« Of Protests, Prisons and Pessimism | Main | In Bloom »

Michael Moore v. Matt Lauer (revised) (again)

Oh, the hell with it. My wise advisor Todd is correct. The post was about the hypocrisy of Michael Moore. No more, no less. It stands. [Original post in its entirety follows] Simply put, Lauer took Moore to task for holding on to the Abu Ghraib images that Moore had long before the "official" photos were released. And rightly so. Per Jeff Jarvis: bq. Moore said that when the photos did come out, it was being treated in a "tabloid" and "s&m" way and so he said he decided to release the images he had in his "context," which is to say, in his movie. Lauer asked why he didn't release the images earlier -- the implication being that he could have stopped further abuse against the Iraqi prisoners. Moore said, to whom? Lauer said, to the government. Moore shook his head. OK, Lauer said, then why didn't you break the story? How, asked Moore, I don't have a TV show. You could have come to us, Lauer said, and we would have shown the story. Moore said he doesn't trust big media. He said he would have been accused of pulling a publicity stunt for his movie. I cannot fathom any reason Moore did not approach the media or authorities with these images except two: 1) He wanted them for his film to maximize its impact and 2) He wanted to wait until it was closer to the election, in order to maximize the impact they would have against Bush. Either way, Moore should be held accountable in some way. His reluctance to inform anyone in authority or in a position to help him make public notice of thse images is a most selfish act. Proper action on his part might have put a stop to the torture earlier. Instead, he chose to hold onto his dirty little secret for his own damn benefit. So who does Michael Moore care about? Obviously not the prisoners of Abu Ghraib, although he purports to. The only things Moore cares about are his ego, his fame and his profits. I don't understand how anyone can defend these actions. [If anyone has a transcript of Lauer's interview with Moore please let me know]


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Michael Moore v. Matt Lauer (revised) (again):

» The FCB* is going down... from Drumwaster's Rants!
or....Mr. Moore is gonna have his comeuppance. Either way, I think the downfall of Michael Moore is upon us. Now, if only Krispy Kreme could sponsor Michael Wilson, the delicious irony would be complete. Michael Moore, beaten, at his own... [Read More]

» Today from protein wisdom
*... [Read More]

» The FCB* is going down... from Drumwaster's Rants!
or....Mr. Moore is gonna have his comeuppance. Either way, I think the downfall of Michael Moore is upon us. Now, if only Krispy Kreme could sponsor Michael Wilson, the delicious irony would be complete. Michael Moore, beaten, at his own... [Read More]


This only show what I have thought of Micheal Moore for a long time. This is all a gimmic for him to make money and that he does not even believe the things he puts in his fakumentarys.

Michele, I think you are pulling a Sullivan on this. Does Moore's footage show torture?

From what I understand, it shows soldiers posing with prisoners who have hoods on their heads. There is a report that a soldier fondles the genitals of one.

Hoods are not torture.

I don't see how this footage given to anyone in authority, or at the Today show, would have changed anything. He says he had the footage "months" before it became a big story. Okay, how many months? Did he have it before November, when the things we have seen pictures of occured? Did he have it before January, when the Army began investigating it?

I think this "I had film" stuff is itself a publicity stunt by Moore.

Moore would've been accused of endangering the troops if he released the photos earlier, as those who finally released the photos were.

Also, I think it important to note how the "official" photos got released. The defense lawyers for the accused soldiers got them to COL Hackworth who got them to CBS.

Basically blackmail/revenge for bringing them up on charges.

Also, I think it important to note how the "official" photos got released. The defense lawyers for the accused soldiers got them to COL Hackworth who got them to CBS.

Basically blackmail/revenge for bringing them up on charges.

You should also realize that the ICRC (Red Cross) brought the prison abuses to the attention of military authorities back in November, and their report was ignored for three months. We can only assume that Moore's footage would have similarly gone nowhere.

The only thing I can assume is that Michael Moore, Mr. "I am concerned about the plight of people everywhere, I'll give voice to their troubles", has once again duped masses of liberals into paying him, yet again, to exploit the troubles of nameless people everywhere. Mr. Moore does not add value where he goes, he just adds to his own waistline. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing to say the least.

