Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Media Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Media Control

    Disney may block anti-Bush film

    http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

    LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary linking President Bush with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden, is stirring up controversy even before its release.

    That's if it even gets released.

    Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety said in its Wednesday edition that Walt Disney Co. has moved to prevent its Miramax Films unit from distributing "Fahrenheit 911."

    ------------------------------------

    I just don't remember this ever happening for any other president before - the media just seems to bend over backwards for Junior. What explains it?

    I say this as someone that has never seen a Moore documentary nor read any of his books. My point is simple: Why even raise the possible controversy?

    Maybe it's guerrilla marketing...basically free advertising before Miramax capitulates and rakes it in at the box office for a smallish documentary film.

  • #2
    Ha and I love the fact it will show at Cannes and probably other places in Europe but it may not show here.

    "Fahrenheit 911," Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning film "Bowling for Columbine," will still premiere in competition at the Cannes Film Festival in France later this month. Rumors had been circulating of a July release date in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the paper said."
    What will that say about our country? What will the world think about "the land of the free"? That media company wouldn't show the ABC special reading of the names of the dead soldiers; the US gov't tried to get those photos of abuse out of the public veiw (along with the photos of coffins); they close down newspapers in Iraq in an effort to bring "freedom and democracy" to the country; the FCC is getting Stern off the air and looking into others - and now Disney won't release a film that paints a bad picture of Bush.

    Freedom is being eroded in this country.
    When they had advanced together to meet on common
    ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
    and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
    each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
    mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
    killing, and the ground ran with blood.

    Homer, The Illiad

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by VonWeiner
      Ha and I love the fact it will show at Cannes and probably other places in Europe but it may not show here.

      "Fahrenheit 911," Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning film "Bowling for Columbine," will still premiere in competition at the Cannes Film Festival in France later this month. Rumors had been circulating of a July release date in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the paper said."
      What will that say about our country? What will the world think about "the land of the free"? That media company wouldn't show the ABC special reading of the names of the dead soldiers; the US gov't tried to get those photos of abuse out of the public veiw (along with the photos of coffins); they close down newspapers in Iraq in an effort to bring "freedom and democracy" to the country; the FCC is getting Stern off the air and looking into others - and now Disney won't release a film that paints a bad picture of Bush.

      Freedom is being eroded in this country.
      Time to say "Let's roll", eh? We know there are enough people to turn back the wheel in the US. The rest of the world (which isn't really a "rest", but the majority) would very much appreciate your waking up soon.
      Google ergo sum

      Comment


      • #4
        That makes me sad. Moore is off in left field - no pun intended - but if Miramax is willing to release the film, there is no other word for this other than "censorship".

        100% wrong, if you ask me. Disney should be ashamed.

        Comment


        • #5
          It's all about the money and the family ties.

          "Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor." (emhasis mine)

          I encourage people to read Team Rodent : How Disney Devours the World, by Florida native Carl Hiaasen, a syndicated columnist for the Miami Herald. You may not agree with everything he says, but you will see the greed-based evil that is Disney.
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment


          • #6
            They have this image of family and wholesomeness and whatnot, but I have negotiated with them (relative to their cruise ships) and they are a brutal company. The image and the behind the scenes reality are, shall we say, somewhat at odds.

            You'll get no argument from this "nazi goose-stepper". Although, technically, Disney does have the right to not distribute it; if they choose not to, however, they have no choice but to accept the consequences (i.e. negative publicity) that may arise.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Media Control

              Originally posted by krunky
              I just don't remember this ever happening for any other president before - the media just seems to bend over backwards for Junior. What explains it?
              Great question Krunky. I really think the "liberal" media is becoming more and more mythical. This same liberal media that was fascinated by Clinton's every mistake and lie ignores much more important (though less illegal) lies from Bush.

              I think a lot of it has to do with two factors. Fox news is supposedly "fair and balanced," but it's no great industry secret that their news (and their viewers) skew stongly to the right. They have presented themselves as the alternative to the liberal media. In response, other media outlets are doing everything they can to not seem liberal, which leads them to a conservative stance.

              More importantly, punditry has replaced reporting. In this system, a media outlet has to have Ann Coulter debate Al Franken to appear balanced. The problem is, of course, that issues of accuracy shouldn't be politicized, even though they clearly have been. We have two versions of Truth (capitalization intended) that circulate, and accuracy gets lost in their current.

              Did Bush overstate the intelligence on WMD in Iraq? Instead of presenting the public with a definitive answer, the media gives us a Republican point of view and a Democratic point of view, both of which toe the respective party line. We're often forced to interpet any event--not just political ones--with our ideology, because the media will no longer interpret those raw historical events. Accuracy shouldn't be a political opinion, but I fear it has become exactly that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Here's a link to an internal memo from MTV (Europe). It lists videos they won't show due to the war.

                http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/m...p?memo_id=1424

                I wonder what corporation owns MTV...
                When they had advanced together to meet on common
                ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
                and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
                each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
                mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
                killing, and the ground ran with blood.

                Homer, The Illiad

                Comment


                • #9
                  Moooooooooo!

                  Not new news, not good news, but it is interesting news...

                  -------------------------------

                  Don't Read This Over a Burger
                  by Laurel Wellman
                  Published on Wednesday, May 5, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle

                  http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0505-05.htm

                  But public discussion of whether BSE would emerge here all but died after Oprah Winfrey invited Lyman on her show and devoted an hour to the disease. The two were sued by a group of Texas cattlemen under a state law banning the "disparagement" of food -- and while Winfrey and Lyman prevailed in the 1998 trial, the whole incident made lots of other people nervous.

