Michael Moore is a liar after all

[SnakeSpirit]

@Finagle

I’m shocked at how many people are giving MM a pass at this. It’s shoddy journalism, and lazy to boot. I’m sure if you looked hard enough, you’d find a “real” headline with essentially the same content.

Hey, dude, Moore can do NO WRONG! You disagree and you’ll have a bunch of us ‘Moories’ show up on your front lawn with burning effigies of the twin towers!

[duffer]

@lissener

Michael Moore takes an undisputed fact and clarifies it with some **visual exaggeration ** and he’s the anitchrist.

What the fuck ever.

Did he get advice from the British, French and Russians on this point?

What the fuck ever, indeed. :rolleyes:

[Lamia]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

So what happened? I’m interested in hearing his response. Until then, let me offer a scenario that’s more plausible than his trying to wear the Pantagraph Seal of Approval:

An intern did a Lexis-Nexus search on “Florida Recount Gore Won,” and pulled up all the articles that fit. This letter came up, and the intern pulled a copy of the article’s text, either via printout or via Word document. When it came time to put it into the movie, they had a footnote showing what paper, what date, what page the article came from–but they didn’t have a physical copy of this issue of this podunk paper. So they formatted the Word document into newspaper columns, or retyped it (thus the slight change to layout that I mentioned above), slapped the headline on top, and added the Pantagraph banner to the top of the page. They figured that they were getting in all the relevant information–paper, headline, and text. Whoever did the original article search didn’t realize, or didn’t notate, that it was a letter to the editor.

This sounds pretty likely to me. The only reason I can see for wanting to include the Pantagraph article at all is that the phrasing of the headling was direct and clear. It seems unlikely that Moore or his staff stumbled across a letter-to-the-editor in the Pantagraph by chance or that any are regular readers of that paper, so there was probably a text search involved. Such a search would be unlikely to turn up the whole page of the paper; as you say, it was likely just the plain text. Someone could have contacted the Pantagraph and requested a hard copy, but this wouldn’t have seemed necessary since they had what they wanted and the rest of the page’s content was unlikely to be relevant.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@emarkp

It wasn’t even an opinion piece. It was a letter to the editor, which are not even the opinion of the paper. After 9/11 there were tons of letters to the editors of papers around the country, many of which were inaccurate or over-the-edge. The altered image looks like a standard headline to a news article to me.

So you DO believe that Michael Moore was trying to piggyback on the Pantagraph’s reputation for spotless journalistic integrity, and that’s why he made it look like a Pantagraph article instead of a Pantagraph letter to the editor?

That’s the part that I just don’t get about the accusation of deception. If you’re gonna rob a house, you rob a mansion, not a shack.

Daniel

[Finagle]

It wasn’t even an opinion piece. It was a letter to the editor, which are not even the opinion of the paper. After 9/11 there were tons of letters to the editors of papers around the country, many of which were inaccurate or over-the-edge. The altered image looks like a standard headline to a news article to me.

I think this is the heart of the issue. Moore is potentially damaging the reputation of the Pantagraph by insinuating that they published a * news * article that they did not. Whether you feel that the article was true or not is pretty irrelevant. Suppose it had been our friend from the Pit Fred Phelps who had written some vile letter to the editor – something like “Bush says Gay Marriage Causes Birth Defects in UnWed Mothers”. And suppose MM had reworked that as a headline? Would that still be acceptable to the people defending Moore?

This has reinforced my impression of MM as someone who will go for the quick and easy hit below the belt rather than the hard work of actual commentary.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Finagle

And suppose MM had reworked that as a headline? Would that still be acceptable to the people defending Moore?

Just so I’m clear, I’m not saying what he did was right; I’m saying it was likely a trivial mistake, because if it was deliberate, it was a colossally foolish thing to do, much risk for the trifling gain of the Pantagraph’s imprimatur.

That’s why I await his explanation; I hope his explanation include an apology to the Pantagraph for what was likely a typographical error.

Daniel

[Otto]

How about this for a solution: All the anti-Moore people drop this petty shit and in exchange the pro-Moore people will give Anne Coulter a pass on her next actual lie.

[Finagle]

I’m not so much anti-Moore, as I am anti-giving-the-guy-a-free-pass-because-you-agree-with-his-politics.

And I disagree that it’s trivial. When a guy announces that he fact checked his movie and has a cadre of lawyers ready to defend it, you pretty much expect content to be purer than Ivory soap. So now you have to wonder what other little shortcuts he took making the film.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Finagle

And I disagree that it’s trivial. When a guy announces that he fact checked his movie and has a cadre of lawyers ready to defend it, you pretty much expect content to be purer than Ivory soap. So now you have to wonder what other little shortcuts he took making the film.