For his champions I ask you, has he alleviated anyone's suffering? Does being a crass, loud mouth really change the landscape of people's lives? Has he established a way for anyone to change the path they're on? He's from Michigan. He exploited the auto workers in Flint. Has he made their lives better? No.
Has he made the world a better place? I think not.

I bet is someone had waved a cheeseburger from Checkers in his face he'd have coughed up those pictures faster than you could say "Double cheese, please".

Or am I just being petty picking on Micheal "My Toes Haven't Seen The Sun In Years" Moore's weight?

Michael Moore is scum. There is no excuse for his (in)action in this case, but it's not like being totally wrong is anything new for him. I mean the man wrote an entire book, "Stupid White Men," about the "causes" of "black violence" without ever interviewing a single minority. For truth in advertising, it should have been called "I am a Stupid White Man."

Speaking as someone who is often accused of being a liberal, I've got to express embarassment for the implied association with Moore. It's easy to see why he didn't want to send this to the media ... he wanted to break the story in his movie. It's just shameless self-promotion. If it was anything else, there are lots of things he could have done to avoid the phony concerns that he has voiced. For example, he could have done his video shock-jock treatment by filming himself springing the pictures on politicians he doesn't like. Even a Moore supporter can't possible pretend that Moore didn't think of doing that. There are not many things that would make me criticize a man for acting to maximize his profits (I am, after all, an avowed capitalist) but being an enabler for torture is beyond the pale.

I have to also take issue with middleoftheroad here. First off, there is no way that holding back the photos is somehow protecting our troops. If you look at the statistics, it's perfectly clear that there was a large and continuing escalation of violence shortly after the torture began (you can show a correlation, although it would be extremely difficult to prove a cause/effect relationship due to other possible causes in the same time period). There was no corresponding rise after the story broke here (it keeps increasing, but it was a predictable increase, not a sudden jump). This jives with press reports that Iraqis were not surprised when the story was confirmed. The people who endangered our troops are the ones that authorized and carried out this illegal torture, not the whistleblowers.

"His reluctance to inform anyone in authority"? You mean like the Red Cross did or the media did BEFORE releasing the pictures? As stated in one of the comment in Jeff Jarvis' post, a month ago the right was clear to point out that they didn't think that the issue was a big issue in the first place and that they had in fact released the information before the pictures were released.

To think Moore could have shown pictures to the government and illicited a reaction is absolutely asinine. First off, they already knew and second an international organization presented them with evidence. You think a fat liberal is going to make them wake up?

Moore is right to believe that if he would have released the pictures he would have been immediately jumped on and yelled at for using it to his advantage. If he, in fact, didn't have any picturs of actual "torture" as alluded to in the comments above this one, what would he even be releasing. Short of being there themselves, the right isn't going to believe something Michael Moore says - - hell, they probably could be in the same room when it happens and not believe Moore's take.

Moore is an idiot. He's fat. He's a typcial politician/hollywood type ego driven moron, but to think that this issue has anything to do with him in incredible. You would think on the issue of OUR GOVERNMENT torturing people the partisan rhetoric could be left at the door.

he should have turned in the pictures - but to point it out, they weren't pictures of abu ghraib. they were photos of a location outside of that prison - i'm not sure where.

"Hoods are not torture."

Tell the Iraqis that.

"There is a report that a soldier fondles the genitals of one."

This is obviously inappropriate behavior. Moore should have turned in the footage to the Red Cross or the UN or something if he was so worried about "Big Media".

What he did (nothing) was morally wrong any way you look at it.

So, Michael Moore didn't release his limited amount of pictures to the government or the public and, the president, the whole administration, and the entire armed forces didn't release tons upon tons of the same information. Instead of blaming the government for hiding the fact that we were torturing people, let's blame some fat white liberal who has no real relevance in this issue except that he is left leaning. Sounds about right.

