Censorship of a whiney bitch

[Pherr the Dorf]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DT0095.DTL

Hate Micheal Moore

hate censorship of ANYONE more, that's fucking stupid

[Sionistic]

it is a shame that it was blocked, but it couldnt have happened to a more deserving douche like moore

[Voronwë]

its going to get distributed.

Disney's contract with Miramax allows them to block distributorship for only 2 reasons:

1. an NC-17 rating
2. a movie being overbudget


basically, i guess Disney gets more money from tax breaks in FL than they expect to earn from this movie ("Bowling for COlumbine" grossed $22 million). And they don't want to jeopardize that.

but it will have the three layered purpose of 1. doing what i said above, 2. giving free pub to "Fahrenheit 911", and 3. distancing Disney publically from the political debate.

For example, Heinz ketchup is catching heat from idiot conservatives because they think John Kerry is campaigning on the money of that company.

Kerry's wife, is the WIDOW of Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania, who was the grandson of the Heinz ketchup guy. oh yeah John Heinz was a REPUBLICAN. She has no corporate function with Heinz ketchup, but since she was married to the grandson of the Heinz guy for TWENTYFIVE years she did inherit a fair amount of that family's money when her husband passed. Neither her nor her husband worked for the ketchup manufacturer in any fashion...but don't let that stop moronic conservatives from switching to Hunts.

[Jice Virago]

Expect more of this. When Bush obliterated the anti-monopoly regs for certain media (his first official act as president), it started this whole process of the media gradually being consolidated into a handful of small companies, mostly controlled by pro-GOP people who are themselves some of the heaviest contributors to his campaigns. We already saw some of the effects with the whole Stern thing and the Nightline gagging. This is the first time that a traditionally liberal media corperation (Disney is fairly liberal, compared to say Clear Channel) knuckling under out of fear of endagering tax breaks. I am sure it won't be the last.

[Voronwë]

i'm not a big Michael Moore fan, because i think he resorts to hyperbole to make his points too often, but this is going to be a huge success for him.

Let's take the 'worst case' scenario and it doesnt get distributed domestically. It is going to be distributed worldwide already, so the movie will become even more appealing to download.

Hello welcome to the 90s, here is the internet.

you cannot keep people from having access to this stuff. More people will see it now due to the rebellion factor than ever would have in the theaters without this controversy.

So many people will burn VCDs and DVDs of this it will be hilarious.

i want to see it now. i probably would not have wanted to before.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

As they say, theres no such thing as bad publicity, this article will make more people want to see it.

[Siji]

Am I the only person that wants to scream at the top of their lungs, "HELLO! A COMPANY IS AFRAID OF GOVERNMENT (tax break) CONSEQUENCES FOR PUTTING OUT A MOVIE. CAN'T YOU SEE THE FUCKING CORRUPTION YET?!"

I mean, for fucks sake. How much longer before Americans get off their fat fucking asses and say enough is enough. What does Disney putting out a movie have to do with tax breaks? Tax breaks are set by laws, correct? Everyone follows the same laws correct? Laws aren't made/changed just because the lawmakers are mad at someone are they? That would be unethical. That couldn't happen in the good ol' USA. Right?

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding it all or missing something.

[Metanis]

Expect more of this. When Bush obliterated the anti-monopoly regs for certain media (his first official act as president), it started this whole process of the media gradually being consolidated into a handful of small companies, mostly controlled by pro-GOP people who are themselves some of the heaviest contributors to his campaigns. We already saw some of the effects with the whole Stern thing and the Nightline gagging. This is the first time that a traditionally liberal media corperation (Disney is fairly liberal, compared to say Clear Channel) knuckling under out of fear of endagering tax breaks. I am sure it won't be the last.

Bullshit alert Jice.

The movie was paid for by Miramax, whose principals, the Weinsteins, are prominent Democratic contributors. Miramax was purchased by Disney a decade ago. Disney is headed by Michael Eisner, another Democrat.

Michael Eisner would love to distribute this film but his job is already in jeapordy at Disney. He HAS to consider the effect this will have on the company and the shareholders.

That doesn't make this a censorship issue, but pure politics and business. Moore is rich enough to distribute this on his own if needed.

I think that Michael Eisner is really smart with this move. He buys $Millions in press for the movie and there's a 50-50 chance that Disney will be "forced" to distribute it. It furthers his political viewpoints but he can claim that he did his fiduciary duty to the company. The downside is the potential he will lose less than $10M in profits... which is merely a drop in the bucket for Disney. This is choreographed so well I wonder if it was planned?

[Voronwë]

Well Eisner is on thin ice with the Board of Trustees, so embroiling Disney in another public controversy is not something he would do right now.

