930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer on April 14, 2004, 01:55:00 pm
-
Can't find the thread about him, so I'll start a new one...
First they came for Howard
Why isn't everyone who cares about free speech rallying around the embattled radio personality?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dan Savage
April 14, 2004 | Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed "King of All Media," was booted off six radio stations owned by those Iraq war boosters at Clear Channel Communications, after the radio network was slapped with a half-million-dollar fine by the Federal Communications Commission because of his show. It all could prove to be a serious blow, though, if the King of All Media winds up starving to death in a ditch as a result; well, he's got no one to blame but himself -- if that man hasn't socked away some of the tens of millions of dollars he's raked in over the years, then I have absolutely no sympathy for him.
Professionally, though, I'm more than concerned for Howard. I'm furious and distressed, actually. While I'll admit it's been thrilling to watch Stern, famous momma's boy, battle FCC chairman Michael Powell, famous daddy's boy, and his flock of flying monkeys, when the hammer came down on Stern last week my eyes were suddenly opened. It's not just that I make my living, however meager it may be in comparison to Stern's, doing something similar. Indeed, I was accused of being "the gay Howard Stern" early on in what I laughingly refer to as my "career." (It was a rival advice columnist who made the charge -- whatever happened to Isadora Alman, anyway?) I'm not having a "First they came for Howard Stern, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't an insanely wealthy shock jock ..." moment. I don't think I'm next on the hit list; my column is published on newsprint and the Net, not broadcast on our precious airwaves, the only scarce natural resource the Bush administration is remot ely interested in defending. Thanks to the First Amendment, they can't shut down "Savage Love." Not yet, anyway.
No, what distresses me about Stern's predicament is that civil libertarians, lefties and sex radicals aren't furious and distressed, too, and that they're not rallying to his side -- and they should be. Stern's fine, and his dismissal from those six Clear Channel stations, is the result of an April 9, 2003, show in which Stern discussed anal and oral sex. With his co-host, Robin Quivers, Stern raked one of his regulars, Stuttering John, over the coals about something John revealed about his sex life on the air during a previous show. Mr. and Mrs. Stuttering, apparently, enjoy anal sex -- quite a lot -- but they've been enjoying it a lot less since Mr. Stuttering blurted out this fact on the radio, much to the annoyance of Mrs. Stuttering. The moral of the segment was this: "You have to respect your partner's right to sexual privacy -- particularly if you want to keep banging away at her ass." In another segment, Stern discussed a product called "Sphincterine," a kind of spray/wipe/lotion for men who suffer from "swamp ass." The guest invented the product after his girlfriend called off a blow job because he was rank. The moral of this segment? "Good personal hygiene is important."
Both segments featured a lot of toilet humor, and Stern presided over them with his trademark salaciousness. (The transcript is available here.) And while most of Stern's male listeners no doubt tuned in on April 9, 2003, to enjoy the shock jock's bathroom humor, they nevertheless came away with two valuable lessons. Based on the mail I get every day at "Savage Love," I would venture to guess that there are millions of men out there who need to be reminded to keep their mouths shut about their sexual conquests, and to shower on a regular basis. And if I may go out on a limb, I'd venture to guess that a disproportionately large percentage of these men listen to Stern's show. More power to Howard for informing these stank-butts of the importance of sexual discretion and good personal hygiene in a way that they could understand.
Showing our support for good personal hygiene and sexual decorum aren't the reasons why civil libertarians, lefties and sex radicals should be rallying to Howard Stern's side, however. (Though you never know when you might wind up in bed with a Stern fan.) At bottom, this is an issue that transcends Howard Stern's right to obsess over lesbian sex acts and the size of his own penis on the radio five mornings a week. It's also bigger than the right of his millions of listeners to enjoy his brand of humor and, as we've seen, learn valuable lessons. We should be concerned because what's being done to Howard Stern is part of a concerted effort by religious and cultural conservatives to stamp out the sexual openness that has come to define mainstream culture over the last 20 years.
