Wow, a reasonable person.  Didn’t know they still produced that model.

1. It’s a ridiculous opinion.  What ethics were compromised?  How did I change on Michael’s behalf because of the money.

2. That article was featured in a front-page article.  Try trolling in that post.

I love how the trolls keep trying to convince everyone that they’re not biased, that they’re bipartisan, whatever, and yet continue to take their marching orders straight from anyone with a rock to throw held in their left wing.

Republocrat, you need to answer this question:

Exactly and specifically, what set of ethics did I violate?  List them and show how I violated them.

a shame that after this e-mail comes through, the polar opposite shows up.

But...umm…

OK, someone else besides this guy explain to me, WHERE IS THE ETHICAL VIOLATION IN WHAT HE SAID?

This site has always benefited from Moore’s industry and success.  Just as Moore has benefited from the industry and success of others.  We wouldn’t exist without...you know...the guy we watch.  Over the years, not counting Moore’s contribution, we’ve come damn close to breaking even.  We’ve had the pleasure of writing, learning, connecting and gathering fans (if I may say so).  Financial benefits are not the only way one can benefit.  We’ve always

What part of this puzzle am I missing?  Does Moore check the politics of every investor in the company he formed with the Weinsteins?  If we could prove that one of Moore’s films was made in part with money from a person Moore disagreed with, does that mean he violated some unknown and undefinable ethics rule?

Buzzion: a shame that after this e-mail comes through, the polar opposite shows up.

You are a wise and correct man, sir.

it’s plain for all to see that by accepting his money you are now, and will forever be, a personal beneficiary of Michael Moore’s industry and success. (Lovin’ that “Fahrenheit 9/11” cash!)

Would Jim not be able to attend a university where Moore donated money without violating these ethics you talk about?  Would an anti-Bush campaigner not be allowed to accept a tax cut from the administration?  How exactly, in your world, does “beneficiary of [something you dislike]” equal “ethics violation”? 

What you’ve described is ironic, not unethical.

Um ...Republocrat.

Try reading the story again. The donor was ANONYMOUS. It was only after one of Moore’s people tipped off Jim that it might be Moore, A YEAR LATER, that Jim went public with the story.

Then…

Moore used the incident in his movie.

So...Moore manufactured a situation so he could use it in his movie, which he will make milions from. Moore purposefully tricked Jim into taking the money by pretending that the donation was to be ANONYMOUS. Jim kept up his part by keeping the donor ANONYMOUS until he was made aware that he had ben tricked by Moore.

This donation is not an ethical issue for Jim, it’s an ethical issue for Moore, who used the incident of a fella’s sick wife to create a situation he could use on his movie.

It would be a compromise of Jim’s beliefs if either a) Jim solicited the money from Moore or b) He made an agreement with Moore regarding the site in exchange for money.

Offering ad space isn’t unique to Jim’s website, and it helps keep the site going. Furthermore, Jim accepts ads from anyone who will pay, regardless of their political bent, which is in keeping with the free exchange of ideas that we regulars value so highly.

In order to head off the inevitable cherry-picking, let me clarify what I mean by “free exchange of ideas”. An “idea” for the purposes of this post, is an opinion backed up by some kind of concrete evidence. It is not a hackneyed talking point backed up by such phrases as “everybody knows...” or “look it up.”

As a side note, is anyone planning to see “Sicko” when it comes to theaters? I might put it on my Netflix list, but I can’t imagine paying directly to see it.

I’ll go see it, if only to avoid having to hear second hand about it. Despite the crappy thing he did to Jim, Moore might have some good points in the film. I know he’s capable of exposing bad things in an honest way if he wants to. He used to do it on the Awful Truth.

Since BFC and F9/11 however, it seems Moore has gone for the sensational, rather than the truthful, so I’m not holding my breath.

Nice to see a reasonable person who disagrees with you write in that fashion, JimK.

Then republocrat shows up thinking he’s saying something original…

The only problem I have with the reasoned email is something of a justification that many moore fans fall back on.  They realize he plays loose and fast with facts, but it’s okay because he has “bits of truth in his movies”, regardless of how he uses them contextually.  In other words, the end justifies the means.

The only problem I have with the reasoned email is something of a justification that many moore fans fall back on.  They realize he plays loose and fast with facts, but it’s okay because he has “bits of truth in his movies”, regardless of how he uses them contextually.  In other words, the end justifies the means.

We aren’t as nuanced as liberals, crichton. :)

One thing I remember Moore said (and this isn’t a direct quote—it’s the gist of what he thinks):

All lies have a kernal of truth.  How’s that for nuance.

