Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Zimphire · Aug 3, 2004, 01:30 AM

And he is being teh sued.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Aug 3, 2004, 01:34 AM

In that case everything in the movie MUST be a lie. Don't believe a word people!

JohnnyAppleseed · Aug 3, 2004, 01:36 AM

- Real Newspaper Headline:

'British Union Finds Dwarfs in Short Supply'

http://www.passthefun.com/real_newsp..._455_1746.html

Zimphire · Aug 3, 2004, 01:37 AM

No, this is just one of the MANY things people are bringing up after the fact.

Just on the long list of mistruths and distortions.

But I am sure the other 30% or so is factual.

I know you "want to believe" SWF, but come on...

madmacgames · Aug 3, 2004, 01:59 AM

The paper is seeking $1 in damages.

umm... either that is a big oversight and misprint, or this story is bunk, as you cannot sue someone for less than $20 in America. It's just the good ole American way.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Aug 3, 2004, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by madmacgames:
umm... either that is a big oversight and misprint, or this story is bunk, as you cannot sue someone for less than $20 in America. It's just the good ole American way.

scaught · Aug 3, 2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, this is just one of the MANY things people are bringing up after the fact.

Just on the long list of mistruths and distortions.

But I am sure the other 30% or so is factual.

I know you "want to believe" SWF, but come on...

then surely he would be getting sued a lot more often?

MindFad · Aug 3, 2004, 02:27 AM

Zimphire · Aug 3, 2004, 02:29 AM

JohnnyAppleseed · Aug 3, 2004, 02:39 AM

What really is the pulp of the matter is that Mikey took a headline from inside the paper and used the paper as a prop and put the headline on the front page but the arteest who did the job just picked the wrong date by a few days late.

Anyways this is always done. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. You know where the spinning paper stops and the headline is 8 feet tall on the screen. It's difficult to do this with an open paper with half inch headlines. It's not what Zimphire suggests as being false or distorted.

It's a common effect used in film, both in movies and documentaries for dramatical purposes.

Started mainly I guess back when they did those filmographies of all those gangsters in the early twentieth century.

Paper is only doing it for publicity I expect hence the one dollar.

CaseCom · Aug 3, 2004, 02:54 AM

Yes, it's a common convention, and it would have been fine if it were a news story or even an editorial. But if it's a headline on a letter to the editor, as the story says it is, then it's misleading because the headline just conveys the opinion of the letter writer. I think the paper is just sticking up for the principle of the thing.

It's probably just carelessness on the part of Moore & Co.

phoenixboy70 · Aug 3, 2004, 03:04 AM

/to the "newsstory"

Gee4orce · Aug 3, 2004, 03:38 AM

The headline in question was 'Latest Recount shows Gore Won Election' - this story was widely reported on this side of the Atlantic. It seems it only you Americans who actually belive Bush won the most votes.

America is such a scary country, not because it's so f*cking corrupt (isn't everywhere), but because the majority of Americans seem to blindly believe that everything 'USA' is whiter than white. Moore should at least be credited with trying to pry open middle America's eyes and show them how to ask questions - even if you don't believe what the guy says, at least it's got you thinking.

- - e r i k - - · Aug 3, 2004, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
The headline in question was 'Latest Recount shows Gore Won Election' - this story was widely reported on this side of the Atlantic. It seems it only you Americans who actually belive Bush won the most votes.

America is such a scary country, not because it's so f*cking corrupt (isn't everywhere), but because the majority of Americans seem to blindly believe that everything 'USA' is whiter than white. Moore should at least be credited with trying to pry open middle America's eyes and show them how to ask questions - even if you don't believe what the guy says, at least it's got you thinking.

Quoted for emphasis, although this is in the wrong forum.

philzilla · Aug 3, 2004, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
the majority of Americans seem to blindly believe that everything 'USA' is whiter than white.

i'll sign that.

george68 · Aug 3, 2004, 07:59 AM

$1 in damages? Oh no! That's going to hurt him.

KeyLimePi · Aug 3, 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by JohnnyAppleseed:
What really is the pulp of the matter is that Mikey took a headline from inside the paper and used the paper as a prop and put the headline on the front page but the arteest who did the job just picked the wrong date by a few days late.

