Howard Stern

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
so michael moore and mirmax conspired to make a film they never intended to release, just to get the publicity. wow. mike must be one fat genius. personally it makes sense that disney chose not to deal with it until now, but conspiracy theories are much hotter.

I don't know about genius, but definitely fat.

He did the same thing with Stupid White Men – taking it to the evil Rupert Murdoch to be published. Rupert published it and laughed all the way to the bank.

Disney dealt with the issue a year ago when they told Moore they weren't distributing the film. It makes sense that Moore didn't deal with it until the week before the film premiers at Cannes. It's a savvy move on his part. But his faux-naivete is pitiful and it's sad that people buy into it.

…and also doesn't change the fact that disney likes to pick and choose what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute. its sad that people take their dislike for one man and pass this off as ok.

And yes, it's also a savvy move on Miramax's part. They did the same thing with Dogma. Miramax financed it, but Disney wouldn't distribute it, and this blew up into a big "controversy" right before the film's premier at Cannes. Harvey then sold the film to Lion's Gate for a very nice premium.

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
…and also doesn't change the fact that disney likes to pick and choose what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute. its sad that people take their dislike for one man and pass this off as ok.

Why shouldn't Disney decide what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute?

What about Air America or Al Gore's new cable network? Is it unfair that they pick and choose what kind of political discourse they distribute?

they are up front about it
they don't run a news division that is supposed to be impartial
besides, they claim to want to stay above the fray, when this just gets them farther into it.

All of this nonsense makes me long for the days of Richie, Fonzie, and the rest of the Happy Days gang. Now that was real enertainment.

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
…and also doesn't change the fact that disney likes to pick and choose what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute…

every single media outlet does this, corporate or not, but especially corporate…and why not? it's up to the people to filter it out and consider the source, as they say

Originally posted by Ball Girl:
every single media outlet does this, corporate or not, but especially corporate…and why not? it's up to the people to filter it out and consider the source, as they say

Personal responsibility is soooooooo twentieth century.

In the neo-liberal world, nobody has a right to express their opinion unless it conforms with the neo-liberal dogma. A failure to follow this rule is clearly a case of censorship or a suppression of dissension.

well, they have to see in order to filter out what they want.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Why shouldn't Disney decide what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute?

I noted up front that Disney certainly has a right to decide what to distribute, but it's disingenuous to do so because Disney does not desire to be involved in partisan entertainment. See Hannity reference above.

"A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said."

The New York Times, May 5, National Section

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Ball Girl:
every single media outlet does this, corporate or not, but especially corporate…and why not? it's up to the people to filter it out and consider the source, as they say

Personal responsibility is soooooooo twentieth century.

In the neo-liberal world, nobody has a right to express their opinion unless it conforms with the neo-liberal dogma. A failure to follow this rule is clearly a case of censorship or a suppression of dissension.

i'm not sure what your implication is, but i seriously doubt mike moore or i for that matter are neoliberals, at least by the definition i am finding

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
well, they have to see in order to filter out what they want.

So Disney is the only film distributor in the US?

How about MGM – distributor of Bowling for Columbine?

How about Warner Brothers – distributor of Roger and Me?

How about:

New Line
Paramount
Lion's Gate
RKO
IFC
Republic
Universal
Paramount
Fine Line
Columbia/Tri-Star
Sony Pictures Classic
Newmarket
Magnolia
20th Century Fox
Focus Features

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Moore routinely invents "facts" for dramatic purposes.

Can you provide a specific example of this fact fakery?

Originally posted by Macktastic Bag O' Flash: I noted up front that Disney certainly has a right to decide what to distribute, but it's disingenuous to do so because Disney does not desire to be involved in partisan entertainment. See Hannity reference above.

A conservative talk radio show and a documentary that insinuates that the President was involved in the largest terrorist attack on the U.S. is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison of "partisan entertainment."

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
A conservative talk radio show and a documentary that insinuates that the President was involved in the largest terrorist attack on the U.S. is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison of "partisan entertainment."

Hannity is equally incendiary.

I haven't seen Moore's film, I don't know what he alleges about Bush.

Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Moore routinely invents "facts" for dramatic purposes.

Can you provide a specific example of this fact fakery?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Here's another story on Moore:
http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/

Originally posted by Macktastic Bag O' Flash:
Hannity is equally incendiary.

Can I get an example?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Moore routinely invents "facts" for dramatic purposes.

Can you provide a specific example of this fact fakery?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Here's another story on Moore:
http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/

and this one: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Macktastic Bag O' Flash:
Hannity is equally incendiary.

Can I get an example?

"The Left may be sincere, but they're sincerely wrong. And they must be challenged and defeated if we are to win this war on terror and preserve our way of life for this and future generations."

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
QUOTE] http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Took one second to know that this site is shite: First line is:

"We're here because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times"
- Michael Moore
Oscar 'acceptance' speech

Why have acceptance in quotes – he WAS awarded the Oscar and it WAS his acceptance speech. So I'm going to believe anything on this site, rather than Moore?

And the second site – you know, I'm coming around. Moore's an asshole, he obviously LIES. That's the correct extrapolation, right?

Oh yeah, and Richard Bushnell's Franken page – same thing. I actually read some of that, being more familiar with Franken's work. All the "uncovered lies" are simply reinterpretations – haven't seen a 'fact' uncovered as a lie yet, but have seen different 'spin' on certain situations and interviews.

Example:

"[LIE] - They [Franken and Bill O'Reilly] were both there to 'promote', but - Bill was 'hawking' and Franken was back to 'promoting'. The dishonest use of subtle language helps Franken rewrite history so you see it through Franken-goggles. In reality, the word 'hawking' means 'to peddle goods aggressively, especially by calling out' which is a totally inaccurate description of O'Reilly's behavior during the event as he was not aggressive with his product in the lest bit and called no one out. What O'Reilly was doing was 'promoting', or - 'attempting to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity'.

Dude, it's called writing, not lying.