The (soon-to-be) wife and I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. It was a 10:30 showing on a Friday night in Seattle on a holiday weekend. The movie was running in two theaters. The 10:00 showing had been sold out, and our theatre of about 200 seats was full, mostly of 20-somethings. Now, we were at a theatre in downtown Seattle, a city which I would suspect tends to be a little more politically aware than some others, but I was still heartily encouraged to see a full house of young folks attending a movie like this.

The movie is very effective, and raises more than a few compelling issues. Perhaps the most impactful images of the film were of wounded, dead, and dying American soldiers, and of the grief experienced by the mother of a soldier killed in action. It seems to me that we have seen very few images of soldiers in Iraq at all, much less images like these. The realization of just what kind of media manipulation and media complicity has been involved in hypnotizing Americans into thinking we’re not even really fighting a war hit me like an RPG. I am sick to my gut with the cynical way this war has been prosecuted by the administration.

The film has its flaws. Spinsanity lists some errors, though I take issue with the tone of the piece and disagree with some of their interpretations. The important thing is that , flaws aside, Moore is finally giving us an alternative lens through which to view the last two years. If he sometimes uses innuendo and insinuation to get his point across, I, for one, can forgive him. Moore is a filmmaker and the language of film often eschews the verbal and explicit in favor of drawing connections in the viewer’s mind. Innuendo and insinuation are Moore’s province and right as an artist, as long as he shows us the essential truth. (Digby makes my point here.) Innuendo and insinuation are not the right of the politician, though, and Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us exactly why we must never again allow our country’s public servants to use these weapons against us. We must demand truth and accountability.

Lots of folks have weighed in on the film. This post from The Talent Show sums it up as well as any – “In the end, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, this movie should provide something to piss you off and make you cry. Considering how crucial this upcoming election is, that’s exactly what moviegoers need right now. If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re missing out on one of the most rewarding moviegoing experiences that’s come along in a long while.” Fahrenheit 9/11 does its job by puncturing the antiseptic bubble of rhetoric that we have been sealed in for the last couple of years. Guess what? An alternate viewpoint isn’t going to kill us. It might just make us stronger.

Michael Moore’s website addresses some of the criticisms of the film, and publishes some of the reactions from around the world, like that of Canadian writer Bill Doskoch of CTV.ca, who ends his column with the following

I’ll leave you with a snippet of an interview of Morgan Spurlock, director and star of the fast food documentary Super Size Me, with Salon.com:

Salon: With the success of Michael Moore’s films and others, it seems like there is a growing trend of left-leaning, progressive, anti-corporate documentaries. Why is that?

Spurlock: I think that documentary is your last bastion for any truth today. It’s the one place where you have no media conglomerate telling you what to say, the one place where people aren’t going to put a vice on opinion and on fact. You can put something out that takes a stand and says, ‘Listen, you need to know this.’

Right on. Keep talking, Brother Michael

Crispin Sartwell on the five-paragraph essay.

What he said.

The Lobotomized Weasel School of Writing

Critical Mass: Boalt jumps the speechless shark

Short version: A guest lecturer at a Boalt law class was role-playing the part of a difficult client and made a comment – in the role of that difficult client – that his company didn’t use “inferior Mexican immigrant labor.” In the response, the Boalt administration jerks both knees faster than you can say “wetback” to make sure this kind of racist role-playing never happens again.

Jesus.

To paraphrase George Carlin, It ain’t racist speech you have to be worried about; it’s the racist asshole who’s saying it you should be concerned with. Likewise, insensitive, racist remarks coming from a sensitive non-racist are no cause for alarm.

I mean, this is where we send young men and women to be educated, fer Chrissake.

F*cked by the F*CC (By way of Reason Online

This is an article you should really read. There are a few things in it which bother me beyond the obvious, things which I’m still puzzling out and ruminating on. Things which I hope to write more about soon. In the meantime, though, read this article.

