Slashdot Mirror
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."
People keep saying Moore's movie isn't a documentary because it's full of bias. This is a load of crap, all documentaries have bias. Everything ever written for that matter has bias. If F/911 can be said to be not a documentary it is because he doesn't actually really document anything. It's just him talking over CNN and fox news footage for two hours. That is the thing that pissed me off about this movie, that in the previous ones he and his film crew are taking all the footage, but in this movie its just him narrating his opinions on top of stock footage. It cheapens his message (which I agree with) and lowers the quality of the experience overall.
And what, may I ask makes his answers correct?
feh, lots of things are pointless, this one too
Actually, I could see Fox doing it. They go for money. By running the movie, they would control all the ads that are displayed and they could come on with commentary about the movie. IOW, turn it from semi-documentary to a true mocumentary.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Thhe fact that this is a underhanded flamefest is a Good Thing, IMO.
If Kerry thinks the leaders of other countries are going to be any nicer than thhe WORST that Rove and the swifties can throw at him he's nuts. Welcome to the big leagues, John.
But then I'm a Libertarian and so I KNOW my party is going to lose, so let 'em rogh each other up. There really is no hope until we shitcan the two party system and Greens, Libertarians and everyone else can have an actual reason to VOTE for someone they give a crap about.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.
It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.
Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:
Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented.
And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.
So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!
No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Right on.
I 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.
As a christian, I can honestly say that I think bush mouths all the phrases he thinks conservative christians would like to hear. I think if you look more deeply into his actions, you see someone who has no idea about any of the basic tenets of christianity, and is just playing a game to garner votes.
This holds true for pretty much all politicians, really, but I find bush's efforts in this regard to be quite appalling. I certainly don't want to vote for Kerry (who has always been a loser) but I'm voting against bush, more than anything.
That being said, I know way too many people voting for bush just because he says he's an "evangelical christian". I usually suggest that the actions of jesus sound like scary liberal hippie communism, which draws blank stares.
EOM
you've never let reality bother you, have you?
John kerry came back, and joined a group of veterans called the "Winter Soldiers" and testifies to congress as a representative of that group. To wit, his openning statement was:
---
I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....
---
He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.
He did the right thing.
How you pervert this brave, heroic, selfless act into some treasonous account is beyond me.
We are asked this year to decide between a decorated war hero; who came back and spoke against the war he fought in, and a coward whose father got him a cushy spot in a champagne squadron, who couldnt even bother to show up between lines of coke.
i know exactly who i would want in the foxhole next to me, and it sure as hell isnt a coked up fratboy.
... hi bingo
One thing discussions like this have taught me is that there are a LOT of people who have very little idea what their government is doing. There is enough material about U.S. government corruption to make a hundred movies like Fahrenheit 9/11.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in war since the end of World War II. None of those people directly threatened the United States.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since the end of World War II.
Want to educate yourself about U.S. goverment corruption? See the two other movies and read the 35 books reviewed in this article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
This is how it has been going:
Michael Moore: Parts of the U.S. government are very, very corrupt.
TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is a liar!
Other TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is not a liar!
Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. We should be discussing U.S. government corruption. For example, we should be discussing the U.S. government's relationship with Saudi Arabia that is unhealthy for both countries. There were only hints of that in Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.
Oh he *implies* stuff... by speaking the truth. I see. He makes a bunch of true statements and leaves the viewer to draw conclusions based on... true evidence. What a tricky guy!
The best way to figure out whether or not Moore's truthful depictions "imply" stuff unfairly is to see it for yourself and decide whether or not those implications are warranted.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
the anthrax killer never found
Wasn't it determined that the anthrax originated in our own (US) military biolabs? Isn't it a strange coincidence how the first person killed in the anthrax attacks was a nosy reporter who had just published an embarassing photo of Bush's daughter?
In other news, OJ continues his search for, "the real killers"..
I'm not sure if people are aware of this or not, but at the end of July, after only a week in theatres, Farenheit 9/11 played on prime time TV in Cuba .
See cached yahoo news here.
See some other cuban news source here.
So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."
And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is
I'd say it's a good reason why governors have an easier time getting elected than legislators. Being in the executive branch at the state level lets you take clear stands, while someone at the state or national assembly has to become really good at compromise.
I don't think that people that call legislators "flip-floppers" are idiots. I just think it is a sad reflection on the political knowledge of the average citizen.
Of course, most who state that opinion on a public forum are idiots, or campaign workers...
You see, we can't stand bush or his administration not because we hate outselves. Its because we (I promise) strongly disagree with his policies. So much so that he just starts to piss us off.
