This has, of course, made it into the press, because there's nothing more the press likes than templates which pit foes against one another and have some interesting or ironic--or, they hope, hypocritical twist.
I wanted more information--and the real scoop, and figured you all did as well, so following is an interview I conducted with Jim Kenefick about this story:
Q: Jim, I imagine that since this little story broke, since it has been in more than one newspaper column, you've been interviewed a lot recently. How has that gone?
A: Actually, I've turned down all media requests so far. One, I'm not sure that it would really do me any good; I've rarely seen a blogger or just a regular person go on a radio talk show or cable news and come out looking good. Two, I caught a horrifying cold just as this whole story broke and lost my voice the very day the media started asking. I'm still fighting it off.
Technically, yours is the first interview I've given. Everything else so far has been released through Moorewatch.com.
Q: Without interviews to get your side, how accurate have the stories about all this been?
A: If I were forced to quantify it with a number, I'd say 50%. The parts that are inaccurate are of course the parts that the media tend to run with, like saying that we were getting no medical treatment prior to Michael's intervention, when the truth was we were getting care all along and already had the insurance for more than a year before Mike got involved. They also tended to focus only on the snarky parts of my first post on the matter, and almost all of them based their reporting off the Salon article that made no mention of my thanks. I thanked the giver when I didn't know who it was, and while I did react with some snark initially, I also thanked Moore once I found out it was him.
Another inaccurate detail that bloggers, reporters and some commenters at the site are running with is this notion that I immediately started to investigate the source of the funds, and that this investigation proved that I was ungrateful. The truth is I investigated, as much as I could, the validity of the financial instrument I had in my possession. I had these visions of one of those crazy scams where someone gets you to deposit a fake check, then asks for some of the money back, then it turns out you're on the hook with the bank for the cash when the check is found to be fake. Once I found out that the bank issued it to a company that offers, for lack of a better term, "corporate money orders" and that it was legitimate, I still put it in an account separate from my personal checking just in case.
I wasn't clear when I first wrote that part up for the site, so maybe that one is my fault. I talked about how I thought it was Moore and how I cashed the check and finding the physical locations on a Google map search, but I didn't break it down in a clear time-line, so it seemed like I was investigating it looking for Michael. Suspecting it was from Moore was only the end result of trying to find out if the check was real.
Q: When it occurred to you that the money COULD be from Moore, did you have second thoughts about using it, or did you figure that it was worth the hassle?
A: I thought that it might be from one of three other sources--all of which would cause absolutely no hesitation on my part--but when my wife saw the Google map thing she put it in my mind that it could very well be Moore. [For the time-line of events as documented by Jim at MooreWatch, check here.] At that point I thought "Well, even if it is him, what's the worst that could happen? I look stupid in his movie?" I knew I would be able to use Moorewatch.com to tell my side of any story that might develop. Anyone who would look down on me because of this wouldn't care about anything I had to say anyway. And the bottom line, the most important thing is, I really needed the money. I was not going bankrupt as some of the reports have said. However, I was broke.
At the time, I just didn't know who it was that sent the money. All I had was a suspicion. I weighed that against the fact that $12,000 would greatly ease our burden, take stress off my wife (money problems do not help anyone get better) and take some pressure off of me as well. I knew that if it was Michael Moore's money, it was still money that I needed, and when you're in that position, you don't turn good money away just because you suspect there might be a string attached.
It's not like Hitler was trying to send me money. Michael Moore isn't an evil man. I don't have any ethical dilemmas tearing me apart here. He's actually not my sworn enemy. He's a rabble-rousing filmmaker that got under my intellectual skin a few years ago. I get the feeling that people think that I think Moore is the devil. Or that I think of him the way he thinks of Bush. I don't. I think he's paranoid, misguided and greedy, and most of all a narcissist. Not one of those things matters when you're facing the 15th bill collector that week and they're starting to make threats. I wouldn't turn away help from a narcissist just because he might benefit from helping me. That's just dumb. Why would I want my family to suffer just to make some kind of point to Michael Moore? And how would I have made that choice back when there was no way to know it actually WAS Michael Moore?
