I saw a news flash on Headline News yesterday. "CENSORED" was the tagline as video of MM was shown on the screen.

Censored?

Disney just doesn't want to distribute his movie. I'm sure it's a business decision. He can find another distributor or take the chance himself (just like Mel Gibson), but to yell, "censorship" is just shouting for attention (and cheap publicity).

I know, its a Bush conspiracy meant to stifle free speech. Gimme a break.

Business Decision? Disney doesn't want to distribute a film by an Oscar Award winning director that is sure to make them millions is a stupid business decision. They just don't want their squeeky clean All American image tainted by a contensious Bush-bashing film. By doing so they are controlling the message they want you to hear, and that is censorship. And with more and more media companies (newspapers, magazines, books, tv, radio, movies, web) in the States owned by less and less major companies, the more dangerous the possibility the message you hear will be censored and homogenized.

The media is a message.

Michael Moore = anti-Bush.

Bush = tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Now how many members of the Disney Board of Directors do you think would qualify as some of the wealthiest Americans?

It's a simple business decision: don't bite the hand that feeds you!

And when the sinclair group decided to not to allow its 7 ABC stations to run Ted Koppel's Nightline tribute to the dead Americans soldiers (where he read off the names of the dead in iraq) was that also a business decision? No, they stated that they didn't like the political message it might send. (what message was that? Maybe they were worried that people would actually draw their own conclusions...even Bill O'Reilly (sp?) said that Koppel remained politically neutral).

Conspiracy? No way. Corporate America protects its interests. Shielding Bush makes sense to them. There's no conspiracy, its simply protecting their interests to censor Moore. But in an era where media is big business, and a very few media conglomerates own or control vast empires of news, magazine, publishing, radio, cable, production and television outlets, their decisions not to allow dissenters like Moore can have severe consequences for those who want to hear him. Like it or not, the media sets the agenda for what makes it into our cultural consciousness. And I'm willing to bet, by the way, that you are a big fan of fox news. Right? Well, the political leanings of Faux news are clearly to the right. Murdoch is a tremendous contributor to the republican party. So, how fair and balanced do you think they can be?

Liberal media my ass. Media is big business, and big business always always always votes republican

I read somewhere that making Bowling for Columbine cost 6 million, but that the movie grossed 120 million. Business decision?

Wake up.

My question is: why do working class americans (I know: no one likes to associate themselves with this class anymore - so lets substitute middle class) who make less than 200,000 dollars a year vote for Bush? It is clearly not in their economic interests do do so.

Stinky

So, it turns out business actually does have more to do with censoring Moore than I suspected. From an article from today's new york times :

"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."

Jeb doesn't want the family name besmirched, so he pressures the fine people of disney to give moore the axe.

Coercion fits the bush family MO pretty well. Just ask Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, or Joseph Wilson if you don't believe me.

Stinky

Last edited: Thursday, May 06, 2004 at 8:17:50 PM

Rabban,

How about reading the article, and not just the headline?

---

"liberal media" is a right wing construct. Grade 3 political move.

---

The media is a message. ?

Is that a misquote or a you-quote?

It's amazing people are still growing up believing that there is such a thing as "Free-Press."

The closest thing to a Free-Press to come along is being fought tooth-n-nail; P2P.

Really think that the P2P war is all about music and movies? The ability of citizens to instantly exchange ideas with millions of others shakes the souls of those in power.

Hey, even paranoids have enemies.

Flea

:-)

Tally, I did read an article. Not the whole thing, but enough. But I started off referring to the Headline News blip, which I saw in a resturant and couldn't hear.

Moore has made a movie, not a news report and his goal is to make money. If he just wants to get his message out, he can give it to CBS. They'll play it. ;)

And if Disney wants to protect a "squeeky clean, All American" image, isn't that their right? Do they have to distribute Moore's film because he wants them to do it? Besides, Disney's been having a lot of other problems lately and there seems to be pressure for more "family friendly" products, so I can see where they would want to back away from Moore's stuff.

In the article I read, Eisner mentioned that he knew 11 people who would be interested in the film, so I don't think Moore is censored just yet.

Well said stink.......american politics = self serving BS...from washington to bush = same story

B

@ Tally Ho

It was a misqoute of Marshall Mcluhan, and maybe even a little out of context.

You control the medium, you control the message.

Other great qoutes by Marshall

@ stink

Great qoute!! Thanks for taking your fingers out of your bum long enough to type that! I would call for an impeachment of Jeb for influencing the mass media like that. Just like he should have been impeached for rigging the Election.

Last edited: Friday, May 07, 2004 at 2:51:53 PM

Hey rabban, check this out too truthout...bill moyers :

" On Friday a week ago on Nightline, Ted Koppel read the names of the dead and showed their photographs. But their faces and names were blacked out on ABC stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting. Sinclair accused Koppel of "...doing nothing more than making a political statement."

    But what about Sinclair's own political agenda? With 62 stations the company is the biggest of its kind in the country and has lobbied successfully in Washington for permission to grow even bigger. Its executives are generous contributors to the Republican party.

