Moore sued for falsifying newspaper headline for movie

[BluberryPoptart]

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/fc?d=tmpl&cf=fc&in=entertainment&cat=michael_moore

I always did doubt his credibility factor.

How ironic, a movie accusing Bush of doing this kind of stuff, but he's guilty of lying too!

 

[A_Wanderer]

It doesn't matter if its not true, because it is itself part of a bigger truth.
/Moore-on Logic

 

[zoney!]

The article says that the headline DID appear in the paper...and they are suing for $1! GOSH...I sure hop Moore can settle this one of court!

It looks like a publicity stunt for a small town daily. This really is pretty petty compared to Bush's misrepresentation of facts that Moore has brought to light.

Interjection of personal opinion: BTW (that means "By The Way"), as a former journalist and lover of the print medium (and one who has purchased and read the Patagraph before), this is a lousy newspaper. This should help them sell a few more copies and raise ad rates! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (to steal from Bush).

 

[A_Wanderer]

Question Everything, including Moore: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

 

[Danospano]

Speaking of Michael Moore: Did anyone watch 'Real Time with Bill Mahr"? I couldn't believe he and Bill got on their knees and begged Ralph Nader not to run this year. Of all the people in the world to slam Nader, it shouldn't have been them. I know it was all in fun, but you could tell Ralph wasn't expecting it and couldn't say anything.

 

[BVS]

Speaking of Michael Moore: Did anyone watch 'Real Time with Bill Mahr"? I couldn't believe he and Bill got on their knees and begged Ralph Nader not to run this year. Of all the people in the world to slam Nader, it shouldn't have been them. I know it was all in fun, but you could tell Ralph wasn't expecting it and couldn't say anything.

In principal Nader should be there, but given the political climate his running only helps Bush. It's a sad state, but this is by far one the most important elections in my lifetime (I'm almost 30). It's a sad necessity. Unfortunatly the way things stand now, a three party election like that when Nader had a following and when Perot ran, is great in theory, but in reality will always take votes from one of the other party so one of the major parties always benefits. Honestly to have a true democracy that doesn't consist of Democrats or Republicans, we need at least 4 or 5 party canidates. Until then a strong third party will always "steal" votes. It's a sad truth.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

The article says that the headline DID appear in the paper

No you misread that. It said there WAS a line reading that way in the paper, but it was over a 'letter to the editor' one individual person had written, on the back page, and came with a disclaimer that it did not reflect the views of the paper. Moore falsified the paper's headline to look as if this was a big story they had written and put on the front page! That's FRAUD!

 

[A_Wanderer]

And he altered the date to make it appear differently, man is a bloody fraud. When the mainstream left embraces this liar it stifles proper debate and ruins political discussion. Out with the talking heads, out with the Michael Moores and in with intelligent analysis of real issues.

"Who attacked the United States on September 11 -- a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friends, Saudi Arabia? ... You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force. The Saudi Air Force? What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family? ... Why do you refuse to say, 'Saudi Arabia attacked the United States!'?"

So Moore says that the 9/11 attacks were carried out with full support and training by the Saudi Government in his book Dude, Wheres my Country. I suppose that beneath his cap he stores a cheeseburger and 3 layers of tinfoil to keep the Zionist-CIA-Mossad Sattelites from reading his mind.

He also has a very in depth opinion of Muqtada al Sadrs "uprising" earlier this year.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'the enemy' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen and their numbers will grow - and they will win

So Mike thinks that a crowd of gun wielding, grog shop burning, women raping, police killing thugs who follow a low level cleric who seeks political advantage through chaos are the same as the Minutemen! This man supports the enemy and desires to see the US beaten in Iraq no matter how many innocent people are killed, he is worse than Pilger because Moore actually has influence. How long until the mainstream left can distance themselves from this charlatan and begin to argue the issues properly. By saying such things then hiding behind arguments of "dont you dare question my patriotism" Moore is doing great harm to political discourse within the US and abroad and as the extreme becomes mainstream and more people are conditioned to fear the government in the name of book and movie sales they will stand there astonished when there is actually another attack and thousands die many coming to their senses that there is a real and tangiable threat to civilization out there and even more turning away and blaming the government for the attack (YES I SAID IT, Proportionally Moore has personally benefited more from 9.11 and the War on Terror than the Carlyle Group or Big Oil or Bush, his influence over the left and many people has increased he needs to create this feeling that the government is out there to get innocent law abiding citizens through a fake war on terror so that he can gain influence and make a fat wad of cash through book sales and movie deals, many in this forum have fallen for Moore hook, line and sinker).

