Talk:Michael Moore Hates America

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I see what happened on my deletion, appears from now just reviewed, that I reviewed maybe only the last three changes from a string of them; and reverted them intentionally (and would again), but did not review earlier edits which were caught up in the same "rollback" action. Thanks for bringing this matter up, and for getting it corrected.
--Maynard 08:52, 8 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Hi Maynard, The last 3 edits in that sequence were:
Hi Neoconned. This issue is not important to me, but here are the details of my reasonings. Your reasonings are at least as good and qualified as mine.
i) extra information about Tim Slagle performing at the 2004 Minnesota Libertarian Convention
seems irrelevant to me
ii) a note that Mike Wilson is now making himself available on the public speaking circuit
seems irrelevant to me
iii) Repointing the link for the 1st Sept 04 filmmakers journal to an archived copy at (because it had been replaced on Mike Wilson's site by a new entry).
I prefer primary source, even if the link does go dead.
They seem reasonable edits to me - what are your objections? By the way, edit (iii) is not an attempt to promote It's just using that site as an archiving resource (as is done with many of the entries in the 'Filmmakers Journal Archive' section).
If it's not archived at the primary source, then perhaps at
I'm not opposed to I.P. contributors; but they'd better be darn good edits because the vast majority of them are retractable, especially for political issues. You and the editor have done the right thing by reversing my rollback.
--Neoconned 09:03, 9 Sep 2004 (EDT)
--Maynard 17:44, 9 Sep 2004 (EDT)

As regards the suggestion of getting the archived journal entries from there are several available links in the link section , which were discovered through archive. org. They were discovered and posted by me. If it was possible to find these links on, the link would be shown.User: 12.18, 10 Sep 2004 (CST)

Everything will become come clear when awareness is created across America.

Michael Moore is a hero of America and I salute him for whatever pain he took to make a movie to show the facts of today's world. I totally pity for those people who are swayed by media and administration and blindfold themselves from reality.

It is time for America to rise and make it more efficient in working by removing such leaders which pose a threat to the world peace. Oh my god, what should I call him who addressess others as "Axis of Evil" who is full of evil ideas.

Thanks Michael Moore again !!!

On July 6, 2004, the following comments were posted regarding this article, apparently from Michael Wilson, the director of Michael Moore Hates America: violates its own policies.

Some of the editorial policies of SourceWatch are as follows:

  • Be fair. Propagandists engage in selective presentation of evidence. Articles written for the SourceWatch should strive for a higher standard, by summarizing all evidence and points of view on a subject accurately and thoroughly.
  • Respect other contributors. SourceWatch contributors may come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. By treating others with respect we are able to cooperate effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Etiquette.

Clearly, when it comes to opinions that differ from their own, the people at SourceWatch and Center for Media and Democracy believe that they alone are the gatekeepers of the information that should be made available. We at MMHA Creative Group have edited this site several times to correct the factual errors that consistently show up here. We have made it clear that has every right to dislike, write about, or even hate the content of our site, the people involved with the production, or the film itself (though as I sit here editing, I can assure you they have no idea what's in it). But when they cross the line, and as we keep track of those offenses, it should become clear to every visitor that this organization has no interest in being "fair", or "respecting other contributors".

Aside from that, we have recorded instances where SourceWatch and Center for Media and Democracy may be in violation of libel laws. Don't get me wrong, I love debate. I love hearing criticism. It doesn't bother me, and it's really what America is all about. But we have edited to both tell our side of their well-spun story, as well as to correct FACTUAL ERRORS, and each time SourceWatch and individuals at Center for Media and Democracy, specifically its research director and activist/extremist Sheldon Rampton (at least according to their log files), delete our changes and post more propaganda. They refuse to allow any input on our part. Why wouldn't they want you to know what we're actually doing? Why would people who claim to be so tolerant be so tyrannical? Why would an organization called Center for Media and Democracy work so hard to silence dissenting opinions? Perhaps I'll head to Madison, Wisconsin with a camera crew to ask them... Hell, it's only a short drive from my home base here in Minneapolis.

