A bodyguard who worked for Michael Moore, Michael Moore's bodyguard... it's still more accurate than any of his movies.

So, is he a bodyguard who was once assigned to protect Michael Moore? How would being portrayed as Moore's bodyguard be defamatory? DeBecker's too weird for me.

Yeah julie, it's not like they portrayed antebellum Iraq as a happy place where children fly kites and everything is wonderful, or only spliced together some clever video to make it LOOK like this guy worked as Moore's bodyguard.

Well, the story is inaccurate. He had once worked as Moore's bodyguard; he wasn't "Moore's bodyguard."

But you make good points-- by the standard of accuracy established by Moore himself, this story is fake but accurate.*

*Dan Rather and he agree on this standard, natch.

TallDave is right. The article is no more wrong that aything Moore ever created.

What was not discussed was whether the man carried a gun when he protected Moore. That particular hypocrisy was really the root of the story.

Also, FoxNews is carrying the brunt of the blame for this, but I read the story elsewhere first. This was the first reference to FoxNews that I had heard.

Has Fox News issued a retraction and an apology? DID Burke SAY he was Moore's bodyguard as the story claimed? I don't see THAT part of the story being retracted. Do you? And gosh, if the guy SAID that, is it Fox News' fault that they reported the story that way? I suppose they should have double-checked, but it was not wrong to report that the guy made the claim in the first place.

In other words, I smell some CYA spin here and right now I don't know which side to believe.
I do know that the story is TRUE when it said Burke "was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport" and "Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York" because in NY he IS NOT LICENSED to carry a gun. Now, if you're going to quibble over the diff between being licensed and being registered...uh, IS there a difference? Because I don't know that's there's enough of one to say the story is inaccurate enough to whine about.

Anyway, I wouldn't throw out the entire story just yet, but I do think that Fox needs to do some sort of follow-up ASAP.

Later,
bbeck

The point of the issue is this. Mr. Burke is employed by a company who provides security (ie. bodyguards, or in this case, flabguards) for Michael Moor. Their employees cary side arms in the performance of their services. In other words, Michael Moore hires armed guards to protect himself from those of us who he says should't be allowed to own firearms.

Oh, and Burke did say that he accompanied Moore to NY earlyer in the month, so he did work as his bodyguard. Can we split any more hairs here?

"You might accurately report that 'A bodyguard who was once assigned to protect Michael Moore'..." Meaning that Michael Moore has hired bodyguards with guns to protect himself. He cannot deny this or he would have. The same protection he has used for himself he seeks to take away from the rest of us. Like Karl "Rambo" Rowan, who took a shot at someone in his back yard after years of talking trash about guns and gun owners, his hypocracy is unmatched. The bottom line is not that they are really against guns so much as they believe that WE of "the great unwashed masses" should not have them because WE can't be trusted with them. How arrogant can Liberals get?

This is my favorite part:

even the smallest inaccurate detail that is widely disseminated could predictably interfere with his ability to pursue his profession.

One can assume that all the hairsplitting and not so subtle threats are because Moore does not want the fact he employs armed guards publicized. So, any lost of ability to purse his profession would be with Moore, who doesn't, cough, employ him.

Maybe, he's just a bodyguard on retainer.

You know, either way the central irony of the story is valid:

Michael Moore, who says people shouldn't have guns, employs people with guns to protect him.

That's the story here. If Moore REALLY believed in what he was saying, he would demand that those guarding him carry only batons, mace, and/or stun guns. Of course, he wouldn't be as safe without the guns, but neither is the single mother living in the Cabrini Green ghetto.

Well it is ok that Moore hires guys with guns....it is not the liberal elitists that he wishes to disenfranchise from their bill of rights protection...(do any of you remember a guy named Carl Rowan by chance?) it is only the commoners who should be made to relinguish their rights of protection.