By way of Cruel Site of the Day...

www.haroldpinter.org – American Football

I’m so glad we settled our little tiff with the New York Times, because this link just came to my attention by way of Boing Boing...

Battle of ‘Stupid White Men’ Books

Next week, a tiny Brooklyn-based publisher will bring out “How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office.” The book, a low-budget paperback written by a group of political activists, is not to be confused with “Stupid White Men,” a HarperCollins best seller by the filmmaker and author Michael Moore, which remains in hardcover.

But HarperCollins has been concerned about just that sort of confusion. In November, HarperCollins wrote to the Brooklyn publisher, Soft Skull Press, demanding that the title be changed and stating that the similarities would cause “irreparable damage” to Mr. Moore and his book.

The ironies compound rather quickly at this point, even ignoring that a company built on free and unfettered expression appears to be, by implication, objecting when someone else engages in that.

Yeah. And the irony that the New York Times, which has been at the forefront of several landmark free expression cases, and which just recently threatened to shut down The National Debate for publishing a parody Corrections page, published this article on the same day they withdrew their complaint against said page’s author.

You know, I see stuff like this and I think maybe there’s something to the arguments that people like Lawrence Lessig, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others are making. Perhaps patent and copyright laws are too heavily weighted in favor of big corporations. It certainly seems that the Times and HarperCollins feel free to throw their weight around, which bespeaks a mindset of mark protectionism run amok.

Listen to the reasoning given by HarperCollins.

“We were concerned that there would be confusion, and we brought that to the attention of the publisher and that was the end of it,” the spokeswoman, Lisa Herling, said.

In the HarperCollins’ letter to Soft Skull Press, the publisher said, “Michael Moore has become closely identified with the phrase ‘Stupid White Men’ in the minds of the general public.”

“Accordingly, we demand that you eliminate the phrase ‘Stupid White Men’ from the title of Mr. Wimsatt’s book prior to its publication,” said the letter, from Beth Neelman Silfin, vice president and associate general counsel of HarperCollins. “Please confirm to me, in writing that you will take this important and necessary step to avoid confusion between the two books.”

“Michael Moore has become closely identified with the phrase ‘Stupid White Men’ in the minds of the general public.” What!? I can’t figure out who they’re insulting more – Michael Moore or the general public.

Look, we’re at a real tension point in this country. At a time when we have unprecedented access to information, we also face the biggest threat to the free flow of that information. If big companies can simply buy up all ideas, phrases, and methods, if they are allowed to claim dominion over the intellectual capital of the country, then those of us at the bottom of the food chain will be entirely dependent on those big companies for access, and the Internet Revolution will have been for naught.

Like the argument applied to Open Source software, information should be free as in freedom. We are better and stronger as a nation when our access to venues of communication are kept clear of intimidation and threats. Free expression is not served by the recent actions of HarperCollins and the New York Times.

Daniel Orkent, public editor for the Times, has issued a public relentment.

The New York Times: Daniel Okrent (Forum/Message Board) – The Columnists Correction Page Parody and The Times

Readers (and others) upset with The Times for sending a cease-and-desist notice to the creator of a parody “corrections page” aimed at the paper’s Op-Ed columnists can relax.

The following letter—to Robert Cox of http://www.thenationaldebate.com/, who created the page, and to his internet service provider—was sent out by Times lawyers today:

“Thank you for responding to our complaint. By adding the bold-faced disclaimer at the top of the faux Columnist Corrections Page, you are no longer confusing readers and as a result of this change, we agree that the page is now a parody which is protected under the First Amendment. We are copying Verio on this e-mail in order to inform them that we no longer have any objections to your site.

I must admit, I feel a little deflated. I hadn’t realized that there was a version of the parody page that had been posted without the bold-faced disclaimer. My first exposure to the page had been on the German mirror site, where the bold disclaimer had been added, along with the word “Not” in front of the Times logo. I can see better now why the Times might have been upset, yet I still maintain that the page could have been nothing but parody even without that disclaimer. As the Falwell v. Hustler case showed, you don’t have to stamp the word “Parody” in big bold type at the top of the page. Mr. Cox’s original text at the bottom of the page would probably have held up in court.

