Month: June 2006

It’s all over for Peter Damon, who once stood next to Ted Kennedy as the senator delivered an anti-war message — a message that, by all appearances, he agreed with at the time. Thanks to Dan.

The double-amputee war veteran who’s suing Michael Moore over the way he’s portrayed in “Fahrenheit 911” seems to be depending on a fairly novel legal theory. Politics aside, journalists and filmmakers everywhere should be rooting for Moore.

According to the Boston Globe and Reuters, Peter Damon, who lost both arms in an accident while repairing a helicopter, is alleging only that Moore used an NBC News clip of him being interviewed. As best as I can tell, Damon’s not claiming that Moore distorted that interview in any way. Rather, Damon’s upset because he’s a supporter of President Bush, and Moore incorporated the clip into his notoriously anti-Bush documentary.

“It was kind of almost like the enemy was using me for propaganda,” Damon was quoted as saying. “What soldier wants to be involved in that? I didn’t lose my arms over there to come back and be used as ammunition against my commander-in-chief.”

Now, I haven’t watched “Fahrenheit 911” again to analyze the Damon segment. But I will grant him that Moore may well have given his viewers the mistaken impression that Damon was being critical of Bush. As Reuters reports:

In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the footage of Damon follows a statement by Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, who says of the Bush administration: “You know they say they’re not leaving any veterans behind, but they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind.”

But as long as Damon himself was portrayed accurately, his legal claim ought to be dismissed.

No doubt Moore faced hurdles simply using the NBC News footage. Even though the fair-use doctrine of copyright law clearly allows third parties such as Moore to show excerpts for the purpose of commentary, media corporations have gotten more and more aggressive about protecting their turf. NPR’s “On the Media” recently reported on how difficult it’s become to claim fair use; click here and here for transcripts.

If the subjects of interviews, accurately portrayed, can now sue over contextual complaints such as Damon’s, then the First Amendment would be dealt an enormous blow. Damon has suffered a lot, and it’s a shame that he believes he was used as an unwitting tool. But was Moore supposed to seek Damon’s permission before using the news clip? Ask him what he thought of the president? That’s apparently what Damon and his lawyer believe. I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous.

When Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell sold his Community Newspaper subsidiary last month, he talked about beefing up the Herald’s online presence as part of his survival strategy. Today he takes a step in that direction, making his columnists freely accessible. Bloggers everywhere will be delighted. The Herald touts the move here.

It strikes me that Purcell had put himself in an untenable middle position. On the one hand, the Herald is an urban tabloid that depends almost entirely on newsstand sales. By giving it away online, he runs the risk that many readers will get what they want out of it in five or 10 minutes at their computers: the Inside Track, the front page, maybe a columnist or two. In fact, I argued last year that Purcell should consider getting rid of the Herald’s Web site entirely.

On the other hand, if Purcell really believes the Web can become part of his long-term strategy, it makes no sense to wall off the columnists by making them available only to his tiny number of home-delivery subscribers and to online readers willing to pay an extra fee. Even the New York Times has had only modest success with its TimesSelect program. The Herald ain’t the Times.

Overall, then, a thumb’s up. You can’t have a successful Web site if you don’t offer your most popular content. So welcome back, Peter, Margery, Howie, Wayne, Gerry and Steve. And, yes, even you, Joe.

Of all the strange utterances to issue forth from Michael Lacey, the Phoenix-based New Times head who swallowed up the Village Voice some months back, today’s, in the New York Times, is among the strangest.

Asked how non-New Yorker Erik Wemple, the newly named Voice editor, would play in New York, Lacey replied: “That’s just a thing that New Yorkers are going to have to get over.”

Well isn’t that interesting? Maybe Lacey bought the Voice because he was under the impression that New Yorkers are required to pick it up every week. It’s every newpaper mogul’s dream, of course, but only Lacey seems to think it’s reality.

This is not to disparage Wemple, until now the editor of the Washington City Paper, where he enjoys a good reputation. But Lacey needs to understand that he’s not going to shove anything down the throats of New Yorkers unless they want it shoved.

Here is the official announcement.