More on Moore
Before everyone runs around screaming that the government is coming after Michael Moore unfairly, let's look at the actual law as compared to the letter OFAC sent Moore:
The following is the letter of the law from 31 C.F.R. 515.420(c) on the reporting requirements upon return from an unlicensed trip to Cuba. Do you see anything in the letter OFAC sent to Moore that he is being asked for anything above and beyond this? On the contrary, it appears that they may be even asking for a bit less.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who has traveled to Cuba shall be presumed to have engaged in travel-related
transactions prohibited by § 515.201. This presumption may be rebutted by a statement signed by the traveler providing specific supporting documentation showing that no transactions
were engaged in by the traveler or on the traveler’s behalf by other persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction or showing that the traveler was fully hosted by a third party not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States and that payments made on the traveler’s behalf \were not in exchange for services provided to Cuba or any national thereof. The statement should
address the circumstances of the travel and explain how it was possible for the
traveler to avoid entering into travel related transactions such as payments
for meals, lodging, transportation, bunkering of vessels, visas, entry or exit
fees, and gratuities. If applicable, the statement should state what party hosted the travel and why. The statement must provide a day-to-day account of financial transactions waived
or entered into on behalf of the traveler by the host, including but not limited
to visa fees, room and board, local or international transportation costs,
and Cuban airport departure taxes. In the case of pleasure craft calling at
Cuban marinas, the statement must also address related refueling costs,
mooring fees, club membership fees, provisions, cruising permits, local land
transportation, and departure fees. Travelers fully hosted by a person or
persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States must also provide an original signed statement from their sponsor or host, specific to that traveler, confirming that the travel was fully hosted and the reasons for the travel.
Now, this comes from the OFAC licensing guidelines for journalists:
2) journalism by journalists regularly employed in that
capacity by a news reporting organization, including supporting
broadcast or technical personnel
He clearly does not meet these requirements. He makes documentaries (and I'm being charitible with the phrase). He does not work for a news reporting organization.
The end result will probably be a civil fine. Well worth the price for the huge publicity from this artificial controversy.
7 comments:
Seems to me that this one will be a slam-dunk for Mr. Moore. One does not need to work for Fox News to be in journalism. I see what Michael is doing as a form of journalism whether you agree with him or not. It may be a different format, length, frequency, etc., but it involves human interest subject matter and the reporting of it.
No, he doesn't work for Fox News. Or CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, at al. He is a documentarian and sometime commentator, not a journalist.
Before you can say it'll be a slam-dunk and I say it won't, I think a large part of the outcome will be what exactly he wrote in his application for the exemption.
I find it fishy that he released the OFAC letter but not a copy of the October application.
Without that application we don't know why OFAC didn't approve or deny the initial application and we don't know the whole basis of their current inquiry.
But, Hunter S., your reply brings up an interesting distinction.
What, exactly, is Michael Moore? Can his work be considered journalism or social commentary?
It's hard to distinguish because - and we probably disagree on the extent - he has been known to "gin up" scenes and claims in his documentaries. And he's not forthright about these excursions from the facts which further muddies the waters on what the hell he does.
It was recently uncovered that in the making of Roger and Me, Moore actually got to interview Roger Smith. Twice. It turned the whole premise of the film into a deceit. That's not journalism.
I'd like you to cite your source about the interview of Roger Smith.
There's a lot I don't like about Michael Moore's movies. He would be so much more effective if he didn't do things like alter the sequence of events so that they suggest a cause->effect that isn't true and other such stuff. It just takes away from the truths he is trying to tell.
I agree that the timing of the "investigation" is fishy. What's so sad is that when it comes to the Bush administration I presume lie and coverup and suppression before I assume law and/or good intentions.
The timing isn't fishy, it's the fact that we're given the letter from OFAC but not the application that came before from Moore. Therefore, we don't quite know what OFAC had to consider and act upon.
"There's a lot I don't like about Michael Moore's movies. He would be so much more effective if he didn't do things like alter the sequence of events so that they suggest a cause->effect that isn't true and other such stuff. It just takes away from the truths he is trying to tell."
EXACTLY. Gold star, kiss on the cheek, pat on the head, high five!!!!
And that is exactly why he's so polarizing. He claims he doesn't do it, for the most part. There are those on the left who believe everything in his films and that's bad. There are those on the right who doubt anything he says because of his, shall we say, deftness in editing.
Here's the cite which is somewhat neutral: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13563&R=113681C3
Here's an AP article on the first screening of this moving with the people in it in NY. It's ironic that the reason Moore went to Cuba in the first place was because Bush was bragging about how good the health care was for the detainees in Guantanamo.
forgot the link:
link to AP article
And I'm not sure where he was showing it to the participants.
Post a Comment