Frank and explicit talk about human sexuality became a virtue in the wake of the AIDS epidemic that hit in the early 1980s. The United States had already been through a sexual revolution, but mainstream culture -- television, radio and film -- preferred to focus solely on the social impact of the sexual revolution (see "Love American Style," "Three's Company," et al.), avoiding all talk of actual sex. It wasn't until a new and fatal sexually transmitted disease emerged that Americans were forced to discuss not just the sex we were supposed to be having (heterosexual, missionary, procreative), but the sex many of us were actually having (hetero and homo; oral, vaginal and anal; procreative and recreational). AIDS forced Americans to start having open, honest conversations about sex and desire. It was an adult conversation about sex, and like all adult conversations about sex it involved a lot of humor. Dying is easy, as the AIDS epidemic made clear. Talking about sex is har d -- and the sudden need to talk about sex in the wake of AIDS opened the door not just to condom commercials on television and safe-sex pamphlets in our mailboxes, but sexually explicit humor on "Friends," "Sex and the City," and Howard Stern's radio show.
So now Howard Stern is in trouble for talking about sex like an adult, for using humor, and for doing it on the radio -- something he's been doing for more than a decade, something he was celebrated for doing until very recently. Stern didn't say or do anything obscene -- not by the standards of the communities where his show is aired, and certainly not by the standards of the people who tune in to his program. George W. Bush's version of "the feds" are after Stern for what he symbolizes -- the '90s' sexual openness, frank and humorous discussion of desire -- and Stern is not the only one they're persecuting. The through-the-looking-glass treatment of Janet Jackson after the Super Bowl, the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of mainstream porn producers, the prosecution of a woman in Texas for selling sex toys -- these are all dots that someone needs to connect to the treatment of Stern. And the right's culture warriors are not just moving against sex: Tommy Chong is in jail for selling a few bongs while Rush Limbaugh, abuser of maids and illegal drugs, is walking around a free man.
Perhaps this is a "First they came for Howard Stern ..." piece. And it's time for those of us who value the freedom of adults to speak in public, and value the idea that not everything on radio or television (or the Internet) has to be suitable for children, to speak up. After all, what the hell good is free speech if you can't speak freely about swamp ass?
-
Originally posted by Random Balls:
First they came for Howard
Why isn't everyone who cares about free speech rallying around the embattled radio personality?
The more appropriate question is:
"Where were all these self-proclaimed 'free-speech defenders' back in 1995 when Stern got a fine nearly four times as large as his current fine?"
-
the very most important question is where can one obtain the product "Sphincterine" ;)
-
http://www.mintyass.com/ (http://www.mintyass.com/)
Originally posted by Ball Girl:
the very most important question is where can one obtain the product "Sphincterine" ;)
-
So Americans cut the foreskin off because they don't wash properly, now they have a product to hide the skanky arse smell.....if you doodles just showered regularly it would eliminate all these personal hygiene problems you all seem to have.
-
how about we get rid of howie for being a horse's ass, rather than dragging the us constitution through the hate-fueled, republican re-writing machine once again
he started out amusing but then evolved into the pathetic jack-off we know today
-
Having traveled extensively in both America and Europe, I can confirm that many more Europeans are walking around with body odor than Americans, and they don't seem to care a hoot about it.
Not that a little body odor is a bad thing on the right person. Certainly better to smell your love's natural body odor than icky perfume or cologne.
Originally posted by Bollocks:
So Americans cut the foreskin off because they don't wash properly, now they have a product to hide the skanky arse smell.....if you doodles just showered regularly it would eliminate all these personal hygiene problems you all seem to have.
-
Originally posted by Random Balls:
Having traveled extensively in both America and Europe, I can confirm that many more Europeans are walking around with body odor than Americans, and they don't seem to care a hoot about it.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Don't judge the whole of Europe on just France!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
So Americans cut the foreskin off because they don't wash properly,
No it's because jewish girls won't take anything unless it has got 10% off!!!! ;)
-
Or Greece?
