Mooresanity!

[MKSheppard]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/art ... 1000611403

Michael Moore Refuses to Apologize to Illinois Paper
By E & P Staff
Published: August 12, 2004

NEW YORK The small Illinois newspaper attempting to get an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for allegedly misusing the paper in "Fahrenheil 9/11" said today it has gotten a rejection notice instead.

The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., disclosed today that New York-based lawyer Devereux Chatillon of the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal sent a letter to the Bloomington attorney representing the newspaper, stating Moore was within his legal right to use one of the newspaper's headlines in the movie and that no "copyright infringement" occurred. He cited several precedents.

This led The Pantagraph to conclude: "Moore apparently is not going to say he's sorry or pay the newspaper's light-hearted, if not symbolic, request for $1 in compensatory damages. But his company's lawyer was willing to spend 37 cents, to send a letter suggesting Moore did little wrong."

That letter claims Moore did nothing "misleading" when a headline from The Pantagraph ("Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election") that originally appeared above a Dec. 5, 2001, letter to the editor was changed in both font and size for the movie and made to look like a news story from the Dec. 19, 2001, edition.

Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)."

"Baloney," said Pantagraph President and Publisher Henry Bird, in response to the letter. Added newspaper attorney J. Casey Costigan, "I disagree that Michael Moore's use of the headline falls under 'fair use,' and I think the letter also takes what Mr. Moore did out of context."

Bird said he has asked Costigan to send Moore a follow-up letter, asking him to explain why a Pantagraph page was altered without permission.

[Glocksman]

I don't believe it. Moore would never lie.

[Keevan_Colton]

You cannot copyright a short phrase or single word such as a title, or headline.

[Glocksman]

Moore did more than just use a headline from the paper.

Early in the movie, according to the paper, a large headline appears in the film, purporting to be from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of the paper, and reading "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." The paper contends that the headline actually appeared on Dec. 5, 2001, in much smaller type, and above a letter to the editor, hardly a factual news story or editorial.

He took the title to a letter to the editor and misrepresented it as a news headline in the same paper.

Somehow, altering a newspaper by changing a headline doesn't seem like fair use to me.

[Keevan_Colton]

It still is not copyright infringment. I dont deny that what they say there is hardly the fairest use of anything, but that doesnt change the fact copyright doesnt come into this at all.

[Talon Karrde]

It still is not copyright infringment. I dont deny that what they say there is hardly the fairest use of anything, but that doesnt change the fact copyright doesnt come into this at all.

Ok, but I don't think you can argue with the fact that it IS unfair reprsentation and can potentially cast an incompetent look on the newspaper.

[Glocksman]

It still is not copyright infringment. I dont deny that what they say there is hardly the fairest use of anything, but that doesnt change the fact copyright doesnt come into this at all.

You very well could be right.
But what statute would cover it? Trademark infringment?
There must be some kind of recourse against this kind of fraud.

[MKSheppard]

It still is not copyright infringment. I dont deny that what they say there is hardly the fairest use of anything, but that doesnt change the fact copyright doesnt come into this at all.

Is Moore really this lax as a journalist and writer that he needs
to re-arrange and play loose with what was in that paper to get
the result he wants?

[Darth Wong]

Has Moore ever claimed to be a journalist? Certainly no one would accept him as such if he did. Mind you, FOXNews claims to be journalism and Sean Hannity claims to be fair and balanced, so perhaps anything is possible.

[MKSheppard]

Has Moore ever claimed to be a journalist? .

He claims that his movies are 'documentaries' rather than 'propaganda[, so
we're holding him to a standard here.

[Death from the Sea]

It still is not copyright infringment. I dont deny that what they say there is hardly the fairest use of anything, but that doesnt change the fact copyright doesnt come into this at all.

Is Moore really this lax as a journalist and writer that he needs
to re-arrange and play loose with what was in that paper to get
the result he wants?

the only good thing I can say about Moore is how well he is able to "edit" things to fit his purpose, if Moore did not play fast and loose with the facts then he would have little to nothig to make a movie about.

[Darth Wong]

the only good thing I can say about Moore is how well he is able to "edit" things to fit his purpose, if Moore did not play fast and loose with the facts then he would have little to nothig to make a movie about.

You must be on drugs. You're acting as though a two-second clip is the crux of Moore's case, and there's nothing else that he could have possibly found to criticize Bush on with regards to his handling of 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq.

[MKSheppard]

You're acting as though a two-second clip is the crux of Moore's case, and there's nothing else that he could have possibly found to criticize Bush on with regards to his handling of 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq.

That's the problem, the entire approach is riddled with holes; there's
plenty of reason to criticize bush without resorting to cheap cop outs
of edited headlines, and suchlike. Maybe moore is just a sloppy writer,
and would rather save money on research so he can stuff his fat ass
more..

[Ma Deuce]

That's the problem, the entire approach is riddled with holes; there's
plenty of reason to criticize bush without resorting to cheap cop outs
of edited headlines, and suchlike. Maybe moore is just a sloppy writer,
and would rather save money on research so he can stuff his fat ass
more..

But Moore is obsessed with "proving" that Gore really won the 2000 election, and Bush "stole" it from him (remember that infamous rant at the Oscars?). However, as most of us know, Gore won the popular vote, but not the electoral college, which is what really counts. Therefore, Moore cannot "prove" his contention that Gore really won without distortion of facts...

[SPOOFE]

You're acting as though a two-second clip is the crux of Moore's case

You're right. A two-hour, similarly distorted movie is the crux of Moore's fortu-* I mean, case.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Moore is a spin artist extrodinare- however, though the movie is likely flawed- there is no denying its underlying premise. There are rich people out there who consider the "have nots" as tools to be used to make themselves even richer, and they see the government as the tool they can use to do this. Quite frankly, I don't know why anyone is suprised- this has been the main function of the Republican party (or at least a goal of one of the "branches" of it) since its very inception.

