Michael Moore Censorship Movement

2001, December 07: Stupid White Men and Other Excuses for the State of the Nation

By Michael Moore. This author and filmmaker spoke before an audience of over one hundred people and told them that HarperCollins was holding back one hundred thousand copies of his latest book; which had been slated for release on September 11th. HarperCollins decided that the aftermath was not a good time to release a satirical work that was critical of government, and finally told Moore that they were going to pulp the whole print run and that he would have to rewrite the work.

Moore reported that HarperCollins had said the book was offensive and had accused Moore of being intellectually dishonest for not saying that Bush had been doing a good job over the last few months. He also said that HarperCollins expected him to pay for the print run of the revised edition they wanted from him.

The copyright and right to publish the book is expected to revert back to Moore in June or so of 2002, so if HarperCollins won't release the book he should be able to get it re-published at a smaller, independent house.

[Is it just me or do you also see the stupidity inherent in criticizing a writer for not praising something that hadn't yet happened when his book was printed? For that matter, why did HarperCollins print the book in the first place if they didn't like that Bush wasn't praised in it? --MN]

2002, January 07: Stupid White Men and Other Excuses for the State of the Nation

By Michael Moore. It was announced that the book would hit the shelves uncut. The new release date is for March 2002. Originally slated for a 02 Oct 2001 release, the book fell afoul of the emotional climate of the post World-Trade-Center-attack period. Moore, who is a satirist, was highly critical of George Bush Jr. in a number of pieces, some of which are included in the book. In light of the WTC tragedy HarperCollins decided the book should be revised with new material addressing the events of 11 September. They also wanted the cover art redone. Moore agreed to make these changes, but then HarperCollins went way out of line.

After he agreed to provide new material and authorized changes to the cover art, HarperCollins then required, as part of the deal, that he rewrite as much as 50 percent of the material already in the book, that he pay for half the cost of the destruction of the 50,000 copies (half of a scheduled 100,000 copy first printing), and for half the cost of printing the new edition.

Moore commented on this aspect, "They wanted me to censor myself and then pay for the right to censor myself. I'm not going to do that!"

HarperCollins did an about face when word of the proposed censorship got out through a grapevine dedicated to librarians. So why would a major publisher cave in to a bunch of grandmotherly types with pince-nez glasses perched on their freckled noses and hair done up in a bun? Libraries in the U.S. buy to the tune of two billion dollars per annum.

[Chalk one up for the good guys! --MN]

2004, May 03: Fahrenheit 9/11

By Michael Moore. See my commentary on the Michael Moore/Miramax Affair page.

2004, June 17: Report on challenge to Fahrenheit 9/11

By Michael Moore. Having weathered a contretemps with Disney Corporation, this film is now under assault by a California-based group called Move America Forward; which is obstentibly dedicated to supporting America's war on terrorism. This does not explain why this group is attempting to suppress Moore's film by reportedly bullying theater chains into not running it. See the source article, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' on the Hot Seat, by Bill Berkowitz, at AlterNet.org. It also details how the Republican Party managed to protect a former president from criticism by bullyragging CBS into submission.

[See my commentary on this issue; this one is just such a sample of egregious, republican-conservative, double-think I have to say something about it. --MN]

2004, June 24: Fahrenheit 9/11

By Michael Moore. In the continuing saga to censor Michael Moore, yet another conservativist group has launched an attack against his latest film. This time by alleging the film constitutes political propaganda and that advertising for it is in violation of the campaign-finance law. The group Citizens United filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Those regulations forbid using corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the thirty days before his party's nominating convention, and the sixty days before the 02 Nov election. President Bush will be nominated at the GOP convention over the weekend of 30 Aug. Mr. Moore commented that the complaint is, "a blatant attempt on the part of a right-wing, Republican-sponsored group to stop people from seeing my movie. [...] "It's a violation of my First Amendment rights that I cannot advertise my movie. It's a movie. I have not publicly endorsed John Kerry. I am an independent, I am not a member of the Democratic Party."

An exemption to the law frees a wide array of media organizations from the ban, and the film could be covered by the media exemption, although Citizens United claim that it is not due to being propaganda. In any event, the FEC could take months to issue a ruling on the complaint, making it unlikely it will act in time to affect the film's ad campaign.

[See the source article for more background. The conservative wing of the American political system has launched a flurry of FEC complaints against political opponents in an effort to silence their messages. These complaints constitute a clear and present abuse of authority and the law, as far as I'm concerned. --MN]

2004, June 25: Fahrenheit 9/11

By Michael Moore. The film hit the theaters with a big splash, demonstrating once again the counter-productivity of censorship. Although there is no way to determine how much of the popularity is due to attemps to silence Moore, how much is "customer loyalty", and how much derives from disgust with the presidency of George Bush.

