Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression. It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website. However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons: a) Moore clearly states that "before he came to Flint", Heston gave an interview. In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March. If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published? b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part? I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing. c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact. The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland". You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death? Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out? This makes no sense. Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston. The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly. Had they done so, Moore himself would probably have apologized for the gaffe. In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: What text gave viewers the wrong impression

The opening shot of the movie shows Kunti praying for Lord Krishna's protection for the Pandavas . Lord Krishna consoles Kunti and promises to ever protect the Pandavas and guide them through troubles and problems that may occur in life . The sons of Pandu and Dhritarashtra progeny break into an argument . When Duryodhana insults the Pandavas as '' dependents '' , Bheema counters by saying that , the Kauravas are the progeny of a widow . Duryodhana asks Veda Vyasa for an explanation . He is then told that , since his mother , Gandhari had an astrological defect , she is first married of to a goat and then married to his father . Duryodhana gains animosity towards the kingdom of Gandhara where the king , the father of his mother Gandhari , rules . He attacks Gandhara and lays waste of the whole kingdom . He them imprisons the royal family in his prison . He gives them only one rice grain per prisoner . The king of Gandhara then stops everyone from grabbing the little food that is provided . He says that instead of everyone dying , they could keep at least one of their princes alive . He chooses Sakuni to be alive . Sakuni takes an oath that he will do everything he can to destroy the entire Kaurava clan . He makes magic dice from his father's spinal cord . The magic dice show exactly the number that he would want . Duryodhana takes pity on the lone prisoner , Sakuni after the rest of the Gandhara royal family dies in prison out of starvation . Sakuni joins the evil of coterie of Duryodhana , Karna and Dushyasana .
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: Who makes dice from his father's spinal cord, and do they roll the right number?

One of the most dramatic changes in priorities proposed by the City Council would shift $25.6 million from funding for court-appointed lawyers to the Legal Aid Society. In a document released yesterday to justify its reordered priorities, the Council contended that Legal Aid can achieve greater economies of scale than lawyers appointed pursuant to Article 18-B of the County Law. The Council document also noted that "inexplicably" 18-B lawyers are handling 50 percent of the indigent criminal cases in New York City, even though their mandate is to handle only multi-defendant cases where the Legal Aid Society had a conflict. In past years, the City Council had consistently added $5.6 million to the $54.7 million proposed for the Legal Aid Society by former Mayor Giuliani, bringing the total to just a shade over $60 million. But this year for the first time, the Council is proposing shifting more than $20 million in funds earmarked by the Mayor for 18-B lawyers to the Legal Aid Society, which would increase its total funding to $80.4 million. That would reflect a jump in its current finding of about one-third. Meantime, the City Council proposed slashing the Mayor's allocation of $62.8 million for 18-B lawyers by 66 percent, to $21.4 million.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION:
City Council seems to want more funds allocated to which organization?