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

I found this article rather interesting of how a letter to the editor became a frontpage headline in Fahrenheit 9/11. When certain things are so obviously manufactured how can you believe anything they say?

Pantagraph Claim


The paper says that headline never appeared on that day. It appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition, but the headline was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer."

"If (Moore) wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job," the paper said."

[edit on 31-7-2004 by Kano]


[edit on 7-31-2004 by Valhall]

While Moore may have some good points, his deliberate twisting of material to suit his agenda only lessens the credibility of his opinions.

Here is an article on the Moore Headline Doctoring



What happened to the days when news was boring, but truthful? If I want entertainment I watch a movie, when I want news, I have to search high and low to locate stories slanted this way and that and try to assess what is true and what is spin, just tell me the boring facts and I will be happy.

The first of many law suits. The family of the deceased soldier that
MM used in his film aren't happy with him either. I hear they have
secured a lawyer.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The first of many law suits. The family of the deceased soldier that
MM used in his film aren't happy with him either. I hear they have
secured a lawyer.

Is that the woman who was reading her son's last letter? Why is she unhappy?

Can someone explain to me how this got posted as a news article, since there is no source link in the original post? Also, why is this cross-posted in the Politics and Scandals Forum? Doesn't it belong in the Fahrenheit 9/11 Forum?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The first of many law suits. The family of the deceased soldier that
MM used in his film aren't happy with him either. I hear they have
secured a lawyer.

Can't you get anything right? There is no lawsuit. The paper wrote a letter to Michael Moore requesting a correction and damages of $1. I think Moore can afford that.

So you hear that they have secured a lawyer? Where did you hear that? Links please. I am tired of Fox News using "some people say" to introduce Republican talking points as news stories. And I am tired of of ATS posters using "I hear" to introduce unsubstantiated BS into the discussion.


[edit on 7/31/2004 by donguillermo]

Actually, the link is in the second article and there is a editorial request in to correct this omission.

It also is seeking compensatory damages of $1

Personally, I would add a couple zeros to that figure...

I'm surprized, aren't Americans supposed to be greedy bastards???

I hear donguillermo is tired of of ATS posters using "I hear" to introduce unsubstantiated BS into the discussion.

As for the Pantagraph's claim, if it's true, what does that mean? Would Moore pay the dollar? Would the Pantagraph be willing to make that "$1 plus legal fees" if it came down to it, or is this the symbolic request it appears to be?

As for potential lawsuits, that's not all that surprising in light of Fahrenheit's dramatic commercial success, especially for a film of its type.

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.

I heard that FOX News said that some people say that this is all true, and is only the tip of the iceberg.

That's good enough for me; I don't need no steenking links as proof.
[/sarcasm]


Actually, it's not news at all, just typical of MM's tactics. Or so I've heard.

Just my centrist .02.


Edit for signoff.

[edit on 31-7-2004 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by donguillermo

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The family of the deceased soldier that
MM used in his film aren't happy with him either. I hear they have
secured a lawyer.

So you hear that they have secured a lawyer? Where did you hear that? Links please. I am tired of Fox News using "some people say" to introduce Republican talking points as news stories. And I am tired of of ATS posters using "I hear" to introduce unsubstantiated BS into the discussion.

Here's a link Donguillermo,... of course you could have "denied ignorance" and found it yourself...it took me all of three seconds on Google.

So what do you consider to be the "unsubstantiated B.S."? That the family is angry?

Hmm,... the family spokesperson said, "Greg's mother, is just beside herself,...She is furious. She called [Moore] a 'maggot that eats off the dead."


That sounds angry to me.


Oh, maybe it was that "they have secured a lawyer". The article says that the family is "considering legal recourse." I suppose you could split hairs and argue the difference, but to call it "unsubstantiated B.S." seems a bit, well, over the top.

One might want to consider one's own actions before accusing others of parroting a party's talking points.

I am seriously surprised that anyone is still calling this so-called 'movie' a documentary. For some unknown yet known reason, this picture came to mind when I read the above article concerning MMoore:




seekerof

gurnio says

Oh, maybe it was that "they have secured a lawyer". The article says that the family is "considering legal recourse." I suppose you could split hairs and argue the difference, but to call it "unsubstantiated B.S." seems a bit, well, over the top.

Here is what I said in my post.