Originally posted by Bollocks:
Originally posted by Random Balls:
Having traveled extensively in both America and Europe, I can confirm that many more Europeans are walking around with body odor than Americans, and they don't seem to care a hoot about it.
[/b]
Don't judge the whole of Europe on just France!!!!! [/QB][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by Random Balls:
Or Greece?
Originally posted by Bollocks:
Originally posted by Random Balls:
Having traveled extensively in both America and Europe, I can confirm that many more Europeans are walking around with body odor than Americans, and they don't seem to care a hoot about it.
[/b]
Don't judge the whole of Europe on just France!!!!! [/b]
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Why do you think it's called GREECE~
-
Greece!!!
F both of you - I resemble that remark, er I mean I resent that remark!!!
-
Originally posted by Groundkeeper's Willy:
No it's because jewish girls won't take anything unless it has got 10% off!!!! ;)
funniest thing I heard all day
-
from the sphincterine testimonials page:
<img src="http://www.mintyass.com/images/whale.jpg" alt=" - " />
&
"It's Like Altoids for your Ass!"
-
and during all this fox is getting away with The Swan
-
ggw, I just got around to reading Savage's piece. Great. I'm quite surprised there's not more clamor over not just Stern but the wave of things in general. It should be infuriating to true conservatives, as this is the religious right at work (and pretty good proof of their increasing success), not the political right.
Where'd the piece come from? I usually see Savage in Salon or the NY Times, and I didn't come across this. Somehow I don't see you as a Salon reader.... :p
-
I pulled it from Salon. My apologies to Dupek and you for not citing my source.
Originally posted by Bags:
ggw, I just got around to reading Savage's piece. Great. I'm quite surprised there's not more clamor over not just Stern but the wave of things in general. It should be infuriating to true conservatives, as this is the religious right at work (and pretty good proof of their increasing success), not the political right.
Where'd the piece come from? I usually see Savage in Salon or the NY Times, and I didn't come across this. Somehow I don't see you as a Salon reader.... :p
-
I am definitely not a reader of Salon.
-
my bad...I had it in my head that ggw had posted the article (see, I knew he'd never read Salon)...sorry balls. Nice piece. The article, I mean.
-
May 3, 2004
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
The New York Times
Fighting for Free Speech Means Fighting for . . . Howard Stern
By ADAM COHEN
Legal rulings about indecency have a way of quickly slipping into ridiculousness, and so it is with the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision imposing $495,000 in fines on Clear Channel for broadcasting an episode of the Howard Stern show. The F.C.C.'s opinion focuses on a program in which the self-proclaimed "King of All Media" interviewed the inventor of "Sphincterine," which the commission huffily calls a "purported personal hygiene product." A key factor in its analysis, duly noted in its "Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture," was that the segment contained "repeated flatulence sound effects."
Call it the whoopee cushion doctrine. It is hard to believe that the government now regards flatulence jokes, the lamest staple of gag gift stores, as grounds for taking away a broadcast license. But since Janet Jackson's unfortunate wardrobe malfunction, the F.C.C. has been furiously rewriting the rules. Another edict holds that broadcasters can lose their licenses even for "isolated or fleeting" swear words, a doctrine arising from a single gerund uttered at the 2003 Golden Globes.
Don't bother calling the commissioners philistines â?? they do it themselves. In the Golden Globe ruling, they admit their definition could put D. H. Lawrence and James Joyce off limits. Not surprisingly, though, the F.C.C. has started with Mr. Stern. He has long been a favorite target; more than half of the $4.5 million in fines the F.C.C. has imposed since 1990 has been on him. The payments were once just overhead for his highly profitable show, but with the fines soaring, and broadcast licenses at far greater risk, the economics are dramatically changed. After the $495,000 fine, Clear Channel dropped Mr. Stern from its six stations. He remains on 35 other stations, but no one can say for how long.
