I do not like Michael Moore. At all. He's a weasel. But his particular brand of weaselhood is protected by the first amendment.
The gentleman who appeared in Farenheit 9-11 and is now suing Moore was in a news report talking about how much pain he was in. Moore used the clip as an illustration of how badly veterans are being treated.
The guy in the clips feels he was defamed and says the government has treated him well.
I do think Micheal Moore is scum and that his use of the clip out of context sucked.
But if the soldier wins this lawsuit, every reality television contestant who feels that the producers "made them look mean" will think they have a lawsuit on their hands.
And that would be stupid.
As far as I can tell, conservatives are mistaking their intense dislike of Moore with actually having a case.
Media Nation covers this better than I did.
CC
off to wash her hands. Many, many times.
MichaelMoore
10 comments:
well if so many TV shows, as you suggest, are exloiting the general public for entertainment or political reasons - then those exploited have a right to compensation.
Michael Moore has used this type of selective editing and picking on ordinary members of the public to back up his opinions for far too long.
Best of luck to him and anyone else who has a score to settle with the media tycoons...
If every person who is interviewed and feels that he was accurately quoted but doesn't feel like he came off well can now sue, how will ANY form of journalism survive?
CC
There is one big difference between a reality show contestant or someone who granted an interview and this soldier- those people agreed to appear in the venues mentioned; he did not. Mr. Moore does not have a signed waiver or permission slip. Now, it could be argued that having appeared on TV made the soldier a celebrity and therefore fair game- but who would ever grant an interview again if it's ruled that appearing in public voids your right to privacy? That would do even worse damage to journalism.
The guy willingly agreed to appear on a news show. Then the news show sold the footage.
Again, I'm not delighted to be defending Michael Moore, it's just that the implications for journalism concern me.
As a former reporter, I know people say they were "taken out of context" all the time when they mean, "You quoted me accurately but I didn't say what I meant to" or "You quoted me accurately but I think I sounded stupid in the paper."
If they could SUE for that?
Goodness...
CC
(dreamily fantasizing about the end of reality television and the return of good scripted shows. Or genuine news shows.)
But I agree, journalism is under too much of an assault as it is. What next, everyone gets to approve any story they're in?
but who would ever grant an interview again if it's ruled that appearing in public voids your right to privacy?
It appears that now, under King George, Just being on Planet Earth constitutes a voided right to privacy.
I'm assuming that the actual intent of the lawsuit is to force Michael Moore into court for the next 15 years,drive him into bankruptcy and to make sure Miramax (and others) wont make movies like that anymore due to the threats of lawsuits. The chance of it going to court during Moore's lifetime is limited - Im willing to take bets
Not signing my name so that I cant be sued - as I only have 20 years of life left, and dont want to give my social security money to a lawyer even if he is on my side....
Michael Moore's looks aren't the issue.
The issue is he's a propagandist who plays fast and loose with the truth.
He's on our side, yes, but he still has done nothing to recommend himself as an honest person and he's gotten very rich doing it.
CC
"He's on our side, yes..."
What side is that?
'Affluent Lefties living comfortably in Manhattan whilst pontificating to the world' United?
Is this the same side that the UUA is on?
Depende upon who you're asking within the UUA.
CC
Post a Comment