Nope. Re-read the article. The film used the heading of an opinion piece and passed it off as a headline for a news story. This is called 'distorting the facts' and it is not "always done," as you say. Any legitimate newspaper would be upset about this.

The fact that the newspaper is only asking for $1 just shows that it is not interested in money, only in protecting its reputation as a credible news source.

BasketofPuppies · Aug 3, 2004, 08:48 AM

Not surprising that some people here would defend Michael Moore for altering history. After all, the truth doesn't matter when your cause is "just."

Not that they seemed to care that he also altered a political ad, that he falsely attributed to the George Herbert Walker Bush Campaign, in Bowling for Columbine either. (Somewhat corrected for the home video release.)

Dare I get into a Charlton Heston speech he rearranged? Nah. Or the altered timeline in Roger and Me?

I could go on forever, but I won't.

stevesnj · Aug 3, 2004, 10:16 AM

Bush wanted to alter the Constitution...this is nothing compaired to that...its a moot point in my opinion..but I still love you Zimphire

MacGorilla · Aug 3, 2004, 11:52 AM

and this matters how..?

boots · Aug 3, 2004, 12:03 PM

The way he presented it was wrong. But the fact is, Gore did get slightly more in the popular vote. Bush won the electoral vote. That is not disputed by Bush and Co. It happens from time to time in our system. The fact, then, is correct...even if Moore is a piss-poor human who takes too many liberties with presentation of "facts."

So this is not an issue except that Moore needs to pay more attention to correct detail, not just sensationalizing and editing when he can't find exactly what he wants.

PS: I'm not defending Moore. I'd say the same thing regardless of who did it. I don't like Moore, but I do give him credit for starting discussions....even if I don't like the way he does it.

dcolton · Aug 3, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by madmacgames:
umm... either that is a big oversight and misprint, or this story is bunk, as you cannot sue someone for less than $20 in America. It's just the good ole American way.

You sure about that? IIRC, you can sue for any amount of consideration.

Randman · Aug 3, 2004, 12:21 PM

$1 million, not a buck.

Oscar-winning director Michael Moore is being sued by a furious American newspaper for allegedly "doctoring" the paper's front page for his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. A scene in the movie shows newspaper headlines relating to the legally contested 2000 American presidential election and includes a shot of Bloomington, Illinois newspaper The Pantagraph with a headline reading 'Latest Florida recount shows Al Gore won election' - which was not actually used on the first page. Instead the headline was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer". The Pantagraph has now sent Moore and his production company Lions Gate Entertainment Corp a letter asking him to apologize for using the manipulated cover page and are seeking $1 million in compensatory damages. The paper says, "If Moore wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job."

Great last line. Brief came from imdb news briefs.

PacHead · Aug 3, 2004, 12:41 PM

The liar can't even find a newspaper article that backs up his lies, so he has to go out and doctor his own frontpage, so it will fit in nicely in with his perverted "Moore" world view.

His movie is like a "connect the false dots" game, and there is probably more truth to be found in a nazi propaganda movie.

His fraudumentary is only liked by gullible people and stupid people who like lies.

Millennium · Aug 3, 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by madmacgames:
umm... either that is a big oversight and misprint, or this story is bunk, as you cannot sue someone for less than $20 in America. It's just the good ole American way.

Actually, you can. I know what part of the Constitution you're thinking about, but that's not how it works.

The Seventh Amendment basically states that lawsuits can be decided by a jury rather than a judge, but only when the amount is greater than $20. This may not seem like a lot nowadays, but consider that some 220 years of inflation have taken their toll on the value of twenty dollars. There are movements to get the amount changed to $2000, but since it takes a Constitutional amendment to do this, the going is slow. Not many people ever use this option anyway.

boots · Aug 3, 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
The liar can't even find a newspaper article that backs up his lies, so he has to go out and doctor his own frontpage, so it will fit in nicely in with his perverted "Moore" world view.

No. He could find real articles....the fact remains that Gore did get more of the popular vote...but popular vote isn't what counts. People can cry all they want about that, but its fact. And there were plenty of articles saying Gore won Florida. Depends on who did the counting on what day. It flip-flopped in a number of papers.....

