glad to save that assessment for elsewhere. [Insert plug for my blog here.]

My point is that, just as perhaps the media may be overstating the case for the political effects of Moore's film, your use of numbers here may be similarly misleading. If film viewership indicates (or even just challenges) level of support for a particular view, then shouldn't that be true for other, comparable films? Since I think we can agree that 17.6% is substantially lower than the actual percentage of Christians (or even just evangelicals) in this country, perhaps we could grant the same possibility to your 6% figure for Moore support.

Of course, calling "Passion of the Christ" a "comparable film" may raise some hackles, so let me clarify: despite their ideological differences -- or the ideological differences of the audiences they potentially appeal to -- there are significant similarities between "Farenheit 9/11" and "The Passion of the Christ."

*Both faced distributions hassles that seem to have ultimately served as publicity instruments.
*Both had political and private interest groups organizing mass screenings and discussions.
*Both encountered support and challenges to their "R" ratings. (In both cases that the importance of their content outweighed the violence they depict and that they should have a PG13 rating.)
*Both created quite a lot protest about their content. -- a lot of that from folks who refused to see the film.
*Both did exceptionally well at the box office for what they are -- that is, "Farenheit 9/11" was one of the highest money-maiking documentaries of all times; "The Passion of the Christ" was one of the highest money-making Hollywood features to use subtitles.
*Both directors are controversial figures, adding to the furor over each film by their comments in interviews.

For all that, I think it is important to note that the viewership of "The Passion of the Christ" is almost three times that of "Farenheit 9/11." Make of that what you will.

Now come on, Gideon, if you can't see where I am going with this argument or that it is relevant to your exercise above, then I don't think you are trying very hard. You mobilized this number-crunching as a "reality check" on (supposedly) the media's assertions of Moore's influence in America. Most of the comments that have followed your post have cheered (with a few corrections and questions about the average cost of a film) your conclusions. For example, JillUser writes: "Anyone who doesn't just regurgitate statistics but takes those statistics and applies them to reality has my respect." I simply wondered if that same method could be applied to a different film -- one where I assumed some (many?) of the supporters of your logic and conclusions might disagree with the the low number it generates.

As I stated in the beginning, I question the assumptions undergirding your methodology. What claims can you really make from the number you generate this way? Does the method hold in other circumstances? Don't dismiss this strategy or spank me and send me back to my own blog. I am following your own guidelines for debate.

In the end, I find your exercise and the 6% figure it generates interesting. Elegant, even. But also in need of some critical qualifications.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, my point is not that "Michael Moore" is always and only right, Gideon. I'll be glad to save that assessment for elsewhere. [Insert plug for my blog here.]


First of all, by all means, feel free to use my blog to promote your article once you get it together. Frankly, I would like to see a fan of Moore's analysis pull together a strong defense for the quite credible questions raised by critics, and I will be glad to help you promote it.

In the end, I find your exercise and the 6% figure it generates interesting. Elegant, even. But also in need of some critical qualifications


I didn't promote this as hard statistical facts; it was, in fact, a statistical analysis to combat the claims that many left wingers have of Moore's national credibility. Quite frankly, he doesn't have it to the degree that many pundits seem to believe. I have actually given the critical qualifications, and allowed for a margin of error. In a country of almost 300 million people, a 1% variance represents 3 million people.

To that end, though, I continually stand by the fact that qualifications need to be provided by Moore's apologists as well. I KNOW for a fact people who were drawn along by their liberal spouses "just to show you". I KNOW for a fact people who have seen it multiple times (the most extreme example I can personally provide is the guy who saw it five times over a weekend). I also KNOW for a fact that there are people with conservative ideology who went to see the film just to be able to analyze it. All three of those are statistical variables.

If I were to only include those who were voting age in my statistics, then you throw in another variable. There were certainly people under voting age that went to see the movie.

In the end, completely hard statistics on something this big are hard to come by. But I think my figure of 2-3% that hold hard to Moore's ideology is a reasonable number (actually, I consider it high; my personal theory about groupthink is that 10% of the group is actually doing the thinking, the other 90% are doing the following; this would place the numbers of Moore idealogues well under 1%. But since that is a theory with no statistical base, I can't include that in my stats).
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I think my figure of 2-3% that hold hard to Moore's ideology is a reasonable number (actually, I consider it high; my personal theory about groupthink is that 10% of the group is actually doing the thinking, the other 90% are doing the following; this would place the numbers of Moore idealogues well under 1%. But since that is a theory with no statistical base, I can't include that in my stats)."

