MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Say it isnt so! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197637,00.html
I wonder if this guy has a chance in hell in winning this case?
I wonder if this guy has a chance in hell in winning this case?
Michael Moore out of context?
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If misrepresenting interviewees were a crime, half the journalist corps would be in jail.
The fact this story is surfacing now, as opposed to when the movie was news, makes me somewhat suspicious.
The fact this story is surfacing now, as opposed to when the movie was news, makes me somewhat suspicious.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Perhaps it took this long for the guy to get out of rehab so he could pursue a lawsuit?
And your not saying that Michael Moore is a journalist are you? I mean really...
And your not saying that Michael Moore is a journalist are you? I mean really...
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Perhaps he's just unusually slow. I don't know, but it's somewhat odd.MobBoss said:
He interviews people and sells the edited transcripts - that makes him a journalist in my book. YMMV.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
C'mon, It is a MOVIE, therefore, it is fiction. You watch it in the theatre, and you don't go and believe that Star Wars are for real, do you? 
Reminds me of the two Da Vinci Code threads.
Honestly, I hope he wins.
Reminds me of the two Da Vinci Code threads.
Honestly, I hope he wins.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
MobBoss said:
Maybe, but who cares, really? Michael Moore is a tool who does more harm to the american liberal/left than good by lying and misrepresenting people. I enjoy his early works (especially Roger and Me) but this guy loves the smell of his own ass too much to make a good role model, or even a good point.
Is he a journalist? Yep. Is he a good one? nooooo..... Is he alone is being a bad journalist? Certainly not, he's just more recognizable...
aaglo
Furioso!
He is sueing Michael Moore for 85 million dollars?!?!
Another nail in the coffin, I say...
Another nail in the coffin, I say...
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Oy, Cant these Conservative nutjobs leave the Prophet Michael Moore alone? For he did told the truth about what happened between 2000-2003is.
Though F9/11 did not touched based on Gulf War II, He did also talked about unemployment in his hometown of Flint.
Though F9/11 did not touched based on Gulf War II, He did also talked about unemployment in his hometown of Flint.
If Michael Moore ever used anything in context, his "documentaries" wouldn't sell, because they wouldn't be able to make the points he wants them to make.
He invariably twists facts and distorts the truth to fit his ends.
He invariably twists facts and distorts the truth to fit his ends.
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
CivGeneral said:
oh...ah...what?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Che Guava said:
Che, you almost had me shoot coffee out of my nose when I read this!
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
At best Michael Moore is moderately funny, at worst (which is most occasions) he is a lying, egotistical, deceiving, lousy excuse for someone who writes/makes up documentaries.
Urederra said:C'mon, It is a MOVIE, therefore, it is fiction. You watch it in the theatre, and you don't go and believe that Star Wars are for real, do you?
Reminds me of the two Da Vinci Code threads.
Honestly, I hope he wins.
Moore has repeatedly stated that everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is true.
Just because MM's movie was anti-war, doesn't mean the soldier was portrayed as anti-war, allthough it would have been respectful to get his permission first, MM is more interested in success than influencing public opinion.
The lawsuit is baseless, and will be thrown out.
1. The actual owner of the footage is NBC, not the soldier.
2. all Michael Moore showed was the vet saying he was in pain. He was just using him as an image of a broken soldier.
The lawsuit is baseless, and will be thrown out.
1. The actual owner of the footage is NBC, not the soldier.
2. all Michael Moore showed was the vet saying he was in pain. He was just using him as an image of a broken soldier.
Guy was better as a comedian.
He chose to live by the sword and I suspect he'll die by it. Suffice to say no one really takes everything he says seriously, like any pseudo journalist.
Of course this guy has no editor so what he thinks will play is what we see, at least with journalists what they think is what they can get away with without an impending law suit, it backfires occasionaly with the news, but unlike the news MM has no editorial safety net. He's been playing with fire for a while, the way this drama will play out is interesting to say the least.
He chose to live by the sword and I suspect he'll die by it. Suffice to say no one really takes everything he says seriously, like any pseudo journalist.
Of course this guy has no editor so what he thinks will play is what we see, at least with journalists what they think is what they can get away with without an impending law suit, it backfires occasionaly with the news, but unlike the news MM has no editorial safety net. He's been playing with fire for a while, the way this drama will play out is interesting to say the least.
The article's description of the part this guy appear sin is woefully unclear and inadequate. Can anyone provide a transcript of what exactly goes on at that point? Cos I have a feeling it's just Moore making some vaguely correct point on Iraq, and showing an injured soldier. Not worth £85million, fo sho.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Neomega said:
And this is based upon what legal expertise you have?
Does not the soldier have a reasonable expectation for the footage to be used in a manner which confirms his opinions and not sold to the highest bidder for profit? By the way, if you had actually read the whole story you would see that NBC is also named in the lawsuit.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
Phlegmak said:
So does Brown.
And, just in case it was ambiguous, I hope the veteran wins. (I read my post and it sounded a bit anbiguous)`
MobBoss said:
More than you and your military legal career, since you come on these boards and make arguments all the time backed with no facts, and full of logical fallacies, which you would have learned about had you attended any kind of law school.
Nope. That's why you got to watch what you say to the media. Sad but true. And the only statement of opinion Michael Moore portrayed the soldier as having was, "I am in alot of pain"
Allthough the entire theme of the movie was anti-Bush, it would be ridiculous to charge the pictures of the flag draped coffins, or the WTC being attacked were off limits, because people who died inthe incidents were pro-Bush.
And I am sure NBC has the paperwork he signed saying it was the property of NBC.
Knowing the photography industry pretty well through proxy, I know, ownership is not the subject's, but the photographer's.... unless the subject had their likeness copyrighted... and I am sure this vet didn't. The law is very clear in this.
Similar threads
