http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20060601/en_celeb_eo/19163;_ylt=AvYCliPXfFDc9F32Gn5NgTwDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDM TBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M-

Looks like Michael Moore isn't too popular with the people he used in his "Documentary".

85 million seems like an awful lot of damn $. I'd have more sympthay for the guy if it weren't for that. Now days people sue at the drop of a hat. If he did not give consent to be on camera though Moore is at fault but I'd rather see criminal charges filed instead of "hey you wronge me now pay me". I hate that shit.

I got stuck on jury duty recently. During deliberations the entire jury decided emotional distress was a BS way to get more money. We paid the plaintiff for his time (far more than what I would have received for working those hours) and a paltry couple thousand for his emotional distress, he was suing for millions. Seriously, life is rough, suck it up- I agree that hurts any sympathy I'd have for the soldier.

Although I've never liked Moore. In his case, sue for the millions.

well, the figure IS excessive.
But I'm sure Moore has the cash.
And the money could go to a worse cause than a soldier that had both his arms blown off servicing a UH-60 tire (1 of my old jobs in the Army) in Iraq.

Michael Moore is a money grubbing hack, distorting/spinning facts for his own betterment....reminds me of a certain administration. Ihave only watched small parts of Bowling and Farenhype...I just couldn't stomach watching much more.

It is a very idiotic amount of money and wouldn't NBC be liable if they gave Moore permission to use the footage?

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, has stated that Moore didn't have his permission to use pieces of the on-camera interview he gave in 2003 to an NBC Nightly News correspondent at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C.

Also, from what I gather from the articles discription of the scenes, Moore doesn't "say" anything about his stance on the war:

In Moore's film Damon is shown lying on a gurney, covered in bandages. He says he feels as if he's "being crushed in a vise," adding, "but [the painkillers] do a lot to help it. And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

The scene prior to Damon's features U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/politics/news/eo/en_celeb_eo/19163/19218699/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Rep.%20Jim%20McDermott%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw), bio (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/bio/eo/en_celeb_eo/19163/19218699/SIG=117ocvcvc/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=619), voting record (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/vote/eo/en_celeb_eo/19163/19218699/SIG=11gif67m1/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/keyvotes/?id=619)), a Democrat from Washington state, saying, "You know, [those in the Bush administration] say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."



I don't think the suit has much merit, unfortunately...but I'm no lawyer.

BTW Sixee, who exactly is "they" in you thread title?

You know, the Liberal media <tm> and all that....

You know, the Liberal media <tm> and all that....

Oh yeah the infamous "liberal" media. /rolleyes


It was front page stuff on Air America...gofigya.

Was the headline: Former Imperialist Stormtrooper, Armless, Instigates Litigation Against True American Patriot?

Close /rolleyes

Wounded Veteran Sues Michael Moore Over ‘Fahrenheit’ Footage

Looks like a double message hidden in there to me.....

This guy was on the radio the other day, and said that all he initially wanted from Moore was an apology... Moore ignored him, so he wanted to make sure he got his attention this time.. Apology = $85million..

Well, that's evil incarnate....
Putting a monetary value on an apology...
He should be strung up by his arms.....

85 million seems like an awful lot of damn $. I'd have more sympthay for the guy if it weren't for that. Now days people sue at the drop of a hat. If he did not give consent to be on camera though Moore is at fault but I'd rather see criminal charges filed instead of "hey you wronge me now pay me". I hate that shit.

Unfortunately, there are no laws that expressly forbid the kind of slimy deciet that Moore engages in. He is a master propagandist, editing and twisting any message within reach to suit his own political agenda. If it were possible to prosecute him under libel or slander laws, I'm fairly confident this soldier would be doing exactly that. But since that is impossible - or at least so unlikely to succeed it might as well be - he's going after Moore's wallet instead.

And why not? Micheal Moore is the world's richest socialist anyway; let him "redistribute" some of that wealth.

The problem with Moore's work is that the man almost never actually lies. What he does is juxtapose several images (horribly wounded soldier + that soldier voicing a complaint about his pain) and then use them to suggest other, completely unrelated images (all soldiers are against the war and the Bush Administration cares nothing for them). I am not overstating the case at all when I say this: The last time propaganda was used to the great effect that Moore uses it, several million innocent people ended up in concentration camps.

Of course Moore doesn't want to exterminate anybody, he just wants to sell his movies and narrow political objectives at the cost of honesty and honor. But that is a difference of degree, not one of kind. Michael Moore is the very worst sort of leftist imagineable, and his almost uncontested acceptance by liberals is another big reason that I've been moving more and more to the right since 2000 or so.


