Didn't see it posted anywhere yet... http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_en_mo/people_michael_moore_1 Newspaper Says Moore Film Used Fake Front BLOOMINGTON, Ill. - Filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-basing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" apparently has upset more than Republicans. The (Bloomington) Pantagraph newspaper 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 paper reported Friday. It also is seeking compensatory damages of $1. A scene early in the movie that shows newspaper headlines related to the legally contested presidential election of 2000 included a shot of The Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent headline: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." 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. Lions Gate Entertainment did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment Friday.
Are you trying to tell me there is at least one untruth in the movie? I don't believe it. Moore is a respected documentarian. Something like that would be highly unethical. Yahoo lies.
wow. how can anyone take this guy seriously? how can you on one hand, constantly point fingers about lying...and then seek to criticize your "enemy" by trumping up your own lies? sounds a lot like politics. great.
Exactly why I haven't seen either of his latest movies. He's the Rush Limbaugh of the left. Except fatter.
You nailed it. Different sides of the same coin. Both are extreemists and alarmists. (are those words?)
they should have sued for more than $1. this is ridiculous.. acting as if a letter to the editor was the front page news story etc... glad I didn't spend money on seeing his movie
I saw Moore on Bill Maher's show last night. The guy is a Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh type alright. Like those guys any valid points he might make gets lost behind distortions, and political spin. Congressman Drier said that his movies was about as factual as the Provda Newspaper. Moore respond that he meant his piece to have an opinion, and then tried to jump to the claim that Republicans are saying if you have an opinion, you are like the Provda. That's quite a leap and distorts the meaning of what the congressman was trying to say. It overshadowed a good point that Moore's film made, which is once Bush was told we were being attacked on 9/11 he just sat there listening to children read for 7 minutes without doing a thing. Moore also pointed out that news coverage was incredibly favorable to Bush and didn't show that footage. Those are valid points, about Bush's decisiveness in a time of crisis, but he's his own worst enemy when obscures good points with the fog of manipulation and spin. I guess Conservatives have lived with those kinds of people on their side for quite a while now, and the liberals are learning what it feels like.
the democrats should distance themselves from him.. and I know they seem to say he is an independant and he doesn't necessarily speak for all democrats etc... but well they had him sitting beside jimmy carter at the convention.... that makes the world think the democrat officals are endorsing him
How on earth is that a good point.. he was in the middle of something.. he can't just jump up like a wild man and freak everyone in the building out... plus his secuirty team etc has to get things ready for him to leave.. and he was initially told of the first plane hitting.. at that point most people thought it was just an accident
sorry, i just think that a few minutes there was a good thing... it would have just made things worse if he just freaked out and started running... securitry etc has to start making some plan of where they are going... it probably takes more than a few minutes to get all his motorcade people etc set up .. and get the streets ready for him to make an unexpcted early exit..
He wasn't in the middle of anything. Kids were reading with their teacher and he was WATCHING them. He doesn't have to jump up like a wildman. He's the leader of the free world. He should act like a leader. All he has to do is say, 'Children good job, listen to your teacher, as President, I have some work to do. Thank you, goodbye.' Then he should begin acting immediately, or at least find out what was going on. As a leader he didn't even have to leave right away, he should have been on the phone talking to his security advisor, defense secretary, secretary of state, someone from the FAA etc. He should have been leading and behaving as a leader, and running the country. Bush was told that we were being attacked, that planes had flown into buildings, not that there was an accident. That's the information he was given. His reaction was to sit and listen to kids read for seven minutes. I think part of being a leader is being decisive, at a time of crisis. If it takes you that long to take action that says something about ones ability to make decisions quickly when needed.
I just don't see it as a big problem.. I guess if he would have explained it with the fact that he actually first voted to get up, before then voting to stay.. then he'd be thought of as more decisive..
if it was a long time yes i would.. but not 7 minutes... was he aware that there were more planes in the air etc?
Initially he didn't know if there were or weren't. I think that's all the more reason to find out. I don't think this is an issue of such great import that it shold disqualify him from being President. But I do think it says something about his ability to make quick decisions in time of crisis. That may be a factor to consider, but probably in itself isn't an issue big enough to make him unfit or anything like that. You made an issue of voting to stand up and then to sit down, referring to Kerry. Kerry's decisions like that happened over a length of time when different information came into play. Kerry's military service shows what kind of decisions he was capable of making under pressure, and when the decisions had be to made quickly. I'm not saying that's a reason in itself to vote for Kerry either. But it might be a factor that one would want to consider.
I respect you FB...but this point about Bush and the seven minute factor is the least of things to focus on right now.. While I will be the first to admit that I feel he could have gotten up and made his excuses and left...it really means very little in the grand scheme of things... i dont think there was a whole lot he could have done to stop the attacks at that point, the only thinig I could understand getting on him about would be if there was some thought that the terrorists woudl target the place he was at...therefore putting the children at risk... btw....I havent really been reading a lot in here lately...but you are doing some damn fine posting here lately...just wanted to say that while I was sticking my nose in to the asylum...
It also shows he was smart enough to bring a film camera to capture himself in action when decisions had to be made quickly. Do you really know what decisions, good and bad, he actually made under pressure while serving?
Actually that film camera thing is load of nothing. Also check out another article discrediting the bunk about the camera. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300013 Bringing 8mm cameras at the time is nothing unusual. They were actually quite common to have around, according Chris Mathews in his convention coverage.
I tried to point out that I don't think Bush not acting for 7 minutes was reason enough as a whole to vote against him. I think the way our govt. works, and especially this administration he wasn't that important to the process of getting things done. But I do think it might be a factor when analyzing his leadership skills. I can't say it's a big factor for me, or that it should be for others, but I wouldn't blame anyone for factoring it into their opinion. That's why I think it's legitimate to discuss. Along the lines of him not being able to do a lot, I agree. I won't even say that he was endangering the children by staying possibly, because he didn't know. But because he didn't know I am puzzled that he didn't immediately try and find out more details, in case there is something he could/should have done. In the end I don't think it affected the country's attitude or actions immediately following the tragedy at all. But I do think it's insight into the man. P.S. please feel free to post here as often as possible. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other if we agree or disagree, and chances are we will do some of each. You are always a well-reasoned poster, and eager to help.