There have been 100’s of posts about the ethicality of 12Kgate, but I don’t think we have attended to the history of Moore using this tactic.  It’s been called the “Gotcha” moment on this site, but I think it’s kind of a variation of the Trojan Horse idea, a gift that later become dangerous.  I’m going to argue that Moore has a long history of doing this, but that the variation here is that he is now doing it with anonymity.  I’ll start a list here, but I would be interested in other examples that Moore-watchers can come up with.  Here are the examples I can think of when Moore gives a tainted gift:
1. Pets or Meat.  At the end of the half hour sequel to “Roger and Me,” Moore hears that Roger Smith is getting money removed from his pension.  He writes a check for, I think, $100,000 to Smith, calls Smith’s secretary about where to send it, and then decides not to.
2. “The Big One” Two examples here.  First one is he tries to go around to corporations that are downsizing and present them with gift checks for being the downsizer of the year.  Generally he can’t get beyond the PR officers and security guards at the door.
3. Also in “The Big One.” He tries to give Phil Knight a free ticket to go with him to Indonesia to visit the manufacturing plants where child labor is used.  I think Knight actually agreed to do it off-camera if Moore would go without cameras, which Moore wouldn’t do.
4. In one of his books and also, I think, on “The Awful Truth,” Moore would send political contributions to candidates from fake PAC groups like “Devil Worshippers Anonymous.” The joke was to see who would cash the check.  I seem to remember Pat Buchanan coming off well.
5. In another Awful Truth episode Moore attempted to give donations to big corporations who had gotten EPA fines for polluting the environment. Mock sympathy.
6. In “Bowling for Columbine,” Moore leaves a picture of a murdered girl, Kayla, at Charlton Heston’s house.
7. On “The Awful Truth” I think I remember an episode where he attempted to give away money on Wall Street, but I am not remembering the exact gag, except it was about greed.

I initially thought Moore passed the 12K check out of some need to be a good Samaritan, then thought better of it as he started working on the film.  But really if you look at the patterns of his career, he’s been doing this in different variations for quite a while.  In giving away money, you are showing a certain indifference to it--it’s the receiver’s value system that needs it, not your own.  These examples seem to suggest that if you accept the gift, you’re in for the consequences of Moore’s value system.  Usually there is some element of embarrassment for the receiver, but the joke always risks the appearance of being snide and mean.

Are there other examples to add to the list?

Maybe I’m the only one that is laughing at Republocrat, but I do understand why he came here.  He is presenting a perfect criticism, undefendable I would say, of Moore himself.  He has spent years living off the fame of others.  He made millions off of criticizing Bush and his administration, hundreds of thousands criticizing Heston, so it would seem Moore is a personal beneficiary of the industries created by Bush, Heston, and Republicans in general.
JimK, I hope the email tide evens out abit more for you and you know that you have lots of support.  I am sure you remember that one of the bad sides of having the guts to allow yourself be criticized openly in forums on your website is that people will openly criticize you. Wonder why Moore doesn’t allow open debate on his website?

Anyways, I have been on here for a couple years and wanted to say thank you for your services and work here.

a shame that after this e-mail comes through, the polar opposite shows up.

A shame?  Which gets more attention. 

Anyway, thanks for the email, and if you’d like to join up and contribute to the conversations here at Moorewatch, we’d be glad to have you.

What he said.

Jim,

If I were you I *WOULD* give the money back (assuming that you can). If we who partake in the criticizing of Moore on this board really and truly believe what we say, then I think that not only should you give the money back, but the rest of us should help you pay for it. If we all gave you what we could, I’m sure there are enough of us on here to pay back the $12,000.

It really irks me that Moore (once again) is going to get away with this. In his movie, he’s going to portray you and the rest of us a hate-mongering, ungrateful conservatives. And even though he doesn’t agree with us, he’s the caring angel, guardian of truth and justice that swooped in and saved the day. And every Moore-on from coast to coast will agree with him.

I say we take up a collection and come up with the $12,000, or at least as close to it as possible. Once we do that, you can send him a check, along with a letter from everyone here at moorewatch.com that we refuse to be a part of his propaganda machine. Also, that we don’t appreciate his disingenuous gift in order to promote his stupid movie.

And if you, Mr. Moore, really cared about all the people in this country that don’t have health care, then why not donate 100% of the proceeds from “Siko” to people who need it rather than pocketing the money??? Practice what you preach and *redistribute* your wealth. Capitalism doesn’t suck so much as long as YOU make money, eh Mikey??

Anyway - I know you probably don’t agree with me and you can do whatever you wish, but that’s my thoughts on the matter.

Republocrat,

After reading your adorable little attempts at reason, I (and, I suspect, most others) come away with it with only one certainty…

...you have no idea what the word “ethical” means, do you?