What he couldn't find is a front page sensational headline...so he made one up. Still wrong, but not a distortion of facts.

Millennium · Aug 3, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by boots:
No. He could find real articles....the fact remains that Gore did get more of the popular vote...but popular vote isn't what counts. People can cry all they want about that, but its fact. And there were plenty of articles saying Gore won Florida. Depends on who did the counting on what day. It flip-flopped in a number of papers.....

What he couldn't find is a front page sensational headline...so he made one up. Still wrong, but not a distortion of facts.

It's still a distortion, but of a different set of facts. He did not misrepresent the story itself, but he did misrepresent the way it was presented, and sometimes that can be just as important.

boots · Aug 3, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's still a distortion, but of a different set of facts. He did not misrepresent the story itself, but he did misrepresent the way it was presented, and sometimes that can be just as important.

Absolutely. I'm not letting him off the hook for that.

Cody Dawg · Aug 3, 2004, 02:55 PM

The fact is that Moore would have a lot more credibility if he was even the least little bit objective. He's incapable of it and his one-sideness undremines his credibility.

Personally, the guy is as scary as some of the most ardent right-wingers.

Check this out.

Millennium · Aug 3, 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The fact is that Moore would have a lot more credibility if he was even the least little bit objective. He's incapable of it and his one-sideness undremines his credibility.

I don't know about that. True objectivity is impossible without omniscience, and I don't think that even Moore's most ardent supporters would call him omniscient. However, it is possible to evaluate one's own biases, and then be open and honest about what they are. In this aspect, Moore is the flip side of O'Reilly; both claim objectivity when neither provides it.

If Moore were honest about his bias, he would be much more credible. It wouldn't even require a single edit to be made to any of his works.

PacHead · Aug 3, 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by boots:
No. He could find real articles....the fact remains that Gore did get more of the popular vote...but popular vote isn't what counts. People can cry all they want about that, but its fact. And there were plenty of articles saying Gore won Florida. Depends on who did the counting on what day. It flip-flopped in a number of papers.....

What he couldn't find is a front page sensational headline...so he made one up. Still wrong, but not a distortion of facts.

I am aware that Gore did get more of the popular vote, and yes, that is a fact. So what ?

It is not the first time in US history that this scenario has played out, most intelligent people know that. The fact remains that Gore lost the election, and he even conceeded defeat. Anybody still whining about it, or making up their own "newspaper headlines" about it is wrong.

boots · Aug 3, 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
I am aware that Gore did get more of the popular vote, and yes, that is a fact. So what ?

It is not the first time in US history that this scenario has played out, most intelligent people know that. The fact remains that Gore lost the election, and he even conceeded defeat. Anybody still whining about it, or making up their own "newspaper headlines" about it is wrong.

Read the last sentence in the post you quoted. That's what I said to begin with. It was a response to your post that he couldn't find an article to support him. I said he could, but not the front page...etc, etc, etc. I'm not letting him off the hook, just not roasting him over the coals on this one. There are enough other things to roast him on that are much better criticisms.

PacHead · Aug 3, 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by boots:
There are enough other things to roast him on that are much better criticisms.

This is just one of his countless "frauds","lies","falshehoods", or whatever one prefers to call them.

The sum of all of these together does not paint a rosy picture of the liar.

Millennium · Aug 3, 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
It is not the first time in US history that this scenario has played out, most intelligent people know that.

As an aside, it was actually the fourth time that the popular and electoral votes did not agree. Some people say that this means this means that the electoral college is not an accurate description of the will of the people.

Upon looking at the evidence, I am forced to disagree with that assertion, though. It's well known that the two vote tallies only ever disagree in the edge cases; you do not see them disagreeing unless there is something seriously screwed up in the pattern of votes.

2000 was no exception to this. I'm not even talking about infamous map of red states vs. blue states. Break it down even further and go by district. For all that people deride the "ten cities could elect the President by popular vote and everyone else be damned" scenario that the EC-advocates often trumpet, that's almost exactly what happened.

LeftHandedMiddleChild · Aug 3, 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
This is just one of his countless "frauds","lies","falshehoods", or whatever one prefers to call them.

