Michael Moore Refuses to Apologize to Illinois Paper

Editor and Publisher ^ | August 12, 2004 | E & P Staff

[LifeTrek]

NEW YORK The small Illinois newspaper attempting to get an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for allegedly misusing the paper in "Fahrenheil 9/11" said today it has gotten a rejection notice instead.

The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., disclosed today that New York-based lawyer Devereux Chatillon of the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal sent a letter to the Bloomington attorney representing the newspaper, stating Moore was within his legal right to use one of the newspaper's headlines in the movie and that no "copyright infringement" occurred. He cited several precedents.

This led The Pantagraph to conclude: "Moore apparently is not going to say he's sorry or pay the newspaper's light-hearted, if not symbolic, request for $1 in compensatory damages. But his company's lawyer was willing to spend 37 cents, to send a letter suggesting Moore did little wrong."

That letter claims Moore did nothing "misleading" when a headline from The Pantagraph ("Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election") that originally appeared above a Dec. 5, 2001, letter to the editor was changed in both font and size for the movie and made to look like a news story from the Dec. 19, 2001, edition.

Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)."

"Baloney," said Pantagraph President and Publisher Henry Bird, in response to the letter. Added newspaper attorney J. Casey Costigan, "I disagree that Michael Moore's use of the headline falls under 'fair use,' and I think the letter also takes what Mr. Moore did out of context."

Bird said he has asked Costigan to send Moore a follow-up letter, asking him to explain why a Pantagraph page was altered without permission.

[LifeTrek]

Prooving once more that Lie-n-Hype 9/11 would be a more accurate title. DKK

[Rennes Templar]

"Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)."

He means it did not make any difference to the fabricated propoganda they were trying to create.

[sinanju]

I recall some speculation when this apology was first requested that they did it this way so they could rightfully claim they offered Moore a gentlemanly way out. Now that Moore has arrogantly thrown their offer back in their faces they are free to pull out the big guns and get down and dirty. Or do nothing, as the case may be.

[Merry]

Notice how Moore abused a little town paper that probably does not have the money to sue him. Moore is probably one of the most despicable, vile people on the planet. He is more than a jerk. He is also the idol of Hollywood and the Left who see nothing wrong with his tactics.

[feedback doctor]

I am MICHAEL MOORE!!!! And all 156 pounds of me never lies!

[LifeTrek]

Amazing, he changes the dates and headlines - admitting to changing it they used a letter to the editor and they think it didn't change the editorial point? You know, I used to wonder if this guy used to believe his own crap - now I know, it is all the nuanced mindset of the left! Up can actually be down if you cut and paste it correctly! DKK

[Happygal]

The thing is, this newspaper DID carry that headline.

Moore juxtaposed it onto their front page.

However, while Moore was wrong to to that, the newspaper has little room to manoeuvre in terms of saying he manipulated editorial content. They DID carry the headline.

Moore was WRONG to manipulate the weight the newspaper put on the story.
But...the paper, if they feel affronted, shouldn't have ran the story in the first place.

[Polonius]

I'm interested in why Moore decided to use a headline from the Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., a relatively obscure paper. Could it be because he knew what he was doing was dishonest, and that a big paper (NY Time, LA Times, Washington Post, etc.) would have the resources and the clout to humiliate him in public and fight him in court for misusing a headline as he did? Just a theory, but it would explain his rather odd choice of source material.

[Rennes Templar]

To use that "headline" from the Bloomington Pantagraph means that was probably the only line like that that they could find in the whole country. Then they change its' appearance and date. Makes you wonder what they did for the rest of the movie.

[tophat9000]

Michael Moore is like a monkey flinging his shit .... what do you expect it's his nature

[GeronL]

Moore made a letter to the editor look like a headline??.. let me guess... Gore won in Florida?

[BenLurkin]

No "controlling legal authority"?

Typical lefty, in my opinion, all Marx and no decency.

[Viet-Boat-Rider]

Now that the majority of Americans know that Michael More is a liar, cheat, and manipulator, the paper is trying to distance themselves from him (its a circulation / money thing).

But the paper wrote the stupid left wing article in the first place. Screw them.

[GeronL]

They said it was not a headline, they said it was a title above a letter to the editor. A letter from a reader.

[South40]

I remember this slug saying everything in his movie was true and that he would sue anyone who said he lied.

What up fatman?

[MrChips]

They should sue him, and demand ALL the profits of the movie . . . and insist that Moore be required to do community service indefinitely . . . working for Weight Watchers.

[null and void]

Bingo

[Polonius]

Wasn't it the headline of a letter to the editor? If that's the case, I can't say "screw the paper." After all, papers print letters saying a lot of things I don't agree with, including quite a few screeds from the loony left.

[faux_hog]

Makes you wonder what they did for the rest of the movie.

It certainly does!!

[GeronL]

Too bad if they don't the resources to sue him. I hope Freepers are adding this to their list of Moore lies.

[Happygal]

Well, if Moore manipulated that papers 'right to reply' column, which would be exempt from editorial policy....and juxtaposed it to indicate it WAS paper policy, they should sue his ass off.

They would win, IMO.

[SpinyNorman]

Why would Moore be concerned with an AMERICAN paper? He is the epitome of the self hating American. You can tell that he feels that his American citizenship is an unfortunate byproduct of his birth.

You can be sure that no banner or images from Al Jazeera would ever be used by Moore in such a manner. After all, they are already doing his handiwork, and they, his.

[MarineBrat]

Michael Moron should be thrown into a chipper, and the results fed to federal penitentiary denizen, Hanoi John F'n Kerry.

