POLITICS: Newspaper says Moore doctored front page for "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Here lies the body of William Jay

Who died maintaining his right of way

He was right, dead right, as he sped along

But he's just as dead as if he were wrong

Gurnio, bravo for your knowledgable attempts to eradicate ignorance in at least one of our members.

Originally posted by Majic
I imagine Mr. Moore and associates anticipated some potential legal challenges and are prepared for them. Whatever you may think about his methods, he does seem very meticulous about his facts.

Michael Moore and "facts" don't go together, all his works are mockumentaries, they are not documentaries, documentaries have facts, mockumentaries have Moore's fantasies, lies and hatred for everything that is American, actually after what he did in Britain I have to say he seems to hate everyone.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Gurnio, bravo for your knowledgable attempts to eradicate ignorance in at least one of our members.

Who would that be? FlyersFan?

Come on DONG admit it, you are just upset that Micheal Moore has been proven to be a liar and a fabricator of false evidence. The fact is that MM is well known for this type of behavior. While his movies can be entertaining in a lowbrow sort of way (knd of like jim carrey's early stuff) to think they are factual is in complete disregard of the facts.


BTW I am so sick of people throwing "deny ignorance" around, Half of the problem is that too many people on this site do "deny ignorance" thier own. Wouldn't we all be better off if we could admit ignorance and then take steps to inform each other?

Originally posted by mwm1331
Come on DONG admit it, you are just upset that Micheal Moore has been proven to be a liar and a fabricator of false evidence.

Excuse me, but Michael Moore has not been proven to be a liar. If Michael Moore complies with the requests from the newspaper, or if the newspaper wins a lawsuit against Moore, then he will be proven to be a liar. Right now, we just have a statement by the newspaper that the headline was phony.

The fact is that MM is well known for this type of behavior.

Actually, that is a well-known erroneous belief among right-wing propagandists like yourself. Do I need to remind you that you and the other Moore bashers never proved a single lie while the Fahrenheit 9/11 Forum was in existence? I myself conceded that at least three of the factual inaccuracies cited in the Fifty-nine Deceits document were valid. But you guys never laid a glove on Moore.

While his movies can be entertaining in a lowbrow sort of way (knd of like jim carrey's early stuff) to think they are factual is in complete disregard of the facts.

Actually, your statement is in complete disregard of the facts. The most strenuous debunking efforts have resulted in showing only a few minor factual inaccuracies. Meanwhile, Moore has documented the major facts of the movie which have been challenged, and he has provided sources and links to back up these facts.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Majic
I imagine Mr. Moore and associates anticipated some potential legal challenges and are prepared for them. Whatever you may think about his methods, he does seem very meticulous about his facts.

Michael Moore and "facts" don't go together, all his works are mockumentaries, they are not documentaries, documentaries have facts, mockumentaries have Moore's fantasies, lies and hatred for everything that is American, actually after what he did in Britain I have to say he seems to hate everyone.

How did you ever get the title of reporter? There is not a single true statement in your post. What is not a false statement is an opinion with no foundation in fact.

Thats what I love about you Dong, a complete refusl to accept reality

Excuse me, but Michael Moore has not been proven to be a liar. If Michael Moore complies with the requests from the newspaper, or if the newspaper wins a lawsuit against Moore, then he will be proven to be a liar. Right now, we just have a statement by the newspaper that the headline was phony.

So lets review The newspaper which he got the "headline" from has stated that MM altered what they printed. That it was not a headline but rather the title of a letter to the editor. MM then changes this title to appear to be a headline and you say there is no proof he is a liar?
Do you think the newspaper which printed the lines in question and retains copies for just this reason is incorrect?
Or do you believe that MM changing what was printed to suit his movie was not a deception?
Or do you believe the newspaper is lieing?

Truth be told Dong I have not participated in the faranheit 9/11 thread because I have not watched the movie, nor do I intend to. It is my policy not to pollute myself with blantant propaganda, either for or against my beliefs.

What I find remarkable is that you refuse to accept that MM altered the source material in order to suit his purposes.

mwm1331,

As I said, right now all we have is the statement of the newspaper that the headline is phony. If Moore complies with the requests of the newspaper, or if the newspaper wins a lawsuit against Moore, then we can say Moore has been proven to be a liar.

