Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out? [Lawsuits threatened against those who "libel" Moore]

The NY TImes ^ | June 20, 2004 | PHILIP SHENON

[summer]

"Any attempts to libel me will be met by force,"
Michael Moore says, anticipating attacks on his film.

Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?

Excerpt:

[....]Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

[....]

[summer]

Michael Moore: "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

I have to say I was really shocked when I read this. How does a filmmaker taking such a position help provoke discussion about a film? Especially in light of this view of his film, reported elsewhere in this same NYT article:

That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers do not view the film as straight reportage. is is an Op-Ed piece,s not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but it is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

So, what was Michael Moore saying elsewhere in the article? If someone comes up with a different view of their government, then, uh, what? They are wrong; he is right; and he can sue them? Or, no other individual but him can examine the actions of their government? History is now his private domain?

I was extremely disappointed in his view. It seems the only correct speech is his speech. It also seems to me that such a view prevents a full discussion of what we know now, and the discovery of any additional facts.

And, in my view, if I may be so bold as to have a view, that's censuring free speech -- and that's un-American. Shame on you, Michael Moore. I was actually going to see your film, but now I don't think I will. (BTW, If I don't go -- and don't add my dollars to your reputation -- does my absence mean I am "damaging" your reputation? And does that really make me subject to a lawsuit?)

[summer]

The 3rd paragraph in my post #1, without typos:

That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers do not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

[Snuffington]

I was extremely disappointed in his view.

Disappointed? That suggests you had higher expecations of him previously. I'd be curious where they came from.

The man is a propagandist and a self-promoter. He uses people and distorts the truth (whoops, here comes the first lawsuit) to advance a political agenda and to stuff fat wads of cash into his pockets. This self-proclaimed "man of the people" doesn't live with mom in Flint anymore (which makes his penchant for appearing so slovenly more an eccentric affectation than a sign of his 'keepin' it real').

All of this would be well and good, except that there seems to be no level to which he can sink where people slap their heads and say, "Wait a minute. I'm not THAT gullible." Apparently his audience IS that gullible every time.

[summer]

Disappointed? That suggests you had higher expecations of him previously. I'd be curious where they came from.

Well, he spent a lot of time complaining that the Disney Company was interferring with his free speech. So, I was very disappointed to now read he is against me having any free speech. Truly. I felt shock and disappointment reading this NYT article and his quotes.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

So Moore can dispense as many lies as he wishes, but nobody can challenge him? We'll see. BTW, one can easily imagine this agit-prop as "Elections Communications Director" under the Orwellian future that CFR is bringing us.

[Bonaparte]

"And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

Just as it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of Michael Moore.

This threat of legal action is pure bluster.

[100%FEDUP]

Face it people. In Michael Moore's mind he's giving the facts as he sees them to be true. Any legal action taken against him will be viewed as an act to deter artistic interpretation of events. It's a lose-lose for the truth. That's what happens when you give filthy liberals an inch!

[summer]

...pure bluster...

In my view, it is also a real turn-off to movie-patrons.

[Hildy]

The conservative base gave Moore a pass on his Bowling for Columbine because it really would have no effect on anything. So we unintentionally gave him the extra confidence to go ahead and do this. Now that we're fighting back, he's scared to death.

[Sir_Humphrey]

I can only hope that Moore tries it. Of course he'll loose, it will cost him support from the college crowd and it will keep politicos far from him and the last thing his kind needs is to be shunned by the "intellectual" lefties.

Plus, it would be fun to see the networks turn against him as they most likely will be the target of the lawsuits.

[WideGlide]

Michael Moore or Less is a big fat tub of shi* and wouldn't know the truth if it was served to him covered in barbecue sauce.

[Freesofar]

Well here you go Micheal Moore

You are a pathological LIAR

YOU are a slanderous propagandist

Now try to sue me
You wont be able to , because I can prove those statements as fact

[Richard Axtell]

Moore has painted a target on his bloated belly by doing this. Since "fact checking" must be done before the film is shot, before the concept and script is even realized, he has set himself up for a fall. If there is anything clearly false in his movie, then perhaps we can sue him, eh? Well, Richard Clark completely destroyed the entire premise of this idiotic "documentary" by admitting that he and he alone made the decision to release the Saudi royals from the US, after they were cleared, after airspace was cleared for non military travel. His claims are all false. Now, who has the nerve to call him on this, and sue his fat ugly whatchamacallit into bankruptcy?

[Theresawithanh]

Din'cha know that to a liberal the only free speech is their speech, and you have no right to free speech?

Glad you decided not to go. I wouldn't go see a Michael Moore film if my life depended on it. As a matter of fact, I won't go to movies - and many of them seem to hit TV pretty quickly these days.

[Snuffington]

Well, he spent a lot of time complaining that the Disney Company was interferring with his free speech.

Sure, but there was plentiful evidence at the time that he was drumming this up to generate free press attention, and no evidence other than his own word that this had anything do with some higher purpose. Considering that this was a man whose word has a track record of being somewhat less than golden (another lawsuit coming with that one), why would you go with that without further proof?

[mhking]

"Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," Michael Moore says, anticipating attacks on his film.

This from a man who swiped and adapted the name of one of the great science fiction stories of all time, without the permission of the original author.

Sorry if I don't put much weight stock in Jabba's threats.

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[Bonaparte]

Moore does not have a large audience. He has a low budget. That's why he makes the money he does. His viewers are going to be mostly ill-informed people who have already made up their minds about Iraq, Bush, the WOT, etc. and want to see their fantasy confirmed on the screen by Moore's crockumentary.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors."

Look at this, Moore has hired Lehane!!

[Walkingfeather]

As a big fat tub o Sh*t I resent the comparison!

[Howlin]

Well, he spent a lot of time complaining that the Disney Company was interferring with his free speech.

Do you not know that that whole Disney stuff was bogus? Disney told Moore over a year ago that they had no intention of marketing that movie.

Moore just didn't tell anybody, so he could accuse Disney of denying his free speech to draw attention to this movie.