He was quoted yesterday as saying something like "I have no doubt this movie will be distributed, just not by Disney".

at any rate, i do on the one hand agree that the conspiracy theory is appealing. but i'm not sure that Eisner in the wake of losing Pixar, the Comcast takeover attempt, and having to resign one of his 2 positions would want to have another highly publicized situation to reload his opponents guns =).

[Sionistic]

Correct me if im wrong here met, but he also said

Expect more of this. When Bush obliterated the anti-monopoly regs for certain media (his first official act as president), it started this whole process of the media gradually being consolidated into a handful of small companies, mostly controlled by pro-GOP people who are themselves some of the heaviest contributors to his campaigns. We already saw some of the effects with the whole Stern thing and the Nightline gagging. This is the first time that a traditionally liberal media corperation (Disney is fairly liberal, compared to say Clear Channel) knuckling under out of fear of endagering tax breaks. I am sure it won't be the last.

[Metanis]

Correct me if im wrong here met, but he also said

Expect more of this. When Bush obliterated the anti-monopoly regs for certain media (his first official act as president), it started this whole process of the media gradually being consolidated into a handful of small companies, mostly controlled by pro-GOP people who are themselves some of the heaviest contributors to his campaigns. We already saw some of the effects with the whole Stern thing and the Nightline gagging. This is the first time that a traditionally liberal media corperation (Disney is fairly liberal, compared to say Clear Channel) knuckling under out of fear of endagering tax breaks. I am sure it won't be the last.

No argument from me... I would consider Disney very liberal. I would consider ABC and NBC and CBS to fall somewhere left of "fairly liberal". I don't think Jice can make this generalization when you consider how liberal much of the media and entertainment world truly are.

I think censorship sucks, but to try and blame the GOP is like blaming mosquitos for malaria.

[Voronwë]

well since the GOP controls the governor's mansion in Florida...


btw ABC is part of Disney.

[Niffoni]

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.

No offense, but if you're going to do something like this, at least have the common decency to lie about it. This sounds like what my brain is supposed to translate corporate double-speak into, not what should be coming directly from the horse's mouth. Here, look at this:

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

See? Good, wholesome, harmless bullshit. But everyone knows it's bullshit, so it's almost a kind of honesty.

As for Moore, I enjoyed "Bowling.." for what it was worth, even though the man himself is an asshole, as partisan as the people he attempts to skewer. If you keep that in mind, and take his 'documentaries' with a grain of salt (IE check the facts to make sure he didn't fudge them for effect) and ignore his political whining, they can be entertaining.

[Rasspotari]

i'm not a big Michael Moore fan, because i think he resorts to hyperbole to make his points too often, but this is going to be a huge success for him.

i like him for what he's doing and realize that the way he goes about doing it is the only way possible because some ppl (wont mention any nationality here) need to have things blown out of proportions and exaggerated for them to notice it, mostly because that's how their life seem to opperate today, BIG ADS , BIG SPORT , BIG NEWS , BIG SCANDALS etc. and if some quiet man wanted to voice his oppinion in a modest realistic manner, he'd never get noticed.

thing is, Mr. Moore has a message which is "Wake the fuck up and take control of your damn country again from the fuckers that have been, are and want to be leading you in the future with a fucking chocolate covered carrot"

all i have to say to that is hurrah hurrah hurrah, i hope they smell some coffee soon and vote someone into office that wants to better the nation from the average joe's prospective and not joe millionare.

[Chmee]

If not distributing the film indeed breaks any contractual agreement Moore had then he has a legal case and I wish him luck if its a valid one. Even absent a legal case he is free to say if he thinks they made a bad decision. But no one has an intrinsic duty to distribute Moore's films.

From a CNN interview he did, Moore knew that Disney planned on trying to block the distribution for over a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... re.disney/

Moore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film. Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year. We finished the film last week, and we take it to the Cannes film festival next week. On Monday of this week we got final word from Disney that they will not distribute the film. They told my agent they did not want to upset the Bush family, particularly Gov. Bush of Florida because Disney was up for a number of tax incentives, abatements ... whatever. The risk of losing this -- we're talking about tens of millions of dollars -- they didn't want to risk it over a little documentary.

Also from the interview is this ...

Our media companies are invested with the public trust. That trust states that they're there to allow all voices to be heard.

I disagree, media companies are there to provide goods and services. If they provide ones that people like, they will do well. If they don't, they won't. There is obviously a market for Moore's films since they have done well in the past so some media company probably will want to distribute them. But none of them have any public duty to do so.

From a letter on his web site to his fans Moore writes ...

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?).

Please. If anyone actually thinks that you can't produce something critical of Bush today is obviously not paying much attention to the media world.

