Michael Moore censored

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
A fair and proper decision? Or is Michael Moore simply sabre rattling? He's had these problems before with US companies failing to fund and/or distribute his work:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3689121.stm

Fahrenheit 911 attacks the President's actions before and after the 11 September terror attacks and links Mr Bush with powerful families in Saudi Arabia, including that of Osama Bin Laden.
The film was due to be distributed by Miramax, a division of Disney.

But Disney "officially decided to prohibit" Miramax from distributing the film, the director said.

Moore, who won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine in 2003, questioned whether in a "free and open society" Disney should be making such a decision.


Moore said Disney was "afraid of losing millions of tax breaks in penance for angering [state governor] Jeb Bush in Florida, where Disney have a lot of their investment".

"I have never seen a grosser example of what's wrong when just a few corporations own the media."
 
and which "constitutional" right guarantees freedom of speech... let's have a think...
 
Him, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Mel Gibson read from the same marketing handbook. Too bad all the authors, film makers, etc who are genuinely swimming up stream don't have PR people to write up a press release that's copied by all the popular media to announce they're 'being silenced'.

I wish I could get funding from Disney to make a movie, only to have them decline distribution rights. Give me the production dough and I'll sell it out of the back of a van.
 
I wouldn't take what Michael Moore has to say too seriously... In his Bowling for Columbine documentory he flat out lied about a couple of things. Here is an example:

Charlton Heston, who is very pro-gun rights, was brought in to be interviewed by Michael Moore. He did not know what the interview was even for, he was told it was about something entirely different. One of the things that they started questioning him about a NRA convention he held in Michigan in the same town where there was a shooting. Then in the video they showed a newspaper clipping that highlighted, "24 hours after shooting." Basically Moore was trying to make Heston look like a real jerk, but Heston didn't even know what he was talking about. Heston walked out and the camera got a shot of Moore saying, 'are you going to walk away from this?' with him holding the newspaper.

But if you look closer, the paper actually said that President Bush made an appearance in the town 24 hours after the shooting, not an NRA convention.

Just keep a close eye on the material that he presents.
 
Don't get me started on Moore. I don't even disagree with most of his sentiment, but when you're talking about the deception of politics and politicians, it'd help not to play fast and loose with the facts.

Also, I have difficulty following his logic. In 9/11, he plays on the martyrdom of American soldiers, then demonizes them as small town hayseeds. In Bowling, he made the argument that Americans are gun-nuts, then said it wasn't the fault of guns, but rather American culture is so obsessed with war/violence/etc. Its like the KKK saying Africans and Jews are inferior, then bemoaning their sly control of the planet. Convolution to the point of lunacy.

But like I said, don't get me started.
 
Heh, Bowling for Columbine was an interesting piece of propaganda - the use of statistics was highly questionable - but the way he manipulates information is even more pronounced in Stupid White Men.

However, I hear he makes a necessary job of trying to balance or question some otherwise unbalanced arguments.
 
Back
Top