09-08-2006, 06:39 PM | #1 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
About censorship
Since everyone seems to be a google master here, and very much in touch, I find it sort of interesting that no one decided to comment on the ABC 'issue' right now or of the thre US senators making threats to a corporation if they happen to run a docudrama 'as is' without bowing to their political will.
Am I the only one who has heard of this in tfp? Where are the cries of government censorship of free speech? I'm very confused
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
09-08-2006, 06:59 PM | #2 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Its deja vu all over again.
Think back to November 2003 and a CBS mini-series on the Reagans. Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
09-08-2006, 07:04 PM | #4 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
So when democrat senators THREATEN a corporation, thats nothing, but when left wing flim makers invent pure fiction about Reagan without any facts to back it up thats censorship? I'd have to call this the hypocrisy of the tfp left, you complain and whine about the government taking freedoms YET when democrats do it in plain sight you turn a blind eye. If you want to ride the high horse, you need to always ride it, not dismount for political gain.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
09-08-2006, 07:11 PM | #5 (permalink) | ||
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Hypocracy....hmmmm....pot calling the kettle black? I do applaud the conseratives who have criticized the ABC 9/11 film for its inaccuracies: Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-08-2006 at 07:21 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
09-08-2006, 07:42 PM | #6 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
|
|
09-08-2006, 07:45 PM | #7 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
Maybe the Republicans are behind this controversy over censureship in order to get more people to watch. |
|
09-08-2006, 07:50 PM | #8 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
These two shows have lots in common. Lots was made up about 'The Reagans' and it was rightfully pulled. Lots of scenes and 'information' was made up for this pseudo-documentary but it has yet to be pulled.
Noone tried to build a lesson plan for school children around 'The Reagans'. ABC, this trash's producers, and Scholastic intended to use it for educational material. Not fictional entertainment as it really is. Considering we spent millions and years studying the whole 9/11 issue. And even released a comprehensive report about it. That the writer/producer couldn't even stick to that. That they roundly blame Clinton but don't even show Bush sit in a chair like a corpse for minutes after being told about the attack. It's less than two months until the mid term elections. And whatever perception about Clinton the public may garner from this will translate to national office democrats across the board. It's not censorship. It's preventing unfair campaign practices. I think if they do air it, the Democrats should go after their broadcast license. And no, I am not a fan of Clinton whatsoever. Mistakes were made across the board. BushII made plenty himself. But for some reason they are absent from this hack job. It's an attempt to lay everything at Clinton's feet. Fault reaches back decades to Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon at the least. Why were right wing bloggers and Rush Limbaugh allowed to pre-screen the movie, but Clinton and Richard Clarke not? That alone shows the agenda behind it. Why don't we just let ABC greenlight a docudrama written by Sean Hannity about the various democratic senate candidates currently polling ahead of Republican incumbents. A shot of Casey snorting coke. Tester fondling a 6 year old child. Lamont beating his wife. Sherrod Brown lovingly caressing his lifesized doll of Adolph Hitler and Mrs. McCaskill cheating on her husband. Why censor it? |
09-08-2006, 11:22 PM | #10 (permalink) | |
Conspiracy Realist
Location: The Event Horizon
|
It would be interesting to know if the changes are a result from sheer pressure, a pay off, or legal grounds. The problem is changes forced by the government that violate the Constitution. Thanks for bringing the subject up learning the boundaries of slander and what is considered spreading messages of hate. I don’t know if the latter of the two does have any Constitutional limitations, but I will research.
Bush decided to give his speech at the same time as well. Quote:
I'm fortunate enough to live across from a public library, but how would posts quoting sources without links go around here?
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking Last edited by Sun Tzu; 09-08-2006 at 11:34 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
09-08-2006, 11:36 PM | #11 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
I find it weird, the only people I see saying Clinton doesn't want this movie seen and is complaining about it is...... the GOP and people with ties to Disney/ABC or the subsidiaries.