However, the Times has withdrawn its legal action, so we here at Stumax.com withdraw our protest.

The faux Corrections page will remain available, however. As I wrote to the Times just now on hearing of this latest statement, I stand by my call for the paper to urgently consider changes to its editorial policy with regard to columnists, as I outlined in my previous post on the topic. It is vital that we be able to trust the word of the nation’s paper of record.

I am still upset that the Times would resort to threatening legal actions by using provisions of the DMCA. However, I don’t know the whole story, and it seems like everyone’s happy… for now.

Oh, poop. And I was all up for a fight. Guess I’ll just have to beat my cat.

An update on the New York Times Columnist Correction Policy Project

THE NATIONAL DEBATE TO NEW YORK TIMES: BRING IT ON

Ronald D. Coleman of The Coleman Law Firm, an attorney specializing in the law of trademarks and the Internet, has agreed to represent The National Debate in TND’s ongoing legal battle with The New York Times. Mr. Coleman is an experienced attorney who has been appointed to the Online Trademark Use Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association Internet Committee beginning in 2004.

Mr. Coleman’s reply to the Times is a beautifully written and reasoned response… well worth a read, and I’ve mirrored the PDF here.

Thanks to Mr. Coleman for his words and energies. Here’s hoping the Times is wise enough to see the folly of its ways.

AMCGLTD, one of the mirror sites for the New York Times Columnist Correction Policy Project has a nice take on what’s happening…

AMCGLTD: Blogosphere to New York Times: DROP DEAD

The parallels between this event and those surrounding one Martin Luther are quite striking. Then, as now, a single individual posted a set of grievances against a powerful institution claiming rights to “the truth” in a public place. Then, as now, that institution used its size, power, and wealth in an attempt to muzzle this voice and destroy all evidence of the complaints. Then, as now, a new technology allowed copies of those complaints to be spread across the world literally faster than they could be destroyed (scattered on the wind like so many dandelion seeds).

Didn’t the Times learn anything from the Diebold debacle? After all, they wrote a column about it.

[UPDATE – 3/15/04 – 4:07 PM PST – The New York Times has withdrawn its legal action related to the parody page. (Yay!) We here at Stumax.com have therefore withdrawn our protest, though we’re sure we really had the Times shaking in their boots. There has been no change yet from the Times on its policy relating to columnists. -sm]

First, take a glance at this recent New York Times Corrections page

Then, take a look at this page

Finally, read this letter that I just sent to the Times.

Dear Mr. Orkent and Editors of the New York Times:

I am writing for two reasons: 1) to inform you of my protest of your legal actions against Robert Cox and his ISP, Verio, in relation to Cox’s New York Times Corrections page parody; and 2) to strongly urge you to change your editorial policies regarding corrections to op-ed pieces.

Parody and Protest

As someone who has become quite disillusioned with major media in general, I have often pointed to the Times as an example of a paper that gets a lot of things right. For that reason, I am extremely disappointed with the action that you’ve taken against Mr. Cox’s parody Corrections page, and I am dumbfounded at how you can fail to recognize the page as a legitimate parody.

The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a cooperative venture of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and law school clinics like Stanford and GWU. On their website, I found this:

Question: When is parody protected from a charge of trademark infringement?
Answer: Parody is a usage of a mark that pokes fun at the mark and does not confuse the public as to the source of the usage. In determining whether there is infringement the court balances the public interest in free expression against the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion. “A parody must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory messages; that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. To the extent that it does only the former but not the latter, it is not only a poor parody but also vulnerable under trademark law, since the consumer will be confused.” From Cliffs NOtes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 886 F. 2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989)

The National Debate’s Corrections parody which you demanded be removed clearly meets this test. In addition, in calling attention to the Times’ failure to address serious errors made by its columnists, Mr. Cox is fulfilling one of the sacred duties of journalism; namely, to be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Furthermore, as a member of the press with a duty to uphold the First Amendment, it is unconscionable for the Times to resort to draconian legal tactics which, were they successful, could only have a chilling effect on free expression.

