Michael Moore USA Today press pass

[Bill Glasheen]

According to my AOL News, Michael Moore has been at the Republican National Convention in New York with a press pass - given to him by USA Today. This morning he was on The Today Show openly admitting he was attempting to sway the election (and earn more movie money) with his activities. On Monday, he made an "L" (loser) gesture to John McCain during his speech (pictured on AOL News).

I'm confused... I thought reporters were supposed to report the news. And I know I hear all the rantings about "liberal bias" in the media (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.), but I've always thought that USA Today attempted to stay relatively neutral to maximize their readership.

What's up with this? Am I that naive, or am I missing something?

BTW, there was a very funny ending to Katie Couric's interview of Moore this morning. Understand that her sister (Emily Couric, whom I knew pretty well before her untimely death) was a Democrat in the Virginia state assembly. Anyhow, Moore asks Katie if she wants to join him tonight at the convention. Couric says "NO!" and then says something about having to rearrange the clothing in her closet.

I have to admit, I'm confused with all of this.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Don't believe me? Check it out.

Moore on the Republican National Convention

The second article listed points out his interaction with McCain at the convention.

- Bill

[Mark Weitz]

Moore is a celebrity "journalist". USA retained him for his attention/readership grabbing potential so he'll sell some papers.

I wouldn't expect too much objective journalism from him given the situation, and I'm a liberal.

It was the same deal when Canada's, The National Post, hired Lind McQuaig, a left-leaning Canadian writer/journalist, to write a column for the paper. It didn't matter that Conrad Black, a Canadian publishg magnate who's now being investigated for theft and fraud, published this paper and was the victim of McQuaig's poison-tipped pen in many of her previous writings. She sold well and she was usefully controversial.

Same deal when The Globe and Mail hired Chrisitie Blachford, a right-leaning journalist, and put her on the front page. Politics be damned when it comes to making a buck.

Ironic isn't it.

Mark

[Bill Glasheen]

Question is, who is using whom here? And where does the prostitution end, and the enlightenment begin?

- Bill

[Valkenar]

What's up with this? Am I that naive, or am I missing something?

From one of your linked articles "A month ago, conservative National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg weighed in from the Democratic convention." So USA Today is including people with strong ideologies opining on the opposite ideology's convention. Why is that confusing?

[Bill Glasheen]

Indeed I was the one that provided the link, no?

Again, these individuals are supposed to report and comment on the news, and not make it. What's confusing about that simple concept?

If I want a liberal view of the RNC, I'd prefer someone with a thoughtful ideological perspective as well as a sense of propriety. If I want this kind of entertainment, I'd prefer renting a copy of Animal House.

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

No one's forcing anyone to buy USA Today.

Gene

[Valkenar]

Indeed I was the one that provided the link, no?

Again, these individuals are supposed to report and comment on the news, and not make it. What's confusing about that simple concept?

If I want a liberal view of the RNC, I'd prefer someone with a thoughtful ideological perspective as well as a sense of propriety. If I want this kind of entertainment, I'd prefer renting a copy of Animal House.

- Bill

They have a ton of other articles on the convention. If the presence of one opinionated humor columnist puts you off the whole paper, well than that's one fewer read for them I suppose. I'm guessing that more people will pick up the paper because of moore's column than will refuse to buy it for the same reason.

As a firm believer in market forces you should be applauding this move on USA Today's part, right?

[Bill Glasheen]

As a firm believer in market forces you should be applauding this move on USA Today's part, right?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Market forces also punish unethical behavior. Making news with your reporters falls in that category. Dan Rather lost a lot of CBS news viewership for his attempted "Bushwacking" of George HW Bush on the evening news. The plot backfired, and they've permanently fallen to last place among major networks.

Furthermore, USA Today has carved itself a niche, and it's important to remember to stick with that. More than a few major players have lost their usual customers by pi$$ing them off in order to attract new business and/or maximize profits. One good example is "Coke II." They lost a good deal of business to Pepsi that way, and gave them plenty of free publicity. Another is the tinkering of the formula in Miller beer. They used to be the number 1 beer in America, and were known for superior quality. Then they changed their recipe (to save a few bucks per can) and permanently lost business to Budweiser.

