In the June 2008 Scientific American, Shermer wrote a review of "Expelled!", a movie defending intelligent design and denigrating Darwin and evolution, by Ben Stein. You can read the review on Shermer's website at skeptic.com. I have no idea why anyone would listen to Ben Stein, but here is the letter I wrote to Scientific American:
Dear Editor,
I read Mr. Shermer's review of the Ben Stein movie "Expelled" in the June 2008 issue. I agreed with his opinion of anti-evolutionist reasoning.
After he ranted about how inaccurate it was, stating that "Expelled" would "make Leni Riefenstahl blush", this sentence stopped me in my tracks: "The film deserves the Michael Moore Palme d'Or for Objective Journalism".
I assume that by that statement, he was stating that Michael Moore is NOT objective.
People who lie about living people in their books or movies are guilty of slander & libel, which is a tort. They are sued by the person slandered, and if a jury deems the defendant guilty, they generally award damages to the plaintiff, for damage to the plaintiff's reputation.
Michael Moore has not been successfully sued. Why is that? Because he has lawyers (the "former chief counsel and head of fact-checking for The New Yorker") who go through all his work very carefully, checking every word and every fact, to make sure it is true.
This is part of an interview about his film "Fahrenheit 9/11" which showed the negligence and incompetence of the Bush Administration before 9-11 happened:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=89 Quote:
Entertainment Weekly: There are people who are going to look for any threadbare weakness in the film. This moment seems like fertile ground for them.
MM: I'm ready for them. I'm really ready for them this time.
EW: Yeah, you've got
Chris Lehane, one of the meanest political advisers on the planet.
MM: That's right. F--- with me and I've got the chief motherf---er. And I also went and hired the former chief counsel and head of fact-checking at The New Yorker and then she brought in some fact-checkers. I said tear the movie apart and find something wrong with it. I've done this for my other movies, too. I've had virtually no lawsuits. Four books, not one lawsuit. Awful Truth, two seasons, zero lawsuits. TV Nation? Two seasons, one lawsuit, we won it. Bowling for Columbine, no lawsuits until the Oklahoma City bombers' brother sued us--remember when we go into the bedroom and the gun is under the pillow? A privacy thing. The Big One, no lawsuits.
EW: And Canadian Bacon! No lawsuits!
MM: You get my point. I don't get sued because my facts are correct. I libel no one. My opinions are my own and they may or may not be correct, but let's have that debate.
EW: A couple of questions about the criticism of Fahrenheit. People have pointed out that the Saudis left the U.S. after the airspace was open--the film implies otherwise. Richard Clarke himself took responsibility and said there was nothing wrong with their leaving.
MM: Well, first of all, we know of at least one Saudi flight that did leave after all the airspace was closed. It was a flight that picked up some Saudis in Tampa, flew up to Lexington, Kentucky, and picked up more Saudis. The St. Petersburg Times did a great story on it. So it's a legitimate question to ask how many other flights flew during that time. What your question is really about is my interpretation of the facts. No one is denying that there was special treatment given to the Saudis, and Clarke was doing what he was supposed to be doing as an employee of the White House.
EW: But he took responsibility for the decision that was made.
MM: But he went on the word of the FBI. It turns out later that the FBI only interviewed 30 of the 142 Saudis. It's my interpretation and opinion that that was not a thorough investigation. I mean, is anybody accusing me of saying something that isn't true? Or is it my interpretation of the events?
End quote.
Does criticizing the President amount to disloyalty? No.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."
- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States
I know Michael Shermer was writing an opinion piece about the Ben Stein movie but he should not have slandered Michael Moore by associating him with Ben Stein, and indirectly calling him a liar.
Implying that Michael Moore is an irresponsible journalist is wrong. A lot of people hate Michael Moore for telling the truth, when they don't like it. Michael Moore would have been sued a long time ago if he was lying in his movies, and judgments would have been won and upheld against him.
I do not know if SciAm had any input into the Shermer column, or reviewed it before publication. Mr. Shermer should check his facts instead of blindly accepting the meme that's been floating around for several years of "Michael Moore is a liar and all his movies are lies".
I expect more responsible journalism from Scientific American.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX, J.D.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