I think what needs to be determined is when Mr. Moore obtained these images. The misconduct took place, as I recall, late November '03; there's a claim that ICRC was ignored, but from what I've read it seems the normal investigation process was started and the conclusion of that investigation is just beginning (courts martial).

If Mr. Moore obtained the images in February (for example), and the military had already put a halt to the misconduct, then it couldn't have prevented further unprofessional actions by the soldiers.

I'm finding it hard not to believe Mr. Moore's intent was purely publicity seeking.

Given that I haven't seen the clips in question, it would not be surprising if they have been creatively edited by moore.
For example: Suppose it was a pat-down for weapons? Clip it out of context, mute/change the audio, and suddenly you've got a guy in uniform "feeling up" a prisoner.

Yet you wonder why he would be hesitant to release the pictures...

From Michael Moore's past display of manipulation, I gather he is doing the same with his current precious "prison footage"

Manipulate away Moore, the sheeple love you for it.

Wow, Michael Moore is FAT!
Thanks for sharing.
I'm fairly certain that no one would have been aware of this pertinent fact without cheap shot artists that think it is an acceptable tool to hammer home the idea that the man is a manipulative destructive sound bite shill for his own personal gain.
It's just astonishing the things you learn on the Internet.

Grad, in case you didn't notice, the man's ass has it's own gravitational pull.

Seriously, 'hammering home the point of Michael Moore being a shill' takes all of a paragraph or two. After that you've gotta spice things up with a little sarcasm.

Or, as Michael "Dude, where's my feet?" Moore would call it, creative editing.

Since when is it his reasonability to report this stuff. He is not a news agency, he is just a guy. The real problem is in the systems itself. The government knew this was goiong on, and why do we care 6-12 months ago all we wanted was blood.

po·lem·ic (n):

1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.

2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.

THIS is what Michael Moore is and what he makes. For all of you people that hate him, your arguments do nothing but feed his need for attention. If you want to show your protest, then pay him no attention at all.

"Ay, but therein lies the rub." Shakespeare knows. So what ever will you do? Lay dormant and let Moore speak unhindered, or add fuel to his bonfire, to attract attention to his crisis du jour?

In the immortal words of Bloodhound Gang: "We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn...."

What a surprise...

Michael Moore holds back something that disgusts him for its impact. And low and behold this latest kerfuffle comes a few weeks before the film is released. Just like his fake "Disney is censoring me" crap.

Geez at least Scott Ritter not talking about the Saddam child prisons was based on misplaced ideology(ie: didn't want pro-war peoplle to have any ammo), Moore's doing it to make money.

Zenny, you have a point. You just can't go wrong with BHG.

Burn, motherfucker, burn.

In other immortal words of BHG

"Hooray for boobies" and "A lapdance is so much better when the stripper is crying"

Oh yeah, and has anyone noticed that Michael Moore is rather large?

Now wait, Michele. Am I to understand correctly that you're criticizing Moore for not releasing the photos, as if his doing so would have prevented further abuse the same way the Red Cross report did? Let's suppose he had released the photos. I can just see the Fox News report now...

Michael Moore, the director of such controversial films as Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine today released film purported to show terrorists prisoners in Iraq being mistreated by U.S. soldiers. Moore has made no secret of his dislike for President Bush, nor of his desire to prevent Bush from being re-elected. He is also a known Communist sympathizer and regularly eats small children for breakfast.

....and the warblogger reaction...

"This idiot thinks he can singlehandedly discredit the Iraq war by showing a few terrorists with hoods on. He is a useless lefty bastard and I want to punch him in the face."

Jeff Goldstein:
"Michael Moore is a FAT FAT FAT FAT FAT useless lefty bastard. And he likes the French."

"More here on why Michael Moore is nothing but a money-grubbing media whore. Read the whole thing."

Bill at INDC Journal:
"Check out these pictures of Michael Moore making stupid faces. Teeheeheehee."

Michael Moore didn't care about the people of Flint, either. Nor anyone else he has "helped" since. Michael Moore cares about one thing and one thing only: feeding his ego, which is easily 10 times the size of his body.

