August 4, 2004
Moore in Hot Water Over Headline and Title
Posted by jt at 11:34 PM in politics . | 17 Comments
The movie has been out for quite a while now and it seems Moore faces a strange challenge from a newspaper called The Pantagraph. Apparently the paper is steamed because a headline from the paper was fabricated and edited for the documentary. Here's the story from The Pantagraph itself. I don't know anything about this paper, but if the story is true they may have a case.
It also brings up an interesting dilemma. If Moore is willing to bend the truth about something as insignificant as this, how does he treat the larger picture?
On a side note, Ray Bradbury (author of Fahrenheit 451) Thinks Moore is plagerizing his book's title. (Here's moore ;).
Comments
|
I heard about that the other week. I think the infraction is relatively minor, but Moore should have known better. If you are going to make a film that is going to be as debated as this one, you can't be pulling stunts like that. Posted by: ryan at August 5, 2004 11:29 AM |
|
Kind of like if you are going to run for President...and talk constantly about your war record, rather than your Senate record, "you'd better be ready for an anal exam", as Rush said today in regards to the new book coming out by the swift boat vets who served with Kerry titled Unfit for Command I should be clear, all I have heard to this point is that Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, and that's what I still believe (for now). However, these claims should be looked at by the media with the same amount of scrutiny that G.W.'s National Guard service was. I only included Rush's comment because it was hilarious...and pertinent to the topic (thought I would hate to be the one giving Michael Moore an anal exam). Posted by: Dude at August 5, 2004 2:18 PM |
|
Dude (I love that) you know as well as I the media will not go after Kerry on almost any level. What would he have done after 9/11? No one knows. What's his plan for the war on terror? No one knows. What's his plan for the economy? No one knows. My point is this, he has NO platform and the media doesn't seem to care, why would they care about his record in Vietnam (a war despised by the left)? Hell he is even afraid to denounce the war in Iraq even though most his party is against it. That won't play well in Hollywood (the heart and soul of America [snicker]). Posted by: JT at August 6, 2004 12:02 AM |
|
Really though I think it says something about his integrity. This was a blatant lie injected into his 'documentary'. Seems to me he could have made his point without this kind of misdirection but chose not to. How honest can he be with the rest of the film? Posted by: JT at August 6, 2004 12:11 AM |
|
I think it says a lot that this is the only part of Moore's new documentary that the right has been able to latch on to. :) Posted by: agent1073 at August 6, 2004 12:16 PM |
|
I think it says a lot that this is the only part of Moore's new documentary that the right has been able to latch on to. :) Posted by: agent1073 at August 6, 2004 12:17 PM |
|
I don't know what hole you've been living in, agent. That entire film has been ripped apart by liberals and conservatives alike. Posted by: Dude at August 6, 2004 1:56 PM |
|
I have to agree with dude on this one. The 9/11 commission report disproves just about everyone of Moore's claims. Give a read Agent. Posted by: JT at August 6, 2004 8:07 PM |
|
I have to agree with dude on this one. The 9/11 commission report disproves just about every one of Moore's claims. Give a read Agent. Posted by: JT at August 6, 2004 8:08 PM |
|
59 deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 Posted by: JT at August 7, 2004 6:33 PM |
|
did bradbury ask shakespeare about using his lines for a title? bradbury ripped off plenty of titles in his day, he's just jealous of moore. goto http://mystic_lonewolf.tripod.com for moore bush rock opera. why don't you rip into bradbury for stealing titles if it's such a big deal? Posted by: g stomberg at September 2, 2004 2:20 PM |
|
Such Bradbury hatin' here ;) Posted by: JT at September 3, 2004 1:36 AM |
|
well, it's true, bradbury ripped off plenty of titles so how dare he complain about moore? what a hypocrit Posted by: g stomberg at September 7, 2004 3:37 PM |
|
I disagree. Shakespere is public domain, bradbury is not. He's still alive too, so he has a right to complain how his material is used. You may disagree with him, but this movie's title is certainly taken from bradbury's. Posted by: JT at September 10, 2004 12:51 AM |
|
stealing a title is stealing a title, bradbury stole more titles than moore has so what right does he have to complain? you sound like the people who tell me 'sure bush lied, but he didn't lie under oath like clinton' well, bush's lies have cost american lives and all clinton did was deny he had an affair. bradbury stole at least 3 titles, moore 1, who's the bigger thief? Posted by: g stomberg at September 10, 2004 12:18 PM |
|
Man, take it easy. The guy is like 150 years old! Besides that was just a humorous aside, the point of this post are the lies spewed by Moore in his "movie". Check the 59 deceits. Posted by: jt at September 17, 2004 2:39 AM |
|
no one has been able to give one example of moore lying, all i see on these websites is stuff like 'moore said it was 11% but its really 10.9% so that proves he's a liar' or 'moore said it was pm but it was really 11;57 am see how he lies' or they quote someone (not moore) who made a mistake, or i hear 'to moore this means...' but they never quote moore, how about it? can YOU give me one example of moore lying? and please don't make it something stupid, give me the big whopper of lie thats got you p o'd at moore. thanks...gs Posted by: g stomberg at September 21, 2004 10:51 AM |