I'm not sure USA Today has too many competitors in the "McPaper" category, but that may change. The competition's always out there waiting to pounce.

Gene

Your tone doesn't surprise me. Just for your edification, I tend to read at least half a dozen periodicals a day. I prefer to get the multiple perspectives. I also have a broad range of subjects I want/need to cover.

I generally get my "vanilla" news from WSJ.

- Bill

[cxt]

Gene/Vaulkenar

Market forces?

MARKET FORCES?

Not sure I am reading that right.

In the first place "market forces" is usually a Republican kind of thing to be wanting to allow.

2nd, market forces are pretty much without mercy, pity, or any degree of compassion--also not really what the current crop of Dems seem to be shooting for in terms of public perception.

3td-(My Fav) From an ethical standpoint saying "nobody is forceing them to buy "X" has pretty much thown in the towl about little things like accuracy, the truth, factual reporting, and what used to be termed professional ethics.

(hey, Moore likes to brag he has the creds for being a "journalist" let him hold to the standard.)

Bottom line, Moore can write and say pretty much whatever he likes--true or not.

In reading the articles Bill posted--I am honestly offended that Moore makes the judgement that Republican are anti gay, or out to hurt minorites, or any of the other nasty little sterotypes he uses.

But the publics absolute, bloody minded refusal to demand factual reporting from folks like Moore--and his sleeze little buddies on the other side of the political fence--mean bad news for us all.

Try and look at it this way, one of the best selling books in France is rabid, frothing, insane bit of gibberish that "details" a unbelivably complex plot on the part of the International Jewish Consperesy (sp) with the help of the White House to mastermind the attacks on the Twin Towers in a mad plan for world domination.

The "market force" arguement would indicate that pretty much everyone is entitled to make a buck--regardless of the truth.

Hey, if there is a market for photos of people killed in car crashs--and to my disgust there is--a "market force" argument would say "get your camra."

Personally not really cool with that.

Folks who make statments of fact should be forced to put up or shut up----unless of course its a clearly labeled work of ficton.

A standard Moore clearly lives in dread of.

Which is really to bad, I used to be a big fan of his early work and his TV show.

[Valkenar]

Bill:

Well all I'm saying is that adding an editorial column from a famous comedian isn't likely to hurt their bottom line. But you said you were confused so I just wanted to point out that that they're just trying to add something that will appeal to readers. It's really not any major change to their product, it's just a tiny addition

But who knows, maybe USA Today will collapse in ruin from this grievous mistep.

Gene/Vaulkenar
In the first place "market forces" is usually a Republican kind of thing to be wanting to allow.

Well, I was mostly just teasing Bill a little bit with that, since he has countered a few arguments with "let market forces decide". And anyway, I don't hold any loyalty to any political party. I think market forces have their place and are neither unimportant nor all-important.

The "market force" arguement would indicate that pretty much everyone is entitled to make a buck--regardless of the truth.

Well why not? I mean, if we don't get outraged at the myriad other iniqueties corporations commit in the name of profit, why care about this?

Folks who make statments of fact should be forced to put up or shut up----unless of course its a clearly labeled work of ficton.

I don't get this. There's a certain comedian-pundit nitch filled with people like Michael Moore, Ann Coultier, Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh and so forth. How *could* anyone think these people are unbiased? I don't see any subterfuge because it doesn't seem to me that they're really posing as objective observers. Does anybody not recognize that these folks are comedians first and reporters second?

It doesn't have to have a sticker that says "This is fiction" for it to be clear that it's not even supposed to be objective analysis. Yes, they'll present facts, but part of the schtick is exagerating those facts and framing them in a striking way.

[Salute]

You folks seem to be taking pot shots at Moore just for the simple fact he is Moore - before examining the facts, reading his books or without even bothering to watch his movies.