So you hear that they have secured a lawyer? Where did you hear that? Links please.

I think that makes it pretty clear that I was questioning whether the family had secured a lawyer. There is no splitting of hairs. Here is what I said in my post.

And I am tired of of ATS posters using "I hear" to introduce unsubstantiated BS into the discussion.

What did FlyersFan say?

I hear they have secured a lawyer.

It is pretty clear that what I was referring to as unsubstantiated BS was the claim that they have secured a lawyer. Even if it turned out that the family had secured a lawyer, the statement by FlyersFan was still unsubstantiated BS, because no links or sourcing was provided.

What is over the top is your attempt to make me look bad by faulting me for not Googling a link myself, and by ignoring the fact that FlyersFan made a false statement when he said the situation with Moore and the newspaper was the first of many lawsuits.

One might want to consider one's own actions before accusing others of parroting a party's talking points.

I accused Fox News of parroting Republican Party talking points. Do you claim that is not an accurate accusation? And I would like to know what party talking points I am parroting. I pointed out a false statement by FlyersFan, and challenged him to produce links for his statements.

All in all, your post fails to address the issues and unfairly represents what I said. I'm afraid it is you who has failed to deny ignorance.

Perhaps this discussion needs to be nudged back on course. If I'm not mistaken, it is about Michael Moore lying about Bush lying.

I'm sorry you feel that I have unfairly misrepresented what you said, DG.

Please allow me to clarify.

FanFlyer responded to the posted article by predicting "The first of many lawsuits."

You shot back,

Originally posted by donguillermo

Can't you get anything right? There is no lawsuit. The paper wrote a letter to Michael Moore requesting a correction and damages of $1. I think Moore can afford that.

Please let me help you understand a few issues:

The paper 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."

The paper has accused Moore of copyright infringement, and their counsel's "cease and desist" letter is clearly a prelude to a lawsuit if Moore does not comply.


You stated Moore can afford $1. I'll assume that you are intelligent enough to realize that the inclusion of this demand was not to cover postage.

Monetary damages are sought to make it clear to Moore (or more precisely his lawyers) that refusal to comply means filing of a civil remedy case.

So Fanflyer's prediction of a lawsuit, in both this and the Gregory Stone cases, seems like common sense to me. Do we really have to post links for things so obvious?

I'll tell you what, just for you here's a few.

Dig deeper. Deny ignorance.

[edit on 31-7-2004 by gurnio]

Originally posted by dcgolf
Perhaps this discussion needs to be nudged back on course. If I'm not mistaken, it is about Michael Moore lying about Bush lying.

You are mistaken. This thread is about whether Michael Moore showed a phony newspaper headline in Fahrenheit 9/11. The newspaper headline was about recount results of the Presidential election. That has nothing to do with whether Moore is lying about Bush lying.

Originally posted by gurnio
I'm sorry you feel that I have unfairly misrepresented what you said, DG.

Please allow me to clarify.

FanFlyer responded to the posted article by predicting "The first of many lawsuits."

Excuse me??? How do you interpret "The first of many lawsuits" as being a prediction of a lawsuit by the paper? The clear meaning of what he said is that there already is a lawsuit. You claim to be clarifying, but you are just introducing semantic obfuscation.

In case you want to quibble about his meaning, here is what he said in the thread Michael Moore loves America, written four minutes before he posted in this thread.

actually he is being sued. I read a few suits against him today. It was in the local newspaper, not online, so I don't have a link for you. Google around and perhaps you'll find it.

At one point in F911 MM shows newspaper headline that says Gore won. The newspaper says that never happened. Moore made a
fake headline with their name on it and put it in the film. They are suing.

It is clear that in this quote he is stating that a lawsuit is already in progress. You are grasping at straws by claiming that FlyerFan's cryptic remark in this thread was a prediction, not a statement of fact.

Please let me help you understand a few issues:

The paper 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."

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.

So Fanflyer's prediction of a lawsuit, in both this and the Gregory Stone cases, seems like common sense to me. Do we really have to post links for things so obvious?

Again with the prediction nonsense. You had no grounds to claim that FlyersFan was making a prediction rather than a statement of fact. His quote from another thread, written at about the same time, makes it clear that his intention was to make a statement of fact, not a prediction.

Dig deeper. Deny ignorance.

You obviously have no understanding of the meaning of these words.

