'Fahrenheit 9-11': Why did Michael Moore censor Nick Berg?

Only days after he won honors at Cannes, Michael Moore today revealed he left out of his film “Fahrenheit 9-11” an exclusive 20-minute interview with Nick Berg, whom an al Qaida-type group beheaded in Iraq earlier this month.

Now why would Moore censor this interview of a young American businessman trying to help rebuild Iraq’s communications systems?

Is it possible that what Berg said just didn’t fit in with Moore’s world view that the Iraqis were better off with Saddam Hussein’s fascist police state? Is it possible Berg said Iraq was obviously better off because of the U.S.-led liberation?

With Moore, all the hatred is on the screen, and all the truth is on the cutting room floor.

I can't wait for the day a free Iraqi makes a documentary film about how Michael Moore wanted to let Saddam torture and murder Iraqis forever.

Frank Warner

SEE ALSO: Ray Bradbury calls Michael Moore an ‘asshole.’

SEE ALSO: Hitchens: Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9-11’ relies on the big lie.

SEE ALSO: Ed Koch says shame on Michael Moore.

SEE ALSO: Detailed list of movie's ‘56 deceits’.

Comments

[Fausta]

Excellent post, Frank, and I'm quoting you directly in my post on the subject

[Abdul Hamid is an equal father]

fsmkGod bless you
É I want forms for the scandal of Ibghrib prison
Your brother Abdul Hamid
And peace be upon you

[jj]

I'm betting that Moore abuses Berg in the interview, which would make him look pretty stupid now.

[Bill]

I am just flabbergasted at the spin in your article! In most good documentaries, over 90% of the original footage ends up on the cutting room floor! Heck, he had several hours of footage of James Nichols for "Bowling for Columbine", but only used the best few minutes. How many students and others do you think he interviewed in BFC that he didn't use? Did he censor them because he didn't make BFC 100 hours long to fit them all in?! Sorry, but this is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination!

[Frank Warner]

With Michael Moore, it's not a matter of using the "best" stuff to tell the truth.

When you're making a film opposed to toppling a fascist like Saddam Hussein, you censor the democrats.

Frank Warner

[Andy]

You know it is very probable that he didn't include the footage out of respect for Berg and his family. It might sound weird if it was footage that was critical of Bush from someone actually working over there, but that would show some respect if his family would have prefered the footage not to be put in. Do I have any factual evidence at hand? No I can't say that I do, it's just speculation like your post.

[Andy]

Well I did dig up an article from a Philadelphia newspaper that said his sister was dumbfounded about the claim that Moore sent the footage to Berg's parents. So either he never did film the thing, was showing respect for the family, or didn't like the footage, I dunno. I'm open to any proof of any possibility though (I don't like Bush but I'm an open minded person.)

[Donald Hartmann]

I just saw the movie and I thought some of it was fairly slanted. However, there were a few points that were presented in a non-colored manner that really stuck with me regarding the actions of the President. It seems obvious that he is a dull-witted individual. Folks have praised his advisors and their collective experience and skill. It just became obvious to me that the influences on their decision-making prevent them from making just and thoughtful policy. Everyone has their agenda. The Bushes and members of his administration, Michael Moore, and me. I just decided that Michael Moore's agenda is more in line with my own that a bunch of tight-assed billionaires who are so in love with the afterlife that they are in a rush to destroy this world of the living.

[g stomberg]

bradbury ripped off plenty of titles in his day, he's just jealous. goto http://mystic_lonewolf.tripod.com for moore bush rock opera thats better than anything bradbury ever wrote