The Pantagraph newspaper wants an apology--and $1 in damages--from Michael Moore, whose controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" allegedly includes a doctored headline from the feisty downstate daily.

So far, all they've gotten is a brushoff letter from the filmmaker's lawyer.

"It looks to me that it's a developing story that shows Michael Moore is becoming the very person he defies--the big guy who talks through his attorneys," said Pantagraph columnist Bill Flick.

It was Flick who last month helped discover the origin of The Pantagraph headline that was used in the film. Moore's movie challenges the legitimacy of the Bush administration and its reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and the resulting war against terror.

The film has won awards, but also has been criticized for fudging the facts.

During the film, newspaper headlines pop up to document the contested 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

One of the headlines purportedly appeared in the Dec. 19, 2001, edition of The Pantagraph: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."

But it turns out the headline actually ran in much smaller type above a Dec. 5, 2001, letter to the editor.

One of Flick's readers contacted him to say The Pantagraph was in the film--for about a nanosecond, it turned out.

A few days later, Flick contacted Dawn Riordan, manager of the Normal Theater, and asked her to slow down the movie to take a closer look at the clip. He said Riordan later left a message on his answering machine, "Oh my God, it IS The Pantagraph," adding "and it looks to me like they did a clip job on it."

Flick searched the archives and found no such headline in the Dec. 19 edition. Later, a librarian, Robin Helenthal, tracked down the smaller headline above a letter to the editor.

Flick said several attempts to contact Moore through Lions Gate Entertainment, the film's distributor, were unsuccessful.

"I loved the movie," Flick said. "I laughed throughout."

But for The Pantagraph, the alleged misuse of the headline was no laughing matter.

Through local attorney J. Casey Costigan, the newspaper demanded that Moore write a letter acknowledging "unauthorized use of The Pantagraph copyright and acknowledging that the content of The Pantagraph depicted in your film was misleading."

The paper also asked for $1 in compensatory damages.

"The easy thing would be to enjoy the fact we were mentioned in the movie and just let it drop," said Henry Bird, The Pantagraph's president and publisher.

"But you know, it's not right. All we really want is an apology."

Wednesday, newspaper executives received what they termed a dismissive letter from an attorney whose firm represents Westside Productions, which produced the documentary.

The attorney, Devereux Chatillon, wrote "this fleeting use of a headline from The Pantagraph as one among several illustrations of the discussion in the press of the results of the election is not copyright infringement, but classic fair use."

The attorney added the headline was not used "in any false or misleading way. What appeared on screen appeared in The Pantagraph. While the date depicted was unfortunately off by a couple of weeks, that mistake did not make a difference to the editorial point being made in the film and was in no way detrimental to your client."

As the controversy bubbled over recent weeks, the newspaper learned that taking on Moore has political ramifications.

"The right wing really wants to grab this and the left wing really wants to grab us," Flick said.

And some of the media are having a field day with what is essentially a media story about a media spat.

Flick said he has been contacted by Fox News and radio stations around the country. Terry Greenberg, The Pantagraph's editor, even fielded a call from a TV executive wanting to know if the newspaper would be interested in taking on Moore in a televised court case using a judge and jury.

"It wasn't a joke," Greenberg wrote in an Aug. 8 column. "The show is real."

One reader e-mailed Greenberg: "Get a life, people. Michael Moore wouldn't want an editorial position on your stupid newspaper, because nobody's ever heard of it. More so, nobody cares about it. You should be thanking him for including mention of your ridiculous rag in his movie, not trying to sue him for changing (improving?) the type size of one of your headlines."

One reader who clearly is having a good time with the controversy is Richard Soderlund, an Illinois State University history professor.

It was Soderlund who sparked the headline with his letter to the editor on the outcome of the 2000 election. He has not yet seen the movie.

"Historians would find it shocking," Soderlund said of the alleged doctored headline. "It's misrepresenting a document. It's at odds with history. It was probably not a smart thing to do on Moore's point. It's grist for the mill."

The Pantagraph's executives would like the story to have something of a happy ending.

"Somebody said the other day, why don't you just get Michael Moore to come to town and do a lecture," Bird said. "That would be great fun and serve the community well."