I have yet to see or read Clinton or any of the advisors in his office talk about the movie (unless they have connections with ABC or other Disney subsidiaries)..... but maybe I am not up to date on it. I also find it odd, that the distributing company for Limbaugh and Drudge is ........ ABC. Couldn't be Limbaugh and Drudge are just trying to plug the company line.... they are always a free thinkers and never need to be told what to say, and would not plug a movie that could make millions in DVD sales, right? Or let's see the 700 Club is on ABC Family Channel, ABC has HUGE stakes in Hannity's radio show, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Larry Elder to mention just a few more who would never go out and say "Clinton is crying about this movie, you really need to see it." They'd never, ever say anything like that to get ABC some decent ratings, they are legitimate newspeople who broadcast non biased, true hard core news that is never slanted nor have a hidden agenda........ right? And if ABC were to cut out the "controversial" segments due to "pressure" but release them on DVD the sales of that DVD wouldn't go up any, would they? Hmmmmm. And with the GOP governor in Fla. who can make life tough on DisneyWorld and Disney under fire by the Religious Right (who happen to control the GOP)for having "Gay Pride days", trying to show they can do a hatchet job on Clinton wouldn't help them in any way..... right? So in the end, it's all about the money that can be made, screw any truth..... Right on! Oh yeah and Michael Moore getting a new multi-million dollar deal with Disney's Miramax, doesn't have any interest whatsoever in how well this film does...... Right? I mean really no one I mentioned would profit from ABC/Disney making a fortune on this movie, through ratings and the DVD release "with extras that couldn't be shown on television because of political pressure"....... why that would just be too conspiratorial to think of such things...... right? By the way, because Drudge, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, the 700 club and so on complained and really tried to trash F/911 and make it sound so mean and nasty that "they felt it shouldn't be seen"...... how much did all that free press add to the movie's box office and sales...... but Disney/ABC and these people would not even think that telling people how controversial, partisan and what a hatchet job a movie would increase interest and box office.... right?
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 09-08-2006 at 11:58 PM.. |
09-09-2006, 06:01 AM | #13 (permalink) | |
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
Location: Southern England
|
Quote:
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝ |
|
09-09-2006, 06:18 AM | #14 (permalink) |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
I don't see how we can be for freedom of speech and also want to censure speech that we do not agree with. In the case of this fictional series, some want to censure it before it is even broadcast.
Do we really want our polititians to threaten the license of broadcasters who air things critical of the government? Republicans and Democrats will rarely agree on which shows should be censured. It is scary to imagine our polititians requiring a seal of approval before TV shows are shown to the public. |
09-09-2006, 06:28 AM | #15 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
For any true democrat to fear what is coming out, is showing hypocracy and is forgetting F/911. Big deal a movie comes out, if it's not true facts will come out, creative liberties pointed out and the PEOPLE will decide what they want to believe. Much like F/911. To me, I am more worried about what the above post pointed out. If a media company owns both left (Moore) and right (Limbaugh), then the more division, the more hatred, the more controversy kept between the 2 parties the more money there is to be made. If the parties and the people started coming closer together, working on compromises and had true debates and respect for each other, companies like Disney, that propagate, promote and benefit financially from the divide (and increasing it) would be hurting. But if they can create issues, strife and controversy where there really isn't any or very little.... they make more and more. But then again, that's just an observation from a bleeding heart lib who doesn't understand how things truly work in the world.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 09-09-2006 at 06:30 AM.. |
|
09-09-2006, 10:56 AM | #17 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
They should be careful, the real blundering may be worse than this fictional portrayal. |
|
09-09-2006, 01:18 PM | #19 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
I honestly don't see it hurting the Dems (maybe Hilary). I think the vast majority have already made up their minds who gets their vote and will see this for what it is. Short of serious scandal... I don't see anything changing.