I hope that enough of you see this to know the games these people are playing, before Sheldon and his minions take it down.

Take care, Mike Wilson Director, Michael Moore Hates America

If there are factual inaccuracies in this article, Michael Wilson is certainly entitled to correct them. However, he is lying when he says that I have deleted changes that he made to correct factual errors. The changes that Dianne Farsetta and I have reverted have included someone's addition of the phrase "Support the Movie!!!" along with some editorializing about how great the movie is and how awful Michael Moore is, plus a threat to sue over unspecified "factual errors." Posting rhetoric and threats is not the same thing as correcting factual errors. Evidently Wilson doesn't understand this difference. --Sheldon Rampton 12:41, 6 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Sheldon wrote: "he is lying when he says that I have deleted changes that he made to correct factual errors."

Um, actually, since we've been recording the site's content, the changes we've made, the log files that prove who from actually changed our edits of factual errors, ommissions and misrepresentations, we can back up the fact that Sheldon is not being honest. And now, since he has called me a liar (actually used the word "lying", knowing fully well that I was telling the truth, it looks like things may get even more interesting for him in the next few days... But I have a film to edit. I'll let our attorneys handle this.

Mike Wilson Director, Michael Moore Hates America

The logs would indicate that most of the changes amount to bickering about the inclusion of Brian Cartmell's association with porn and cybersquatting, both of which cite actual news sources. The title "Micheal Moore Hates America" appears to pose the greatest risk, though your attorneys will have told you that by now.

A comment from a lurker:

Lots of threats here from MMHA Inc. Instead of that why not specify exactly what it is that you disagree with as Sheldon invited you to do above? Itemize them and give the supported reasons why you think that. The discussion should be about the facts. If you can prove your assertions no doubt your changes will stand.

Anonymous IP number inserted the following comment into the article. Since it's a first-person comment, I'm moving it to the talk page. --Sheldon Rampton 14:06, 9 Jul 2004 (EDT)

I am amazed at how many unstated assumptions you were able to figure out from that trailer. Hacks.

  • shakes head* Every single revision that disagreed with the premise presented in the original - deleted. You're about as fair and balanced as Fox News - shame on you.
Not true. For example, the "Criticisms of Michael Moore implicit in the trailer" section was started by a pro-MMHA contributor, and has survived intact, precisely because it is factual and correct (although POV language like 'Michael Moore is caught in another of his infamous fabrications' was removed or toned down). --Neoconned 13:01, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

User rewrote the section titled "A revectoring of issues" as follows:

In my opinion, the trailer for the proposed movie "Michael Moore Hates America" shows that the movie's authors seek to ignore and dismiss the facts presented in Moore's "F911" regarding Mr. Bush and his corporate partners by "searching for America" and ultimately "finding that the American dream is really alive." The unstated assumption is that Moore's movie claims that the American Dream has died. This opinion is not based on any specific information that I have.
In addition, I believe that another unstated assumption in the movie's trailer is that "F911" is somehow an assault against America rather than an exposure of contemporary un-American ideologies currently holding sway in the United States under the Bush regime. Interestingly enough, since this movie was filmed before the release of "F911", it may be very likely that very little attention is given to the this Michael Moore movie.
Finally, I have to guess that the authors seek to make viewers believe that all of the information presented in "F911" can be dismissed without comment because Moore hates America and Moore's movie is an attack on America and its people. Once again, this opinion is not based on any specific information that I have. It is merely my gut feeling.
Since I have no substantative information to prove these statements, please note that I'm expressly stating my opinion and bias again anyone that would attempt to critize Michael Moore or his works.

I've had to revert this because use of the first-person ("In my opinion," "I believe") is inaccurate and inappropriate for articles in the SourceWatch, which are collaboratively written. Since this article is the work of multiple individuals, there is no "I" who can be regarded as the author of the entire article.