You poor little guy. You have my endless pity.

paratrooper:

I’ll go see it

I believe that I shall download it from the internet.

pjwarez:

If we who partake in the criticizing of Moore on this board

I’m calling bullshit. Pretty much everyone who actually and regularly partakes of this site has said “You gotta give it baaaack!” is moronic.

If you want the $12,000 given back, raise it yourself.

I’m calling bullshit. Pretty much everyone who actually and regularly partakes of this site has said “You gotta give it baaaack!” is moronic.

Rann… did you even read my post? I never said “You gotta give it back!!” Also - I haven’t seen the majority of people on the board saying such. In fact, I would say most on here have said that Jim should keep it.

I just see it as a *false* gift. Jim even asked in a previous post…

1. Raise your hand if you think Moore would have actually sent money and NOT included it in the movie.

I think it would be great if we could send the money back and tell Uncle Mikey to STICK IT! If Jim doesn’t want to do that, it’s fine with me.

If I were Jim I would give it back (if he can). But I’m not Jim and the bottom line is that it’s Jim’s money and he can keep it ‘till he’s old and grey for all I care.

Posted by JimK on 05/25 at 09:43 PM (Link to this comment)

“This site has always benefited from Moore’s industry and success.  Just as Moore has benefited from the industry and success of others.”

I guess by this ‘logic’ that Moore is chasing Bush’s fame*.... lame....

* Considering how he seems to put Bush at the center of everything....

Personally, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I had accepted $12,000 from someone against whom my own website had featured personal, public and sometimes disgustingly offensive insults for several years, but that’s just my ethical standard, I guess.

bullshit.

re: sicko

from a ‘liberal site’

Moore is a distraction. He produces these films to take our eyes off the ball.

Hospitals are not greedy, they are institutions that need money to work.

Doctors are not greedy, generally speaking. Yes, they expect to be paid a good wage for doing what they do, but if you have $250,000 in loans for going to school, I imagine you would too. Most doctors are in it because they love what they do and want to help people.

Insurance companies, politicians who bend over backwards for any sort of graft, and greedy lawsuit-happy fuckers are why healthcare is so god-damn expensive.

I don’t get it.  Why the different standard for ‘moore-ons’ than the ones that post on a daily basis in support of this site? 

I’ve read this site for a few months after being alerted to it on some liberal leaning site, and I gotsta say that if we are looking for reasonable people commenting, this site sets a bad example in general on both ends.

I don’t agree with much of what the liberals say, but I have to support them in the idea that they are not all lockstepped into the same disastrous plans that have been shown to fail over and over with no idea on how to change them.  I do believe most of their efforts are wrong, but it is far better than We Tried This In The Past And It Didn’t Work But We’re Sticking To It. 

And that is what I see with Moore.  He might be dead wrong, but he is trying to make changes.  It is like the soon to be paroled Jack Kevorkian—he was wrong in how he approached the ending of lives, but his work also made great progress in end of life treatment for those terminally ill.  Few doctors were willing to look at the death with dignity issues, the pain management—for fear of reprisal of being deemed a drug dealerto the nearly dead by overly moralistic politicians—and his work made a change.  I can see that even as wrong as Moore is, his work is encouraging folks to research the issues themselves and make appropriate action based on that.  What?  Some idiots might just take his words at face value?  That would NEVER happen on the right!  Nope.  No propaganda on that side either. 

As for JimK taking the money, anyone calling him a hypocrite is an eff’n idiot and a hypocrite themselves.  Either that or a cold hearted bastard that cares more for image than their own family.  I know what my friends and family had to do for me while having my HMO deny me service because of an illness that took the physical symptoms of something physical.  Can’t get an MRI because I need XRays.  Can’t get XRays because the symptoms indicate that I might have been hurt in an auto accident or maybe at work, but unless I tell them where and when I had my ‘accident’, which was going to be used to deny me, they weren’t going to pay for anything.  Paying for my own XRays didn’t help, because they were considered an unauthorized treatment plan and thus not acceptable for use in diagnosis.  Even after figuring out that I had some rare autoimmune disease that made it look like I was knocked the f*** out by Mike Tyson, they wouldn’t update their records.  I nearly went bankrupt in trying to stay alive but my friends and family made certain this didn’t happen.  If I didn’t have friends in the health care industry that were able to run test after test, or friends able to see me outside normal hours, I don’t know what would have happened.  Most of these friends could have lost their jobs doing so.  (luckily, this is all under control, and 5 years later I am nearly as healthy as I was in my mid 20s).

But this is what you do when a friend or family member is in need.  You don’t care how or why—though curiosity might still get the best of you—you simply do whatever it takes to make certain your loved ones are taken care of in the best way they can be. 