S

So Sandor reading your reply you seem to think that just because Moore has money it's ok for this soldier to sue. Did you see the post someone said that mentioned the solider only wanted an apology and when he was ignored he chose to file this lawsuit? I'm not a fan of the blathering fat man myself but I am sick to death of dumb lawsuits in this country. I'm sorry the soldier lost limbs but he was a soldier it's a fact of war that there are casualties. I hope he gets the proper care and treatment and I applaud his service to this country but I do not condone him filing a lawsuit for such an exorbant amount of money simply because someone didn't say "sorry". That is dumb.

So Sandor reading your reply you seem to think that just because Moore has money it's ok for this soldier to sue. Did you see the post someone said that mentioned the solider only wanted an apology and when he was ignored he chose to file this lawsuit? I'm not a fan of the blathering fat man myself but I am sick to death of dumb lawsuits in this country. I'm sorry the soldier lost limbs but he was a soldier it's a fact of war that there are casualties. I hope he gets the proper care and treatment and I applaud his service to this country but I do not condone him filing a lawsuit for such an exorbant amount of money simply because someone didn't say "sorry". That is dumb.

No, I think it's okay for the soldier to sue because 1) Moore totally abused and twisted his statemnets, and 2) the soldier has no other legal recourse.

What I would very much like to see is Moore prosecuted legally, convicted of slander, and then forced to issue a very public apology. Not only to the soldier in question, but to all of the millions of people he hoodwinked with his movies as well. And getting beaten over the head with a copy of Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media probably wouldn't hurt, either.

But we all know that's not going to happen. Micheal Moore is every bit the rich and untouchable fat cat that he accuses his enemies of being; he doesn't even have enough common decency and respect to apologize to the people he uses when caught red-handed.

I agree that $85 million is hideously excessive. But this soldier is quite unlikely to actually recieve that much. So failing to get a truly just punishmnet for that bloated buffoon, I wouldn't mind seeing him humbled in civil court and a couple million of his ill-gotten dollars going to a wounded veteran.

There's not much more I can say other than that, Fildien. I am, at heart, a pragmatist; some punishment for Moore and recompense for the soldier is better than none of either.


S

The last time propaganda was used to the great effect that Moore uses it, several million innocent people ended up in concentration camps.

I'd say you're overstating things quite a bit. The current administration's own propaganda distribution has been quite successful, for example. Most administrations at least try to be. And really, Moore is neither of like kind or degree to Hitler and Goebbels. The greatest similarity you can ascribe between them is that, as propagandists, they try to convince the recipient of their media of their point of view. That applies to any propagandist -- hell, it defines them as such -- whether it be Hitler, Moore, BushCo, other administrations or other governments.
Michael Moore is the very worst sort of leftist imagineable, and his almost uncontested acceptance by liberals is another big reason that I've been moving more and more to the right since 2000 or so.
You produced a similar statement in the Ceballo decision thread, and I find it peculiar. You seem to be saying that your movement from left to right is due in large part to the company the left keeps. Forgetting for the moment the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and such, I would think that you would have a fairly fixed set of principles, and that in following those principles you'd retain a general political outlook despite whatever shrill commentary might surround you. You seem to be changing political views because of certain messengers rather than due to a change in principles. Odd.

I also think you overstate Moore's influence -- "uncontested acceptance" seems a bit much. I'm somewhat out of the loop of anything having to do with him but rarely see him brought up these days in liberal political circles (as opposed to social events, for instance).

A person's power over someone is only as strong as the belief in them. If more people truly bought into Moore's or any other finatic's hub-bub we'd see more effects from it I'd think.

I'm with Thor though... you give Moore far far FAR too much credit. And it does seem odd that someone would change political offiliations based on the blathering idiots who claim ties to it. I see both sides having more than their share of them.

Forgetting for the moment the likes of Bill O'Reilly,


Bill O'Reilly is not a Conservative, but a Traditionalist.
You may want to look up the difference....

I'd say you're overstating things quite a bit. The current administration's own propaganda distribution has been quite successful, for example. Most administrations at least try to be. And really, Moore is neither of like kind or degree to Hitler and Goebbels. The greatest similarity you can ascribe between them is that, as propagandists, they try to convince the recipient of their media of their point of view. That applies to any propagandist -- hell, it defines them as such -- whether it be Hitler, Moore, BushCo, other administrations or other governments.

I make a distinction between propaganda and spin.

All political parties and philosophies attempt to put their best foot forward when trying to sway public opinion. They accentuate their successes and downplay their failures. They speak in honeyed voices and flatter voters with appeals to their intelligence and morality. This is both expected and acceptable; everyone - even politicians - have the right to try and persuade other citizens to see things their way.