It would be hard to quarrel with a broadcaster that dropped Mr. Stern on grounds of taste. Turn on his show or pick up his biography, "Private Parts," and choose your reason, from his peculiar fascination with the sex lives of dwarves to his on-air interrogation of his mother about her sex life. But government fines, not high standards, spurred Clear Channel.
It is Mr. Stern's offensiveness that makes his cause so important. The F.C.C. is using his unpopularity as cover for a whole new approach that throws out decades of free-speech law. The talk right now is over the colorful battles between Mr. Stern and Michael Powell, the head of the F.C.C. But when the headlines fade, the censorious new regime will apply to everyone. The danger it poses to the culture is real.
On March 18, the F.C.C. issued orders that spell out, as the commission puts it, "a new approach." Some of the standards are objectionable on their face. The F.C.C.'s inclusion of "profanity," which it concedes is often synonymous with "blasphemy," means, a coalition of civil liberties groups, media organizations and artists points out, that "the most commonplace of divine imprecations, such as 'Go to Hell' or 'God damn it,' are now actionable."
As disturbing as the new rules, however, is the F.C.C.'s warning that it does not intend to hold itself to any specific definitions of indecency. The commission states, at the end of a list of vague categories of forbidden speech, that it will "analyze other potentially profane words or phrases on a case-by-case basis."
While making its criteria hopelessly vague, the F.C.C. is removing longstanding protections that give speakers breathing room. While the law has long said that violations must be "repeated" before a penalty can be imposed, the F.C.C. now says an isolated incident is enough. Instead of requiring that offenses be "willful," the new rules hold that a broadcaster's good-faith efforts to understand highly subjective standards are "irrelevant" to whether it will be punished.
This new legal landscape will stifle important artistic expression, since broadcasters will be afraid of wandering too close to an essentially undefined line. It also raises a real danger that indecency will be used to stifle political dissent. Among the comments Mr. Stern is in trouble for are a schoolyard epithet used about President Bush and another aimed at a Republican congresswoman.
The combination of unknowable rules and draconian penalties is already having a chilling effect. There are reports of radio stations banning classic songs like Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side" and Elton John's "The Bitch is Back." The television show "ER" recently edited out a brief shot of the exposed breast of an 80-year-old hospital patient. And the satirist Sandra Tsing Loh was fired by a public radio station when an engineer failed to bleep out various words that were meant to be bleeped for comic effect.
Even Mr. Stern has been transformed by recent events. He now regularly talks about the F.C.C. on his show, and his Web site has a quotation from Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, discussions of the presidential election and voter registration information. More uplifting content than usual, but it is taking Mr. Stern's time and energy away from sphincters, flatulence and all the other vulgarities he has a constitutional right to obsess about.
-
May 9, 2004
ESSAY
Howard and Me
By IRA GLASS
The New York Times Magazine
Last night I dreamed about Howard Stern again. He was disappointed in me, and ordered me out of his car. In my dreams, I never live up to Howard's standards.
I'm the host of a show on public radio, and when my listeners tell me they don't care for Stern, I always think it reveals a regrettable narrowness of vision. Mostly, they're put off by the naked girls. But Stern has invented a way of being on the air that uses the medium better than nearly anyone. He's more honest, more emotionally present, more interesting, more wide-ranging in his opinions than any host on public radio. Also, he's a fantastic interviewer. He's truly funny. And his staff on the air is cheerfully inclusive of every kind of person: black, white, dwarf, stutterer, drunk and supposed gay. What public radio show has that kind of diversity?
Recently, in a show about testosterone, we stole the format Stern invented. On the air, our staff debated who among us probably has the most testosterone. Then we were tested. Then we opened the results on the air and tussled some more. That, in a nutshell, is the genius of Stern: you put all your regular characters into some situation; they argue; the situation takes a turn; they argue some more.
