Dinesh D'Souza /2000 Mules/: Pre-bunk potential?

deirdre

Senior Member.
With the quotes and title caps, it did look accusatory.
oh. i almost always add a sarcasm label when i'm being sarcastic, because you guys misinterpret what i'm saying so often (even when i use simple language in a short sentence) that i know there is no chance many of you will understand my sarcasm.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
even Newsmax won't cover it

Article:
Former President Donald Trump criticized Fox News on Saturday, complaining the outlet will not "show or discuss" Dinesh D'Souza's documentary 2000 Mules concerning allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

"Fox News is no longer Fox News," Trump posted on his TruthSocial account. "They won't even show or discuss the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time, "2000 Mules." The Radical Left Democrats are thrilled - They don't want the TRUTH to get out."

Trump's gripes echoed those of author and conservative political commentator D'Souza, who on Monday accused Fox and Newsmax for not providing coverage of his film.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Probably the strongest indication that this is junk (also mentioned in the reviews I quoted previously):
Article:
The biggest issue, as Garrett Archer, data analyst at ABC15 in Phoenix and former senior elections analyst at the Arizona secretary of state’s office points out, is that we don’t see any surveillance footage of the “mules” going to drop boxes more than once.

An example: D’Souza and True the Vote focus on one particular “mule” from North Carolina who allegedly went to the ballot box multiple times and had been identified in a number of locations. But we only see surveillance footage of her at one location for the entirety of the movie.

With 2000 "mules" and all of this footage, they couldn't catch a single person doing it twice? Yeah, right.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
"Propaganda" and "documentary" are two entirely different things.
One reason to doubt that "2000 mules" is a documentary is that much of what looks like it's real actually isn't.

Article:
In an email to The Post, Phillips said that “the movie graphics are not literal interpretations of our data.”

I haven't checked myself if the first frame is an actual movie still, but if it is, that's a pretty good illustration (and I remember that image flipping technique from the trailer):



Another WaPo article is a transcript of an hour-long conversation with D'Souza being pressed on what the actual evidence is, and D'Souza's discussion strategies felt familiar to me (and probably do to regular readers of Metabunk).
Article:
D’Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted.

"The movie is driven in part by decisions about what makes the movie work well."

"2000 Mules" is not a documentary, because it doesn't reliably document what it is claiming: you never know if what you're shown is real or a mock-up, and it omits what would be crucial evidence for the claims being made. "2000 Mules" isn't about presenting facts, it's about presenting a conclusion, and that makes it propaganda and not a documentary.
 

Attachments

  • imrs.webp
    23.4 KB · Views: 88
  • imrs-1.webp
    198.7 KB · Views: 87
Top