Reply
Sat 31 Jul, 2004 02:42 pm
BLOOMINGTON, Ill. ? Filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-basing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11"
apparently has upset more than Republicans.
The [Bloomington] Pantagraph newspaper in central Illinois has sent a letter to Moore and
his production company, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking Moore to apologize for
using what the newspaper says was a doctored front page in the film, the paper reported
Friday. It also is seeking compensatory damages of $10M.
A scene early in the movie that shows newspaper headlines related to the legally contested
presidential election of 2000 included a shot of The Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, front
page, with the prominent headline: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."
The paper says that headline never appeared on that day. It appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001,
edition, but the headline was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much
smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the
opinions of the letter writer."
"If [Moore] wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job," the
paper said.
Lions Gate Entertainment did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment Friday.
© 2004 Associated Press.
Ah, so you fianlly caught a lie! "Creative editing".
While I don't appreciate manipulation like that,
I haven't noted or heard of any other examples in the film. Seems to me that his basic take is right on. Sorry.
The news I read is here and it's stating the compensation is $1.00. A $10M law suit over a copyright infringment would be laughed out of court. If Moore's staff did pick up something like this on the internet and it slipped through, he should apologize for the error. It doesn't make the rest of the film any less potent and effective. This is a mountain made out of a molehill. Good try but no cigar.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590756
Here's another one. Little by little Moore's fabrication is unraveling I think. I wonder how many 'inaccuracies' have to be pointed out before the raving Michael Moore fan club will admit the whole movie is a fabrication?
The film is full of either "misleading statements" or out right lies.
It is also full of lies by omission.
But,since many of you on here are comparing Moore as the next thing to God,it would do no good to show you the proof,because you would deny it.
But,I would think that if you wanted to be intellectually honest you would ask yourself this question...if there is this one CONFIRMED attempt at either lying or "creative editing",how many more are there?
Remember,Moore swore there were no misstatements,and that everything in this film was 100% accurate.
He lied about that,didnt he?
I don't think one or two mistakes would disqualify the film MM. Three or four, and you have to wonder. Five, six, seven, eight. . . etc. etc. etc. and all you have left is the Michael Moore ostrich club.
Mr. Moore manipulates the truth, perhaps his true callig would be a political speach writer.
I think I will wait and see what Moore has to say to these accusations. I am sure that he has proof to back up his statements in his documentary and if he don't then his movie is a lie.
I figured when I heard he called Americans "possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he was planning to trick us into actually
being that, one way or another...
It's
got to be propaganda rather than some sort of conscientious dissent with lines like that in it...
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've read a whole lot about it. From this piece, from slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
I don't think I take Michael Moore seriously. He authored this
http://www.alternet.org/story/11507 9/14/01. What made his view change between 9/14 and his movie?
Then there is this:
Quote:No matter what the media tells you or shows you, I am convinced there is a majority of Americans who, though they want justice and want to be protected from further attacks, do not want George W. Bush to start sounding like Dr. Strangelove.
from
http://web.archive.org/web/20010917014615/www.michaelmoore.com/2001_0915.html Didn't he ask in his movie, why Bush didn't put more troops in Afghanistan sooner or something? After this, how can we
not believe Moore is a con man conning us, "possibly the dumbest people on the planet."
I've seen the film.
I'm comfortable with my feelings about it.
No quibbles.
PrincessP, I'm not sure what I think about the two pieces ascribed to Michael Moore. They sound something like him, but there are these little red warning flags popping up that there is something not quite right about them.
The Chris Hitchins piece is good. You have to give Chris an "A" for intellectual honesty. He is about as liberal as they come, but he won't be dishonest just to support his ideology. As he writes:
Quote:To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
Have you seen the film, Foxfyre?
because if you haven't, you have no business agreeing or disagreeing with any opinion piece on the subject.
ehBeth wrote:because if you haven't, you have no business agreeing or disagreeing with any opinion piece on the subject.
Does seeing trailers/teasers count? I feel I have every bit as much business as anyone else.
PP
Are you sure you want to take that position ehBeth? Do you sit down and listen to Bush's speeches or read his official position on whaever issue before forming an opinion about what he thinks, does, says, believes? Do you make sure you have read all the facts regarding the content of Fahrenheit 911 before drawing a conclusion that Moore is right on target? Are you a member of or have you had direct dealings with organizations of which you are critical?
That I choose not to enrich Mr. Moore by purchasing a ticket to see his film does not automatically extrapolate to my not being familiar with its content or intent.
Foxfyre wrote:
That I choose not to enrich Mr. Moore by purchasing a ticket to see his film does not automatically extrapolate to my not being familiar with its content or intent.
I agree w/you about not enriching Moore. Did you know Moore's ok w/downloading it?
http://www.sundayherald.com/43167
Now, if only I thought my mickeymouse computer could do it in anything resembling a timely manner...
PP
I saw the film and I'm still angry about it. Impressive demagoguery it was. I just havent gotten round to posting something about it on the main Michael Moore thread - but I will. He made some good, jaw-dropping points, but they were drowned amidst the cheap shots, and I perpetually felt like I was being played or cheated. I thought it was mostly simplistic (and surprisingly incoherent) rhetorics - effective agitprop perhaps, but yeah, I felt a bit dirty coming out of it.
As for not being allowed to say anything about it until you've seen it - well, it sure helps actually seeing it, but that dont mean you cant glean enough things from what you read about it to wanna raise in a thread before you do, too. Or do you feel I should shut up about Fox News too, Ebeth, considering everything I know about it is things I've read?
Foxfyre wrote:Are you sure you want to take that position ehBeth? Do you sit down and listen to Bush's speeches or read his official position on whaever issue before forming an opinion about what he thinks, does, says, believes? Do you make sure you have read all the facts regarding the content of Fahrenheit 911 before drawing a conclusion that Moore is right on target? Are you a member of or have you had direct dealings with organizations of which you are critical?
That I choose not to enrich Mr. Moore by purchasing a ticket to see his film does not automatically extrapolate to my not being familiar with its content or intent.
As a matter of fact, Foxfyre, I am quite careful about what threads I post to. I do not post to threads which are about topics which I do not have some appropriate knowledge.
That you have not seen this film excludes you, IMNSHO, from contributing anything of value to any discussion of the film. I have noted that you often post to threads where you have little or no knowledge. That is why I find it useful to ask you what your knowledge base is. In this case, it is nothing.
LOL Nimh. I get irritated at your take on Fox News sometimes knowing that you don't get it in Europe, but I appreciate your take on things, and your intellectual honesty that doesn't allow for demgoguery. I don't always admit it, but you have made me back up and rethink a few things.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace