Media Nation

Some more tidbits about Peter Damon, the injured Iraqi war veteran who’s suing filmmaker Michael Moore for using a news clip of him in “Fahrenheit 9/11” in a way that Damon claims falsely portrays him as a critic of President Bush. (Earlier items here, here and here.)

— MSNBC.com gossip columnist Jeannette Walls today quotes Damon’s lawyer, Dennis Lynch, as denying that Damon and his parents joined Sen. Ted Kennedy on the podium for an anti-war speech in 2004. Lynch is wrong, which raises the question of why he chose to deny reality rather than come up with a plausible explanation. Walls also writes:

In another film, one blasting Michael Moore [Walls is apparently referring to the Dick Morris-narrated “Fahrenhype 9/11”], Damon was quoted as saying that he disagreed with Moore’s documentary, which he called “propaganda.” But when asked if Moore had he right to make the movie, Damon replied, “That’s the reason we go off to fight — to defend his right to make a movie.”

Of course, that was before Lynch dangled visions of $85 million before his eyes.

— Speaking of Lynch, this post to the Democratic Underground has a bunch of material on his ties to ultraconservative causes. D.U. is obviously a partisan site, and I don’t like the idea of guilt by association. But, as you’ll see, the post consists almost entirely of links to Lynch’s own writings. Moreover, it fills in a few pieces of the puzzle regarding Lynch’s agenda, if not necessarly Damon’s.

Boston trivia fans will note the tenuous connection to former Boston mayor Ray Flynn.

— Here are some interesting thoughts on the fair-use exception to copyright law. As the blogger A.J. Schnack observes:

While the lawsuit is clearly part of a larger effort to get that leftie-commie Michael Moore, it is going to be an interesting and important test case that will either chill the work of nonfiction filmmakers (if it succeeds) or set in stone a rule to guide us in the future — we can use clips from news programs (and the people interviewed in them) to make our own case — even if the case we are making is the opposite of what the person being interviewed believes.

Moore-haters, pay careful attention to what Schnack is saying. He’s not saying that Moore has the right to distort or alter Damon’s words. What he is saying is that a journalist, a nonfiction filmmaker or an author has the right to use someone’s words in the service of his or her own agenda, even if that person is offended, as long as the person is portrayed accurately. It’s that right that Damon and Lynch are trying to topple. You might know it by a more familiar name: the First Amendment.

— Finally, it’s now been four days since we learned that Damon might have been against the war before he was for it. I’ve done a pretty thorough search, and can find no evidence that he has spoken since that revelation was posted at Reason.com.

Certainly Damon had proven that he can deliver some pithy sound bites. Has Dennis Lynch told him to shut up? And why might that be?

Go, Jon, go. My friend Jon Keller did a long interview with Damon last week, before the Ted Kennedy revelation. Here’s how Keller ends his piece: “One final note. Damon says he supported the war when he went over, and he still supports it now.” Time for a follow-up, I’d say.

We live in a binary world. Michael Moore may have committed bad journalism by making injured veteran Peter Damon look like a critic of the war in Iraq. (Or maybe not.) Does it therefore follow that Damon deserves $85 million? There’s pristine journalism and there’s legally actionable journalism; then there’s the other 90 percent. That 90 percent is the zone in which Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” falls. (Earlier items, with links, below.)

Yet folks who ought to know better are so consumed with contempt for Moore that they’re abandoning their common sense. This morning, for instance, I did a 15- or 20-minute stint with Scott Allen Miller on WRKO Radio (AM 680). Miller leapt to Damon’s defense, claiming it would be no different if he spliced in a humorous quip from Mayor Tom Menino after an item about crack cocaine. Well, of course it would be different. In the NBC News clip at issue, Damon was, in fact, talking about his injuries. Moore didn’t change that.

And, uh, Scotto: Could WRKO survive a legal precedent that playing unaltered, accurate news clips can cost you tens of millions of dollars if someone doesn’t like the context? For that matter, could any talk show or news organization?

Even more ludicrous, the Boston Herald today editorializes in Damon’s defense. The editorial ends with this:

Ordinarily we’re not huge fans of taking every dispute to court. But any lawsuit that attempts to show Moore for the pompous fraud he truly is surely deserves a hearing on the merits. And any man who would exploit and distort the words of a genuine American hero is beyond contempt.

Question: Does Herald publisher Pat Purcell support the idea that he could be hauled into court every time someone thinks a Herald reporter has quoted him accurately but out of context?

I don’t want to go too far out on a limb without having a chance to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” again. But based on what I’ve read, it doesn’t even sound like Damon himself was taken out of context — rather, he simply doesn’t like the context in which he appeared. He is seen in an NBC News clip talking about the pain he’s in following a terrible accident in which he lost both of his arms while repairing a Black Hawk helicopter.

Yes, the clip is surrounded by anti-war and anti-Bush material, but none of it is attributed to Damon. He was talking about a new painkiller he was trying; Moore was more interested in Damon’s injuries. Not to sound insensitive, but so what? Moore obviously has the right to tell the story he wishes to tell as long as he doesn’t distort Damon’s views. It doesn’t sound like he did. Damon’s a war hero, and his complaints deserve to be heard. But that doesn’t mean he deserves $85 million. Or, for that matter, the price of a movie ticket.

(An aside: Let’s get over the whole notion of whether Moore is a journalist. It doesn’t matter. “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a form of advocacy journalism, regardless of Moore’s status as a journalist, a filmmaker, an entertainer or whatever.)

Then there’s the whole matter of whether Damon is a latecomer to the pro-Bush brigades. Scotto, for one, seems to think Damon and his parents appeared at an anti-war speech by Sen. Ted Kennedy, at the liberal Center for American Progress, simply out of respect for the office that Kennedy holds.

It’s possible. I’ll withhold judgment until we hear from Damon. But it’s hard not to notice that the Kennedy revelation came shortly after noon yesterday, and Damon, as far as I can tell, has not yet been heard from.

The bottom line is this: If every act of journalistic malpractice (if that’s what this even was) were worth $85 million, the news media — and the First Amendment — would cease to exist. No doubt there are those who would be happy about that.

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.

Last Friday Mike Pesca of NPR interviewed me for “Day to Day” about “X-Men: The Last Stand.” This latest X-Men sequel has the whiff of eugenics about it: A cure is developed for the mutants’ genetic flaws, and much of the plot is built around the theme of “should they/shouldn’t they.”

Pesca, bless his soul, remembered that I had written “Little People,” a book about dwarfism, a few years ago. He asked me to compare Halle Berry’s dilemma to that of a family faced with the prospect of having a child with dwarfism. Would they choose abortion? (Some would.) Would they choose a genetic “cure” if one were available? (Almost certainly.)

Anyway, Pesca’s interview with me was broadcast today. You can listen to it here.

Here’s a possible piece of the puzzle that is Matt Clement. We all know how well he pitched last year until he got hit in the head with a line drive. Well, it turns out that last year he pretty much stopped throwing his sinker. What about this year? From Dan Shaughnessy’s Boston Globe column of March 14:

The tall, veteran righty made his first appearance of the spring against big league hitters yesterday and threw four shutout innings against the Dodgers in City of Palms Park. He gave up two hits, no walks, and fanned three. He said he liked the way he threw his sinker, a pitch he largely ignored last year.

“That’s as good as I’ve thrown my sinker since my first couple of years with the Cubs,” said Clement. “It’s a pitch I pretty much forgot about, although it got me hit in the head once last year.”

So he was successful without his sinker last year — and when he threw one to Carl Crawford, it nearly got him killed. To my eye, it looks like he’s been throwing the sinker a lot this year. Why?

“I fully support our First Amendment rights. But I would love to put restrictions in it that [protesters] can’t be within 10 miles of a military funeral, not just 300 feet.”

“All’s not Wells for Red Sox” (Boston Herald); “Wells is hit after doing well” (Boston Globe).

Sean McAdam: “Clement may be far from reliable, but how many fifth starters are? Now, with Wells’ expected absence, Clement’s role becomes larger and the Red Sox pitching shortage becomes more acute.”