"Reasonable" is debatable. Maybe you have other evidence to support this; I eagerly await it (honestly!). You estimate low (or, at least, lower than media attention seems to warrant) and your work with the gross domestic return of the film seems to support that estimate. And frankly, I don't have any firm numbers to suggest otherwise.

I don't have such numbers because nobody has really done this survey directly. But let me fall back on my parallel case. [You may challenge it as a parallel but in addition to the qualities I outlined above, "The Passion of the Christ" had a fair amount of repeat viewers, spousal drag-alongs and, more importantly, has been treated by the media pundits as evicence that Mel Gibson has HIS finger on the pulse of America and its Christian values.]

Anyway, reasoning by parallel case:

The viewership of "The Passion of the Christ" was, by your formula above, 17.6%

According to the "Statistical Abstract of the United States 2000" (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm), the percentage of Christians in the US in 1999 (this was the most recent "neutral" statistic on the topic I could find) was 83% (55% Protestant, 28% Catholic).

The 17.6% of Christains represented by the viewers of "The Passion of the Christ" is roughly 21% of the 83% of Americans who self-identify as Christians. Or put another way, you have to multiply 17.6% by 4.72 to get 83%.

Since we don't have a Census number or similar national survey for Moore's film, let's multiply that 6% you arrived at by the 4.72 corrective that seems to apply in the parallel case -- thereby leading to a conclusion that 28.3% of American's believe in Mooreism, so to speak.

Of course, statisticians and population experts are spinning in their graves at this numerical manipulation. A thousand qualifiers apply. Not all Christians are the same. Not all Christians supported "The Passion of the Christ" (but then, not all liberals/progressives supported "Farenheit 9/11"). Not all viewers of the film were self-identifed Christians. Etc. etc. etc.

But my point is that these manipulations are just as "reasonable" as yours that pull Moore's influence down from 6% to 1-2%. They would seem to statistically support a conclusion that roughly a third of the country loved "Farenheit 9/11," a third hated it, and a third could give a rat's patootie one way or the other. That is a big inferential jump, but it seems reasonable to me (if I let it). But probably not to you. And that's why "reasonable" is debatable.

Thanks for the promse to promote my blog if I mount a defense of Moore. I don't anticipate doing that anytime soon, though. I liked Moore's film, but I recognize it as flawed. I don't think it is so flawed that ALL of its arguments and claims should be dismissed out of hand, though. Unfortunately, that is too nuanced a position for the current political (and JU debate) climate.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't have such numbers because nobody has really done this survey directly. But let me fall back on my parallel case. [You may challenge it as a parallel but in addition to the qualities I outlined above, "The Passion of the Christ" had a fair amount of repeat viewers, spousal drag-alongs and, more importantly, has been treated by the media pundits as evicence that Mel Gibson has HIS finger on the pulse of America and its Christian values.]


Please point me to a post where I stated this. There are many Christians that don't hold to Gibson's interpretation. He is Catholic, remember? Catholicism has never represented Christianity as a whole. I am reasonably willing to bet that I can give you several groups that count in the statistic of "Christian" for statistical purposes that would not see this film because of their particular faith beliefs. Ready?

*Mormons -- Mormons do not hold to the Catholic interpretation of the divine nature of Jesus, and, while some Mormons probably did see this film, the majority likely did not.

*Jehovah's Witnesses -- same reason as stated above.

*Southern Baptists -- There is a strong anti-Catholic bias among this denomination.

*Liberal theologians -- these actually constitute a strong percentage of the faith, and quite likely halve your "core number" of 83% by themselves.

*Messianic Jews -- There was tremendous outcry in the Jewish community for the perceived anti-Semitism of this film.

*The Amish -- Do I REALLY need to elaborate on this one?

*Independent (conservative) baptists and similar faith: Many conservative Baptist schools (and equally conservative schools of other faiths) insist on their students signing an affidavit that they will not attend movies, rock concerts, etc. Proof of presence at any of these is grounds for disciplinary action.

I'm sure if I did my research I could come up with many other categories of Christians who would not attend this film. The problem with your analysis is you're holding me to a thesis I did not present regarding the Passion of the Christ. I notice you're new to joeuser, and I'll give you some leeway as a result. But I will also warn you that I don't as a rule tolerate red herrings on my threads, and future ones will be disregarded or outright deleted.

If you feel the need to hold to your theory regarding Michael Moore, then please present your evidence on your own blog and try to avoid an illogical comparison with "The Passion". While you and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, you do seem to be fairly intelligent; please try to use the intelligence wisely and avoid the red herrings.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Please point me to a post where I stated this. "

You haven't. Media pundits have. I can provide sources if you want, but I thought this was pretty much common knowledge by now. Kind of like the way you assume it is common knowledge that media pundits posit that Moore has his finger on the pulse of the nation.