In an repudiation of the conservatist censorship movement, the film:

• broke single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it pre-debuted on 24 Jun:
  • Loew’s Village 7 theater: sold $49,000 worth of tickets, beating the venue’s single-day record of $43,435 held by 1997’s "Men in Black,
  • Lincoln Plaza theater: Fahrenheit 9/11 took in more than $30,000 to top the $24,013 set by Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in 2000
• it was scheduled to show, on the official day of release, in 868 theaters throughout the U.S.
• the online ticket service Fandango.com reported on 23 Jun that Fahrenheit 9/11 was making up 48 percent of advance ticket sales for the coming weekend, compared to 11 percent for Dodgeball and 9 percent for Spider-Man 2, which is due to open 30 Jun. On 28 Jun, the Ananova.com web site reported that Fahrenheit 9/11 became the first documentary ever to top the US box office at the weekend, taking in an astounding 16 million pounds (21.8 million dollars) in just three days. This, despite the fact that it was not even shown at the usual number of cinemas.

2004, June 28: Whistleblowing on censorship against Fahrenheit 9/11

By The Progress Report; and reprinted at AlterNet.org. This analysis of the censorship movement against the film looks at a few key efforts to have it banned, suppressed, or discredited from three major directions, and thoroughly debunks the assertions of the censors. Written by David J. Sirota, Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin, the article:

• Reports a very cozy financial relationship between Michael Eisner and Disney with President and Governor Bush.

• Reports that at least two of the charges levied by Moore in the film are accurate.

• Briefly touches upon the hypocrisy of White House communications director Dan Bartlett, who said the movie "was so outrageously false it's not even worth comment", and Move America Forward, which "launched a preemptive attack against" the movie "by requesting movie theaters across the country not to show the film." Neither Bartlett or Howard Kaloogian had yet seen the film.

• Briefly touches upon the hypocrisy of David Bossie and Citizens United, who, two years ago, led a charge against FEC interventions. On 12 Jun 2002, The Hill newspaper reported Bossie saying his group feels, "FEC rules and regulations are abhorrent...they restrict the American people's ability to have an influence in politics."

• And it includes the fact that the Motion Picture Association of America saddled the movie with an R rating.

[I'm not sure about that last one. There are indications that the MPAA is too much a political body and my tendency is to regard it with a jaundiced eye in this matter, and although there are no overt indications that the MPAA is acting on behalf of the Bush administration or its proponents, I am not willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. --MN]

2004, July 03: Misrepresentative reporting on a ban of Fahrenheit 9/11

By Associated Press. The headline for this article read, Midwest Theaters Ban 'Fahrenheit 9/11', but this allegation is not borne out in the report. R.L. Fridley, who owns the Des Moines-based Fridley Theatres, says the controversial documentary incites terrorism, and wrote in an e-mail message to company managers that the chain does not, "play political propaganda films from either the right or the left." He also wrote, "Our country is in a war against an enemy who would destroy our way of life, our culture and kill our people. These barbarians have shown through (the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001) and the recent beheadings that they will stop at nothing. I believe this film emboldens them and divides our country even more."

[My call is: this is not a banning, just a business decision. Although it might not be a very good business decision. I don't imagine that Fridley is going to lose all that much pocket change, though. The key factor is, he is apparently not telling any other theater owners that they aren't allowed to show the film, the way the ultra-conservatives are doing. --MN]

2004, September 30: Report on attempt to suppress Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD

By ABC, CBS, and NBC. Sony Pictures sought to buy air time during news programs at these three networks to advertise the upcoming release of Fahrenheit 9/11 on DVD, and all three networks refused at first to sell time during news broadcasts, and then expanded that refusal to cover news magazines as well. An unidentified Sony insider is quoted, "They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election. All three networks said no. It was certainly a judgment that Sony disagrees with and is in the process of protesting." The story originally broke in the LA Weekly, but was carried at Alternet.org. The piece there read in part:

Just when we think Big Media's handling of this election can't get any worse, something like this comes along and we realize the situation is totally whack.

For all the hundreds of thousands of words broadcast and written about so-called Rathergate, the news of Sonygate hasn't received any attention at all. Yet here is more bile rising in our throats as Big Media does yet another favor for Dubya. At the very least the networks managed to delay Fahrenheit 9/11's DVD ads for several weeks by claiming they had to consult their attorneys to make sure the ads didn't fall under the Federal Election Commission rules governing electioneering communications -- a bunch of laughable hooey, especially considering the armadas of attorneys already on network payrolls keeping the Election Commission at bay. And speaking of lawyers, how interesting that Big Media spent so much time spanking -- or, worse, ignoring -- Kitty Kelley's newly released The Family that dares to criticize the Bushies. When, by contrast, the networks fell all over themselves basically promoting the bejesus out of that Swift Boat book of half-truths and full lies, Unfit for Command. As if, in some parallel universe, the lawyers for Kelley's publisher, Doubleday/Random House, are inferior to those of the Swifties' Regnery Publishing.

