It must be true, I read it on the web!

How many times have you seen an item on the web that simply paraphrases another web source without question? Soon, the story has a life of its own, and each new version adds its own embellishments. These "according to" stories are everywhere, but one particular story caught my attention and led me down an interesting path of discovery. It was from the online version of a Scottish newspaper, The Sunday Herald, entitled "Moore: Pirate my film, no problem." The July 4 story quoted Michael Moore:

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge.
The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."

A link to this story had been posted in a discussion thread where I was arguing that downloading Fahrenheit 9/11 was not only illegal, but really an insult to Moore's efforts. And then, Hey, buddy, Mike says it's okay! What was I to think?

Actually, I thought it sounded really familiar ...

A CNN.com story from July 2 had said the following:

The war between Michael Moore and his critics has escalated, with a Web site targeting the "Fahrenheit 9/11" director posting a link to an illegal "Fahrenheit" file download. In the process, it also attacked the filmmaker's stance on copyright law.
A June 27 posting on the site www.MooreWatch.com invites visitors to download the film. It quotes Moore, though it doesn't cite a source, as encouraging such downloading by saying: "I don't agree with the copyright laws, and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people. As long as they're not doing it to make a profit, you know, as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that."

The difference was that this earlier article did not claim they had talked to Moore, but were just quoting the anti-Moore site.

I found an "update" on the Moorewatch site that added to the story:

Lest anyone think that Moore disagrees with people downloading his work product, consider this exchange during a press conference. Moore was asked by a reporter, "When people download your movies without paying for them, do you think it's a good thing because your message gets out?" Moore's reply:
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people. As long as they're not doing it to make a profit, you know, as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that."
He then goes on about how he does very well financially from his books and films, so downloading his movie is really no big deal. If you would like to see the clip of Moore saying this, you can download the Torrent file and check it out yourself. So, Michael, if you decide to sue me for posting the Torrent for your film, know that I'll be playing this clip as our defense. Come on, big boy, sue me.

It turns out that this exchange was from a pre-Cannes press conference where Moore may have been caught off guard and said a little more than he should have. However, this is not the point. What is revealed here is that the claim that the alleged quotation in the Sunday Herald article was the result of an interview was a lie. It is just an embellishment of the older material. Was this just innocent plagiarism or malicious fabrication? I decided to find out.

I sent a rather "heated" email to the Sunday Herald expressing my concerns over the lack of credibility of the article, which I described as "indefensible." I reminded them that every other article on the subject was now using their piece as the justification for downloading, and that all of this could be traced back to Moorewatch.com. I asked that Iain Bruce, the author, issue a retraction and apology to Moore or, as an alternative, at least an honest statement of support for George Bush and the war in Iraq. I was curious to see the reply, if any...

And...nothing.

So I decided to try a second email, directly to the author, trying to be a little calmer. It restated my questions about the article's authenticity, and said:

Your article is being cited as a justification for film piracy. I'm not certain this was your intent, but unless you set the record straight, you are indeed an accomplice to the crime. Why don't you try to be a real human being and admit your mistakes? It would be a good first step to correcting the harm you've done.

A couple of minutes later, the message was returned, with this part attached:

Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.7.1 This system has been configured to
reject your mail X-Display-Name: Iain Bruce-fwd

As it turned out, Mr. Bruce was not only the author, but also the webmaster for this site, and had chosen the coward's way of dealing with the issue.

But it seems that persistence does pay off. Never one to give up easily, I tried the tactic of emailing David Milne, the editor of the Sunday Herald print edition. My main question was, "Did the Sunday Herald interview Michael Moore?"

About a day later, he replied, and this is the important portion of the email:

The information contained in the story - and the quotes attributed to Mr Moore - were supplied to the Sunday Herald by his press team as the direct result of an inquiry from one of our journalists.
The newspaper had become aware that copies of the film were circulating on the internet. Given the ongoing debate surrounding film piracy and the controversy generated by Mr Moore's movie it was considered newsworthy to solicit his views on this development.
We believe that the story accurately reflects those views and are not aware that Mr Moore - or any of his representatives - have questioned its veracity
If you believe the story to be inaccurate, or wish to challenge any of the views expressed within it we would be happy to consider a letter for publication.

While I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Milne was sincere in his belief that his "journalist", Iain Bruce, used original material for the piece, comparison to earlier posted articles shows otherwise. The statement that "the newspaper had become aware" of the downloads points to the original material on Moorewatch.com (or at the very least the article on CNN.com and another article on E! Online) as the catalyst of awareness.

Additionally, it is very interesting that the Sunday Herald article says:

The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.

...and now I'm told that

The information contained in the story - and the quotes attributed to Mr Moore - were supplied to the Sunday Herald by his press team

Also, now it was clear that if you say something about a person, and they don't make a public denial, then it must be true!

Finally, while I appreciated the invitation to "challenge the views" of the article, I felt I must be stuck in some sort of Groundhog Day time loop, since that was the object of my first letter to the paper...Maybe I'm cursed to keep on writing that letter until I get it right.

I'm not sure if Michael Moore will ever choose to clear any of this up, but of course, why would he need to? There are so many who can already tell us what he thinks...

[Portions of this were originally posted, in somewhat different form, on the Randi Rhodes Show Message Board]


An earlier incarnation (August 19, 1694)