Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11

telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Comments

questions have been raised

[dirvish]

You've got questions? He's got answers.

Re:questions have been raised

[Burpmaster]

And you imply that this 877 number existed when the movie was made. A quick search for the number you gave found this link. A check on archive.org found that page was first archived on July 6, 2004, almost two weeks after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in theaters.

Re:questions have been raised

[Burpmaster]

Additional info: I found this article, which mentions specifically that the number was created afterwards:

"Fahrenheit 911" continues to make news:

The Gallup Poll reports only 38 percent of movie goers have a favorable impression of the controversial, anti-Bush film by Michael Moore, based on what they have heard and read about it. Republicans hate it by a six-to-one margin, while Democrats applaud it, four-to-one.

One scene in the propaganda-documentary that always draws chuckles from viewers features Florida GOP Rep. Porter Goss inviting people to call a "toll-free number" to voice their concerns about the Patriot Act. But the flick notes that no such number existed at the time and offered Goss' office number in its stead.

There is one now -- 1-877-858-9040 -- on the Web site of the House intelligence committee, which Goss chairs. A spokeswoman wouldn't say whether the deluge of calls to her boss' office contributed to the establishment of the toll-free line.

Despite its focus on GIs against the Iraq war, the Pentagon's Army and Air Force Exchange Service intends to distribute copies to U.S. bases worldwide.

Re:questions have been raised

[htmlboy]

thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.

iirc, they sued him for $1, since that's the minimal amount they could ask. the suit was only a means to seek a formal apology, which i believe they got.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, what was stated was completely true - Gore won the recount in the vast majority of counting methods

Actually, this is not true. The fact is that Gore did not win the state in any of the recounts. And when the media did their own recount, Bush won using every recount standard except for the one that his lawyers were arguing should be used if a recount was to take place.

US Supreme Court respected states rights and not stepped in

I love it when people try to talk about "states' rights" without understanding what it means. The idea of "states' rights" means that the federal government should not interfere with the rights that the states hold under the Constitution. It also means that states should not exceed their rights and try to interfere with the government's rights. States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states (emphasis added)

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

And Congress did pass a law several years ago requiring that any disputes over the election of delegates to the Electorial College must be resolved under the laws that were in place on the day of the election. These means that the attempts of the Florida courts to change and create new law (by changing deadlines and creating a statewide recount) to help Gore were a violation of that federal law.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizens equal protection under the law, yet the Florida Supreme Court's final ruling created a situation where a voter's ballot could be counted differently depending on what county he voted in. This would hardly be equal treatment. When that ruling was issued, even the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court said that the ruling would not survive a test of its Constitutionality and by a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional (yes it was a 7-2 vote, the 5-4 ruling was only about what remedy should be ordered)

Any claim by Moore that Gore won Florida is best described by Shakesphere's words -

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

> Actually, this is not true.

Actually, it is true. Summing up the myths:

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/ op inion/3973122.htm?template=contentModules/printsto ry.jsp

"Question: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?

Answer: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.

Q: Why did some earlier post-election studies say just the opposite, that is, that Bush had actually won after all?

A: They did not really say this. They reported, instead, that Bush might have kept his lead if the manual recounts of machine-rejected ballots had been completed along the lines either requested by Gore or initially mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. In these recount scenarios, not all of the machine-rejected ballots would have been included. However, just before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the judge overseeing the final statewide recount was preparing to announce that the recount would cover all of the previously uncounted ballots."

Furthermore:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

(the referenced Newsweek article is already in the archives, but I can probably dig it up for you if you want). The judge presiding over statewide recounts ordered overvotes to be counted - one of the several situations in which Gore would have won. Bush only would have won in the recounts that Gore requested.

> States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.

You just quoted the constitution which completely backs up what Florida was doing - *THE STATE* makes the laws about how the elections are conducted, and the ultimate arbiter of *FLORIDA LAW* is the Florida Supreme court (the US supreme court can only decide if a florida law violates the US constitution). Apparently you're unfamiliar with the logic that the US supreme court used in their 5-4 decision - they actually claimed that because there was no way to guarantee "equal protection", you can't have a recount. Furthermore, they made this a non-precidental ruling, because it would trash states rights if they didn't.

And the decision *Was* 5-4. You're confusing your decisions. The 7-2 was a per curiam - or "unsigned" - statement that there were "constitutional problems". It was a rather mild statement, however, and focused mainly on the fact that it would have been hard, if not impossible, to complete them by the date required. The 5-4 was the actual vote on the case.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

1) Implying that Fox....

If one news station calls an election, the others follow that call. Call them lemmings, but no news station wants to be the last to call an election. I was watching CNN at the time, and was watching the florida count numbers coming in, was aware that it was incredibly obvious that Gore could still carry the state (and not even that difficult), and then had my jaw drop when I heard them say something to the effect of... "wait, we're getting the news that Florida has been called for Bush..."

2) Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.

Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans, but less than 50 hispanics (I assume you're talking about Database Technologies and the purge list).

3) Implying that Gore won the election no matter what.

In the method that the State supreme court had ordered, Gore indeed would have won, based on a University of Chicago study. The only case Bush would have won was the one Gore requested, or no recount - but that was not what the State supreme court ordered.

4a) Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months

That is completely true.

4b) With the implication that Bush can't do work away from the White House.