 

[verte76]

BVS, I agree with you about third parties. In principle Nader has the right to run. But, he's pissing off former supporters. I think it's duplicitous for him to get on the ballot with Republican signatures. This might have something to do with Michigan kicking him off the ballot, I don't know. I read on his web site that he's suing both Michigan and Illinois over ballot access as neither state will put him on the ballot. It's not his year. I'm normally a strong supporter of third party rights, I don't think it's fair to limit ballot access. But Ralph is pissing people off right and left. He's pissed off the Greens, which he really can't afford to do. That's how he got on the ballot in 1996 and 2000, and now he's complaining that the Green Party is "faction-ridden". I'm sure they're saying "Gee, thanks, Ralph. We got you ballot access twice, is this the thanks we get?" It looks like sour grapes to me, Cooper worked for the Green nomination and he deserves it. I support his right to be on the ballot. I also support the right of the Libertarian candidate to be on the ballot. I once dated a Libertarian.

 

[stammer476]

It looks like a publicity stunt for a small town daily. This really is pretty petty compared to Bush's misrepresentation of facts that Moore has brought to light.

Wow. I love ethics in the postmodern era. Tell your kids: It's okay to lie as long your lie is not as big as someone else's lie!

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Wow. I love ethics in the postmodern era. Tell your kids: It's okay to lie as long your lie is not as big as someone else's lie!

or that you use your own lie to make your case that someone else lied!

 

[verte76]

I agree, there is too much lying going on. I won't mention any names, but I'll just say I've seen way too much of it on the local level, in my city's politics. Last year during our mayoral campaign, we found out that one of the candidates, a City Councilwoman, had spent $42,000 of the city's money for a personal expense. This killed her campaign, but to me this wasn't enough. I thought she should have been busted for lying about the incident, and they just slapped her on the wrist. The candidates in that election were all terrible, in my opinion, including, unfortunately, the incumbent who won re-election. This joker used the taxpayer's money to buy a Cadillac for the mayor's office, even though he has his own car. What a rip-off. Meanwhile libraries are getting cut to the bone. Earlier this year we had a position abolished at our library, and now we have a pretty bad labor shortage. We are the fourth highest circulating library in the county, and we're not even one of the bigger branches. Needless to say no one is happy about this.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

I just thought of something. Maybe the reason they are only asking for $1 and a public apology is to prove that their reputation and their journalistic integrity are more important to them than money and fame (unlike 'sooome' people)

 

[Anthony]

Coming from someone who enjoyed Farenheit 9/11, it is thoroughly disappointing to hear such news.

Ant.

 

[BVS]

So Mike thinks that a crowd of gun wielding, grog shop burning, women raping, police killing thugs who follow a low level cleric who seeks political advantage through chaos are the same as the Minutemen! This man supports the enemy and desires to see the US beaten in Iraq no matter how many innocent people are killed, he is worse than Pilger because Moore actually has influence. How long until the mainstream left can distance themselves from this charlatan and begin to argue the issues properly. By saying such things then hiding behind arguments of "dont you dare question my patriotism" Moore is doing great harm to political discourse within the US and abroad and as the extreme becomes mainstream and more people are conditioned to fear the government in the name of book and movie sales they will stand there astonished when there is actually another attack and thousands die many coming to their senses that there is a real and tangiable threat to civilization out there and even more turning away and blaming the government for the attack (YES I SAID IT, Proportionally Moore has personally benefited more from 9.11 and the War on Terror than the Carlyle Group or Big Oil or Bush, his influence over the left and many people has increased he needs to create this feeling that the government is out there to get innocent law abiding citizens through a fake war on terror so that he can gain influence and make a fat wad of cash through book sales and movie deals, many in this forum have fallen for Moore hook, line and sinker).

Forget it, it's not worth it.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am so glad someone else brought this up besides me. I have been following the story and the research that has gone into it. The date was changed as well as the headline. I have not read up on it in about a month. Has anyone figured out why he falsified the date? It seems like something he would not do if there was no reason to.

 

[Diemen]

Riiiiiight. Moore is doing this all strictly for the money. And the actual truth is that the US military really went in to save the Iraqi people.