I admit this does not look good for Moore. I have no reason to think the newspaper is lying, and I would assume that they know what has and has not been published as a headline in their newspaper.

But I am sure you are aware that there are two sides to every story. Let's wait and see what Moore has to say on this matter. You would be shocked, wouldn't you, if Moore produced an authentic copy of the newspaper with the headline as presented in the movie?

As I said, this does not look good for Moore. If the allegations of the newspaper are proven true in court, or by a correction and apology issued by Moore, then we would have a proven example of willful deception and falsehood in the movie. This example would be far more damaging to Moore's credibility than the small number of minor factual inaccuracies which have so far been demonstrated.

Originally posted by donguillermo
There is not a single true statement in your post. What is not a false statement is an opinion with no foundation in fact.

I guess I got my reporter title because most in the staff thought I would be a good addition to the reporting staff.
And donguillermo, before you go calling people liars, perhaps you should check your assertions.

" Michael Moore - Live! ran for two months to packed houses and was extremely well received by audiences - except for his second-last show, in which he carried out a Hollywood-size strop on stage, laying into everyone involved with the show and complaining that he was only being paid �500 per night. "He completely lost the plot and went mental," a stage crew member revealed to the Evening Standard. "He stormed around all day shouting and screaming at everyone, telling them what a venue it was and how we were all con-men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public." So bad was his ranting that the following night the staff refused to work, and the show was held up over an hour, while he desperately negotiated. "

Excerpted from.
www.gq-magazine.co.uk...

I am not going to post everything here again to back up what I said, but you can find it in the following link. And everything i said can be backed up if you read that link, I just don't think anything that has to do with MM deserves any time....and quite frankly i am tired and sick of the topic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 4-8-2004 by Muaddib]

DonG.

Remember this caustic rant of yours from earlier in the thread?


I had originally made the observation:

The [Bloomington Pantagraph] didn't request anything, their legal counsel demanded "an apology, an explanation of how such a strange discrepancy occurred in his movie and compensatory damages -- of $1."

You responded with this bombast:

originally posted by Donguillermo
I normally feel badly about engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but you are so arrogant and smug that it will be a pleasure to show you that you don't know what you are talking about. From the news story.

"The (Bloomington) Pantagraph 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 Pulitzer-owned paper reported Friday.

So they didn't request, they demanded??? I think "request" is closer in meaning to "ask" than "demand." From the letter the Pantagraph sent to Moore.

"In an instance that The Pantagraph prints materials in which there is a mistake," the letter [from attorney J. Casey Costigan] to Moore reads, "it is corrected. It is our hope that you would adhere to the same high ethical standard and correct the inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film."

Again, "It is our hope" is closer to "request" than "demand". Continue reading after you wipe the egg off your face.

And let's not forget this rotomontade.

Please don't patronize me. I seriously doubt that you are even close to being at my level in terms of either intelligence or education.

The fact that...("cease and desist" letter)...is what lawyers call the letter does not justify your insistence that "demand" is a better verb than "request". The news story used the verb "ask". I guess they didn't have your deep legal understanding.

Well, just for you, I obtained a copy of the letter which you may peruse here

Here's the relevant exerpt:

Use of material from The Pantagraph in your film was without permission and is a clear violation of The Pantagraph copyright protections. The context in which you have used this material is false and misleading. You have taken a small caption from an inside page of the paper and have depicted it as a large headline in The Pantagraph, written by The Pantagraph staff.

Based upon your copyright infringement and the damage that it has caused my client, we are demanding that you personally send a letter acknowledging your unauthorized use of The Pantagraph copyright and acknowledging that the content of The Pantagraph depicted in your film was misleading.

Finally, my client demands $1 in compensatory damages.


(emphasis added)

Yet another example of failing to follow the evidence further when it fits your agenda.

Others may be fooled by your rhetoric; hopefully they will learn...

You had every chance to dig deeper into the story, to "Deny Ignorance".

But you chose instead to dig yourself deeper into a hole.

And you call me "smug and arrogant"?

Please.



[edit: sanitized for your protection.]