Sadly, lots of smart people shrug off the recent government crackdown on Howard Stern -- and on other ''indecency'' -- as if it were nastiness going on in some bad neighborhood of the broadcast dial, one that doesn't concern them, one that they'd never stoop to visit.
But the recent F.C.C. rulings make me Stern's brother as I've never been before. Here are just a few of the things we've broadcast on our show that now could conceivably result in fines of up to a half million dollars for the 484 public stations that run the program: assorted curse words, people saying ''damn'' and ''goddamn'' (a recent F.C.C. decision declared that ''profane'' and ''blasphemous'' speech would now come under scrutiny); various prison stories; and a very funny story by the writer David Sedaris that takes place in a bathroom and that violates all three F.C.C. criteria for ''indecency.'' It's explicitly graphic in talking about ''excretory organs or activities''; Sedaris repeats and dwells on the descriptions at length, and he absolutely means to pander and shock. That's what makes it funny.
In the past, the F.C.C. would have considered context, the possible literary value or news value of apparently offensive material. And the agency still gives lip service to context in its current decisions. But when the commissioners declared in March that an expletive modifying the word ''brilliant'' (uttered by Bono at the Golden Globe Awards) was worthy of punishment, it made a more radical change in the rules than most people realize. Now context doesn't always matter. If a word on our show could increase a child's vocabulary, if some members of the public find something ''grossly offensive,'' the F.C.C. can issue fines.
Because the whole process is driven by audience complaints, enforcement is arbitrary by design. Political expediency also seems to play a role. Stern has pointed out how a recent ''Oprah'' featured virtually the same words he uses but drew no fine. He urged his listeners to file complaints, to test whether the F.C.C. will penalize only those it sees as vulnerable. Agency aides told The Hollywood Reporter that Oprah Winfrey was probably untouchable.
What's craziest about this new indecency witch hunt is that it's based on the premise that just one exposure to filthy words will damage a child. (I've yet to hear of a scientific study proving even that repeated exposure affects children.) Recently on my show, I asked one of the people who organizes write-in campaigns to the F.C.C., Brent Bozell, what harm it did anyone to see Janet Jackson's breast for a fleeting second, or to hear Stern use the phrase ''anal sex,'' and he said it destroyed the ''innocence of childhood.'' In our talk, Bozell used the phrase ''anal sex'' himself, presumably doing exactly as much harm to young people as Stern did on April 9, 2003.
That day, a brief conversation about the act on Stern's show drew $495,000 in fines. Bozell and I received no fines. No wonder Howard kicks me out of the car.
Ira Glass is the host of the public radio program ''This American Life.''
-
And Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php) on Disney's refusal to distribute his documentary Fahrenheit 911 on the 9/11 attack and President Bush. More censorship (at least Disney is a private company -- they can make business decisions, and we can call them out on them....). This from Moore's message:
Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.
-
Originally posted by Macktastic Bag O' Flash:
And Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php) on Disney's refusal to distribute his documentary Fahrenheit 911 on the 9/11 attack and President Bush. More censorship (at least Disney is a private company -- they can make business decisions, and we can call them out on them....). This from Moore's message:
Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.
Moore will have no problem getting somebody else to distribute the film, his outrage is timed for publicity. He has know for a year that Disney would not release the film.
-
I agree, Pollard. But, rather than publicity, I think Moore is upset by the hypocrisy of Disney. Not that it should be shocking.
More Moore --
Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their [Disney's] spinmeisters (roughly quoted):
"Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.
"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998â??a film called The Big Oneâ?¦ by, umâ?¦ ME!
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them.
"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds.
-
Weinstein agreed to fund the film. There was never a distribution deal. Moore knew this.
This is from the horse's mouth.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Weinstein agreed to fund the film. There was never a distribution deal. Moore knew this.
