[wordup] Michael Moore Responds to "Wackos" on Bowling for Columbine

[Adam Shand]

So this is *really* good to see.  I was pissed at Michael Moore because 
it seemed that his attackers were correct as he wasn't offering any 
counter examples.  I sincerely hope that what he and Eloquence are 
saying is the truth.

Be sure to check the original URLs for lots of links to more information.

Adam.

From: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/24/53736/8924
More: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Michael Moore Responds to "Wackos" on Bowling for Columbine (Op-Ed)

By Eloquence
Wed Sep 24th, 2003 at 02:21:56 PM EST

"Bowling for Truth", "Moore Lies", "Moore Watch", "Michael Moore Hates 
America" -- the right wing has been busy in its campaign to discredit 
filmmaker and author Michael Moore and his film Bowling for Columbine in 
particular. Last month, I wrote a response to the critique by NRA lawyer 
David Hardy, which has been the main source for many of the anti-Moore 
sites. But I was somewhat disappointed by Moore's responses to the 
criticisms -- Moore has always been Internet-Savvy, but up to this 
point, there was only a somewhat meager FAQ (the link is now dead; 
Google cache).

In light of his pending book publication in October (Dude, Where's My 
Country?), Moore is now fighting back against the "Lying Liars" (an Al 
Franken expression which Moore has borrowed for the title of his 
response). On his Wacko Attacko page, he answers in detail to the most 
common criticisms of the film.

His response to the famous "bank scene" (transcript) is particularly 
interesting. In my analysis I had to give Moore's attackers the benefit 
of the doubt and conclude that some prearrangement took place without 
Moore's knowledge. Moore now presents outtakes from the scene which not 
only show that it happened exactly as he says but also that both the 
bank and the media have deliberately deceived the public about the 
bank's policy. The WSJ noted in an editorial:

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his 
account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had 
worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a 
prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in 
another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, 
you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says.

This paragraph contains more deception than Moore's entire film. A 
Forbes article repeated the claim: "You have to buy a long-term CD, then 
go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check."

In the outtake, Jacobson explains the policy more specifically. Moore 
can pick the gun up immediately from their vault (which is not "two 
hours away", as some reports have claimed) -- he specifically asks 
Jacobson whether this can be done in the bank and Jacobson responds that 
it will only take a few minutes. The outtakes show him going through the 
complete background check and a bank employee returning from the bank's 
vault with the gun. The policy which the WSJ article refers to, the 
outtake shows, applies only to people who cannot come to the bank to 
pick up their gun. In these cases, customers have to pick it up at a 
licensed firearms dealer near them because the gun cannot be shipped 
directly. It's not Moore who lies -- his critics do, with impunity.

Concerning the claim that the Columbine shooters did not go bowling that 
morning, Moore provides scans of witness reports. But even though 
several witnesses remember seeing the shooters, Moore himself did phrase 
it as a question in the movie: "So did Dylan and Eric show up that 
morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And 
did they just chuck the balls down the lane?" Yet his critics accuse him 
of lying.

Moore uses the same, obvious explanation for Heston's NRA speech that I 
have offered in my analysis. He does not respond to the charge that he 
tricked viewers into believing that Heston's speech in Flint, Michigan 
happened 48 hours after a little girl was shot by cleverly highlighting 
a specific passage of a press release. I have debunked that claim in my 
analysis, however, and Moore responded by private mail to me that he 
agrees that it is a case of bad editing ("I would do it over differently 
if I could").

There is a lot more meat to his response to his critics, and he clearly 
shows that the media are repeating the false claims about his film 
without any investigative work whatsoever. It remains to be seen whether 
his Internet campaign can make a difference, but he promises that he 
will keep readers informed about the latest "wacko attacks".