Where is the level playing field? Gone, thanks to the shenanigans of Big Media. Nor is it an exaggeration to state that the networks increasingly look like they're doing everything possible to help George W. win re-election.

[The claim that the networks are helping to get George Bush re-elected is not so fanciful as it seems. Again, see: The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World. Or read some of the quotations in my Journalists file. It's just that the help is relatively speaking rather than from some deliberate conspiracy. In either event, there is malfeasance afoot. --MN]

Return to chronology 30 Sep 2004

2007, May 02: A censorial challenge against Michael Moore

By the Bush Administration. Michael Moore took ailing New York City rescue workers from the World Trade Center attack to Cuba for a segment in his upcoming health-care film, Sicko. This new film of his promises to take the health-care industry to task the way Moore confronted America's passion for guns in Bowling for Columbine and skewered Bush over his handling of Sept. 11 in Fahrenheit 9/11. In a letter dated this day, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a branch of the U.S. Treasury Department, notified Mr. Moore that it was conducting a civil investigation for possible violations of the U.S. trade embargo restricting travel to Cuba. Dale Thompson, OFAC chief of general investigations and field operations, wrote in the letter: "This office has no record that a specific license was issued authorizing you to engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba." The letter noted that Mr. Moore had applied for permission to go to Cuba on 12 Oct 2006, "but no determination had been made by OFAC." Mr. Moore had asked for permission under a provision for full-time journalists. According to the letter, Mr. Moore was given twenty business days to provide OFAC with such information as:

• the date of travel;
• point of departure;
• the reason for the Cuba trip;
• his itinerary there;
• the names and addresses of those who were to accompany him;
• along with their reasons for going.

Potential penalties for violating the embargo were not indicated. Neo-con and ultra-rightist supporters of the Bush Administration have been as vocally critical of this latest documentary as they have been of Mr. Moore's earlier works. Mr. Moore made his first response to this action can be seen in Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which was posted at AlterNet.org on 12 May. He wrote in part:

I believe that the decision to conduct this investigation represents the latest example of the Bush Administration abusing the federal government for raw, crass, political purposes. Over the last seven years of the Bush Presidency, we have seen the abuse of government to promote a political agenda designed to benefit the conservative base of the Republican Party, special interests and major financial contributors. From holding secret meetings for the energy industry to re-writing science findings to cooking the books on intelligence to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, this Administration has shown time and time again that it will abuse its power and authority.

[...]

First, the Bush Administration has been aware of this matter for months (since October 2006) and never took any action until less than two weeks before SiCKO is set to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and a little more than a month before it is scheduled to open in the United States.

Second, the health care and insurance industry, which is exposed in the movie and has expressed concerns about the impact of the movie on their industries, is a major corporate underwriter of President George W. Bush and the Republican Party, having contributed over $13 million to the Bush presidential campaign in 2004 and more than $180 million to Republican candidates over the last two campaign cycles.

Return to chronology 02 May 2007

2007, May 19: A report on the ongoing Michael Moore/Sicko Affair

By Harvey Weinstein. On this day it was reported that Mr. Weinstein was alleging the U.S. federal government had attempted to impound the negative of Sicko. He stated that the film had been moved another country, and is quoted: " . . . we had to fly the movie to another country. [...] Let the secret service find that out - though this is the same country that thought there were weapons of mass destruction, so they'll never find it." He has concerns that if the film is turned over, it will be subjected to the censor's scissors, and in particular the last twenty minutes of the film. Mr. Weinstein named no suspects, but did refer to outspoken critics on the Republican right, those who accuse him of being a propagandist rather than a journalist, including current presidential candidate Bob Thompson. On that topic Mr. Weinstein commented: "Senator Thompson has come out with a tirade against Michael. Michael said he'd debate him, but Thompson turned him down."

Return to chronology 19 May 2007

2007, July 11: Report on an anti-Michael Moore/Sicko smear campaign

By the right-wing friendly press. On this day Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting issued an Action Alert in which it reported that Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Wolf Blitzer of CNN's Situation Room, had engaged in a ham-handed attack on Mr. Moore and his latest film. The attack consisted of misrepresentations, factual errors, and a hiding of relevant information by what might have been an honest production error. FAIR wrote in part:

Filmmaker Michael Moore appeared on CNN's Situation Room on July 9 to talk about his new film Sicko?but ended up having an animated discussion with host Wolf Blitzer about a CNN "fact check" of the film that made several embarrassing errors.