I'm sympathetic to a point with the concerns of user The "revectoring" section does indeed present a mixture of opinion and fact. Unlike the Wikipedia, SourceWatch does not ban the inclusion of opinion in articles, but I would certainly accept a revision of this section. However, it needs to be done in accordance with SourceWatch's style, which means that first-person passages aren't appropriate. --Sheldon Rampton 13:20, 20 Jul 2004 (EDT)

If Mr. Wilson is still available, there are a few questions. In reference to Mr. Wilson's comments in the June 5th piece in the St-Paul Pioneer Press entitled "Moore Gets a Dose of His Own" you made the comment that One of the motivating factors for the making of this movie was the comparison of your life to that of one in Flint Mi.

"Wilson says two things persuaded him to make his first film. One was "Bowling," in which Moore tells the story of a Flint, Mich., schoolgirl killed with a handgun, an incident Moore implied occurred because the assailant's mother was distracted from having to work two jobs as a result of changes in Michigan welfare laws.

"He left out a lot of stuff that was widely reported in the media at the time," says Wilson, 28, who says death threats have persuaded him not to reveal where in the Twin Cities he lives or works as a marketing writer. "But the real reason that bothered me is my mom worked two jobs when I was a kid, and it was like a personal slap to her to say you can't work two jobs and raise your children properly. My mom worked really hard, and she taught us right from wrong.""

Wherein Minnesota did you grow up? There is no city in the entire state of Minnesota that has the fiscal and social problems of Flint, MI or the surrounding area, especially in the last 15 years. If you are not from the state of Minnesota originally, please clarify. Outside of the already skewed description of the event by the notorious right-leaning Pioneer Press, you are making an assumption that you led the same life, yet turned out in a completely (and assumed morally more sound) way.

You have also stated that you have received death threats in regards to the making of this movie and this is why background on you is being kept in secrecy. Your attempts at discussion bely an agenda of sales above all, especially if fights and legal threats can be tossed around. At this point the one month delay in release seems more to do with a lot of hype and zero product, not a mere editing process of too much and too good and less time.

I don't find this to be very balanced page. You're just another left wing spammer.

Please see User talk:Maynard for why I reverted the recent name change of this page. --Neoconned 10:06, 3 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Anon user asks if anyone got a snapshot of Mike Wilson's recent "Filmmaker's Journal" statement in which he railed against the SourceWatch. I've got a copy of his statement, but I don't think it's worth restoring the section that deleted. Evidently Wilson's temper got the better of him and then he had second thoughts and deleted his intemperate remarks. The fact that this happened doesn't say anything very interesting about him or his movie, and I don't think it is worth preserving in the article itself. (If he hadn't deleted his nasty remarks, I might think otherwise.)

FYI, I've stated it before and I'll state it again now: If Wilson or his supporters object to the fairness or accuracy of anything in the SourceWatch, they have the same rights to edit and make revisions here as anyone else does. --Sheldon Rampton 17:45, 3 Sep 2004 (EDT)