                  {more strange corporate/business claims to rights they shouldn't necessarily have...}

                  -------------------------------

                  More on BSE at:
                  http://www.prwatch.org/books/madcow.html

                  Free downloadable book "Mad Cow USA" at:
                  http://www.prwatch.org/books/mcusa.pdf

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Don't libel my egg dude. Fantastic . . . my best memory of the BSE crisis in Britain was that right at the height of it (and general paranoia about the low quality in the meat industry) a Scottish butcher poisoned loads of people in his area with e-coli. When he re-opened there was a photograph of a group of people standing proudly outside his shop in Union Jack hats!!!

                    Yes, he hadn't been closed down due to his poor hygeine and hospitalising people, but because the EEC were tying to get at the Great British Sausage once again. Show your patriotism - eat bad meat today!

                    But for me it showed the utter complete failure of some people to grasp anything about the issues at stake. (All connected to the fact that the EC and US banned our meat exports before we'd admitted there was a problem, so QED it was the EC's fault that farmers were going bust, rather than the farmers fault for feeding ground up cow to other cows. The farmers in turn blamed the government for changing the law, which had previously banned then from using animal feed containing animal. Because if you change the law that stopped someone from doing something then that means they HAVE to do it doesn't it).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      MTC is owned by Viacom, I believe.

                      "Great question Krunky. I really think the "liberal" media is becoming more and more mythical. This same liberal media that was fascinated by Clinton's every mistake and lie ignores much more important (though less illegal) lies from Bush... In response, other media outlets are doing everything they can to not seem liberal, which leads them to a conservative stance."

                      Well, yes, but all things are relative. There are few networks (NOT talent on the networks, but the networks themselves) that are truly conservative. They just aren't as blatantly liberal. There is a difference. I think there is a plethora of shows that purport to be debates (Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, Hannity& Colmes, The View) and that, ostensibly, requires differing perspectives. But you still have the blithering idiocy of Bill Maher, the snnide, snarky ironically-detached liberalism of Jon Stewart and Co. (although they are devastatingly funny most of the time), and the pseudo-intellectual-based-on-the-fact-that-I-have-a-snazzy-accent-liberalism of Peter Jennings. This is really only countered by Sean Hannity (himself tempered by his partner) and Dennis Miller, who, after a short post-9/11 wave of tub-thumping, seems to have toned down his hawkishness to a fair degree. (Remember, Rush is exclusively on the radio).

                      I also think that in this day and age of reality TV and the blurring of the "hard news" line, you aren't seeing the conservativization of media (or, conversely, the mythification of the liberal media) as much as you are seeing the homogeniation of media to appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

                      Here's the real problem, as I see it: as the news becomes more and more homogenized, it is getting harder and harder to understand the issues from the news. Even back in the day when the media was much more obvious in it's liberal bias (and I think we can all admit that there was such a day), one could get a pretty decent, albeit not too deep, understanding of the issues at hand, even if it was "in the negative" so to speak. Now, it isn't so easy, and the person that would get their "opinions" from the news cannot. They are forced to either do additioal research or become more ignortant.

                      Seems to me they are choosing to become more ignorant in droves.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Bill, the very fact that in the 1950s the witchhunt was on for the Communists in the media, and now the complaints are about a Liberal bias, really says it all to me about the true nature of things.

                        The game has been shifted so far to the right that the centre - which is what Liberalism has historically been - can now be portrayed as the Left - and the current economic order (post-Thatcher, post-Reagan) is portrayed as the only possible or natural system - even though historically it's a recent invention.

                        Anyway isn't the role of the free press in a democracy to challenge the powers that be, rather than trumpet the agenda of the already powerful?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jules
                          Bill, the very fact that in the 1950s the witchhunt was on for the Communists in the media, and now the complaints are about a Liberal bias, really says it all to me about the true nature of things.
                          I have this image in my head of Tom DeLay leading the next such crusade. This frightens me, especially when he complains that the Democrats are using the press to politicize prison torture. This coming from the person who manages to politicize anything and everything as soon as he sees a microphone and camera. I guess the lesson from people like that would be that if something in the media isn't conservative promotion it must be liberal bias. Ick.

                          Originally posted by Jules
                          Anyway isn't the role of the free press in a democracy to challenge the powers that be, rather than trumpet the agenda of the already powerful?
                          That is, of course, what it is supposed to be.

                          Ironically, the growth of a truly free press in Iraq has been stifled by the competing effort to establish a pro-US press. Hmm... an issue for later.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "Anyway isn't the role of the free press in a democracy to challenge the powers that be, rather than trumpet the agenda of the already powerful?"

                            Yes, although I would argue that that is not the role of a public news source. I won't argue that it is virtually impossible to have completely unbiased news (just the format editing process removes that possibility), but I don't need Peter Jennings to challenge the President (not Bush, any president) when delivering the developments of the day. That borders too much on politics. But you are right, in that the benefits of a free press are to challenge the existing power base. You cannot have it any other way and still call it "free press".

                            "Bill, the very fact that in the 1950s the witchhunt was on for the Communists in the media, and now the complaints are about a Liberal bias, really says it all to me about the true nature of things."

                            Not sure I follow...

                            "I have this image in my head of Tom DeLay leading the next such crusade. This frightens me..."

                            Well, I am out of line in calling Bill Mahr a blithering idiot; it is really personal prefernce that I don't like his air of intellectual superiority; like some here, his general position seems to be "if you don't see things as my superior intellect sees them, you are nothing more than gum on my shoe, and therefore barely entitled to breath, let alone speak". Having said that, Bill Mahr is significantly more relevant, and certainly a whole lot less dangerous than Tom DeLay. He, to me, is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the new conservatives (I guess this is what is meant by "neo-cons", although that terms seems to be misapplied to anyone that the democrats don't like).

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X