And again, it is all rumor, innuendo and hype as to what the movie will contain. I don't know a single person F/911 influenced to vote against Bush..... but I do know a couple who changed their vote to Bush because of the movie. We'll see if it lives up to the hype or if it's just smoke, mirrors and open for interpretation innuendo. I have no interest and will not be watching it sooooooo.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
09-09-2006, 01:33 PM | #20 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
Looks like the claims that it is fake like the Reagan movie are false.
Quote:
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas |
|
09-09-2006, 01:57 PM | #21 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
WorldnetDaily?
May as well have been an article from Weekly World News. By the way: I don't like censorship. But if they are gonna run with this, they need to give equal time to another partisan telling of the events. Will ABC show F 9/11 on primetime weekends just like they want to with this new one? Part of their broadcast agreements is to be net-neutral on politics. And yes that is a subjective designation. Last edited by Superbelt; 09-09-2006 at 02:27 PM.. |
09-09-2006, 02:36 PM | #22 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
Didn't Patterson write a book a few years ago detailing pretty much everything in that article? Doesn't you article say the director and he talked numerous times, my guess is he will be credited as a "consultant" or in some way was paid for those talks with the director. Soooooo again, someone that has a connection to the film is trying to drive interest in it. Yep, you GOP have the Dems right where you want them.... as you play sheep and go along with all these talking heads who are directly or indirectly going to make money. Yeah, capitalism..... we'll control talking heads on both sides and create problems and hatred for both sides and we'll reap profit after profit...... Meanwhile, the division grows bigger, problems that need solved and could have been get turned into serious issues and we all laugh because our side is allowed to one-up the other. Sounds like a winning strategy and in the best interest to the country and the people to me..... wellllllll maybe not. In fact it sounds like total greed with no consequences nor loyalty to the country or the people..... just the money that can be made by creating and keeping alive hate.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
|
09-09-2006, 04:08 PM | #23 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Just for shits and giggles, one Worldnetdaily must be answered by a liberal blogger whose article is hosted on TruthOut. And amen brothers and sisters, we do have another conspiracy theory.
Note: Please don't confuse this guy with Sidney Blumenthal. I have know idea who this Max guy is. Max Blumenthal Quote:
I give kuddo's to Pan for seeing the profit motive involved in creating a public conflict to drum up viewers. I also see an ideological motive that is occuring shortly before the elections. Surely the OP citing 1st amendment concerns one day after the "call to arms" is a talking point of coincidence. Last edited by Elphaba; 09-09-2006 at 04:10 PM.. |
|
09-09-2006, 06:11 PM | #24 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
Nice point, but we need to be fair about this. I beat Ustwo up pretty badly every time he answers an attack on Bush with a "well yeah but CLINTON did. . . " comment. I don't give a damn what happened yesterday or who did it. Whatever it was doesn't make what someone is doing today any more or less right. So while the republicans were assholes about the Reagan movie, it just doesn't matter in the context of the current discussion. Now here's where it gets annoying - - -none of us has seen the documentary, so we don't really KNOW if stuff is made up or not. Sure some Democrat congresscritters are saying stuff is false but 1) can we trust them (they are, after all, politicians hunting for votes) and 2) even if it were false, who cares? It's a movie. Documentaries are not held to the same standards as regular journalism is. If you don't believe me, go watch a Michael Moore video some time. The man makes a few good points, but it's not exactly balanced coverage. An ABC journalist who makes crap up and is caught will be fired. The same does not hold true for someone who produces a "documentary" for ABC because documentaries are not now and never will be, news. In other words, if politicians want to stop the airing of a documentary because it has things that aren't true in it, then we also need to stop the airing of all movies, sitcoms, and soaps. If they're really upset about it, perhaps they should make their own counter-documentary. |
|
09-09-2006, 06:23 PM | #25 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
if it can be argued that this documentary is factually as accurate as f911 then there is still 1 more difference between the films I see. f911 was shown in theators causing people to go out of their way and spend money to see it. In addition many theators (especially in red states) didn't even carry the film making it impossible for many people to see it. This documentary is going to be shown during prime time on a major network (free and accessable by almost anyone).