This is from the horse's mouth.
how often do hollywood execs shell out cash and then NOT secure the rights to distribute the film? my guess? only when eisner tells them.
-
How often do award winning filmmakers sign conracts that explicitly do NOT include distribution, admit they have known for a year that distribution was not part of the deal, and then play themselves off as poor suckers who were rooked by big evil corporations who are acting in the interests of the target of said film? my guess? Only when it serves as a huge boon to the promotion of that film.
The only suckers in this story are the legions of Moore sycophants lining up to chow down at his trough of half-truths and contrived controversies.
-
well, why give him money if you aren't going to distribute it? mirmax apparently told him everything was ok all along. it sounds like eisner told his agent that disney wasn't going to distribute it, then never told anyone to impliment the plan, leaving moore still thinking that everything was ok, which is what mirmax was telling him. sounds like mirmax thought they could change disney's mind, too
-
<img src="http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RgAJA*cVKRvoYvlehBzlbvDJCGOfkZ*moKbugyjeeKHG0gzjB2MBr59YGh!hNJ9XESiig!PUFgmIBMpx!BnmD4A67Z2!vvbdIUq4DiR1oFU/bcdoom.jpg?dc=4675468171206235429" alt=" - " />
-
i guess giving moore $6 million for a film they already passed on is the kind of thing that has eisner in so much trouble with his shareholders
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
well, why give him money if you aren't going to distribute it?
$$$$$$
The Weinsteins fund plenty of films that aren't distributed through Miramax.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
mirmax apparently told him everything was ok all along.
Moore signed a contract that didn't include distribution. He also acknowledges that he knew, a year ago, that they wouldn't distribute it. Do you believe that Moore is an idiot? That's what he wants you to believe.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
it sounds like eisner told his agent that disney wasn't going to distribute it,?
Do you honestly believe that Eisner would tell Moore's agent that he wouldn't distribute the film because of Jeb Bush?
Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
then never told anyone to impliment the plan, leaving moore still thinking that everything was ok, which is what mirmax was telling him. sounds like mirmax thought they could change disney's mind, too
Sure, Miramax would love to distribute the film. But Moore would like everyone to believe that this was a last minute decision by Disney. That's simply not true. Moore has known for a long time that distribution wasn't part of the deal and that Disney wouldn't allow it.
-
did i say anything about jeb bush? no.
disney gave him $6 million, not the weinsteins
and his contract with mirmax included distribution. disney has the right to pull the plug, though
you have to admit that the whole idea of a company that distributes hannity's radio show and even distributed the big one wanting to stay above the political fray is pretty fishy.
so, moore and the new york times are now lying about the film being discussed at a disney board meeting a few weeks ago? why discuss it if the decision had already been made?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
did i say anything about jeb bush? no.
No, but that is the line that Moore is using.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
disney gave him $6 million, not the weinsteins.
Miramax financed it, not Disney.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
and his contract with mirmax included distribution. disney has the right to pull the plug, though
A plug they pulled a year ago when Miramax agreed to finance the film. So, from the inception, Moore has known that distribution wasn't going through Disney.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you have to admit that the whole idea of a company that distributes hannity's radio show and even distributed the big one wanting to stay above the political fray is pretty fishy.
Sure. But my point is that Moore is less interested in distributing his film than he is in creating a controversy.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
so, moore and the new york times are now lying about the film being discussed at a disney board meeting a few weeks ago? why discuss it if the decision had already been made?
Probably because they knew Moore was preparing to make this an issue. Furthermore, they knew Miramax would make an issue as well. The Weinsteins have been trying to buy back Miramax from Disney for nearly two years. This is a perfect way to cause trouble for Eisner and pressure him to sell Miramax.
The Miramax-Disney soap opera is secondary to the fact that Moore knew last May that Miramx wouldn't be distributing the film -- only financing it -- and that he opted to create an issue to raise the visibility of the film rather than to find any number of outlets who would love to distribute the film of the guy who won an Academy Award for his last one.