A_Wanderer, normally your posts are well thought out, but that one is full of so many loopholes in logic it's astounding.

 

[Anthony]

Maybe I should have clarified, because, ultimately, it is a significant topic of discussion that interests me.

Primarily, Moore is not essentially a Documentarian (is that a word?), I think he is more a film-maker, and he did say as much in acceptance speech at Cannes. But to quote his other speech, that notorious boo-inducing one at the Oscars, he did say that he made real films in fictitious times - its reports such as these that stab at his credibility, and that I find disappointing.

No, it doesn't weaken his point, that the Bush administration lied and continues to lie about a number things, and he has time and time again demonstrated how Bush is far from fit for government. Therefore, it is even more disappointing for me to find that he resorted to falsifying so-called evidence (yes, the irony is astonishing), no matter how small, in order to prove his point. I am not a journalist and I am not aware of the difficulties of researching and proving your arguments in the media, but I would have thought that there was plenty of evidence against Bush anyway, without having to resort to false tricks.

It is, ultimately, quite sad. It doesn't take much to show what a complete dullard Bush is, if your forgive my partisan ramblings; Moore should have known better.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

Riiiiiight. Moore is doing this all strictly for the money. And the actual truth is that the US military really went in to save the Iraqi people.

A_Wanderer, normally your posts are well thought out, but that one is full of so many loopholes in logic it's astounding.

The US Military has saved and is saving thousands of Iraqi civilians lives regardless of the original reasons and needs for intervening in the country. For a party that beats its chest about its "humanitarian principles and actions", the incredible humanitarian work being done by the US Military in Iraq goes largely un-noticed, by the democratic party. Its election season, and democrats cannot admit that the Bush administration has done and accomplished great things in Iraq. That would be off message for them, since they want to present a view of the Bush Administration that will be more likely to get people to vote for Kerry. That is why these facts are ignored and not brought up by the Democrats on the campaign trail.

 

[STING2]

Maybe I should have clarified, because, ultimately, it is a significant topic of discussion that interests me.

Primarily, Moore is not essentially a Documentarian (is that a word?), I think he is more a film-maker, and he did say as much in acceptance speech at Cannes. But to quote his other speech, that notorious boo-inducing one at the Oscars, he did say that he made real films in fictitious times - its reports such as these that stab at his credibility, and that I find disappointing.

No, it doesn't weaken his point, that the Bush administration lied and continues to lie about a number things, and he has time and time again demonstrated how Bush is far from fit for government. Therefore, it is even more disappointing for me to find that he resorted to falsifying so-called evidence (yes, the irony is astonishing), no matter how small, in order to prove his point. I am not a journalist and I am not aware of the difficulties of researching and proving your arguments in the media, but I would have thought that there was plenty of evidence against Bush anyway, without having to resort to false tricks.

It is, ultimately, quite sad. It doesn't take much to show what a complete dullard Bush is, if your forgive my partisan ramblings; Moore should have known better.

Ant.

A Lie is when some KNOWINGLY says something that is false. To date, the Bush administration has not been caught in a lie about anything!

 

[Diemen]

The US Military has saved and is saving thousands of Iraqi civilians lives regardless of the original reasons and needs for intervening in the country. For a party that beats its chest about its "humanitarian principles and actions", the incredible humanitarian work being done by the US Military in Iraq goes largely un-noticed, by the democratic party. Its election season, and democrats cannot admit that the Bush administration has done and accomplished great things in Iraq. That would be off message for them, since they want to present a view of the Bush Administration that will be more likely to get people to vote for Kerry. That is why these facts are ignored and not brought up by the Democrats on the campaign trail.

Nowhere in my post did I say that the US military hasn't saved Iraqi civilians' lives (however, they have also killed Iraqi civilians, as well). But if you think that the main reason we went into Iraq was to save the Iraqi people, then I strongly disagree with you.

 

[Diemen]

A Lie is when some KNOWINGLY says something that is false. To date, the Bush administration has not been caught in a lie about anything!

Imminent threat?

 

[Anthony]

I am grateful for the brief English lesson, STING2, but I do know the meaning of the word 'lie', having lied more than once, myself.

I also knew the meaning of the word before I made the comment, and thats all I shall say on the matter.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

Nowhere in my post did I say that the US military hasn't saved Iraqi civilians' lives (however, they have also killed Iraqi civilians, as well). But if you think that the main reason we went into Iraq was to save the Iraqi people, then I strongly disagree with you.