But what Michael Moore does is different. He intentionally misleads his viewers into believeing things that are simply not true. The topic of this thread is a perfect case in point; Moore took a set of images and statements, chopped them up into little bites of video and sound, and then rearranged them to state something that was almost exactly opposite of what was originally intended. And he did it at the expense of a soldier who lost both of his arms!

That is not persuasion. It is manipulation, and manipulation of a particularly vile and dishonest sort. I'm a fairly keen political observer, and while I often roll my eyes at the nonsense spouted by both parties, I would never accuse either of them of the kind of intentional deciet that Michael Moore is clearly guilty of.

And yes, I believe that kind of manipulation is essentially the same thing as what Goebbles did. To a much lesser and more benign degree, certainly, but the very same intent to decieve is there.

You produced a similar statement in the Ceballo decision thread, and I find it peculiar. You seem to be saying that your movement from left to right is due in large part to the company the left keeps. Forgetting for the moment the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and such, I would think that you would have a fairly fixed set of principles, and that in following those principles you'd retain a general political outlook despite whatever shrill commentary might surround you. You seem to be changing political views because of certain messengers rather than due to a change in principles. Odd.

I have never held political positions that would put me fully at home on either the left or the right. Currently I am registered as an Independent, and I describe myself as socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and hawkish on foriegn policy. And though there has certainly been some drift on particular issues, where I stand now is pretty much where I've always stood.

However, up until the late 90s, I generally identified myself as a moderate liberal who held some conservative positions. I usually saw liberals as my allies, albeit allies who I disagreed with on certain issues. Conversely, I saw conservatives as my opponents, albeit opponents who I agreed with on certain issues. And I honestly believed that the Democratic Party had inhereted the legacy of men like Truman and JFK.

But during the 2000 - 2002 time frame I started to really see liberals in a different light. Attempts at reasoned discourse by the moderate left were usually shouted down by angry radicals and an increasingly vocal contingent of people who quite simply hated conservatives. The unified liberal voice - when they could manage to get one together - became shrill and often downright irrational. The emerging leaders on the left didn't seem to be for anything anymore, merely against whatever it was President Bush happened to be doing.

Meanwhile there were clear, reasonable voices coming from the center-right. I had always been a supporter of folks like John McCain and Condeleeza Rice, but they had always seemed too close to the "opponents who I agreed with on certain issues". But when my allies seemingly abandoned reason in favor of blind (and often hateful) political partisanship, those former opponents scored a lot of points for remaining generally civil and sober. And this extends beyond politicians; neocon bloggers like Bill Whittle (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/) and Steven Den Beste (http://denbeste.nu/bestof.shtml) were saying exactly the kinds of things I was thinking.

My positions really didn't change all that much, Thormir ... but what liberals were saying very much had. My shift from moderate left to moderate right was not a shift in ideology on my part, but rather a shift in attitude and voice on the part of liberals in general.

I also think you overstate Moore's influence -- "uncontested acceptance" seems a bit much. I'm somewhat out of the loop of anything having to do with him but rarely see him brought up these days in liberal political circles (as opposed to social events, for instance).

Fahrenheit 911 won the Palm d'Or at Cannes and was the highest-grossing "documentary" ever made. I have personal friends who were swayed by Moore's bullshit into voting for Kerry. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective - or at least somewhat a matter of perspective - but I think you an Fildien are both grossly underestimating his influence. Or perhaps both of you are a little too bright too fall for that kind of nonsense yourself, so you're discounting the impact of the millions of people who did.

Regarless, Moore is certainly less of an influence now. His abject failure to uproot the Bush Administration in 2004 went a long way towards shutting that lying pie hole of his. I have little doubt that moveon.org will give him a new set of marching orders come 2008, but Moore's heyday as a dangerous political weapon is probably gone.

Okay, that's enough. Posting this stuff is seriously eating into my Friday slacking time, and I'm just about out of scathing political observations for today. I'll be happy to respond to any further comments, though.

On Monday. :p

Have a good weekend, all.


S

I make a distinction between propaganda and spin.
I do as well, but had BushCo's VNR's in mind when I wrote that.
But when my allies seemingly abandoned reason in favor of blind (and often hateful) political partisanship, those former opponents scored a lot of points for remaining generally civil and sober.
It seems to me that you're doing quite a bit of picking and choosing of voices to be influenced by. After all, shrill political partisanship can be easily found on the right. Bush, doubtless influenced by Rove, squandered post-9/11 national unity in favor of such partisanship. But I imagine the influences that led to your decision making are too broad to analyze here (and that sort of delving doesn't really interest me). My primary point is the old but apt refrain that "both sides do it." Better to worry less about who is squawking than your own personal principles and who best represents them in our government.

Have a good weekend.