|
09-09-2006, 06:28 PM | #26 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
So what? Star trek used to be shown in prime time, free and accessible to almost anyone. Should we ban that because it suggests manipulations of physical laws that are impossible (transporter, holodeck, food replicators, and warp drive unless we figure out how to make enough energy per second to power the entire earth for a day)? Perhaps we should have banned MacGyver because the way they showed him making bombs wouldn't work in real life. Let's not forget that the first thing the Bill of Rights says (other than how much he loves Alyson Hannigan ) is that we have this neat thing called freedom of speech. If the network wants to air something, they're allowed to. Even if it isn't true. If you don't like it, exercise YOUR first amendment rights and tell the world what a crock it is. |
|
09-09-2006, 07:09 PM | #27 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Shakran, it seems unlike you to compare tv drama's such as McGyver or Star Trek with something that claims to be a "documentary" based upon the 911 Commission Report. Not even ABC is willing to give the status of "documentary" to this film, but rather "entertainment" and "docudrama."
I have always given credence to your experience in the news 'business' and placed weight on your opinion. What am I missing in your post? |
09-09-2006, 07:34 PM | #28 (permalink) | |||
Tone.
|
Quote:
Note that my comments are directed at the ABC film, not F911. Quote:
As I touched on there are no rules that make a film a documentary. You don't have to go through a checklist in order to have it called a documentary. I could go out and make a bunch of crap up about the Yeti, make a film out of it, and call it a documentary, and nothing bad would happen to me. You can dramatize in a film and still call it a documentary. You can fill the whole film with nothing but truth (reenacted) and call it a docudrama. Basically you can call anything you broadcast just about anything you want as long as you're not identifying something as news (public service) or children's programming when it isn't. My point in the comparison is that one fiction is really no different than the other, and if some idiot is going to come out and tell us we can't air something because it's fiction, then we have to ban ALL fictional programming in order to maintain the "logic" of the situation. Basically they can air whatever they want. They can tell us George Bush is a woman if they feel like it, and if someone chooses to believe it as truth, it's not ABC's fault that the guy fell for it. I would take a different side if this were on a news program - then it better damn well be the truth or I'll go apeshit. But non-news programming - - hell, I don't really care what they put on there. Quote:
|
|||
09-09-2006, 08:24 PM | #29 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just throwing out, here....what I've found unusual.....we'll know much more, after this "program" actually airs..... <b>The reason that we cannot have an actual discussion on this, or any other TFP politics thread</b>, is because, for one "side", it goes against "the culture" to discuss the actual "issues"...by providing details intended to sway an actual debate on the "merits", as I struggle to do here, with such feeble results: Quote:
For at least 15 years, L. Brent Bozell, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and the Sarah Scaife foundation, has dominated, along with folks like David Horowitz, virtually all of what filters through to the folks here....and in America, who could honestly argue the "nuts and bolts" of their political "positions", but sadly.....and obviously, the Scaife funding bought Bozell the ability to influence some folks to be more concerned about the "BJ" that Clinton received, than about healthcare for their own families, or about accountability in spending by the federal government, or whether it was necessary to go to war in Iraq. Scaife and Bozell, and the RNC....will make sure, over the next sixty days, that the focus shifts to "dirt", as in the example of Clinton's sex life, <b>instead of why our troops are still fighting in Iraq, and whether it was ever necessary for them to be there, and to stay there,</b>, in present numbers, much longer......... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<b>are you willing to run the risk that you are relegated to a closed loop of information that is the result of the influence that Scaife and Bozell have had over your POV? Have you wondered what</b> Quote:
....he admitted that 90 percent of what you read about liberal media bias, as of 1992....came from his MRC organization ?</b> I'm asking because my observation is that you show no indication of combing conventional news reporting to check your own compilation of what is most probably closest to an accurate account of any news/political event that we attempt to discuss here. I don't see that those who believe that the MS news media is "biased", even attempt to seriously discuss anything here....with a vigorous, documented argument. Just a courtesy to let you in on the documentation that L. Brent Bozell "owns" the accusation and the "proof" that the MSM has a liberal bias, and that, if I were you, I wouldn't let Bozell's employee, newsbuster.org "executive editor", <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/7482">Michael Sheffield</a>, filter what you "know" about any current event. Last edited by host; 09-09-2006 at 10:14 PM.. |
||||||||||
09-10-2006, 07:07 AM | #30 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Shakran is very right. Don't like it turn the channel. Noone is forcing you to watch it. But yet you keep drawing more and more interest to it.