UPDATE: From Jeff. Boy did I call that one.

Wow! You're like a magician, Mike! Or a witch. Really. Amazing</> work! I don't whether to fear you or pray to you as my God.

Update: Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I just watched Michael Moore polish off an entire elk. Even ate the hooves, the lipid-guzzling donut czar.

Jeff G:

Two things.

One, you forgot to close the tag. Oops!

Two, my apparent precognition has far less to do with the supernatural than with your utter predictability. I could almost write your posts for you by now, although I'm not sure I'd manage that affected professorial air of condescension and absolute belief in my own brilliance that you do so well.

P.S. What the hell is your goddam problem with fat people anyway, you pompous ass?

P.S.S. Your Spanish really sucks. Stick with the French.

Originality is overrated, Mike. Predictability: now there's an underappreciated asset.

And predicatable pomposity with an affected professorial air of condescension and absolute belief in my own brilliancean? Why, I'm almost fit to be a Kerry...

"Moore said he doesn't trust big media."

My jaw dropped so hard I bruised my chest.

Laura Z writes about "Hoods are not torture," tell the Iraqi people that.


Dear Iraqi people,

Hoods are not torture. I know you know that, and just misguided people in this country are putting words in your mouth. But one of them asked me to tell you, so I did.

And just in case you have really short memories and maybe have forgotten what torture is (or maybe your just one of the misguided in this country who doesn't know what torture is to begin with), Click here and scroll down to "Annex One" and then view the photos below it.


You forgot to remind them to just skip over the sections called "mock executions" which ... uh, well how about you read it, eh? Has something to do with hoods! Wow. I guess they do remember.

You might pick up on the section called "sexual abuse" too. We are better then Saddam though. Doesn't your newly discovered moral relativism just give you a warm fuzzy feeling? Of course, it doesn't have any section with Saddam letting dogs maul people, so I guess we are up in some areas. Modern tech and all that.

Moral relativism is a sick, sick road to go down. It's sick when the liberals do it, and it's sick when you do it. Being less evil then Saddam is not exactly the bar I'd like my country to be measured by, but apparently the new faux-conservative philosophy is "if it feels good..." Can't you just admit it's bad and find a way blame Clinton? He's coming out with a new book, you know? It's all about personal responsibility.

"Moral relativism is a sick, sick road to go down."

So don't go down it.

Soli -

Do you have more straw men in reserve? Or was that all of them?

Michael Moore should just shut up. I mean, who wants to listen to fat people anyway? Fat people should at least be quiet and hide away. That is, if they won't do the patriotic and right thing by opening their vains and bleeding to death so that we don't have to bother with the burden of their fat, gravitational pull.
Besides, I'm sure that michael moore was the only person who had posession of those photos at that time. Being that he such an inside operative and privy to such intelligence he could have single-handedly stopped the entire debacle before it harmed America's standing in the world and crushed more Iraqi dignity.

Trenchant analysis, I'd Do Coulter. Let's see if I can walk through it: 1) Michael Moore is fat. Fat people are fat. Michael Moore = all fat people.

2) If Michael Moore should shut up, and Michael Moore = all fat people, then all fat people should shut up.

3) Hey, lay of the fat people, wingnuts!

