3.Many of the ideas discussed in this article seem more like tools that directors use to further there view points. A good example of this is Micheal Moore. He uses many of the visual faux pas to further his ideas. Besides the information he misrepresents, he uses visual misrepresentation as well. So, when a visual conflicts with what was said, is it necessarily bad?

It is bad in the sense that he is trying to pass fictitious things off as facts. It is misrepresentation. He is stating that it is news, or, an 'enlightened aspect of news', and yet it is for the most part false, and he is just trying to make himself famous. It he did not call his 'documentaries' fact, then there would not be an issue, but because he tries to come off as an intelligent source for news that is not true, he loses the sense of his work to be considered a serious form of documentation. Therefore, he uses the tools for a documentary well (except from what Hampe discussed as doing interviews, which Michael Moore does do).