ludahai said:
I already did earlier in the thread, the Pantagraph newspaper clipping was altered. Moore took a letter to the editor and altered it to look like a Pantagraph headline. He even changed the date. Billo wouldn't touch it. I suggest you read through the thread, find it, and respond!
You bet.
I say, big deal. It appears for one millisecond in the film.
I found this interesting article that explains in full how the mistake could of happened:
<snip>
In a recent issue of the Indy, writer and ISU Cinema Society member John K. Wilson offered a reasonable explanation as to why controversial edit appears in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Moore's researchers, using a NEXIS search engine to find newspaper headlines, may have discovered a text-only version of Soderlund's letter. Using that version, Wilson presupposes Moore's production team put together the graphic used in the movie, recreating The Pantagraph piece word-for-word.
The dateline switch from Dec. 5 to Dec. 19 isn't surprising, Wilson said, given Flick's own date mistake in reporting it. In a July column, Flick wrote the Moore graphic gave the date of Dec. 11 - not Dec. 5.
"Just for fun, we went back to the Dec. 19, 2001 editions, to ogle the headline and paper shown in the movie," Flick wrote. "But somehow there was no such news story in that day's paper.
"We found that curious," Flick's column continued. "How could a news headline that never appeared in the Dec. 19 paper appear in a copy of the Dec. 19 paper shown in the movie?
"Now we learn how."
Using NEXIS to search for news articles, "you have to notice the word 'editorial' in the section marker or you may mistake a letter for a news story," Wilson explained. "It's an easy mistake to make."
If Moore had used the actual Pantagraph piece, "it would have prevented all the other mistakes in [the] film," Wilson said. They would have realized it was a letter - assuming they didn't - [and] they wouldn't have screwed up the date, and there wouldn't be a controversy."
<snip>
This part explains it even better:
<snip>
According to cameraman Michael McDonough, who worked with Moore on "Bowling for Columbine," these elements exist because "that's just the way documentary films are shot... [It's] there to make the story [of a documentary] more understandable...
"They are not in every single documentary you'll see," said McDonough, "but probably nine out of every 10 documentaries has some form of recreation in them."
Wilson said the retyping of The Pantagraph headline and Soderlund's letter fall into the category of acceptable reinterpretation.
"The Pantagraph uses a different font, size and format for headlines on its own website," Wilson said. "Headline fonts are irrelevant. Moore accurately reported what a headline somewhere in the Pantagraph in Dec. 2001 said.
"If the Pantagraph headline had been the sole evidence of Gore winning the 2000 election in Florida, then the use would have been misleading," Wilson continued.
"But the Pantagraph [piece] was there just to visually illustrate the idea proved elsewhere. It was a very small detail of very little consequence.
"A typo in The Pantagraph - or the Indy, or the Vidette - may indicate carelessness, but it doesn't mean anythig else if the [content of] the newspaper is incorrect," Wilson added.
"We expect minor mistakes to be made on occasion. We don't send our lawyers after someone for them."
<snip>
Link:
http://www.dailyvidette.org/media/p...ing.Keeps.fahrenheit.911.Burning-705323.shtml
I hope you have better proof of deceit, cuz this minute detail is simply grasping at straws.
Next...
