Talk:Roger & Me

message: There a strange double standard in the latest criticism. Moore [held] a lengthy question-and-answer exchange with Roger Smith during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting. ... The AP reported that "Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on-camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. ... Moore himself refused to be interviewed or to speak to the filmmakers of Manufacturing Dissent, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine. Applying the same level of criticism users deem acceptable for Michael Moore, consider this:
Tucker Carlson:  Did he speak to you?
Debbie Melnyk: Well, we talked to him [Moore] at various events. I went up to him at a Paul Wellstone Memorial Award in Flint and at one of the premieres of "Fahrenheit 911," where I told him I wanted to speak to him. And he did talk to me at the Flint Memorial Award, but he still didn't do a sit-down interview, which is what we wanted. 
Indeed, Moore tried repeatedly to arrange for "a sit-down interview" with Roger Smith, but Smith flatly refused to grant him one. Instead Moore had to use the same ambush tactics that Debbie Melnyk used. The only difference is that Moore left these two ambush scenes on the cutting room floor, presumably because he felt Smith was not reasonably responsive. So who is being dishonest here? smb1971 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the other interview, at the Waldorf Astoria was a sitdown.--Geekish 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis? The Associated Press sentence is ambiguous. It needs to be firmly established. Thanks. smb1971 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturing Dissent, the Roger Smith "interview" 

message: This film has been extremely controversial, and has a nearly 20-year literature of debate over its merits and failings. Our "Criticism" section, though, strangely starts by discussing a 2007 film that criticizes Moore, Manufacturing Dissent, rather than by discussing, say, the criticisms that were published in journals when Roger & Me first came out, and the lengthy debate that has taken place in the years since. I'm not an expert enough on this debate to summarize it, but someone who is should fix up this section, and make it more representative of the debate over the film, including especially the debate that's taken place in peer-reviewed film journals. --Delirium 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm not particularly leftist (I also cut out a lot of "criticism" of Black Hawk Down), but the criticism section reads like forum post on the topic. The edits reflect that as well. It's a debate on the movie in criticism section, and the section isn't going uphill.Monkeyman334 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the criticism section (as is) is a joke. Look at the way it is written. I think a *rewrite* is the only way to salvage it. What does everyone else think?Monkeyman334 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection is too vague. Please be specific. I'm restoring the criticism. smb 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not have the time to rewrite/edit the criticism section myself, but here's a source that summarizes the debate quite well: B.J. Bullert, Public Television. Politics and the Battle Over Documentary Film (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), chapter 7 "Roger & Me and Heartbeat", p. 146-182, esp. p. 153-171. In the Notes section (p. 219-224 in the book) you find of course many other sources, mostly film reviews and original research, that might be useful, too. 85.177.240.195 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rotten Tomatoes and other critics got it wrong here too.   While I feel for the workers displaced by closing the auto plant, it misses the point that there is a business decision to be made.  Granted, it appeared political in the movie, but it was a no-win scenario - workers would lose jobs because the biz was not competitive, not by anything that Moore made a case of.   That holds today.  Nothing would have changed whether the film was issued or not.  Executives knew that. even if they did not let that be apparent in the film.  Moore did nothing but put pressure on a hard decision.   Exec's made the right decision.   --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section isn't representative 

