Last night, I diaried about a mind-boggling "investigative report" called "The Truth About Michael Moore" that my local NBC affiliate did. (I'm in Louisville, KY.) I've given up on local news long ago, but I happened to be watching "Law and Order" and numerous teasers for the piece were shown during the commerical breaks.
the original diary is here. A couple of quick explanatory notes... no, the report isn't a syndicated piece simply shown by WAVE. It was done by Erick Flack, a WAVE reporter and part of their "WAVE 3 Investigators" team. No, WAVE is not owned by Sinclair, it's owned by Liberty Corporation. And I don't know yet if the piece is intended to be shown on other stations, Flack (is that a perfect name, or what?) didn't answer my questions about that. Also, there is a second part to the report tonight, which I'll diary about afterwards.
Please read or skim the original diary for the numerous problems I had with the report.
I wrote Flack directly about the report last night. He responded today, and I have since responded to that. All these exchanges below the fold...
First, my original letter to Flack:
Mr. Flack:
I'm curious about your investigative report concerning Michael Moore that aired earlier this evening. If I heard correctly, I believe there's a follow-up segment to air tomorrow night. But in the meantime, I have a few questions about the segment.
1 You spoke with two of the people who appeared on camera in the documentary Roger and Me. It seems that their main complaint with Moore was that he did not pay them for their appearance. I've spoken with a number of people who are involved with documentary production, all of whom say that it has always been standard procedure for people to not be compensated in the production of such a film, and that it was considered unethical. These days, with "reality TV" and such, people will sometimes be compensated for interviews, but this was most definitely not the case in 1989, when the film in question was produced. (Also, as someone I spoke with about this put it, "if your news anchors were worth their salt, they'd KNOW that subjects of docs don't get paid.")
2 You interviewed a few people who were not pleased with the image portrayed of Flint, MI in the film. There have been a number of times that I've seen Louisville portrayed negatively in film, on television and in print, and often I haven't liked it. But I really didn't find such a thing worthy of a TV news expose. Did you bother speaking to anyone who may have thought it was an accurate representation?
3 No one you spoke with on camera (that was shown in the report, anyway) had anything good to say about Moore. Did you make any effort to contact anyone like Lila Lipscomb, who appeared in Fahrenheit 9/11?
4 Through some of the interviews, it was implied that GM's closing of the Flint plant did not impact the city negatively. I can't believe that you as a journalist would allow this to go by unchallenged; simple research would show that Flint was devastated by the closing, losing thousands of jobs, and depressing the Flint economy for years afterward.
5 You should know that a plant closing of that size would have significant "ripple effect" beyond just the thousands of people thrown out of work by that one event. It's been a while since I've seen Roger and Me, but I don't think Moore ever said that all of the evictions in Flint, even the ones shown in the film, were caused specifically by the person involved losing their job from the plant closing.
6 You say in the report that you "emailed" Moore "several times," along with stopping by his "multi-million dollar home" (and by the way, what does that have to do with anything?) and that you never heard back from him. I've emailed Moore with questions, and I've spoken with people who've emailed Moore with questions, none of whom heard back from him. Has it occurred to you that the man undoubtedly receives hundreds, if not thousands, of emails a day? Did you bother contacting either Dog Eat Dog Films, IFC Films, Lions Gate Films, Sony Pictures, or Warner Books? This is how people in film or television are generally contacted. Do you need me to look up the phone numbers for you? I know you're a reporter, and are busy, but sending some emails is a rather lazy way to try to reach the subject of a hatchet job, and unless you invested any time in reaching him by phone, it's very disingenuous of you to imply in your report that you "tried" to reach him for comment.
7 You spend a considerable amount of time in the report stressing that Moore is not from Flint, but from Davison. I looked at a Rand McNally road atlas, and it appears that Davison is slightly further from Flint than, say, Jeffersontown is from Louisville. What's the legal cutoff for "hometown" references? Can someone from Jeffersontown say they're from Louisville, but someone from Fisherville not? Or Shively - that's not Louisville, you know. For that matter, I was born in Buechel and raised in Saint Matthews - do I need to stop telling people I was born and raised in Louisville? (personal note: sorry about the local stuff, it was needed for the email - suffice it to say, these are suburban communities in the Louisville area.)
8 Moore may not be "from" Flint, but generations of his family worked at GM's Flint plant. I used to work in downtown Louisville with a number of people who lived in Valley Station, Bullitt Co., Jeffersonville, even Brandenburg, but I guess those people have no connection to this city? (And I know a number of people who were born and raised in neighborhoods like Portland, but have moved their families to the suburbs. I guess they're not Louisville folks anymore.)
9 I'm curious - why exactly is an investigative reporter for a station in Louisville, KY doing a report about a sixteen year old film that takes place in Flint, MI? How exactly does this (non-)story affect viewers in "WAVE Country," and how do you justify a seven minute segment - which has to be the longest uninterrupted "news" segment I've ever seen in a locally produced newscast? (At least I think it was approximately seven minutes, I glanced at the clock at the end of it.)