No where did I say in my post that the main reason the coalition went into Iraq was to save the Iraqi people. In addition, the United States and Coalition Allies DO NOT TARGET CIVILIANS! To casually say they have saved Iraqi lives as well as killed Iraqi civilians is an unbalanced and mis-leading statement. The United States military does not go out to kill Iraqi civilians, but accidents do happen. By comparison, over 20,000 French Civilians died in the Normandy invasion that removed Hitler's military from France, but no one seems to ever complain about that fact in the same manner.

"Imminent threat?"

On the Eve of the War Saddam had 387,000 troops, the worlds 13th largest military to be exact. At any time, Saddam could have sent some or all of these troops across the border into neighboring countries potentialy siezing or destroying oil fields while using WMD to support the operation.

To date, Saddam has yet to account for vast stocks of WMD that he had in 1998 according to the United Nations Inspectors. It is factually incorrect to say such stocks do not exist. The stocks do exist, the only question is what condition they are in and where are they located.

Regardless, the administration typcially did not use the words "Imminent Threat" in discussing Iraq policy. The President usually used the words "Grave and Gathering" Threat.

The United Nations determined in 1991, that Saddams possession of WMD was an unavoidable threat to the region and the world, and required that he VERIFIABLY disarm or face renewed military action to insure that he was disarmed. The need to use military force or not regarding Saddam was settled back in 1991. If military action to insure the disarmament of Saddam was not a valid policy, the United Nations would never of approved of the resolution or required that Saddam verifiably disarm or face renewed military action.

 

[STING2]

I am grateful for the brief English lesson, STING2, but I do know the meaning of the word 'lie', having lied more than once, myself.

I also knew the meaning of the word before I made the comment, and thats all I shall say on the matter.

Ant.

So tell me what Bush has KNOWINGLY said that is false?
WMD in Iraq is not one because the President had intelligence information that backed up each of his claims regardless if some of the intelligence later turned out to be inaccurate.

 

[BVS]

Yay!!! another thread derailed.

 

[Diemen]

Forgive me for being blunt.

The United Nations determined in 1991, that Saddams possession of WMD was an unavoidable threat to the region and the world, and required that he VERIFIABLY disarm or face renewed military action to insure that he was disarmed. The need to use military force or not regarding Saddam was settled back in 1991. If military action to insure the disarmament of Saddam was not a valid policy, the United Nations would never of approved of the resolution or required that Saddam verifiably disarm or face renewed military action.

Wow! Sting using the verifiably disarm line again? I am shocked and awed.

You sure know how to go off on any tangent that will enable you to work that argument in.

 

[STING2]

Re: Forgive me for being blunt.

Wow! Sting using the verifiably disarm line again? I am shocked and awed.

You sure know how to go off on any tangent that will enable you to work that argument in.

Gee,

You remember this post:

"Imminent threat?"

 

[A_Wanderer]

Stop this crazyness! Moore needs money and influence and he gains it by telling people that their government is out to get them (in a real police state Moore would be executed along with his entire family and all of his books and movies burned in a large fire). I plain dont like Moore any more. I enjoyed Roger and Me, TV Nation and The Awful Truth but my doubts started in BFC. The interview with Heston was an example of this as well as the glaring omissions and distortion of facts (The Missile Factory near Columbine actually built Rockets to launch Sattellites, the clips of Heston visiting Columbine and giving a "Cold Dead Hands" speech were actually at a different rally in a different state and he had cut it together, the list goes on).

Since BFC he has made outrageous claims and has made the extreme mainstream and the vigour which people embrace him as a truth teller is quite sickening when you look at his work objectively. I want to see intelligent debate, Moores style of few facts and easy answers does nobody justice - it just perpetuates the ignorance that permates the left. You want to learn then read Gore Vidal or Chomsky but please dont go off and tell me that Mike delivers anything of that callibre.

Im not saying here that Bush is right or anything to that effect, I am saying that I plain dont trust Moore and I think that his "documentaries" should be shown for what they really are, propaganda.

DOCUMENTARY

a factual and objective presentation

PROPAGANDA

Control of information, ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

 

[BluberryPoptart]

(in a real police state Moore would be executed along with his entire family and all of his books and movies burned in a large fire).