I can speak for "the liberals" as a group, because we aren't all the same. Personally, I really believe that things like universal socialized health care and marriage rights for homosexuals are a good idea. Not because I am a self-loathing loser (but thanks for saying that, really raised the level of the discourse) but because I rationally read about this issues and I believe that these are good solutions. I don't support (and never did support) the war in iraq because I believe that it is an unecessary waste of human life and money. I believe that based on as many objective (and varied) sources I can get.
Some people say crazy stupid things. People of all political stripes. That doesn't mean you can paint millions of people with the same brush. The fact that going to Iraq was a foolish mistake, sold to the people with very deceptive rhetoric is something most people came to understand pretty reasonably. Not because people went "Unabomber wacko".
You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll repeat it: I disagree with Bush on basically everything. Because I rationaly looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion. When various conservatives start basically making things up to argue their point--then I get real mad. When Mr. Bush talks about war, when he for whatever reason didn't want to go himself...that pisses me off. When people attack Kerry's war record I would love to sit down and say, that's wrong. But when it keeps coming and their candidate pulled favors to avoid serving in the same war. Well I start getting snippy. If another conservative post anonymously on the internet that I need to stop condeming and critizing other people and in the same post implies that people who agree with me are losers, then I get REAL pissed off.
Oh, and what's this crap about substance abuse? How many substance abusing liberals do you know? I know a lot of long sober people who really did overcome substance abuse problems that feel like I do about bush. I can't stand the guy and I hardly drink and I have never used illegal drugs. So step off, AC, ok?
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
As much as I would like this to happen; It won't. We know ABC and FOX are out. Perhaps CBS is a shot, but they are VERY family friendly with their mix of shows... they wouldn't want a religious right boycott. And all the cable networks are consolidated now, so there's no independent voice there either. "AOL" Time Warner's new crop of old media executives will keep it off their networks. Bravo and USA are owned by NBC. I would guess NBC is the closest shot at getting it aired. I discount ABC because Disney is the parent company, and FOX, well shit Rupert Murdoch isn't going to have any of that film on his stations.
Isn't media consolidation great? Thanks FCC.
All that being said, we'd be far better off in educating America if Bush's Brain was aired on television. That is a much more enlightening film. No offense Michael, I love your work, but Karl Rove is more dangerous than the Bush family ties to bin Laden.
Disclaimer: I have given to Kerry Edwards 2004, I have even have a sign in my yard (TEXAS) Not only that, I voted twice for Ross Perot. I remain an independent.
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
To me, what we need is more Michael Moores, not fewer. Passionate people comitted to advocacy are what we need. Impassioned, biased as hell, clamoring for attention, screaming for justice. The problem is we have focus-group tested messages, campaigns designed to offend the fewest, messages targeted to motivate specific hot button issues and worse, specific fears, and we have journalists who would rather report simple polls than question policies.
In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.
Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.
We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.
FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.
Do likewise!
What the Supreme Court ruled is, ahem, nuanced. Yet, clear.
..." The Supremes ruled that such power exercised via an explicit grant of authority in the United States Constitution is not reviewable by a state supreme court. Hence, the Florida Supreme Court had no power to intervene in determining the manner in which Florida assigns Electors: the authority was not grounded in the Florida constitution, but rather the United States constitution. That power is clearly granted solely to the Legislature, and given the source of the authority, it is directly reviewable by the United States Supreme Court.
To wit:
The Supreme Court of the State of Florida has the power to review the acts of the legislature of the state when those acts are an exercise of a power granted by the people of Florida via the Florida constitution.
However, the United States Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
The Supreme Court decision, while unquestionably controversial, was correct. This power of regulating federal elections was allocated solely to the elected state legislature, and is a federal, not state, matter when it comes to review.
Larry
You don't have to look that far back. Just look at the official Bush web site a few weeks ago:
That is, an official ad, not one that was posted to an open forum and then deleted by the moderators.
link
Senator Kerry admited that he personally committed war crimes (see the attached excerpt from an MSNBC transcript which quotes Senate hearings from 1971).
In the attached excerpt you'll see that he tries to back pedal out of that statement, but the fact is that he either did commit atrocities as he says he personally did or he lied to Congress about it. Either way the man is not fit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States.
You think that's the reason?
... the Bin Ladens made a great profit through all the government arms contracts needed to replace the weapons used in Iraq.
... an oil price that has more than doubled!
I guess you aren't aware that the Bin Laden family is a major investor in the american arms companies
I guess you also aren't aware that the Bin Laden's are a major oil family, and that by helping Bush destabilize the world oil markets using the false scare tactics, and pinching off the oil supply from Iraq, Bush and his Bin Laden friends have gotten exactly what they wanted
In fact, just in July of this year, Americans sent $90BILLION more dollars to saudi arabia to buy oil than they would have with the pre-war / pre-bush prices!
You have no idea how much the Bin Ladens love you dumbass americans.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"