Oh, and Blah blah right-wing Rumsfeld warmonger chickenhawk evil Bushies Wolwowitz and his neocon cabal for oiloiloiloiloiloil blah blah ignorant stupid bloodthirsty morons, the real axis of evil on a ranch in Crawford and blah blah blah no WMD he lied, Bushitler lied, people died died died tie-dyed peace peace peace down with the Zionists! peace peace Kyoto! they hate us they hate us they hate us and what can we do and root causes and root causes and blowback and Plame and Plame and Chalabi Plame Wilson blah blah blah unilateral multinational Halliburton Enronism crony capitalism and it's all about oiloiloiloil blah blah blah, cowboyish disregard for allies, for the wishes of the world community who rise up against us, the terrorist threat is overblown and anyway, it's all our fault because we gave Saddam his weapons to begin with, photo of Rummy and Hussein, but make no mistake, he no longer has those weapons because inspections worked, containment worked, and blah blah blah Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan handle it, Roy, handle it handle it, Caspian pipeline oiloiloiloil blah blah blah show me the stockpiles, anthrax CIA plant Richard Clarke said so and we believe him because and unless unless unless Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib, square-jawed cocksucking military jarhead torturing fucks, bring home our troops! We care about the troops! We support the troops and don't you question our patriotism our love for this fucking filthy crass consumerist bullying country of redneck dolts and biblethumping bourgeois suburbanites with their SUVs and where are the CAFE standards fight the real terror, eco-terror, Israel, the US, imperialist colonialist racist homophobic hegemonic and blah blah blah blah blah because dissent is patriotism and fighting against your country is really fighting for your country and our dissent keeps the nation strong and we're brave and heroic and up is down and black is white and oiloiloiloiloiloiloiloil blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.™

All of this abuse talk needs some perspective. Take a look at this possible headline:

see here

Looks like Jeff's back to using his "instant leftist boilerplate" again. {Sigh} Hey, Jeff, what's the sound of one pompous ass patting himself on the back?

Good For You, jeff! Now, you're getting the point. Now add some punctuation and string together some of those words into sentences and you might be spewing something other than pseudointellectual blather for a change.

God, Micheal Moore is just so damn fat.

Hey, Jeff, what's the sound of one pompous ass patting himself on the back?

I dunno. Something like, "Ah. You rule, Jeff! Say something to make the inner Jeff giggle and juxtapose it against something professorial and pompous. Good, that's it. Now touch yourself."

And yes, I know, I'm pompous and self-congratulatory and boring and shallow and pseudo-intellectual and boring and pompous and shallow and you don't like me and you don't read my boring and pompous site and all that... But goddamn Michael Moore is one fat hack, ain't he? I mean, he's like a Volkswagon bus with a grillful of mutton and a baseball cap.

Hey, um, does anyone have a picture of Mike that they could e-mail me?

PS - I'm more highly evolved than Goldstein. I don't hate Michael Moore because he's fat. I hate him because he's dishonest and manipulative. But don't blame Jeff, Mike. A little known fact about Goldstein is that when he was a boy ... well ... Jeff had a weight problem. His parents put him on diets, fed him celery and carrots, even forced him to run in circles around the back yard with his hands tied behind his back and a cheeseburger on a stick dangling from his head.

When Jeff reached his teen years (and his testicles descended), his metabolism made a dramatic shift and he morphed into the strapping young Al Pacino clone that we see today.

But here's the thing, Mike ... inside ... he's still that little fat boy with a cheeseburger on his head ... and he hurts. Mike - please understand. Use your powers of disproportionate liberal empathy (that's selectively applied to reinforce your paranoid and auto-rebellious worldview), and understand that every time Jeff makes a fat joke about Michael Moore, he's hurting himself. jeff needs your understanding, not your scorn.

Jeff ... I ... I ... I love you, Jeff. We all love you. Let the little fat boy go. Set him free. Give him the cheeseburger.

My parents tied my hands all right, but that weren't no cheeseburger. Unless Uncle Oscar had a nickname I don't know about.

By the way, Bill, you're quite short, aren't you?

I think the current debate on torture generally (especially in light of recent revelations, largely unreported, of Saddam's real tortures in Abu Ghraib)is kind of sloppy (the major media, not the blogs necessarily).

Proper perspective on this story requires a moral judgment as to the behavior involved. I touch on that some (and discuss the definitional problem of the word torture) here= http://efalkner.blogspot.com/2004/06/was-it-torture.html.

And now for the right-wing version.

Short and strikingly handsome, Jeff. And thin.

I'm thick and muscular, like a good rump roast. And my smile once made Uma Thurman bump into a low-hanging bar lamp, summer, 1989.

Yeah, well I once had sex with a girl that had sex with Marky Mark. He was in Planet of the Apes.