[edit on 4-8-2004 by gurnio]

Moore has used artistic license in his movie. Even docmentaries can it.
Like political cartoons, he uses exaggeration.
Hence the "headline".
He gets his own point of view across more effectively doing it that way. Take it as you will. LOL. Maybe "Bonanza" will sue him next! Or was that "Gunsmoke"? I forget.

gurnio says

Yet is yet another example of failing to follow the evidence further when it fits your agenda.

Others may be fooled by your rhetoric; hopefully they will learn...

You had every chance to dig deeper into the story, to "Deny Ignorance".

But you chose instead to dig yourself deeper into a hole.

And you call me "smug and arrogant"?

Please.

Jesus H. Christ, gurnio, are you still beating this dead horse??? Let's go back to my original post. Based on the news article and the limited quote from the letter, I said the newspaper wrote a letter requesting a correction. Apparently you think I am supposed to do in-depth research to determine the correct choice of a verb.

You then corrected me, saying the correct verb is demand, not request. Based on the information I had available, request was a perfectly reasonable verb. But you have doggedly pursued this semantic argument, determined to prove that you are right and I am wrong. Why are you so desperate to win this semantic argument? Because you long ago lost all the main points of the argument. You stopped contesting these points long ago.

You claimed that FlyersFan was correct because a lawsuit was already in progress. Wrong.

You claimed that FlyersFan was making a prediction, not a statement of fact. I demolished that argument.

You claimed that when I said unsubstantiated BS, I was referring to the family being angry or considering legal recourse. I demolished that argument, showing clearly that my previous statements could only mean that I was referring to the family securing a lawyer. You have not demonstrated that, at the time FlyersFan made his post, the family had retained a lawyer. I am sure you are aware that talking to a lawyer is not the same as retaining one. My guess would be that they have been told they have no grounds for a lawsuit.

I say you have lost the arguments on all three of these substantive points, because you have not contested them for many posts. Now you are absolutely determined to prove me wrong about something, so you have doggedly pursued this semantic argument. Sorry, you don't win this one either. Based on the information I had available, the choice of request as a verb was perfectly appropriate.

Yes, I do call you smug and arrogant. In your latest post, you have characterized my posts as caustic rant, bombast, and rotomontade (WTF does that mean? It sounds insulting.). In another recent thread, which you started with an erroneous statement, you characterized my post as unsubstantiated BS, and addressed me as "donqueermo". I assume that you were implying that I am a homosexual, and that you consider that to be an insult. If that was your implication, you have also shown yourself to be a bigot.



[edit on 8/4/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 8/4/2004 by donguillermo]

Lets try to keep it on topic, and stop the innapropiate name calling.

I was under the impression that this was a board populated by truthseekers.

It is clear that you are not one of them, content to suckle from the teat of the liberal media without question.

Why even pretend to seek the truth, if you are unwilling to do the legwork...

Why listen to your opinions when it's clear now that you don't.




And now you accuse me of bigotry (in a slippery conditional way.)

Well that won't wash either; when I was raised "queer" meant "odd" or "weird".

I don't give a hoot in hell about your sexuality.

In any event, if you were offended by my parody of your name, I apologize.

But, I expected more than strawmen and misdirection from you.


[edit on 4-8-2004 by gurnio]

**IF** this thread is not brought back to the topic of the original article, and the back-biting stopped immediately. I WILL begin issuing warnings...freely, because I've never been able to do that, and it will definitely be a pleasure breaking that procedure in here.

Got it?

This is an ATSNN thread that calls for far more decorum and topical discussion than I have seen in 1-1/2 pages.

I agree wholeheartedly:

I have provided analysis,relevant links, and (in an ATS scoop) a PDF of the original letter. (the only copy you will find, I reckon)

In return I have been called a half-wit, arrogant and a bigot.

Oh, the pain of trying to bring Truth to Light.

Despite this, I will continue to focus on the topic.
I will provide Michael Moore's response as soon as it is available.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by gurnio]

Originally posted by donguillermo

... and rotomontade (WTF does that mean? It sounds insulting.)

dong,

I think its a sort of pasta with olive stuff mixed in it.

IVV