Perhaps my comment on the tire manufacture was to point out how frivilous this suit is. If he is going to sue anybody, sue the true source of your problems.
Exactly as the soldier says in the CNN article. He is represented as one of the soldiers who is passed over and forgotten and neglected, when he fact he was discussing and stating his opinion that he received excellent care and help.
What would be wrong with a lawyer vetted statement on the website honoring his service and expressing dismay at his unhappiness with his portrayal while stating that they firmly beleive the lawsuit is without merit?
What would be the point of it?
Sure, that’s Michael Moore’s opinion of how wounded veterans have been treated. The film, from mhendo’s transcript, makes absolutely no representations about how Damon feels about his treatment. For God’s sake, he says, in the film, “But they do a lot to help it and they take a lot of the edge off it. It makes it a lot more tolerable.” How on Earth does that misrepresent his position?
I’m guessing the first problem with it would be finding a lawyer willing to vet it. I’m the farthest thing from a lawyer, but that strikes me as a spectacularly stupid thing to do in the face of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and I’m willing to bet most any lawyer on the boards would agree with me.
But his own belief about the quality of his care—you are correect that he prasies the care he is getting—is completely different from Moore’s belief about the way that injured soldiers were forgotten.
I’m not sure if you’ve actually seen the movie, or if you’re one of those people content to criticize it in ignorance, but Moore’s main point about the injured soldiers was NOT that their medical care was poor, but that, in the government’s propaganda campaign and in general media coverage of the war, they tended to be forgotten.
As the black soldier speaking before Damon says, everyone was focusing on the death toll (which was, for US soldiers, relatively low), and not on the awful reality of the many injuries requiring amputation and other drastic measures. That’s the point that Moore was trying to get across.
You might have a point if Moore had stated that the care being received by injured soldiers at Walter Reed and other facilities was poor or inadequate, but that wasn’t his point. He in no way misrepresented Damon’s position, and any allegation that he did rests on an inability to differentiate Damon’s statement about his own treatment, on the one hand, from Moore’s position on the general tendency to downplay injuries. Completely different issues, which i thought someone with a few brains might be able to discern.
How did Moore “exploit” the guy or “misrepresent” him? Your post above is non-responsive
What fucking “error” would that be? He made no claim at all about the guy beyond what he showed. Claiming that Moore tried to represent him as being against the war is a patent fucking lie. There is no “error,” no “misrepresentation” and Moore has nothing to apologize for. This is nothing but a money grab by a snivelling, greedy little shit. He’s the one who should apologize, not Moore.
Wait - he’s shown saying “they do a lot to help it” and he’s also portrayed as passed over and forgotten and neglected?
How is this possible? It isn’t. His words, as given in the transcript, argue against the characterization you have given it.
Moore didn’t say the soldiers were getting bad medical care, he was saying that there was not enough media attention (or public acknowledgement by the White House) given to the numbers of soldiers who were being severely injured without being killed.
And how does it misrepresent a guy’s opinion that he’s getting good medical care to show a clip of him saying he’s getting good medical care?
That’s not even what he says in his complaint. He claims that he was represented as being against the war which is complete bullshit. This soldier is a fucking liar is what he is.
I watched the movie on PPV. I understand your point, and I’m not looking to play a technicality game, but Michael Moore used the soldier by exploiting his plight and statements to make an argument that the soldier explicitly was not endorsing and does not endorse. MM makes a big deal about respecting soldiers.
He did not respect this one. If he did, he would have talked to him before using his footage to make sure it was ok with him. He would have checked to make sure that the soldier was ok with the message. That would be respect.
Exploiting would be just going ahead and using it without making the effort to respect the soldiers wishes and viewpoint.
Whether or not it is legal I find it unethical and disrespectful, and counter to MMs claims.
I would be wholly unsurprised to find that this was an oversight, unintentional on MMs part. If that is the case then MM should still ethically address his oversight
MM is a very good editor. The picture that MM is making is of a brave soldier who is forgotten and neglected who is nevertheless trying to be a good soldier and not complain. It is poignant in that regard. MM is too good at what he does that I can’t beleive that that is not intentional and exactly what he is trying to convey.
In this way, Damon was misrepresented.
We’ve all been around the block. We know how these guys, Limbaugh, Franken, Coulter, and Moore work. They don’t actually need to lie in order to lie. They selectively present facts and partial facts to illustrate their point. They lie by selectivity and ommission. That’s what Moore did here, and it’s wrong.
Yes, but that’s not a representation of how Damon feels wounded veterans have been treated, that’s a representation about how Moore feels wounded veterans have been treated. Damon’s views have not been misrepresented in the slightest. His words and image have been used to promote a political agenda he disagrees with. Well, that’s too bad, but that’s what happens when you insert yourself into the public political discourse, which is what he did when he agreed to be interviewed for the news. I might have some sympathy for the guy if he hadn’t turned this into a blatant money grab, but from where I’m sitting, the guy has no case and is clearly hoping to score some easy money from an out-of-court settlement.
And, as a side issue, I strenuously object to your inclusion of Al Franken in that list. He’s as honest a man as you’ll ever find in political discourse, and I’m not trying to be ironic when I say that.
The soldier’s opinion of Moore’s message is completely irrelevant to whether he was defamed. The only way in which he was represented in the movie was as an injured soldier who was satisified with his medical care. He was never represented as opposing the war and Moore owes him nothing. There was no oversight, no error, no disrespect.
And where are you getting thois “neglected” bullshit? Moore said these soldiers weren’t getting the COVERAGE they deserved. He said nothing about medical care.
Hmmm, yeah but Moore’s still a complete douchebag. Just sayin’.
He’s not a tenth the douchebag that this soldier is.
Eh, he’s still got both his arms, so he’s at least twice.
Wow, Scylla, that truly is one of the more tortuous rationalizations that i’ve seen on these boards, one that flies in the face of all reason and logic. The fact that you ended it by lumping Moore and Franken in with Coulter was just the icing on the cake.
Well, at least the intelligence of your post and the length of your post were comparable.
Pfft.
and again. what next? a :rolleyes: ?
Michael Moore, or anyone for that matter, is entitled to make a movie trying to convince people the war is a bad idea. He should be allowed to use some soldier’s public testimony in making that point with no regard whatsoever for the soldier’s point-of-view. That’s not a dick move.
If he were really taking the soldier’s words out-of-context or misrepresenting what he said, you might have a point. But no evidence has been presented that that happened, and you’re not even saying that. You’re saying that using the soldier’s words to bolster a point-of-view contrary to what the soldier believes is somehow shameful. That’s nonsense.
So, conservatives would have a documentary be only that which is completely balanced, but also should only include statements from those who agree with the point the filmmaker is making?