Of course he *can* do work. And I'm sure he's so much more effective without all those "relevant people" around him. Crawford, Texas, is so much more accessable for meetings than DC. I'm sure all of the brush-cutting photos, horseback riding, and talk about having fun was just a media ploy. (/sarcasm)

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

5) Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing ...

A) Tenet couldn't have given oral testimony about the PDB, as was implied, because A) Tenet was not in Texas that day, and B) Tenet testified that he did not speak to Bush during all of August: http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/

B) Neither did Condi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A111 15-2004Apr14.html

C) And, based on a white house press briefing, it appears that Bush didn't read it himself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/ 20 040410-6.html

Watch the administration official dance around the question as to whether Bush ever read it, it's quite amusing.

6) Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country

Here's a couple examples:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_n ow _verifies_flig.shtml
http://www.iht.com/articles/ 531487.html

7) Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.

Please, back up that they were.

Re:questions have been raised

[neurojab]

>plus 1000 dead war

Correction: 1000 U.S. citizens have died. The number of Iraqi civillians is over 11,000 by LOW estimates. If you add in Iraqi soldiers, and you've got a total body count around 17,000, again, by low estimates.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[bios10h]

From oscars.org:

No television or internet transmission shall occur at any time prior to, or within the nine months following, the first day of the qualifying exhibition, and not before completing the minimum four-city two-day theatrical runs. Any documentary which is transmitted anywhere in the world in any version as a television or internet program within this period will automatically be disqualified from award eligibility.

http://www.oscars.org/77academyawards/rules/rule12 .html

Re:FCC should allow it

[ImaLamer]

Two CNN commentators just joind the Kerry campaign, and they are still doing there shows on CNN

But... do they cover Kerry? Fox's man covering Bush in 2000 had family (his wife) in the Bush campaign. How could he be objective?

In 2000 a CNN anchor started to work for Gore and they removed him from all Gore stories because of the appearance of impropriety.

Read the script of Outfoxed, see page 73 I believe.

That's because the first attacker wins

[roystgnr]

John Kerry voted for one version of an appropriations bill for Gulf War II, and voted against another. George W. Bush threatened to veto one version of the appropriations bill, and signed another. Because the Bush campaign was the first to figure out how to work half of these facts into a soundbyte, now Kerry is a "flip-flopper" in the public eye.

The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck. I know that for a lot of voters the answers to "Do you want George W. Bush as your president?" and "Do you want John Kerry as your president?" are the same: no! IMHO the Bush campaign is doing a good job keeping the latter question in people's minds, and it's going to win him the election.

Re:bite me asshat.

[CaptRespect]

"no links found to al-Qaeda and no WMDs"

Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks). And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.

Re:Hurting the process?

[tigeba]

Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'

This is a perfect example of the benefit of doing a little simple research and thinking, instead of absorbing information served to you. Based on watching the film, you were probably under the impression that Bush delivered this line at some sort of secret fund raising dinner, rallying the his vast right-wing army. In fact, this occured at the Al Smith dinner, which is a charity dinner that traditionally hosts presidental candidates, and of course the candidates are encouraged to make self depricating remarks. You would probably be surprised to know that the other guest of honor that evening was Al Gore, who I believe re-stated his claim that he invented the internet (as well as virtually every invention of the 20th century) as well as some other gems about keeping various types of produce safe in his fridge.

You can find a brief blurb here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politi cs /main242210.shtml

Feel free to draw your own conclusions about who is telling the "truth". And remember all facts are always true :)

Obviousman to the rescue!

[Theaetetus]

Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it?

Now, let's put that quote back in context... Originally, a bill was proposed seeking $87 billion in funding to support the war in Iraq, to be paid for by repealing the Bush tax cut. Kerry voted for it. Bush refused to sign that bill, and instead had a Republican senator propose an identical $87 billion dollar bill for funding to be paid for by increasing the deficit. John Kerry, among others, believe that you don't just run up your credit cards willy-nilly without figuring some way to pay them, and voted against that bill.

Does this mean Kerry doesn't support the troops? Nope - in fact, Bush was the one who sent them off to war improperly funded and supplied (remember all the APCs and Humvees that didn't have armor?). Kerry does support the troops. He also supports not running up trillion dollar deficits while keeping a tax cut that gives middle-class and below families less than $300 each, while upper-class people get hundreds of times that.

-T

Re:Michael Moore

[Morganth]

...comparing him to Hitler...

This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.

To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.

MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.

Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.

Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like . Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).

That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.

The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.

Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.

But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati

Creative quoting?

[Rui del-Negro]

Funny how that site gives you a definition for the noun and a definition for the adjective and you decided to quote the wrong one, eh? Creative quoting, I guess.

Here's the other one (for the noun, from the very same page):

"A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration" (fits Fahrenheit 9/11 like a glove, more so than any of Moore's previous documentaries, in fact).

But let's see what specialised sites have to say about it:

[1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view"

[2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme"

[3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter"

[4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects"

[5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view"

I've been working on (and watching) documentaries for a couple of decades, and these are the definitions employed and accepted by the authors, the industry, the critics, the festivals and the viewers. If you think a documentary is something else, you can either a) correct yourself or b) try to convice every filmmaker, film institute, film festival, cinema historian, etc., that they are wrong.

Either way, good luck, it's not going to be easy.

RMN
~~~