    After 9/11, there were reports their on-air talent had been required to read statements affirming a station's 100% support for the President. And the company's Vice President for Corporate Communications, Mark Hyman, doubles as the on-air commentator on The Point, a daily commentary segment that airs in cities across the country via Sinclair's News Central channel. Hyman is known to regularly "stimulate public discourse" with statements like, "Clinton was too busy chasing skirts to chase terrorists."

Interesting stuff

Stinky

Last edited: Saturday, May 08, 2004 at 3:43:40 AM

@ Rabban: I'm not sure, then, why you posted what you posted. I'm too tired to say any more than you sunk your battleship.

@ Odd: Aye, I majored in that goo at school, Comm and Culture. I thought you were re-meaning.

'The answers are always inside the problem, not outside."

That's goot, but beware missing context.

Michael Moore and Me

What has happened to this forum? A Michael Moore thread...Yuck.

If lunkheads like that could possibly influence my beloved left wing

I've got but one thing to say, "Like a fat kid in a dodgeball game once

Said...I'M OUT!"

I'd have to run screaming to Nader. LOL

Wow filbert! What a post. Did you write that all yourself? Did you do all that analysis? Damn, if so, that's some patience...

I've always like mm, but I think he's a bit sloppy, that some of his stuff is flimsy, drummed up, elaborated on...

Never really thought of him as an outright liar, but you make some good points.

I guess to sharpen is skills up a bit, he should hang out with more accomplished liars. President bush, cheney, karl rove, richard perle, condi rice, rumsfeld...are also on the record as collasal liars. But, they are infinitely more successful in pushing their fabrications...as our 800 dead soldiers will attest.

Stinkfactor

@ Filbert

Great post. Michael Moore is all about selling movies boys and girls - he could give two shits about the issues he portrays. Just someone selling snake oil.

Incidentally - has anyone EVER HEARD a 20 minute standing ovation? I think Guiness has it at 8 minutes.......

In this geopolitical climate, michael moore could have filmed himself dry-humping a trash can for and hour and a half and received a twenty minute ovation at cannes...

http://www.patriotsforbush.com/archives/000048.html

Before you give Filbert props better check this link. LOL. Be objective friends.

Last edited: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 2:11:10 AM

Ooooh filbert....

Your goose bin cooked!!!

Patriots for bush!

Snicker

Snicker

Still some good points though....

Stinkinheimer

As if u honestly thought filbert wrote all that....i scanned the whole thing looking for quote marks...still a good read

Tx filbert...

B

Wow, I just read some of the stuff on that filbert site...a lot of deception, hatred, fabrication.

Hmmmmm. I dunno filbert, but I bet you could find more balanced info out there somewhere...maybe fox news? Naw...try npr or pri for a change...

I just googled for it, didn't mean for ya'll to think it was mine.

Den throw in some quotes, you silly goose.

@ Fil

LOL. Great info - stinky's right - you should credit the author (anal English degree talking).

@ stinky

I think I saw the Michael Moore film you're referring to in Vegas a few weeks ago...except he was dry humping Hillary's leg.

Hillary! Yuck! Don't make me sick. I'd sooner dry-hump michael moore's leg, than hillary's...poo-poo.

Liberal leaning press? Then why the green light on the right's latest crusade?

How come most major media went along with our presidential monkey?

new york times admits lack of rigour

Filbert, it's that key right to the one marked "enter."

People often do it with their middle and index fingers on both hands in a winky fashion.

It's called quoting, giving credit where credit is due.

Don't do it, and people get kinda testy.

PS. Next time I am going to insult someone's film, I am, like, for sure going to start with a critique of their hands and fingers. Do you think PFB has registered "sausage-like"?

Last edited: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 2:15:07 AM

Ahh, the usual leftist tactic, attacking Filbert for an honest mistake rather than addressing the issues that he raised. Diversion, diversion, diversion. Monica's doing what to the...Bomb Libya!!!

Rabban, the right is just as guilty as the left with regards to diversion tactics. Bush tends to put out a terrorist alert whenever he's had a bad press week.

You may not agree with Michael Moore, but he is the left's response to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily. Fighting fire with fire, for better or for worse.

Filbert, always quote your sources. Plagarism is too easy nowadays, especially when it's so easy to hit copy and paste right off the net. However, plagaraism is never right, and in severe cases will get you kicked out of school.

LC₅₀

Rabban, IMPEACHING the president wasn't a diversionary tactic?

No one is attacking filbert: just gentle cudgeling for nearing plagerism.

And rabban, I'm about to give up on you entirely...seems the only objective analysis you're capable is biblical analysis....

Diversionary tactics a a political tactic...belong to neither side.

Edit: I said something...ungentle to rabban...but I see him taking a beating in another thread, so I am retracting it...