The piece--dubbed a "Reality Check" by senior medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta--claimed that Moore "fudged the facts" when critiquing the U.S. health care system (the clip is online at: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9041). Gupta starts by acknowledging that the U.S. healthcare system placed 37th in the World Health Organization's rankings. The fact that Moore contrasts this with the Cuban system led Gupta to "catch" him: "But hold on. That WHO list puts Cuba's healthcare system even lower than the United States, coming in at number 39."

The fact that the U.S.'s healthcare system does about as well as a Third World island that's been under economic sanctions for the past five decades isn't much of a catch to begin with. But Cuba's WHO ranking actually appears in Moore's film. (As Moore's website pointed out, when CNN aired the relevant clip from his film, a CNN logo covered up Cuba on the list.)

The watchdog group then went on to detail a number of egregious errors in Dr. Gupta's analysis of the film and wooden-headedness in the aftermath as well. FAIR did give CNN credit for inviting Michael to remain with them so as to continue the interview after time for the segment ran out. An article by John Nichol, of The Nation, was also reprinted on this day at CommonDreams.org. In the piece, titled Michael Moore Takes On CNN, Mr. Nichols wrote:

The frequently ridiculous Dr. Sanjay Gupta and the always ridiculous Wolf Blitzer tried to take apart filmmaker Michael Moore case against the failed U.S. health care system this week on CNN's "The Situation Room."

They lost.

Badly.

After airing Gupta's four-minute attack on Moore's new documentary, "Sicko," which sounded at times more like an insurance-industry advertisement than journalism, Blitzer introduced a live appearance by Moore.

"That report was so biased, I can't imagine w hat pharmaceutical company's ads are coming up right after our break here," Moore immediately declared. "Why don't you tell the truth to the American people? I wish that CNN and the other mainstream media would just for once tell the truth about what's going on in this country."

Despite FAIR's call for readers to e-mail CNN to ask for corrections, Michael's calling Mr. Blitzer and Dr. Gupta outright propagandists, and his posting of a detailed list of errors at his web site (http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php), CNN did nothing to correct itself. This led Mr. Moore to publish An Open Letter to CNN on 14 Jul, which was also reprinted at CommonDreams.org. In it, he excoriated the show for it's dogmatic refusal to correct itself, although he also acknowledged a number of good points about Dr. Gupta, the network, and the network's parent company.

Return to chronology 11 Jul 2005

2007, July 26: Furthering a fullscale government attack against free press principals and human rights

By The Bush administration. On this day Michael Moore announced on the Tonight Show, hosted by Jay Leno, that the Bush administration had served him with a subpoena for his trip to Cuba during the making of Sicko. he was notified about the subpoena at the network's studios in Burbank, California; he later said about the situation in an interview with United Press International: "I haven't even told my own family yet. I was just informed when I was back there with Jay that the Bush adminis tration has now issued a subpoena for me." A partial transcript of the interview with Leno was posted at Alternet.org by guest web journaler Amanda Terkel:

MOORE: You want me to tell what happened -

LENO: Sure, go ahead.

MOORE: Ok, well, I haven't even told my own family this yet, so you're asking me to do this on national television.

LENO: Yeah, but it's NBC, so not that many people are watching.

MOORE: Alright. Well, I was just informed while I was back there with Jay that the Bush administration has now issued a subpoena for me, going after me for helping these 9/11 rescue workers.

LENO: Well, no, for going to Cuba, it wasn't for helping them -

MOORE: Well, that's why I went there. I didn't go there like Cameron Diaz to get a tan. No offense, I'm all for her tan. I'm just sailing around on a pontoon there in Cuba, but that's not why I was there. I was there to help them and now I'm going to face this further harrassment from the Bush people. Aren't they busy with something else?

LENO: What does the subpoena involve? Is it because you went to Cuba, is that why?

MOORE: Yeah, because as free citizens in a free country we're not allowed to travel to Cuba, but journalists can go, and this was a work of journalism. But frankly, the larger point's being missed here. The point is that first of all, can we all agree that we should take care of 9/11 rescue workers? You know? And you know, actually, Harvey Weinstein who owns the company that's distributing the film -- the Weinstein Company -- they have said that on Aug. 11 this year, they're going to donate 11 percent of the box office of SiCKO to help these workers and the other workers who need some help.

LENO: That's good.

Return to chronology 26 Jul 2005