Therefore, in order to protest what I consider to be the unnecessary and illegitimate actions of the Times,

1. I will mirror the parody page on my own website here: www.stumax.com/Corrections.html.
2. I will discontinue linking to and recommending the New York Times or Times articles.
3. I will avoid doing business with Times advertisers, and should an opportunity arise, I will let them know why I am not doing business with them.

I will stop my protest when you have withdrawn your legal action against Mr. Cox and his ISP and any other mirrors of the parody page, withdrawn any other public objections to the parody page, and have affirmed the right of authors to use satire and parody as legitimate forms of communication.

In response to the concern your legal department reportedly raised that Mr. Cox is encouraging others to follow his lead, please note that I am not taking these actions because of Mr. Cox’s example. Rather, I am taking them because of what I perceive to be the wrong-headed, un-American, bullying tactics taken by your newspaper. As a fairly savvy techie, I don’t need Mr. Cox or anyone else to tell me how to post a web page. If the Times hadn’t launched a legal offensive on free expression, I would not be engaging in this type of protest.

Ethics and the Times Op-Ed

As part of this protest, I am calling for you to strengthen the rules relating to corrections in your op-ed columns. I understand that at least one change – that of having columnists place corrections at the bottom of their columns – has already been implemented. I applaud this move, and I expect you to go further. I expect the New York Times to set an example, to set a standard of excellence, and to hold to established journalistic ethics.

I’ve taken the following from your own Code of Ethics (available online here). On page 5 is this:

13. In addition to this code, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing.

At least two of your columnists – Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman – by altering the statements of George Nethercutt, are guilty of violating these principles. Dowd has also meaningfully altered a quote by George Bush. If the Times has offered a correction for either of these, they do not appear on a search of your website.

Other Times columnists, as pointed out on the parody Corrections page, are guilty of playing fast and loose with the facts, yet the Times has been either slow or failed entirely to hold them accountable. I know you take this subject seriously, because on page 7 of your Code of Ethics, under Section 2 – Our Duty to Our Readers, is this:

15. The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.

and this:

18. Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We will not tolerate such behavior.

And yet, by allowing your op-ed columnists to self-regulate, you are in fact tolerating such behavior. You are sending a message to your readers that, despite your own Code of Ethics, you are quite willing to avoid printing the “complete, unvarnished truth.” You are not correcting errors as soon as you become aware of them.

If there is a good reason why the Times refuses to hold its editorial columnists to these high standards, please enlighten me. Otherwise, I strongly urge you to implement a strict code of conduct for your columnists, one that mandates in no uncertain terms their responsibility to print the truth, and to immediately and publicly correct any errors.

The Society of Professional Journalists offers a code of ethics on its website. Though I think the entire code is worthy of merit, let me quote just a few of the items I would like you to consider affirming or re-affirming:

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

• Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Journalists should:

• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

• Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
• Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

If you cannot manage to uphold these standards, then your paper is useless to me. If I cannot trust some of your editorial decisions, then I cannot trust any of your editorial decisions, because I won’t be able to know which ones to trust. This makes your paper irrelevant as a source of news and debate.

Our media hold a sacred trust with the public. In the name of our right to know and on our behalf, you demand the truth and report the facts. I expect The New York Times to be good stewards of this responsibility, and to uphold and defend the highest standards of honor and integrity. In addition, as communicators who command a large share of public attention, I expect you to uphold the principles set forth in our Constitution – especially our First Amendment right to free speech.

I look forward to positive steps from you in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Maxwell
www.stumax.com

P.S. I might never have discovered the website The National Debate if your legal actions had not taken place. I can see now that Robert Cox is an important source of news analysis, and I truly appreciate discovering his site through your actions, however indirectly.