Carry on

Last edited: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 6:55:49 PM

@stink - I think I'm with you, I'm about to give up on myself...at least when it comes to expressing myself in these forums. I think I need to stick with topics such as "what's your favorite ice cream flavor?" and "Biodome Sucked!" since my sarcasm is taken seriously and my seriousness is elevated to Nazism. :[

I think for awhile my motto is going to be, "Less talk, more play." B)

Perhaps I'll spend all my time in the Skins forum. I'm a god over there. XD

Last edited: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 7:09:16 PM

Lol...don't give up! I look forward to your posts like I said elsewhere, you may be experiencing some backlash... But discussions like these are good for personal growth...i feel like I've been enriched through our discussion on religion especially by you and az...so, please don't give up! If the criticism is useful, benefit from it...if not, strengthen your arguments, and carry on...

Stinky

Rabban: I think people don't think you capable of irony (although you have been ironic in your posts) because of your unflinching presentation of your religious beliefs. Your faith is very strong, very literal...i think, therefore, you are read literally in these other posts....

Which is unjust...because you have cracked me up several times....

@ Oddball: I am not disagreeing with you necessarily, but if you think Disney is squeaky clean, have a read of this article: Disney Peddles Porn

Interesting to know.

--daisy

Stinky, you complete me.

You had me at, lol.

I've got the Qua.

OK, ok. I'll have to make sure I include more smilies and winks in my posts just to make sure people get me. I've even tried to inject some irony in my religious posts since I don't want folks to think Rabby's all fire and no brimstone, er, fun.

So I guess I will keep trying. I just enjoy to struggle too much to leave. You can see how long casting off the forums lasted. XD

Rabban

(touching one liberal at a time)

Lol, do you wash your hand in between touchings? Remember, what you consider touching, could be considered "fondling" by a liberal....

Stinky

Ps...i don't know why liberalism/and leftism have been conflated....historically, liberals haven't given two hoots about social movements or civil rights. Liberalism has always fought for the individuals rights against some dominating force. Leftist movements have always been about social issues: civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, the plight of the poor, the plight of the working class, the environment...

I don't know why people call us liberals. We are lefties!!!

Lefties unite.

Politics confuse me.

Whats a liberal? A conservative? Whats the difference?

Gah politics suck

_{but seriously I have no idea what those things are.}

My two bits: I'm not using a dictionary (obviously) because dictionaries are reductionist...and stale.

Conservatives: two types 1)those who are conservative because they make heaps of money....and they want to keep as much of it as possible...so they vote republican (the anti-tax party) they don't mind if they screw over the environment, or exploit foreign countries, or pay their employees peanuts. Profit is the bottom line...if they can outsource american jobs to save a penny...they do it. In terms of a government, they like a government that keeps the economy first, the people second.

There aren't that many of them so the GOP must also use religion, fear, and hate to snag group 2)those who generally don't make that much money, but who are deeply religious (christian), not terribly bright, (nascar fans) are angry (the pro-gun NRA ) and easily manipulated by emotional issues (pro-life, patriotism). The GOP uses this disenfranchized, under-educated group to get the votes they need to pass the legislation that makes/keeps group 1 enormously wealthy, but does little to no good for group 2. But group 2 is so stupid that they never seem to notice!

Liberals: I don't know any liberals...a few whack-jobs in the libertarian party...thomas jefferson was a liberal...

Lefties: this is what most people mistake as a liberal. Put people before the economy. Are lefties because they see the intrinsic value of human life and value the planet we live on. Stand for social justice. Are concerned that the role our government seems to have taken is to ensure that businesses thrive while people suffer. Are seen as weakening the military because they'd rather the bulk of our tax money on education and health care (rather than in flattening a thirdworld country with some impotent crackpot dictator). Generally don't bitch that much about taxes because the see the how the money supports the collective good.

Ok...have at it fellas!

Maybe its just me, but you seem a little biased there :P

I guess I'm a leftie. Kinda.

For the sake of shifting this up abit! About that Education and healthcare! Didn't our presidents, up till around FDR believe in limited government in those fields? Don't you think we were better educated before the government stuck it's hand into mass education through the prussian School System? Look at the quality of literature, and see how it has gone down over the years. Look at all the scientific breakthroughs we used to make, when we can't even find out little things with billions in funding anymore. Look at how math used to grow in length and power, and now all we can do is teach warped versions of the old stuff. Is government education that good?

And how about all this Social Security trash! I am not suggesting just tossing it, but it SHOULD be fased out. All it is doing is inflating our market, and causing the government debt to rise. We don't even get quality health car in the mainstream market. DOCTORS are the 3rd greatest cause of death in America. That was stated my the American Journal of medicine, or some other big journal.

If the government could go back to the limited government that we needed, then we might not have so many problems.

So, what is more important? Further warping our countries policies at home, or saving thousands of lives abroad? And you have to admit, more lives have been saved, In iraq, in the long run, through this war, than otherwise....

Ive made a realization here.

You guys are too smart for me to understand what you're talking about. ;)

Dont bother explainin'

Im done with this subject: anyone who wants to harague me any more can just refer to my previous posts :)

Happy M day.

Stinky

ROFLMAO