Those are just a few questions I have about your report. But I'm totally mystified as to what your motivation was for doing this embarrassingly biased "expose." Why? Why now? Why focus on a sixteen year old movie that takes place hundreds of miles from here, and that has no real impact on anyone's day to day lives?
The only logical reasons I can come up with are either 1) you were put up to this by some party, the corporate owners of WAVE, maybe? or 2) you were inspired by your own political views, and objectivity and "fair and balanced" be damned. (Well, there's also the idea of scoring ratings from a cheap attack on a famous person, but we'd never see that on TV, would we?)
Here's a thought: instead of, or in addition to, doing a long hatchet job about a filmmaker and his allegedly "misleading" films, have you ever considered spending one or two minutes reporting on the many, many lies of George W. Bush and his administration - lies that have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, and have driven this country to the brink of bankruptcy?
Just a thought...
Flack responded today...
--- Original Message ---
From: Eric Flack
To: bryanhurst
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Michael Moore "investigation"
Dear Bryan,
While I unfortunatley (sic) do not have time to address all your concerns, a few thoughts.
As for contacting Moore, we did attempt to go through agents and book distributors.
As for the loss of GM jobs, the story never said the town was not hurt by the job loss...it said it wasn't hurt as bad as Moore made it out to be.
We did try to contact Lila Lipscomb, but her phone number was not listed.
And we, as news organization, felt this was a relevant local story becuase (sic) of the thousands of local people who watch MM's movies, read his book, and the impact he has on our political process.
Documentaries are supposed to document facts...public figures who criticize the actions of others should be held to the same standards...and we wanted people to consider the source of their information, that's all.
Thanks for writing in...hope you watch part 2 Thursday at 11.
Sincerely,
Eric Flack
Nice of him to write back, but I was pretty disappointed by the response, and let him know why...
Eric:
thanks for your email reply. I'm glad that you did make more of an effort to contact Moore than you implied in your report, it would have been good to state that in the report. As far as Lila Lipscomb is concerned, I have seen her interviewed on a number of news outlets - why were they able to reach her and not you? Did you really make any effort beyond looking in the phone book?
The job loss issue is obviously subjective, and if you only show people (politicians, civic leaders, etc.) who want to portray their city in as positive a light as possible, of course they are going to play down negatives. Did you make any effort to speak to any of the thousands of people whose lives were thrown into chaos by GM's actions, and the thousands more hurt by the subsequent "ripple effect"? If so, why not show them on camera as well?
You also need to respond to the issue of the two figures from Roger and Me, since a very large part of your report concerned them. You aired their grievances about not being compensated by Moore for appearing in the movie, while failing to mention that subjects of documentaries do not get paid. Paying someone to appear in a documentary is called "checkbook journalism," and is considered unethical - as I would hope you are aware.
As for not responding to the other concerns I wrote you about, and only picking two issues that you had convenient answers for (the attempts to contact Moore and Lipscomb, and the debatable matter of the job losses), that is certainly your prerogative, but I would consider it very unprofessional.
I intend to watch the second part of the report tonight. It would certainly help matters if you address some of the imbalances you created in the first half. But I'm sure I don't need to tell you that many people who saw last night's report will not see the follow-up, and they will be left with the very biased, very questionable reporting that you did in Wednesday night's installment.
You say that you "felt this was a relevant local story becuase (sic) of the thousands of local people who watch MM's movies, read his book, and the impact he has on our political process." (He has more than one book, by the way.) And you say, "public figures who criticize the actions of others should be held to the same standards." Do you intend to do a similar report on, say, Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? Would you like a list of innacuracies and outright lies perpetrated by these public figures? These three commentators, among others, reach many more people than Michael Moore - do they not "impact the political process?"
Or are you only going to do such reports on those who criticize the Bush Administration?
For that matter, do you have no interest in holding our elected officials "to the same standards" as well? Isn't that more in the public interest? No one has died from any real or perceived inaccuracies in any of Michael Moore's works. But several members of the Bush Administration, including the President himself, have made misleading statements and outright falsehoods that have led to the deaths of nearly 1,500 American soldiers, including some from Kentucky and Indiana. Do you actually think that a sixteen year old movie - or any movie - has as much impact on the lives of Kentuckiana residents as that?
Your report, it's lack of balance, and your lack of response to the very valid concerns I raise, can only be taken as a sign of journalistic bias. It's unprofessional, and I intend to bring up the issue with your superiors at WAVE. I also intend to make other news media in the area aware of this, if they are not already.
One last question: whose idea was it to do this report, "The Truth About Michael Moore" - was it yours? Your superiors'? Station management? WAVE's corporate ownership?
As you say, "public figures who criticize the actions of others should be held to the same standards." I'm of the opinion that this should apply to you as well, Mr. Flack.
Thanks again for writing back,
XXXXX
It will be interesting to see what tonight's conclusion will involve, and whether Flack will address any of my concerns. In the meantime, as I told him, I intend to contact WAVE News management, and also the editors at LEO, Louisville's alternative news weekly, which has a media critic who needs to know about this - if he doesn't already.