So let me ask the Dems (of which I am proudly very much one) on this board.... (of course you'll get your knickers in a bunch but....) WHY are you personally so scared of this movie that you need to fuel interest into it? ABC/Disney has worked this beautifully. And no ABC/Disney is not heavily slanted to the right, they are a media company out to get as much of the entertainment dollar they can, that plain and simple. As I showed above and other than Elphaba, my fellow Dems. ignored it and played the game of advancing the interest. WHY? I know they aren't making money, but WHY are they so scared? Do they believe that the people are so stupid that this will influence the vote? That's pretty shallow, to believe that you can see what is going on but the vast majority will be duped into believing the movie and it will hurt the Dems come election time. And if that is the case, WHY are you making such a big deal of it based only on press clippings and the great reviews (Limbaugh, Drudge, O'Reilly, etc) and words, or the anger (Michael Moore) given to it by PEOPLE WHO FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM ITS SUCCESS? Do any of you honestly believe that by yelling and crying and pouting and whatever, over a movie the general public HAS NOT EVEN SEEN YET, is going to turn people away from it? Hell, fucking no!!!!! The more you cry, complain and make a do over it the more attention this movie gets, the more people want to watch to see what it has to say. The more you cry foul and bitch and moan, the more people watching outside party lines will wonder how much IS true. Like everyone else, YOU hadn't seen it, but you bitched about what you were told was going to be in it. How do you know..... oh yeah press clippings and talking heads (and again, most of those talking heads both Left and Right have financial ties to ......... what media company??????? Oh yeah Disney and Disney owns ABC and again, I reiterate.... the more interest sparked, the more people watch the more money made, and all those people who CREATED the controversy make a little more and see their media company strike big bucks.) In the end, it just amazes me...... some of these Dems are acting like the Religious Right and crying over dramatic creativity. CENSORSHIP IN ANY FORM IS STILL FUCKING CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't like what it said AFTER it airs fine, debate it, prove it wrong, etc. But you sit there drawing more and more interest to it, by demanding "partisan equal time" or "ABC better make sure they tell everyone it is based on truth but there were parts that were just GOP wet dreams added" whatever...... you are drawing the attention to it like a moth to a flame and when it airs...... and none of the stuff you cried over is in it (or very little of it is) the people are going to wonder even more about what was sooooo scary for the Dems and may start believing where there is smoke there is fire. In conclusion..... YOU are creating the controversy, YOU are driving people to watch and YOU are going to make the movie bigger than it needed to be. WHY?????? Because you fell into the perfected media trap of crying foul, bitching, moaning, coming out with rebuttals, and so on..... to a movie that hasn't aired yet and probably without controversy wouldn't have gotten any damned ratings. It's like dropping a 10lb bag of sugar on top of an ant hill.......... instead of just picking up the still unopened bag, you have to knife it open and pour sugar all over..... then bitch because the ants are in the sugar. (I just made that analogy up.... I like it).
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 09-10-2006 at 07:18 AM.. |
09-10-2006, 08:31 AM | #31 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
As one of those Dems, I will just make a couple points.