Q: You say you don't have any ethical dilemmas tearing you apart, but some in the media have questioned your ethics because you considered the possibility that Moore was the donor and you used the money anyway. Do you see any ethical issue in accepting charity from someone you disagree with and publicly, if usually one-sidedly, debate?
A: Absolutely not. There are only two ways to see this as far as I am concerned. Number one: Moore offered this money with the best of intentions and knowing full well that I was not going to stop critiquing his work. If that is the case his, fans are betraying his wishes by attacking me. Number two: he offered it to knowingly manufacture a "gotcha" moment for the movie If that is the case, then the $12,000 is both a publicity write-off and payment for helping get the word out about the film. If it were about manufacturing a "gotcha" moment, then his fans are dupes for coming after me when it was never altruism to begin with. In short, no, I don't feel there is an ethical dilemma. I had no way of knowing it was really from him. He worked very hard to hide his involvement. He used a third party to contact me. Later, when I was worried that this might be one of those check scams, I tried tracing the IP numbers on the emails. Not one of them came back to a location anywhere near anything known to be owned or leased by Moore. The woman who initial emailed me was a Google ghost--nothing about her at all could be found. There was no way to confirm it because that's the way he wanted it. That's the way he set it up. I can't stress this enough: I had no way to be sure it was him.
Q: His fans are attacking you based on what, do they say?
A: One tack they keep taking is some "ethical" violation. No one can actually name precisely what that is, though. They define it by insulting me and then not responding anymore. Most of the negative emails are just baseless personal attacks.
Q: You thanked Moore--more than once--in public. Are you gracious because you believe it was heart-felt on his part to actually help you and your family, or do you believe it was a pre-planned stunt, or something in between?
A: I did it for one reason: I was, and still am, thankful for the help. It doesn't matter why he did it. It doesn't matter what other people say about him, or me, or the price of tea in China. At the end of the day, that money helped us pay those high insurance premiums for a year. I'd have to actually be the total jerk that some Farkers, Diggers and Salon readers have accused me of being in order to not be grateful for that.
That doesn't change what I think is the other truth here; that Moore had an agenda that went far beyond helping me. It's about Moorewatch actually helping him. It's about him benefiting from having a moment like that in his film. It's about the same reasons that prompted him to join the NRA right before he made a film about guns. His fans latch on to things like that and use them to try to stifle anyone who dissents with Moore's arguments.
I haven't seen Sicko. I have no idea how this situation plays out on the screen. Given that fact, I can only take a guess at why he did what he did. I think he did it for three reasons; One was to help us keep Moorewatch.com "on the air." It only helps sell books, DVDs and movie tickets to have us there drumming up publicity. I'm OK with that. We're all here to get our message out.
Two, I think he did it in order to use it in the movie. Somehow, to him, this proves that health care in America is broken beyond repair, and the only solution is government-provided Universal Health Care. Except that by offering his personal donation to pay for my private-sector insurance, he kind of proved himself wrong.
I think that as a distant third, he did want to help on some level. I think it ties in to number one; Moorewatch.com has helped sell a lot of product for him, and Lee and I spawned a cottage industry that has helped to make him a world-wide household name. When faced with the fact that the grandaddy of all Moorewatching sites might go dark, he wanted to find a way to keep us around. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't think twice about cutting a check for $12,000 in order to make sure that the site stayed up. It was, and still is, a bonus that health issues were involved, since his new movie is about health care.
Q: How did you find out the money actually was from Moore, and when was that? Can you walk us through the time-line more generally than that longer post?
A: Earlier on the day I posted my first blog entry about this (May 10), someone in the know (and I'd like to protect that person's identity) emailed me to warn me that Michael was the one. As soon as I saw that, it all fit, but there was still a chance that it wasn't him. I decided to try to get my side of the story out there before I could be accused of lying to the readers of my site, or of trying to hide something. In that initial post, I did say I still wasn't sure, but if it was Michael, then here's my response. On the 18th, Rush & Malloy posted a bit in their Daily News gossip column which stated they got confirmation that it was Michael. The day after that, Moore called me.
Q: In the voicemail Moore left you, he wished you and your wife the best. Do you think it was sincere?