As I said, if this happened the way I’m guessing it did, it’s not a factual error so much as a typographical error. There’s no such thing as the perfect movie; all movies, no matter how well made, have errors in them.

This error establishes the fact that the Pantagraph newspaper didn’t make a strong statement about Gore’s election results. I firmly believe that now, and don’t much care about it, inasmuch as I don’t care about the Pantagraph. I’ll evaluate other errors in the movie as they arise.

If, for example, he’d done this with a Washington Times letter, that’d be a bigger deal. They’ve got some credibility worth talking about, Moonies notwithstanding.

I’ve not seen the movie, which is part of why I hedge my bets on this. I’m not defending Moore so much as I am saying it’s a mighty trivial attack on him.

Daniel

[Garfield226]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

There’s no such thing as the perfect movie; all movies, no matter how well made, have errors in them.

Most movies aren’t claimed to BE perfect.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Garfield226

Most movies aren’t claimed to BE perfect.

Fair point; based on this, unless Moore has a very compelling explanation, I’ll concede that this movie isn’t perfect.

I’m not sure Moore ever claimed it was, though: I believe he claimed that all the facts presented in it were correct, and I don’t think this quite rises to the level of a “presented fact,” but is rather an incorrect insinuation.

And I never thought this movie was perfect. So my concession really isn’t much of a concession at all :).

Daniel

[Pashnish_Ewing]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

My big question: when this appeared on the screen, did the Pantagraph paper start off in the distance and rapidly spin its way to the front of the screen? If so, does the newspaper actually do this in real life? If the real Pantagraph is nonspinny and inanimate, that’s a far bigger lie, ain’t it?

That’s nothing. I have it on good authority that Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are not currently, nor have they ever been…

(very minor F9/11 spoiler)

…castmembers of the television show ‘Bonanza’.Pash

[blowero]

And Bush is actually a human being, not a 2-dimensional image projected onto a screen. Will the lies never end!!!

[rjung]

@lissener

Michael Moore takes an undisputed fact and clarifies it with some visual exaggeration and he’s the anitchrist.

@duffer

Did he get advice from the British, French and Russians on this point?

Actually, I believe Moore got his ideas for “visual exaggeration” from Colin Powell.

[SnakeSpirit]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

That’s the part that I just don’t get about the accusation of deception. If you’re gonna rob a house, you rob a mansion, not a shack.

Easy enough.

Easier to rob a shack than a mansion.

Guess MM just MMiscalculated.

[Otto]

@blowero

And Bush is actually a human being, not a 2-dimensional image projected onto a screen.

Cite?

[SnakeSpirit]

I saw F9/11. It was obviously an opinion piece. It used falsehoods and misdirection to make various points about the administration. Rebutalls that I have seen posted on SDMB are basically worthless – hero worship defense based on political alignment.

Michael Moore did bring up some good points in the movie, and actually did say some things that are true, but a few truths don’t excuse a bucket of lies.

His movie was a reverse drama. What ended up on the cutting room floor was anything positive about the current administration, and all he kept were “candid camera” value 'embarassing moments. “Now watch this drive,” SO WHAT?!?!? A guy licking his comb. SO WHAT!? Most of the film. SO WHAT!?!?! So the president and his staff aren’t perfect. SO WHAT?

So Michael Moore isn’t perfect. “Oh, but he’s serving his country, he’s uncovering lies, he’s fat, he’s ugly, and most of all he’s serving the Democratic party and giving some of his earnings to charity…”

This is such Bullshit.

F9/11 is a lying piece of propaganda. There have been opinion pieces posted supporting both sides, and everyone chooses to believe who convinces them most.

Well, the film is still running, it may or may not effect the election, but it probably will, one way or another.

Funny thing is, all the ranting both sides have done here will really make a difference over the next four years. If we survive them.

[Otto]

@Snakespirit

he’s fat, he’s ugly

Weak. Really, really weak.

[blowero]

@Snakespirit

It used falsehoods and misdirection to make various points about the administration.

Such as…?

[Sevastopol]

I have to add my name to the chorus asking **Snakespirit ** to substantiate the claim that Moore lies in the film. Fabricates, falsehoods, whatever?

Because from what I saw in the thread on said topic there ain’t none. I’m indiffernet Moore and won’t see the film (although, although with all this discussion and good reviews…), but I’m curious what the other thread missed?