message: Some of the film's critics charge that a number of statements and scenes in Roger & Me are misleading. For example, Moore describes a visit by Ronald Reagan to Flint without mentioning that it took place when Reagan was campaigning for president in 1980 rather than during his presidency. Though this fact may seem unimportant, omitting it allows Moore to create the impression that the lay-offs and economic trials of Flint took place during his three-year search for GM Chief Executive Officer Roger Smith rather than over the course of the decade.
Moore responds to comments regarding this sort of historical inaccuracy by saying that he did not set out to produce an episode of Nova (the PBS documentary series), and that had he done so, the film certainly would not have gained the audience that Roger & Me is currently enjoying. Nonetheless, Moore could easily have described the Reagan visit as it actually took place without losing any of the black humor of the scene. Omissions of this kind are significant because they leave Moore and his film open to easy criticism from those who would like to dismiss the political and economic messages of the film. 
Roger Smith is portrayed in the film as a callous corporate leader who preferred robots over American workers. The GM Chairman is blamed for the rising rates of suicide, spousal abuse, alcoholism and violent crime in Flint. The documentary launched Michael Moore’s career and he closed the film by saying “The rich are just getting richer.” We now know the truth. The “rich” General Motors was struggling to survive.
The official website of “Roger and Me” claims the layoffs in Flint were not necessary: “Since 1983 car sales have steadily risen and GM has posted record profits of nearly $19 billion. So why lay off all of these people?” In another interview Moore says “GM is cutting costs so they can make more money. It’s not that they’re hurting. This isn’t Chrysler. This isn’t U.S. Steel, which lost a billion dollars in one year. This is General Motors.”
What Moore did not realize and Smith knew all too well is that GM was hurting badly. When Moore was asked by “Newsday” if GM should keep open unprofitable factories he responded, “They are profitable! They want to be more profitable! They’re greedy! You will never hear them utter the words “enough is enough.” They’ll close down all the factories in this country if they believe that they’re going to make more money in Mexico and Taiwan.”
When I first saw the film, it struck me as the most impressively articulated response to the Reagan era I'd seen. Since then it has come out that Moore has -- either intentionally or through lack of skill -- fuzzied the chronology of events, creating the impression that the plant closings and layoffs took place all at once, around 1986 and '87, instead of over a period of more than a decade. In other instances too, Moore may have fallen short of factual accuracy. 
"Are the critics of this movie seeing a documentary for the first time?" she asked. "Can't they tell by the tone what the movie is doing? Moore is a satirist. He's making an emotional point. The movie isn't supposed to be an objective review of the facts, and few people would see it that way."
These sources are appropriate for the reception section, and further more I've been able to back these up with a corporate case study on General Motors in the 1980s under Roger Smith's chairmanship (Robert A.G. Monks, Nell Minow, Corporate Governance, 4th Edition (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)"GM Corporate Governance Case Study").
This goes a long way towards making this article more neutral, don't throw around the WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:RS recklessly. GoldDragon (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I said several weeks ago, This is your original research, tied to a book (that nowhere mentions the film) and a WordPress blog. Please familiarise yourself with WP:OR and WP:RS. Also learn to attribute criticisms to the people who make them. You cannot simply re-insert the same material after these problems have been pointed out to you. Wikispan (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't OR, these come from film reviews of Roger & Me. Therefore, you don't have grounds to remove this material. GoldDragon (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first link points to a personal web page with broken links and missing graphics. The reviewer himself does not say the film is "filled with well-documented factual errors" but instead some unnamed critics "charge that a number of statements and scenes in Roger & Me are misleading". The second link points to a personal blog. Both of these sources are poor quality. The third link is brazen editorializing on your part. The fourth points to a book that nowhere mentions then name Michael Moore nor Roger & Me. Please take the necessary time to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines. Wikispan (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the CBS article and how colleagues, Robert Stempel (Smith's successor as GM chairman) and Gerald Meyers (chairman of American Motors), described Roger Smith's reaction to the documentary:
Most people, though, remember Smith from the 1989 documentary by Michael Moore, which explored how GM's plant closings and layoffs had affected his hometown of Flint. The film chronicles Moore's fruitless attempts to interview Smith about the devastation in Flint, although magazine articles and documentaries have alleged that Smith granted interviews to Moore prior to the film's release.
Moore has acknowledged a five-minute exchange with Smith about a company tax abatement during the public comment portion of a 1987 shareholders' meeting, but said that was before he started working on the movie.
Smith often faced questions about the documentary, which contained interviews of people who said they lost their homes after GM plant closures.
One woman said she had to start killing rabbits for food after GM shut down the plants, eliminating 30,000 jobs in the city of 150,000.
"I haven't seen it," Smith told reporters shortly after the film was released. "I'm not much for sick humor, and I don't like things that take advantage of poor people."
Robert Stempel, who succeeded Smith as GM chairman and CEO, said Smith never was bothered by the movie.
"Those things, when you're a CEO, you learn to roll with the punches," Stempel said Friday. "You can't let yourself get bruised by that sort of thing. You have to rise above it, and he certainly did."
But Gerald Meyers, a former chairman of American Motors Corp. who knew Smith, said Smith thought "Roger & Me" was a smear job.
"I don't think he ever got over it," Meyers said.
Stempel, who served as president under Smith, said Smith foresaw Japanese imports rising in the U.S. and fuel efficiency becoming a major issue. He set up Saturn and led the shift of many GM cars from rear-wheel-drive to more efficient front-wheel-drive vehicles.
"He wanted to try to stem the tide if he could," Stempel said of the Japanese. "He put a lot of effort into some small-car activities and other things and certainly promoted the widespread use of front wheel drive in GM."
Despite the efforts, GM's U.S. market share dropped from around 45 percent when Smith took GM's top job to just over 36 percent when he left. The company's market share currently is about 24 percent.
Meyers said Saturn never reached expectations, failing to attract buyers of Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords.
During his tenure, Smith led GM to grow its global business, and he had to deal with tough U.S. environmental and safety standards, the company said.
He also saw that GM, with separate marketing, engineering, design and some manufacturing operations for each of its brands, needed to be consolidated to better compete with global automakers, said Gus Buenz, a spokesman for Oldsmobile under Smith.
"He was ready to take risks and make changes he felt were necessary to compete with what was coming from our foreign competition," Buenz said. "That mind-set, I think, is very much within GM today."
The consolidation, though, brought job losses, and Flint was among the hardest-hit areas.
GM under Smith made sure laid-off workers kept benefits for a time to help them transition into other jobs, said Al Warren, who was vice president for industrial relations during Smith's tenure.GoldDragon (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Inaccuracies

message: I've reverted recent edits by User:GoldDragon. because they did not meet our standards.  Here's why:
*Change of upper class to middle/upper class needs to be discussed on talk.  At first glance, those words should simply be removed to avoid any dispute, rather than continuing to edit war the change.
**  Removed as "more affluent" is sufficient. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your effort, Viriditas. Criticism is easy; there is plenty of it. The only requirement, as always, is that we use good quality sources and summarise accurately what they say. There also needs to be some kind of acknowledgement from GD, otherwise the same thing may happen again in the near future. Wikispan (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit warring

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roger & Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113204513/http://roger-and-me.com/ to http://www.roger-and-me.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Link 16 points to a spam site Cjcorliss (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam link in reception section