A: Honestly I have no idea. I'd love to say that yes, with no reservation, I believe it was sincere. The problem is, he repeated the words he spoke on my voicemail to a press conference in Cannes. That press event was recorded. In that press conference, he repeated what he said on my voicemail almost verbatim, and with the same inflections and pauses that he used on my voicemail. It felt...strange. Like listening to an actor do a second take. I don't know what to make if that.
I'm willing to concede that my reaction to hearing him duplicate his voicemail to a room full of reporters--word for word and with the same emotion and inflection--might be my bias talking. It very well may be sincere. Either way, I'm still thankful for the help.
Q: Can you think of a reason he would do that--leak it to the media and then relay his message to you word-for-word--if it weren't at least in part for publicity, and if that was the reason do you feel used?
A: I don't think he thought it through. I think that he felt like he needed to word a message to me carefully, as I am quite sure he knew I as going to go public with whatever it contained. Further, I think that because he knew he was being recorded at the press conference, he wanted his recount of the call to have... emotional gravity, I suppose. So he just did what he practiced.
By the way, I received confirmation from a reporter at the press conference that he told them he had already made the call, but at that time, he had not called me. Just another one of those weird, unexplainable things. Why didn't he just say "I plan to call him later today?"
Q: If you'd talked to Moore when he called, what would you have said?
A: I don't know. It would have been totally off the cuff. I'd simply follow his lead I suppose. I'd make sure I thanked him, and if I could I'd ask him something I said that didn't make the final cut in my interview for Manufacturing Dissent: Why? With so much wrong in the world that you can plainly see, and more importantly plainly prove, why twist facts, use trick editing, and why use emotional bait and switch tactics... just... why? Why can't he just be 100 percent honest, funny and still make a point?
If given the chance to ask only a single question, I'd ask him why he lied about interviewing Roger Smith. That's a big one, and someone needs to ask him.
Q: Surely he's been asked that in all these years, hasn't he?
A: As far as I know, he has not been asked on the record. At least not in any way that he didn't have control over. I'd love to see someone have Moore and Roger Smith on some live broadcast and have him face the truth. It would be an interesting experience.
Q: Do you know in what way you're in "Sicko?" Supposedly you're the "last revelation" but have you heard what that means? You weren't interviewed on film for it, without being aware, were you?
A: I still don't know how it's portrayed in the film. I know I never gave consent to have my face used. I never gave an interview to anyone, that could be used by him, in any way. He wouldn't be allowed to use any of my personal photographs, as I have never published an image online that wasn't copyrighted. I have no idea how he presented this in a movie. It's got to be the most boring couple of minutes imaginable. I'm just not that interesting!
Q: Moore makes no secret of the fact that he advocates a national health care in the style of Canada or England or France. Considering all your health insurance problems, would you agree that's what the U.S. should do?
A: Absolutely not. I have a number of reasons why, but I think the two that are most important and easiest to understand are these: One, I do not believe it's feasible in a country this big. The NHS in Great Britain and Canada's system, even France, they have significantly smaller populations. The scale is just too enormous. Everything the Federal government does is layered in red tape, bureaucracy and ultimately, corruption. From Medicare to the IRS to Social Security, it's all a mess that continues to spiral out of control with every session of Congress that comes and goes. I don't trust the Feds to manage my checking account, why would I trust them to manage my health?
Q: Even if it WOULD work here, do you believe people have a right to someone else paying for their health care needs?
A: And that would be reason number two from above. I don't even like taxes for things I support, but it's a necessary evil. It's legalized theft to matter how you slice it. I hate that we as a society think it's OK to punish anyone who gets ahead by stealing larger and larger chunks of money from them.
Much of what is wrong with the U.S. is due to programs that give fish away instead of teaching people how to fish for themselves. Politicians know it's easier to sell a program that say 'Hey! We'll do it for you and it's free, for you anyway!" than to sell the people the idea that they can be taught to be self-sufficient.
I also believe that people are much more willing to give voluntarily than Moore, or the government, gives them credit for. Private donations, private charities, those are the ways to do all of this without stealing from anyone.
Q: How is the general health of your family now? Better, I hope.
A: We're getting there. My wife is improving all the time, and I'm getting all sorts of things done that went untreated for a long, long time. I let myself go and concentrated only on her. Now we're both getting things done that we need done, health-wise. And thank you for asking!