The sum of all of these together does not paint a rosy picture of the liar.

You must be talking about Bush

LeftHandedMiddleChild · Aug 3, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
In that case everything in the movie MUST be a lie. Don't believe a word people!

Alot of people do believe - where to you get your info?
You can't prove a thing so you just call him a liar

BasketofPuppies · Aug 3, 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by LeftHandedMiddleChild:
Alot of people do believe - where to you get your info?
You can't prove a thing so you just call him a liar

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

And don't accuse Spinsanity of being a conservative Web site. The guys who run it just put out a book covering all the misleading things the Bush Administration has said.

PacHead · Aug 3, 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by LeftHandedMiddleChild:
You must be talking about Bush

No, I am talking about Michael Moore, and your childish debating techniques won't get you far.

JohnnyAppleseed · Aug 3, 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
The liar can't even find a newspaper article that backs up his lies, so he has to go out and doctor his own frontpage, so it will fit in nicely in with his perverted "Moore" world view.

His movie is like a "connect the false dots" game, and there is probably more truth to be found in a nazi propaganda movie.

His fraudumentary is only liked by gullible people and stupid people who like lies.

Funny stuff. If I was gullible I'd agree with you.

Shrubbie is gonna lose.

angaq0k · Aug 3, 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
I could go on forever, but I won't.

That is a long time. But we are many who could listen/read, so please go ahead!

Millennium · Aug 4, 2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by JohnnyAppleseed:
Funny stuff. If I was gullible I'd agree with you.

Shrubbie is gonna lose.

That, my friend, is still too early to tell.

You know, as much as I don't want to see Nader win, I think it would be the funniest thing in the world if everyone told both sides to go **** themselves and voted for him instead. An unlikely situation -in large part because Nader isn't marketing himself terribly well- but it would be funny. He'd be a better leader than either Bush or Kerry, anyway.

Taliesin · Aug 4, 2004, 03:37 PM

Is it true that in the US the percentage of the US-citizens that actually vote in the president-elections reaches only less than 50% of the citizens that could vote, if they wanted?

And is it true that the congress can redefine districts and by this manipulate the election in favour of the one or the other party?

Taliesin

boots · Aug 4, 2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Is it true that in the US the percentage of the US-citizens that actually vote in the president-elections reaches only less than 50% of the citizens that could vote, if they wanted?

And is it true that the congress can redefine districts and by this manipulate the election in favour of the one or the other party?

Taliesin

Sadly, yes. If we could get a 60% turn out, it would be stellar for a US election. Some of the local elections are better than that, but....

And yes, gerrymandering is what they call the redistricting so that it favors one party over the other. Texas just had a big deal about this.

BRussell · Aug 4, 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by boots:
Sadly, yes. If we could get a 60% turn out, it would be stellar for a US election. Some of the local elections are better than that, but....

Yeah, and the sad part is that 80% of registered voters actually do vote, but only 60% of people go register. It seems to me that if you can get people to easily register, you might see a nice increase in voting.

The whole point of registering seems like a big roadblock. Hopefully in the future people will be able to just show up, get checked on a computer network, and then vote rather than having to register. The way it is now in most places, you have to register several months before the election, and if you weren't paying attention to that deadline, you just won't be able to vote.

deedar · Aug 4, 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Is it true that in the US the percentage of the US-citizens that actually vote in the president-elections reaches only less than 50% of the citizens that could vote, if they wanted?
Taliesin

Voter turnout was 51.3% of those eligible in the the 2000 elections. More specific information here.

Taliesin · Aug 5, 2004, 12:07 PM

Thank you all for the information. Now, let's see, if only approximately 50% of the potential voters actually vote, and these 50% spread their votes on the two big parties nearly evenly, then only approximately 25% of the potential voters back the winning party for sure.

Taliesin

Millennium · Aug 5, 2004, 12:27 PM

I still think they should make Election Day a federal holiday (except for election certification personnel, of course). Some people, such as emergency personnel, would still have to go to work, but many more people would be freed up to go vote.

Then again, I also think that the results should be treated as classified information until the polls are closed in Hawaii (the last state to close its polls, because of time-zone issues) so that results in Eastern states do not unduly influence the results in Western states.