But for all you open-minded thinkers out there, try to pick up Robert Bryce's book, "Cronies: Oil, the Bushes and the Rise of Texas." Well-researched and well-written it explains how the increasing number of both business (can you spell Halliburton?) and political leaders have ties to the state of Texas and how it permeates America's foreign policy and determines what happens in oil-rich locales. Like Moore, he underscores the uncomfortable reality of how our American political system has been thoroughly perverted by plunderers and special-interest groups.

Put in another way, a seperate and very unequal government is now in place to accommodate the cronies and friends that helped put Bush in the White House.

Rock the vote people, rock the vote...

[benzocaine]

As soon as Moore did the big "L" for loser when McCain spoke his rather large a$$ should have been tossed outside. Same thing with goes for a republican acting like that during a democratic event. There should be a level of respect displayed by the press. If you can't behave accordingly you should be forced to watch it on TV.

PS. This doesn't mean I'm voting for Bush

[cxt]

Vaulkenar

No, I get it, understood you were just teaseing.

Its just once you use the weapons of the enemy (just a figure of speech) then you poisen the well for later.

And my beef with Moore is that he most certianly DID NOT present his little film as "fiction" or "humor" he presented it as fact--and has continued to do so.

He presented his movie as a documentry--and contuniues to bang the drum over its tittular "facts."

Despite the "fact" that its conclusions do not reflect the findings of a couple of bi-partian commisions.

Despite the "fact" that he manupulated the imgaes present on film.

Despite the "fact" that either out of sloppyness or malice jacked with the sequence of events.

Despite the "fact" that he misrepresented news headlines.

Despite the "fact" that misrepresented the whole "golf course" interview with Bush I have seen the uncut tape--not even close to what "really" was going on in terms of content or tone.

The shots of a peaceful, Mayberresqe, pre-invasion Iraq-with out a sigle mention of the atrocties commited by Saddam.

No killing fields, no mass graves, not torture chambers, no mention of the brutal rape of (some of quite litteral) Kuwait.

Mainly beacuse none of that was the "point" of his film--which would be great--except for the part about the movie being a documentary--and documentaries are not supposed to propaganda--they are supposed to be factual.

At least thats the hope--course the films of Hitlers Germany were ALSO suppose to be in large part "documentrys" as well--you want to agure about them??

Moore wants to call it "humor" fine then say so!!

To quote from an article about Moores movie--"Fahrenheit 9/11 the teperature at which Micheal Moores pants burn" by Brendan Nyhan.

"You can't refute whats said in the film. Its all there, the facts are all there, the footage is all there."

Sound like a "humorist" to you??



( And for the record I am not any more pleased with the sleeze dealers on the opposite side of the political fence from Moore--as far as I am concerned his a big fish in a very dirty pond)

[Valkenar]

Vaulkenar
And my beef with Moore is that he most certianly DID NOT present his little film as "fiction" or "humor" he presented it as fact--and has continued to do so.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek ... 620-1.html

He most certainly did present it as op-ed and humor. "Well, it's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism,"

... "Did I mention it's a comedy too?"

He presented his movie as a documentry--and contuniues to bang the drum over its tittular "facts."

Yes he does, and there's no doubt splits hairs when defending the facts in the movie. And there's no question that people are mislead by the omissions and way he shapes those facts.

"You can't refute whats said in the film. Its all there, the facts are all there, the footage is all there."

Sound like a "humorist" to you??

Yes, it does. When he says everything that's in there is true, what he means is no false statements are made in an absolutely literal sense. But the truth can be used to lie, and that's what he does. You show to unrelated facts, you wink and nod with all your might and encourage the audience to link them. The facts themselves are still true even though the implications are not.

But let's not rehash everything about Fahrenheit 9/11 in this thread. We can always bump the other thread back up if we want to do that.

( And for the record I am not any more pleased with the sleeze dealers on the opposite side of the political fence from Moore--as far as I am concerned his a big fish in a very dirty pond)

Well you have chided those who fail to criticise Moore, why don't you seem to criticise Coultier, Hannity, or Limbaugh? On these forums I defend Moore to balance the majority who already atack him.