[Chmee]

Expect more of this. When Bush obliterated the anti-monopoly regs for certain media (his first official act as president), it started this whole process of the media gradually being consolidated into a handful of small companies, mostly controlled by pro-GOP people who are themselves some of the heaviest contributors to his campaigns. We already saw some of the effects with the whole Stern thing and the Nightline gagging. This is the first time that a traditionally liberal media corperation (Disney is fairly liberal, compared to say Clear Channel) knuckling under out of fear of endagering tax breaks. I am sure it won't be the last.

I completely disagree. Media is in no danger of coming under monopoly control. The internet alone makes the point pretty moot as far as allowing different viewpoints to be heard and it is hardly the only source of increasing variety in media.

[Jice Virago]

There have been movements by the government to exert control over the net in rescent years, so it is only a matter of time there...

On topic though, you don't think 95% of all radio stations in the nation being owned by three companies (all heavy Bush supporters) who were able to seize that kind of power when GW repealed that FCC act (in the span of 3 years no less) constitutes a possible threat to the freedom of the media? Ask Howard Stern how he feels after years of his show going on business as usual, then once he swings from Pro-GW to Anti-GW he is suddenly off the air? The Nightline broadcast being blocked? Fake news casts being distributed by Bush people to stations all over the county being passed off as real news does not alarm you? Chmee you are a smart man, you have to agree that this is at the bare minimum, a valid thing to examine.

And as for Bush not attacking anti-Bush media, have you read Clark's book? It was really only MILDLY critical of the Bush administration (and that mostly in terms of how they persued Iraq to the exclusion of all other concerns) and they had the book for MONTHS before it was published and they STILL sicked every attack dog they could on this guy. This is a guy who was a long term republican and had served (mostly GOP) administrations for over two decades. They attacked him because what he had to say was credible.

[Chmee]

On topic though, you don't think 95% of all radio stations in the nation being owned by three companies (all heavy Bush supporters) who were able to seize that kind of power when GW repealed that FCC act (in the span of 3 years no less) constitutes a possible threat to the freedom of the media? Ask Howard Stern how he feels after years of his show going on business as usual, then once he swings from Pro-GW to Anti-GW he is suddenly off the air? The Nightline broadcast being blocked? Fake news casts being distributed by Bush people to stations all over the county being passed off as real news does not alarm you? Chmee you are a smart man, you have to agree that this is at the bare minimum, a valid thing to examine.

The relaxing of the rules on how many stations you can own doesn't bother me (it probably was the correct thing to do). Media is far more diverse than just radio stations and as long as the government doesn't set up artificial barriers to entry (which is a valid concern) I don't think there is a big threat even to radio. The FCC trying to crack down on obscentity including Stern is a problem, one that should be addressed. But its also one that started long before Bush was in office. The fake news thing is also not new, Clinton made more than 20 of them.

Probably the biggest threat to free speech, especially political speech, that happened since Bush came into office is one that most people here seemed to think was a fine idea. Namely the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act, or as some have dubbed it the McCain-Feingold Incumbancy Protection Act. That was in my opinion a serious restriction in citizen's right to free speech.

And as for Bush not attacking anti-Bush media, have you read Clark's book? It was really only MILDLY critical of the Bush administration (and that mostly in terms of how they persued Iraq to the exclusion of all other concerns) and they had the book for MONTHS before it was published and they STILL sicked every attack dog they could on this guy. This is a guy who was a long term republican and had served (mostly GOP) administrations for over two decades. They attacked him because what he had to say was credible.

Responding to claims made against someone, whether you believe the response or not, is hardly a restriction of free speech. Its pretty much the opposite.

[Kylere]

If Michael Moore had managed to make a single story true, then I would back him. But he lies about the facts more than our CIA and FBI did to our president.

[miir]

If Michael Moore had managed to make a single story true, then I would back him. But he lies about the facts more than our CIA and FBI did to our president.

Michael Moore is less about unbiased truth and more about thought provoking entertainment...

[Kylere]

Which would be cool in my book Miir, if he said upfront

I will play with Timelines for dramatic effect
I will misrepresent the filming location for dramatic effect
I will lie about what was said when for dramatic effect
Do not take anything here seriously without independant verification

Because a scary number of people think he is a real documentarian

[Voronwë]

If Michael Moore had managed to make a single story true, then I would back him. But he lies about the facts more than our CIA and FBI did to our president.

actually the CIA told Bush on numerous occassions to remove the "14 words" from the State of the Union address, if that is what you are referring to.

but i agree with you, Michael Moore doesnt necessarily let facts get in the way of his commentary.

he's a lot like Rush Limbaugh in that regard.

[Kylere]

I agree Voronwe, Michael Moore and Rush are both what I refer to as ten percenters, the far end of the spectrum nutcases that no one in their right mind ( or left mind as the case may be ) should take seriously.