-
Why the hell was he dealing with Disney to begin with? I'm so over Michael Moore...he's the biggest limousine liberal there is...I mean, the man lives in Manhattan for god's sake...
-
Yeah, true liberals can't live in Manhattan -- not sure where they are supposed to go, but certainly not Manhattan. And once you have over $50K in the bank, you're out. No more liberal cred for you, you can't sympathize with the working man, you're now The Man....
-
The only real difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal feels guilt about having money, and the conservative doesn't.
-
They'd better not pull the plug on Shrek II or I will drive down to Orlando and torch the fucking place, so help me God!!! ;)
-
Why is the cuddly-close relationship between George W Bush, the Saudi royal family & the Bill Laden family(which is the apparent subject matter of Moore's film) such a bugaboo for ggw?
Go ahead ggw, snuggle a Saudi royal. You know you want to and it'll make you feel much better.
-
It's really GG bin-W.
I just find Michael Moore annoying, just like Savage or Limbaugh but of a different stripe. Moore routinely invents "facts" for dramatic purposes. A claim which he has never disputed.
Plus, a family member has been with Miramax for fifteen years and we were talking about this a few weeks ago.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html)
-
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. [/b]
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? [/b]
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/)
Here's another story on Moore:
http://www.kynn.com/politics/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? [/b]
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/)
Here's another story on Moore:
http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/ (http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/) [/b]
and this one: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html (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? [/b]
"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 (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
QUOTE] http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ (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.
-
i like how the bowlingfortruth guy has an al franken site too. least he knows his audience
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Can you provide a specific example of this fact fakery?
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/)
Here's another story on Moore:
http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/ (http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/) [/b]
Posting links of dubious veracity are not "specific examples" in my book. Can you please provide a relevant quote from one of your trusted sources?
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Posting links of dubious veracity are not "specific examples" in my book. Can you please provide a relevant quote from one of your trusted sources?
How about claiming he only learned last week that Disney wouldn't distribute his film.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
"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 (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html)
Calling the liberal ideology dangerous and bad for America is "incendiary"?
So, by that criteria, saying that the Republican foreign policy is dangerous and bad for America would also be incendiary?
Neither of those statements are anything but routine partisan bickering and neither are on the same level as implying the sitting President and his family are in bed with the terrorists who attacked the U.S.
So, to review and wrap up, Moore has made a consciously uber-controversial film. Moore was informed last May, at the outset of the project, that Disney was exercising its right not to distribute it. Rather than finding a new distributor, Moore decided to ring the "censorship" bell and incite his minions into the usual pavlovian slobber of adolescent rebellion masquerading as political progressiveness.
-
Miramax pulling a Pixar? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1940&u=/variety/20040511/va_fi_ne/miramax_pulling_a_pixar__05_112004&printer=1)
Current talks to extend the Weinsteins' deal for another four years after it expires in 2005 have no doubt been exacerbated by the current fracas surrounding Disney's refusal to distribute the Michael Moore (news) documentary "Fahrenheit 911."
-
how do you know its worse than a movie you haven't seen?
i thought it was pretty well established that the bushes and bin laudens were linked through the carlyle group. this isn't a new allegation from mike moore
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
...the legions of Moore sycophants lining up to chow down at his trough of half-truths and contrived controversies[...]incite his minions into the usual pavlovian slobber of adolescent rebellion masquerading as political progressiveness.
Separated at birth?
Originally posted by Kim Jong Il
...when anything is wrong with us we must find the reason in ourselves, not elsewhere. That is the attitude[.. (http://www.geocities.com/songunpoliticsstudygroup/RevolutionaryLessons.html).]and the right way to rectify a nestle. Only when we thus correctly saccharin the cause of the frustration.
Frankly ggw, I'm amazed that you didn't manage to insert the word "Tentacles" into your vitriol.