Back to Moore, I’m certain his new movie is going to be 90% propaganda.  Good.  Maybe it will shift the propaganda back towards he middle considering the much larger pockets of Big Medicine.

I don’t get it.  Why the different standard for ‘moore-ons’ than the ones that post on a daily basis in support of this site?

I’d like to see this “standard” defined and your premise supported by evidence before I offer a response.

Belcatar: I’m going to see it. Since I’m liberal, it will be interesting to see how my view of the movie differs from other, more conservative participants on this site.

The only problem I have with the reasoned email is something of a justification that many moore fans fall back on.  They realize he plays loose and fast with facts, but it’s okay because he has “bits of truth in his movies”, regardless of how he uses them contextually.  In other words, the end justifies the means.

No, the ends do not justify the means. It just means you can’t take what Moore says as “the truth and nothing but”—but you already knew that. ;)

No, the ends do not justify the means. It just means you can’t take what Moore says as “the truth and nothing but”—but you already knew that.

We’ve read on this site many times of moore’s supporters saying something to the tune of “yes, he takes things out of context but it’s for the greater good.” As I said, for these people the end justifies the means.

We’ve read on this site many times of moore’s supporters saying something to the tune of “yes, he takes things out of context but it’s for the greater good.” As I said, for these people the end justifies the means.

If Moore supporters embarked on one of his “righteous” quests to fix things that aren’t broken, they would find out not only does the means not justify the end, the end can’t be justified either.

I do believe most of their efforts are wrong, but it is far better than We Tried This In The Past And It Didn’t Work But We’re Sticking To It. 

And that is what I see with Moore.  He might be dead wrong, but he is trying to make changes.

That first sentence will soon apply to Medicare in ways you cannot imagine.

So, why isn’t Moore trying to fix a government-run healthcare system whose problems dwarf those of Social Security.

I might suggest some of you quit comparing Medicare adminstrative cost with that of private companies.  Medicare has substantial costs that are charged to other branches of government.  Also, it seems a little back-handed to tax private companies while burdening them with countless regulations driving up adminstrative cost, then bitching about how high their adminstrative costs are.

Alert! Michael Moore to pay all of Cindy Sheehan’s medical bills! Pass it on!

We’ve read on this site many times of Moore’s supporters saying something to the tune of “yes, he takes things out of context but it’s for the greater good.” As I said, for these people the end justifies the means.

*sigh*

You’re missing the point. And now you’re taking what I said and generalizing it to match something someone else said that had a significant difference in meaning.

My only point in mentioning that I am aware of what Moore is doing in his movies and books was to separate myself, at least somewhat, from those who are completely under his spell.

The real danger is people who actually think what Moore writes is *not* propaganda, who swallow what he says hook, line, and sinker. I would *prefer* that he (or someone) produced something that was truly a documentary.

Alright, first of all I’d like to mention that I’m a tad late to the “Let’s all talk about Sicko and Moorewatch” party but I figured better late then never. Secondly, I’d also like to point out that I’m only 19, though I have done some research on these subjects, please understand that they are still from the views and understandings of a fairly young person.

I’m really glad that someone wrote you an email like that, because if not then I would have. I typically enjoy watching Moore’s movies, as long as I take them as, “He’s making an argument in a debt, of course he’s going to try to make his side look way better then the other” but in the same stride, there are many valid points in his latest movie Sicko. When watching Sicko, I was so entrapped by Moore’s story that when he got to the point of his money gift to you, and your views of him I really did see him as these amazingly nice person and Moorewatch as some evil thing. After the movie however I couldn’t get my mind off of that particular part of the movie. I thought, “well gee, if Moorewatch is such a big Anti-Moore site, wouldn’t they know by now there for making the donation just a slap in the site owners face?” I think that is was stupid, not that he gave you the money, that was a very nice thing to do, but that he announced it publicly.

This site has always benefited from Moore’s industry and success.  Just as Moore has benefited from the industry and success of others.  We wouldn’t exist without...you know...the guy we watch.  Over the years, not counting Moore’s contribution, we’ve come damn close to breaking even.  We’ve had the pleasure of writing, learning, connecting and gathering fans (if I may say so).

I’m also glad that you made this point. I’m glad that while you, like Moore, are making a point for your own arguments, are at least human enough to realize that he’s not all bad, as well as realizing that he’s what keeps you in business on this site.

Anyway, my end conclusion is that I very much like your site and your views. I guess this is my, “Hey, I’m new comment” but I’m hoping to stick around to cont. commenting on your posts.

-Morgan

P.S. - I hope your wife is doing much better these days!