[doug from upland]

The "story" was actually a letter to the editor who was still whining and claiming that Gore won Florida. Moore made it appear that the newspaper ran a front page story that Gore won Florida. It was a deliberate deception. One of many, many deceptions.

[RandallFlagg]

This is simply a cooperative effort to get this tripe more publicity than it deserves; from MOO, and their paper.

[CaraM]

156 pounds?? Is that his head?

[CaraM]

But the paper wrote the stupid left wing article in the first place. Screw them.

Yes, but now that they are angry at Moore, maybe they would be willing to expose his lies in their paper. We could send them the short version of 59 deceits of Fahrenheit (4 pages). They could do a lot to discredit MM.

[L.N. Smithee]

From the July 23, 2004 edition of the Pantagraph column that first disclosed the deception a week earlier, written by Bill Flick:

---

Friday, July 23, 2004

Moore's flick: bowling
for movie edits

In my e-mail today is a note that joyfully begins, "YOU ARE A HORSE'S (REAR FLANK)!!!"

Another fan announces I want to "only dirtbag" and "find trivial error" with Michael Moore for the "public service ... he has otherwise done."

Yet another says I "obviously ... don't fully research (my) newspaper columns" and that the writer plans to type out a letter to the editor to really let me have it.

What set off this latest love-fest was a small blurb that appeared in this space a week ago on a curious scene in Michael Moore's otherwise entertaining movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

In a flash-second early on, the movie shows various newspaper headlines on coverage of the presidential election of 2000, and one of them is from the alleged Dec. 19, 2001 edition of the Bloomington, IL Pantagraph.

Golly, we thought. What an honor.

Just for fun, we went back to the Dec. 19, 2001 editions, to ogle the headline and paper shown in the movie.

But somehow there was no such news story in that day's paper.

We found that curious.

How could a news headline that never appeared in the Dec. 19 paper appear in a copy of the Dec. 19 paper shown in the movie?

Now we learn how.

The Pantagraph headline shown in the movie -- "LATEST FLORIDA RECOUNT SHOWS GORE WON ELECTION" -- actually appeared in our Dec. 5 edition.

Illogically, if not inexplicably, a page apparently was "pasted together" to look like an actual Pantagraph page for the movie shot.

And here also is why we could never find the news story.

It never was one.

Instead it was the headline atop a letter to the editor, significantly blown up to make it look like a news story.

Since the original column blurb appeared on this page, it found its way on the Internet.

It was posted on something called moorewatch.com. It appeared on Yahoo. It became a link on the national library site, LISNews.com. It became part of a reaction link of the Moore movie on CBS.com.

Someone then took the time to slow down the film, frame-by-frame, and take an actual picture of the alleged Pantagraph page. (It is reprinted here, as it appears at moorewatch.com. The red line has been added by someone at the Internet site to show the page's date is wrong in the movie.)

With all that, suddenly it became a flash point in something on the Internet known as weblogs -- they are chat rooms of sorts -- and, to make a short story long, that is how my e-mail in-box is overflowing with folk apparently short with me because they think I have bashed Moore for factual inaccuracy, if not manipulation.

Which, uh, I have.

Of special humor -- to local observers, at least -- is the world's reaction to a "Pantagraph."

In the weblogs, people wonder why "a magazine" would make the movie.

They wonder what was our point and, in one writer's case, "what was (my) underlying goal." (To get home by about 6 is always my goal, by the way.)

Our own personal favorite is a writer who, tongue-in-cheek, declares at moorewatch.com: "Duh! Come on! You all know that the Bush and bin Laden families OWN the Bloomington Pantagraph! They simply had all of their distribution recalled and reprinted with Dec. 5 instead of 19 to totally discredit Moore!"

Golly. How conniving.

Despite our requests, we should add that Michael Moore remains silent to our repeated pleas for a comment.

We promise not to even edit them.

Moore or less, of course.

---

Copyright © 2004, Pantagraph Publishing Co. All rights reserved.

---

[L.N. Smithee]

But the paper wrote the stupid left wing article in the first place. Screw them.

Not true. It wasn't a news article, it was a letter to the editor. Look at my post above.

[VOA]

Michael Moore Refuses to Apologize to Illinois Paper

Standard Operating Procedure for Rich Liberals:
"Peons are for peeing on!"

[I still care]

Letters to the editor routinely have a sentence taken out of them and blown up over the article. I had one printed a few months ago, over it, they wrote, "Oh, I get it" which was a paraphrase ("I get it now") of the next to last sentence.

I wondered at the time at the creative editing, how they decide which sentence to use. It made my letter seem more pointed, somehow - which was ok with me.

With all the problems JimRob has had, just reprinting an article as is, it seems to me that reprinting and changing a page to make it say something it really didn't - I can't imagine they couldn't recover somehow.

[Dane]

But...the paper, if they feel affronted, shouldn't have ran the story in the first place

It wasn't a story, IIRC. It was a letter to the editor.

[Oztrich Boy]

I recall some speculation when this apology was first requested that they did it this way so they could rightfully claim they offered Moore a gentlemanly way out.

As he used the paper's reputation to promote his case, 1% of the gross Box office receipts and DVD sales, in perpetuity, sounds about right.

[Oztrich Boy]

But...the paper, if they feel affronted, shouldn't have ran the story in the first place.

It wasn't a story, it was a letter to the editor. "Freedom of expression, all shades of opinion, views expressed are not necessiarlly those of the staff or proprietors yada yada".

And it wasn't a headline, it was a heading to the letter, normal newspaper practice.

Now go away

[Happygal]

Go away? I beg your pardon.

BTW, re-read the thread, your about two days too late with your 'news'. :-)