That seems fair enough, Sheldon. I don't think I agree that it 'doesn't say anything interesting about him or his movie', given that he has claimed to be making a stand against the 'shrillness in the American conversation', but I certainly take the point that he thought better of his attack and decided to alter the remarks accordingly. We all see red from time to time, and he thought differently after consideration, plainly.
I was wondering if you and/or someone else at SourceWatch had taken legal action against his remarks and this was the reason for the deletion. Evidently the answer is 'no'. My main concern however, was that I had imagined the whole thing, so I appreciate the confirmation that I didn't! --User: 18.27 , 3rd Sep 2004 (CST)
I agree that Wilson shouldn't be judged by some remarks that he made when he was obviously having a bad day. As it happens, I do have a screengrab of the original version of the 1st Sept FM journal. As a keen student of Wilsonology, it was pretty obvious to me that it wouldn't be up for long! I'd like to take this opportunity to summarise what I think are the biggest open questions about the movie (aka 'research opportunities'):
1. How long has Brad Hillstrom been involved in the production of MMHA?
2. What were/are the nature of the 'Additional production services' provided by Hillstrom Entertainment?
3. How did Mike Wilson get in contact with Brad Hillstrom?
4. Mrs Tina Hillstrom is on the local film board. Is this of any relevance?
5. Who will be attending the private screening of MMHA in DC? Who is organizing and funding the screening?
6. Who is Maura Flynn? (the MMHA publicist). I have been able to find no trace of a Maura Flynn working in public relations/marketing. Perhaps she is just a keen kid out of college, who decided to volunteer? But if so, how was she able to get Wilson "into over 30 radio markets, tons of publications, and has helped us gain access to interviews and other folks who have offered guidance and insight"? (his words). If she is a PR professional, which company does she work for in her day job?
7. Mike Wilson has said he used to work as a marketing writer. For which company? He claims not to want to reveal this for security reasons. Unless the company he worked for is owned by his parents, or somesuch, this seems a flimsy excuse.
If there are any Minnesota natives reading this who want to help out, check out the 'Business Entities' section of the article. For a mere $12 you could possibly shed a lot of light on MMHA! Finally, if Mike Wilson is minded to answer any of the above, that would also be great, of course.
--Neoconned 11:37, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Maynard reverted changes by anon IP # While some of those changes were just gratuitous rhetoric, some of them consisted of addition of new material (such as reviews of the film that have appeared in Variety and elsewhere). The edit by IP had the effect of deleting many of the external links in the article, but this is probably due to the length of the article rather than deliberate vandalism. (When an article gets longer than 32K in length, some web browsers have a problem and end up truncating the article when they submit their edit. This is probably what happened here.) I have therefore moved "external links" into a separate article to shorten this one somewhat, and I have restored some of the changes made by IP --Sheldon Rampton 15:07, 14 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I made the reversion because I'm not sure as to the reasons why the deletion was made of the possible contradictions in being excited to have wealthy cosnervative financiers, and to be supposedly non partisan.


my quick two cents, but not about the movie or the main fight, other than the libel charge alleged above is rather specious, given that when one is a moviemaker, openly doing interviews, one is a public person, and subject to the higher standards in American libe law. what is that standard?

Abscess of Malice?

I decline at this time to offer any jokes about monetised valuations of the reputatations in questions.

other than that:

Tim Slagle, comedy consultant, is a libertarian comedian who performed at the 2004 Minnesota Libertarian Convention ( On his website (, he recounts how in November 2001, he performed a live show at the Acme Comedy club in Minneapolis. Slagle says of his performance, "I did an impression of Bill Clinton as a Child Molester." Slagle went on to suggest to his audience that "we might prevent another Columbine tragedy by finding suicidal teenagers, and recruiting them into the Special Forces of the military." According to a letter of complaint from a member of the audience featured on his website, some audience members walked out.

As a libertarian, and an objectionist, i protest this man's claims to libertarian viewpoints that aren't visible.

Hey slagle, looks like you need some libertarian content. if you visit here, have some of mine, copyleft.

First: Liberty -->> Libertarian...
I realise that this is a difficult concept to grasp, but you should be able to understand in a few months, if you put your mind to it.

Bill-Jeff as a child molestor? neither funny or near factual, and grossly outdated. sounds to me that you are more in line with the common squawking chickenhawk prevaricator. I hear the call coming from the Bushes:

billydidit billydidit billydidit

Given the unjustified war upon Iraq and it collorary damage, it seems that the child molestor joking should have been while impersonating bush. Given the sexual abuse of detainees, acts which flow directly from bush's unconstitutional stripping of natural liberties from persons never convicted of any crime in a legitimate process, it seems to me that any sexual molestation jokes, should be about bush also.

here's a concept that can developed into almost a whole routine:

The Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators Model
Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment

instead of joking about suicidal teens going to fight the war, why not joke about the burgeoning rolls of college republicans chapters, and the ailments all the young GeeOpie_Dudes seem to have inherited from their viet-gen daddies:

weak knees
jaundiced bellies
involuntary sphincters
alabaster tinged livers
genitalia deficit disorder

but you're probably not a real libertarian anyway, are you? You're just a disgruntled reagancomic styled conservative, whose main goal is to do away with the minimum wage.

It has nothing to do with real liberty at all.

--Hugh Manatee 18:33, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)