First, my jockeys arent in a knot over this ..I just thought the hypocrisy of the OP and the subsequent follow-upp was amusing. Second, "Do I believe that the people are so stupid that this will influence the vote?" Nope, but I do believe that some people are easily influenced by infotainment and manipulation of facts. Many get their "news" from "sources" like Rush Limbaugh or believe everything coming out of the White House because they want to believe in Bush. One only need to look at the the polls that show anywhere from 35% to 45% of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Third, I am as opposed to government censorship as anyone. However, raising concern about the validity and accuracy of a purported docu-drama on an issue that deeply touches every American is NOT censorship. If nothing else, the debate that has taken place here, on blogs and around the office, may give people pause as they consider the program's relationship to reality. Will it affect the outcome of the upcoming elections? Probably not any more so than the negative and misleading ads we will see on both sides in the coming weeks. And lastly, I will be watching Manning v Manning tonight and going to the Redskin game tomorrow night. To those who watch it, enjoy and take it for whatever you want.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
09-10-2006, 08:36 AM | #32 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
sometimes i wonder if there is a strange loop generator in conservativeland:
here you get a discussion about a film no-one has seen out there you get a proposal that military tribunals get constituted that can sentence defendants to death without allowing them or their council to see the evidence against them. here and out there you get ideology that is conflated with information that is information. viral procedures are doubled in viral marketing. this "controversy" is an example of viral marketing. lather rinse repeat.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
09-10-2006, 11:14 AM | #33 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Well....our senate majority leader wants us all to "simmer down", and that's good enough for me.....who's gonna make the pop corn and bring over the beer, tomorrow night?
Quote:
|
|
09-10-2006, 11:34 AM | #34 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Cunning Runt
Location: Taking a mulligan
|
Quote:
Quote:
Specifically, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's terrifying to agree with you so much. Especially when you at least hinted that Michael Moore's "documentary" wasn't. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher |
||||||||||
09-10-2006, 11:34 AM | #35 (permalink) | |
Artist of Life
|
Quote:
Last edited by Ch'i; 09-10-2006 at 12:38 PM.. |
|
09-10-2006, 11:46 AM | #36 (permalink) |
"Afternoon everybody." "NORM!"
Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.
|
Unfortunately, many people feel that the docudrama is very inaccurate at many points and by showing them the movie in its 'as-is' format, what are people really learning? Can they even be able to form their own opinion based on something untrue? It seems unlikely. Those who are already very well informed probably won't watch the damn thing anyway, it's the people who aren't well informed that this will have the most dramatic effect upon, since there will be almost no reason for them to think about it otherwise.
And point two, where else do people get their information about current events other than from the media? People are arguing that the media should do their damn jobs and fix a blatantly false representation if they want to hold and credibility for their actions. When the 9/11 commission is saying that it runs astray from the truth on more than just a few occasions, something's wrong, especially since, for all intensive purposes, it's suppose to be a retelling of the events - but if the events are imaginary, what are we really accomplishing? Also, I find it shameful that people are getting their information from a movie anyway... which is essentially what this is. It's not a documentary, it's a piece of cinema for people to watch. I feel it lost its credibility before people ever saw it.
__________________
"Marino could do it." |
09-10-2006, 03:04 PM | #37 (permalink) | |||
Tone.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course we should pay attention to what happened in the past. For example we should pay attention to what happened in Vietnam so that we never again get ourselves into a situation where soldiers are dying for noth. . . oh. . .wait a minute. . . Quote:
By the same token I can throw anything into a script and call it a documentary, and I won't have broken some Law of Film. So yeah, Moore's films are documentaries. They're not balanced coverage and while I think his heart is (for the most part anyway) in the right place, he really didn't need to use some of the tactics he did in order to get his results. Just one example would be the "I can go into any house in Canada and the doors will be unlocked because they're not afraid of stuff" scene that, it turns out, he had to do a jillion takes of before he finally found a house where the doors were actually unlocked. I think his premise there was valid - Americans are scared of everything and the higher-ups encourage that fear in order to maintain control - we really do have a culture of fear - but I think he could have been much less lazy, and much more truthful, in making that point. |
|||
Tags |
censorship |
|
|