And yes, I know, I'm pompous and self-congratulatory and boring and shallow and pseudo-intellectual and boring and pompous and shallow and you don't like me and you don't read my boring and pompous site and all that

Well, Jeff, ever heard the expression "know your enemy"? Plus, you certainly attack liberals enough that you must read the "liberal" media (that damn liberal media again) to have some understanding of the ideas you disparage. Or, wait, you wouldn't... generalize and just reflexively bad-mouth anything that appears to be based on tolerance, open-mindedness, multiculturalism, etc. I mean, that would be unheard-of for a wingnut! Well, maybe you're the exception, but maybe you're right anyway. Maybe I should stop reading right-wing sites in order to understand the perspective of the other side. I guess we'd all be better off just living in our own closed-loop Us and Them worlds in which We are always right and They are always wrong, even if we have not the first clue about what it is They really want. What was I thinking?

Yeah, but the remake. You may as well have banged one of Steve Guttenberg's castoffs.

Now, Jami Gertz in the coat closet at the wrap party for "Square Pegs"...that was some lovin,' my diminutive friend.

(Ooh. That last message was to Bill. Mikey is just some buzzy li'l fly who wants to hang around and lick a bit of daiquiri off the glasses when nobody's looking. Shoo fly. Shoo.)

Jamie Gertz, huh? Wow.

in response:

"This is all a gimmic for him to make money and that he does not even believe the things he puts in his fakumentarys."

"I'm finding it hard not to believe Mr. Moore's intent was purely publicity seeking."

and finally, from grad:
"I'm fairly certain that no one would have been aware of this pertinent fact without cheap shot artists that think it is an acceptable tool to hammer home the idea that the man is a manipulative destructive sound bite shill for his own personal gain."
"It's just astonishing the things you learn on the Internet."

yes grad, it is:

Yeah. A 1982 Jamie Gertz at that, Bill. So, yeah.

You want to touch me now, don't you?

Nah. I was just thinking that I was only 7 years-old in 1982. If I touched you, I'd be afraid your hip would dislocate or something.

In '82 I was listening to Asia. Too young for a license, I hung out at the Stoneybrook swim club a lot and flirted with Mindy Hammerman. Man, did I ever have a crush on that chick.

And on Asia.

Mike Reno weren't no slouch, either.

As long as it wasn't Jami Gertz from "Less than Zero" because she had become intolerable by then.

So now I'm stuck with images of an eight year old Bill walking in on a teenage Jeff playing pocket pool while listening to Asia.

I'm sorry, I know I'm late to this thread again, but I just wanted to fawn over Jeff G, chuckle at Bill, admire michele, tell Mike to chill and remind everyone here that my stance on Moore has not changed and that he is still only a few pounds short of the weight limit of most suspension bridges.

Oh yeah, and he's a dishonest fat person too.

Who was Michael Moore supposed to inform about these pictures? Any attempt to bring these images to the governments attention would have surely reulted in a cover-up or dismissed as not being authentic. I feel Michael Moore used the images in his movie to inform its viewers as the kind of treatment that was being done to Iraqi citizens by American soldiers. The purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 is not to attack the Bush administration, but to shed light on many of the issues and concerns that Moore felt the American people should be made aware of.
I have been a huge fan of Moore's work in the past. In my opinion, Matt Lauer looked like a cheerleader for the Bush administartion. This was just another example of how politics and media are a unified force in forming the attitudes and beliefs of American citizens. Michael Moore simply wants us to know the truth.

Michael Moore is not journalist and has no ethical obligation as a filmmaker to turn over information about an issue that even the Red Cross (!) had been trying to get the evil bastards in the White House to stop ignoring months before the story was released on 60 Minutes.

Here's only some of the interview (I think)

Now what do you suppose would have happened to that footage had Michael Moore dutifully reported its existence and turned it over to Bush's duly-appointed guardians of law enforcement, like John Ashcroft? I suspect, given Ascroft's apologiae for torture in recent weeks, they would have disappeared the stuff. So I guess my point is, FUCK YOU, HYPOCRITE ASSHOLE, AND GOOD RIDDANCE TO YOUR MAN IN NOVEMBER...Man, now I feel better