[Darth Wong]

You're acting as though a two-second clip is the crux of Moore's case

You're right. A two-hour, similarly distorted movie is the crux of Moore's fortu-* I mean, case.

Then why harp on such an insignificant portion, when supposedly there are two hour long sections which are just as bad?

I remember reading all of the criticisms of "Bowling for Columbine" and being shocked when I finally saw it, because they inflated trivial portions of the movie until they were being represented as the entire movie. So you'll have to forgive me if I suspect that the same thing is happening here.

[Crayz9000]

You know, if Moore was a comedian, I would have no problem with him doing this sort of thing. Hell, SNL and various evening shows do it all the time, when they're not completely fabricating gag stories.

But the thing that bugs me about his stuff is the seriousness he puts into it, as if it's reality in all its glory that he's showing. It's not reality, it's his take on reality.

[Darth Wong]

You know, if Moore was a comedian, I would have no problem with him doing this sort of thing. Hell, SNL and various evening shows do it all the time, when they're not completely fabricating gag stories.

But the thing that bugs me about his stuff is the seriousness he puts into it, as if it's reality in all its glory that he's showing. It's not reality, it's his take on reality.

Well, that's the funny thing about Moore; his films are classified as documentaries, but no serious documentary would contain such silliness as the cartoon segment of "Bowling for Columbine". So I'd have to say his films fall into a different category than a strict documentary.

There already exists a category called "docudramas"; perhaps Moore has invented the "docucomedy".

[Iceberg]

I think what Moore's done is realized that in order to be financially successful, a documentary must be entertaining. And if it takes a bit of stretching the truth to be entertaining, well (from his point of view), why not? It's not like the other side doesn't stretch the truth just as badly if not worse.

[Jessie Stamos]

There already exists a category called "docudramas"; perhaps Moore has invented the "docucomedy".

Could it be a mocumentary?

[Durandal]

There already exists a category called "docudramas"; perhaps Moore has invented the "docucomedy".

Could it be a mocumentary?

Mockumentaries are things like "This is Spinal Tap."

Anyway, I sense that Michael Moore is quickly becoming the next Bill Clinton. I swear, if Moore takes a shit and doesn't wipe twice, the Right will be all over him for it.

[Mange]

the only good thing I can say about Moore is how well he is able to "edit" things to fit his purpose, if Moore did not play fast and loose with the facts then he would have little to nothig to make a movie about.

You must be on drugs. You're acting as though a two-second clip is the crux of Moore's case, and there's nothing else that he could have possibly found to criticize Bush on with regards to his handling of 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq.

Well, Mike, that's his opinion (and I agree). Moore is very good at edit facts, one good example is his claim that relatives of Bin Laden was allowed to leave the United States even though the air space was closed. Well, the 9/11 commission didn't agree with that. The air space had in fact been reopened. As a non-American, I guess I shouldn't discuss this matter as it doesn't concern me, but I don't like the attention that Michael Moore has received. I wouldn't trust that guy to film my wedding, funeral or even a night out with my friends. His movies can't be said to be documentaries, but rather part of the debate concerning the events during 9/11.
MM has made serious business (especially at CBS 60 Minutes) about President Bush's actions when he was told about what was going on. What should the President have done? Leaped from his chair in wild panic while frantically screaming "We're under attack" in front of a bunch of school children? And, he was on camera. If the President had acted in panic or in a rush, wouldn't that have led to even further insecurity with the people watching television (I'm not sure if it was live, but it's still important this fact).

One thing I find very strange (if it is true) is that MM has hired a group of lawyers to file defamation suits against critics. Well, it sure sounds as if Mr. Moore is of a true democratic nature. All things should be open for criticism.

Oh, and finally this brag, hmm, I meant quote, on his site makes me mad:

"Fahrenheit 9/11" beat the opening weekend of "Return of the Jedi."

Please note that this post doesn't reflect how I feel about President Bush, as I think that is a matter for the great people of the United States only. My points are that Moore's movies can't be seen as genuine documentaries and that Moore is heavily biased. He has a goal (to change the administration) and the means to help to make that happen.

[Darth Wong]

I won't pretend that Moore is unbiased; of course he's biased. But the accusations leveled against him are, like it or not, of a sort that could easily apply to legitimate journalists as well. Once you get past the fiery bullshit rhetoric, his more intelligent detractors will admit that what he does is generally not outright lies, but rather, spin-doctoring.

And like it or not, spin-doctoring is everywhere nowadays. Legitimate journalists get involved in it by simple virtue of factually reporting what the White House says. In their effort to seem nonpartisan, they avoid characterizing any of the White House's press releases as deceptive or misleading even when they are, because that would make them seem "partisan". The result, as the guy from Spinsanity pointed out on the Daily Show, is that the Bush Administration can flood the news outlets with spin-doctoring misleading "talking points" and it gets reported as news.

So in this environment, you'll have to forgive me for not sharing your outrage that Moore gets away with calling his films documentaries while journalists report White House press releases with little or no interpretation or analysis, thus effectively become propaganda dissemination agents for the White House spin doctors. He spins, they spin, everybody spins, yippeee.

PS. And I'm not talking about raving buffoons like Hannity and Limbaugh either; I'm talking about all of the "legitimate" journalists who report the "straight facts".

[The Kernel]

Anyway, I sense that Michael Moore is quickly becoming the next Bill Clinton. I swear, if Moore takes a shit and doesn't wipe twice, the Right will be all over him for it.

Naturally, because they are afraid of Moore, just as they are afraid of Clinton. Throwing increadible amounts of bullshit is the Right's natural reaction to people they fear.