Its a shame that you have to respond to rational discussion with ad hominem attacks.

I can understand your confusion about the issues of "request" versus "demand" vis a vis the letter sent on behalf of The Bloomington Pantagraph.

I'll try to help explain.

The "cease and desist" letter sent to Moore's production company is also known as a "demand letter".

Demand letters are, in many states, prerequisites for a legal suit. Basically, a demand letter sets out why the payment or action is claimed, how it should be carried out, directions for the reply and a deadline for the reply. Demand letters are often used in business contexts because they are a courtesy attempt to maintain some goodwill between parties. A demand letter usually contains the "threat" that if it is not adhered to, the next communication between the parties will be through a court of law in the form of formal legal action.

So you see "demand" is a legal term, not a word I chose arbitrarily. It is clear from the cited article that what Moore received was, in fact, a demand letter, the "requests" contained therein are demands and the action taken if these demands are not met will be a law suit.

The fact that the letter was phrased politely does not change that.



Here is a link that might help you out. Please see paragraph 5 for more detail.

Understand that a demand letter is the first step in a lawsuit under copyright law.

I think its clear to any reasonable person that FanFlyer is closer to the truth than you in this case.

Dig deeper.... you're almost there.

Originally posted by gurnio
Its a shame that you have to respond to rational discussion with ad hominem attacks.

I clearly show that FlyersFan was making a statement of fact, not a prediction, as you claim. I clearly show that both the news story and the actual letter use language more accurately characterized by "request" than "demand". You call these ad hominem attacks?

I can understand your confusion about the issues of "request" versus "demand" vis a vis the letter sent on behalf of The Bloomington Pantagraph.

I'll try to help explain.

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 "cease and desist" letter sent to Moore's production company is also known as a "demand letter".

The fact that that 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.

Understand that a demand letter is the first step in a lawsuit under copyright law.

No, I do not understand that. Quit playing semantic games to try to win an argument which you have already lost. A demand letter contains a veiled or explicit threat of a lawsuit. A lawsuit is not actually in progress until legal papers are filed with a court.

I think its clear to any reasonable person that FanFlyer is closer to the truth than you in this case.

It is not clear to me. You claimed FlyersFan was making a prediction. I demolished that argument, and you have not contested the point. Now you are claiming that because a demand letter theatens a lawsuit, that a lawsuit is already in progress. You are grasping at straws, as you have been from the beginning of this interchange of posts. You think you are showing me up, when actually you are only displaying your own lack of ability to think clearly.

Dig deeper.... you're almost there.

If you mean by there, the truth, I have been there all along. You have been engaged in a quixotic attempt to somehow discredit my valid criticisms of FlyersFan's post.

You are already in a hole. Are you going to stop digging, or are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself?

I'm not sure why I can't explain the concept more clearly.

You've told me that you're really, really extra super-duper smart so that can't be the problem,...

It must be that I'm a half-wit (or was it a no wit) as you implied earlier. (btw, that's what I considered an ad hominem attack)

In any event, a demand letter really is a legal document and demands are the conditions contained therein which must be satisfied to prevent legal action.

They can be "requested", heck, probably even sung to the tune of "Danny Boy", but they remain, in a legal sense, demands.

And not because "I insist" on calling them that, its just the way it is...

I provided links to a case example as well as to an online copyright law society (which feels that a lawsuit is a fate accompli), and yet you continue to argue minutia while failing to grasp the larger concept.

Perhaps FanFlyer was under the assumption that a suit was already underway; it was not clear from the sentence fragment that he posted in this thread.

But, as I stated above, he likely only missed it by about a week: nobody sends a demand letter requesting $1 in damages if they are not anticipating a civil suit.

And for you to call it "unsubstantiated B.S." simply underscores your incredibly shallow grasp on the subject, notwithstanding your self-professed superhuman I.Q.

When I suggested that you "dig deeper", I hoped that you might find some background information to flesh out the exactly one article you appear to have read on the subject.

But, as it seems that you are intent to instead cling tenaciously to the same argument despite its obvious flaws, I fear we have little else to discuss.

So the inadvertent double entendre which you pointed out does seem, ironically, apropos.

I'd like to say that I've enjoyed your delightful personality...

Good night.

(edit---spelling.)

[edit on 1-8-2004 by gurnio]