You call it a red herring. I call it a challenge to your method by parallel case. I'd be glad to write about this on my own blog, except it doesn't really stand on its own. It is specifically a challenge to the method you have used by applying it to a parallel or "counter case." This is not illogical. It is a classic form of reasoning, found as far back as Aristotle and as recently as, well, the latest edition of Freeley and Steinberg's "Argumentation and Debate."

I've been trying through the last posts to continue to build the argument for the "parallelness" of my case. I could add to that now by agreeing with your list of different forms of Christians and positing a similar variety of progressives and liberals with varying attitudes toward "Farenheit 9/11" -- you seem (implicitly) to grant more diversity of opinions and beliefs to Christians than you do to the Left. But I won't go there. I get that I am on thin ice with you.

Nonetheless, the only thesis I am holding you to is the thesis you are trying to make about "Farenheit 9/11" and the conclusions you can "reasonably" draw from its domestic box office receipts. But those conclusions are largely (and self-admittedly) speculative, despite the presence of cold, hard numbers. Since no one really knows what the actual domestic support for Moore is, we HAVE to speculate. You have used ("elegantly," as I've already noted) box office receipts to ground your speculation. And I have challenged that grounding by examining a counter example where the results seem, well, counterintuitive.

You have been one of JU's most articulate advocates for well reasoned and well evidenced debates. I value that highly, especially since, as you say, we seem to come from different ends of the political spectrum. I hope we can continue to spar and, maybe, on occasion, find something like common ground.

Let me ask you one last thing and then I will leave this thread alone (I promise): Are you uncomfortable with the 17.6% result generated by applying your method to "The Passion..." or does that number feel about right to you? (That is, that that film motivated the interests of ony about 17.6% of the US.)
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
you seem (implicitly) to grant more diversity of opinions and beliefs to Christians than you do to the Left.


No, this one, I believe is a mistake on your part. I know the left goes far beyond Michael Moore, and, frankly, I consider the VAST MAJORITY of the left to be far more tolerable than Moore. Perhaps it was a mistake in phrasing on my part, but this wasn't about the left in general, it was about Moore in particular.

Let me ask you one last thing and then I will leave this thread alone (I promise): Are you uncomfortable with the 17.6% result generated by applying your method to "The Passion..." or does that number feel about right to you? (That is, that that film motivated the interests of ony about 17.6% of the US.)


Oh, you don't have to leave the thread alone; I don't mind open discourse, but yes, I am comfortable with the 17.6% result, and would even apply my own calculations to hone it down to 6-8%. Again, this isn't something that should be used as a mandate by any means.

But you are correct; just as the numbers of "the Passion" don't reflect the numbers of true Christians in the country, so the numbers of "Fahrenheit 9/11" don't represent the numbers of liberals in this country. That's a thesis we can hold to.

In short, your points are not incorrect, just irrelevant. I would like to point you back to the thesis statement of the article, if I may:

While this is impressive for a "documentary" (although I really wish they'd quit calling it that), I think a fair analysis of the numbers are in order for those who insist that the numbers show the majority of Americans to believe Moore's view:


Now, most people don't insist that the numbers show the majority of Americans believe Moore's view; you certainly don't. But the fact is, there is a small faction of individuals, some of whom are joeuser regular bloggers that do imply such a thing. It was to them this article is primarily based.

I will concede it's impossible to get an exact head count of people who saw this film, and even more impossible to break it down according to demographics. What I was trying to do was to use average ticket prices (using accepted industry standards from the last time I had researched them, over two years ago), combined with trends that are known about the movie industry (repeat viewers, curiousity seekers there to see the "big thing") to arrive at a very rough estimate. That's the best anyone can do in this instance, really.

I will also agree that, using your parallel argument, pundits who insist that "the Passion" shows a majority of Christian Americans support that view is equally absurd.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting "fun" number: Fahrenheit 9/11 made $500 more than "Big Momma's House", and came up $9,000 short of "Dumb and Dumber".

hmmmm.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, Gideon. I can live with "accurate but irrelevant." It could well turn out to be my epitaph.

I also appreciate the "common ground" you've articulated here -- we clearly do share some points of agreement. Having a sense of what those are is very helpful to me.

I'm sure I'll catch you on another thread.

And yeah, the additional fun numbers are fun. I was kind of waiting for that turn on the number crunching of box office receipts and public interest.