Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Xtremehkr, Oct 20, 2004.
Sinclair retreats on Kerry Film
Nothing like some good news to start the day.
I actually did want to see it. Simply because Moore was going to let them run F911 for free if they showed it. They couldn't say no, because then it would look (more) suspicious. But couldn't say yes, because we know Bush has screwed up, but what Kerry did 30 years ago during an unpopular war seems a little less important.
Maybe I'll see it sometime. After the election. Good news though.
Where did you hear that? I was listening to M Moore live on NPR yesterday and he had just found out that he had been blocked from showing F911 on Pay Per View even. At that point he was wanting to find out who because his company would not tell him. I am really disturbed by the lack of transparency lately.
Oh, showing F911 on PPV is not the same as broadcasting it on national tv for free. PPV is no different from having the movie available to see at theatres or at Blockbuster.
I've heard the spin that justifies what the Sinclair group was doing by saying that it is counterbalanced by M Moore placing something on PPV. I wholeheartedly disagree with that assertion, to see F911 you would have to have cable or dish access and consciously pay a fee to see it.
The Sinclair group are using their position as a large media owner to pre-empt normal programming in order to show partisan propaganda that is freely available to all.
If that claim were true, I am sure it would have been mentioned here before. Though if you have a link I would love to see it, I don't think M Moore would have ever turned down that deal.
I admit, I don't think I have a link handy, but I can try to find one later. I believe I heard it referenced on Al Franken's show, but it might have been somewhere else. I watch a lot of TV news, and flip around a lot.
It was after they said they wouldn't be showing F911 on PPV, but they were still going to show the Anti-Kerry movie. He made a comment about just giving it to Sinclair to show and not charging them for it. Don't know if he was serious, but considering he's telling people to d/l it and getting some places to give the DVD away for free, I didn't doubt that he would offer. Agree with him or not, he does not want Bush to be re-elected and is willing to put money where his mouth is. (insert joke here)
On a related note, I hear Farenhype 9/11 is on sale exclusively at Overstock.com. Think it will be as popular and pull in millions?
If this election season hasn't gotten weird enough for you yet, the New York Times published an overall positive review of "Stolen Honor" yesterday. An excerpt:
The reviewer acknowledges that the film contains some "distortions intended to hurt Kerry at the polls," but seems to conclude that the film does an effective job of portraying the "real subject of the film: the veterans' unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect."
SINCLAIR HAS NOT BACKED DOWN.
They are taking a 42 minute film and excerpting it into a 60 minute show. Huh? 42 is less than 60, so there's plenty of room to show almost the whole thing and have a ultra right winger spew about Kerry to fill in the other 18 minutes.
The company has lost $90million in value, $40million personally by the family that owns it and made the decision to use their network of stations as a political in kind contribution and they are not backing down. This "change" is a smokescreen to make people think they are backing down.
Check out http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ for more info. Scroll down.
Farenheit 911 will not be shown. Michael Moore made the offer, but of course SBG turned it down cold.
because, after the rebuttals, it would have turned into a 30 hour show.
No link. Heard it from the man himself in person the other night here in Seattle. He then joked about getting a projector and playing it on the side of their HQ building.
Oh, say no more. As long as it's a reliable news source like Michael Moore, it must be true.
WTF? How much more reliable a source can you ****ing ask for?!?! The man who made the movie and owns it, and made the offer, tells me directly out of his own mouth in front of me and a whole bunch of other people and then you say that's not reliable?
Just 'cause it didn't happen on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's this whole other world away from the computer where real people, even some famous ones, really do things in real life.
Just quoting the LATimes article. They have backed down somewhat but not much, I was heartened by the fact that there were some people mentioned in the article who are taking action though.
I've also heard of people in the film not wanting it shown because it distorts what they say more than a Michael Moore film. I was afraid to say anything without someone asking for a link. If I hear on TV straight from the person themselves, there's often no link. Sorry.
I don't question that you heard him say this. It is, however, suspicious to me that -- as far as I can tell -- no news organization has reported on Mr. Moore's alleged offer for Sinclair Broadcast Group to show Fahrenheit 9/11 for free on their stations. A lot of people have written a lot of words about both SBG and F911 and it seems like at least one of those people would have mentioned this tidbit. I mean, wouldn't you report this in your story about the controversy if you were a reporter? I even went to Michael Moore's own web site and couldn't find any reference to it.
Again, to be clear, I'm not questioning that you heard him say this. But it's my observation that Mr. Moore is sometimes prone to exaggeration (and I'm trying to be nice here) and so yes, I do take his claims with a grain of salt.
I don't understand this statement. You don't doubt that Moore said this, but his offer is still "alleged?"
I will concede that now that Moore's said it in public, Sinclair could at least take it as an informal offer. There's no evidence (that I've seen) that he had actually made such an offer (and was rejected) beforehand; e.g. ABC news reporting that "When Moore made his offer, a spokesman for Sinclair Broadcast Group said, 'We respectfully decline Michael Moore's offer and ask him to bite it.'"
The point that I was trying to make is that just because someone makes a statement in front of a large group of people, it doesn't mean that the statement is true. I think SPG's argument (and I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent it) goes like this:
Michael Moore claimed that he'd offered to let Sinclair show F9/11 for free but they "turned [his offer] down cold."
Since SPG and everyone in the audience heard Moore make this claim, it must in fact be true that (a) the offer was made and (b) the offer was rejected.
To apply this reasoning to a different example that everyone reading this forum is familiar with:
Early in 2003, President Bush made the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He made this claim on national television, to a very large audience.
Since millions of Americans heard Bush make this claim, it must in fact be true that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
At best, the ABC News story that you linked to confirms part of what SPG has already said: that Michael Moore has now made at least an informal offer. It only speculates on what Sinclair's response would be.
Bush's statement was one of evidence.
Moore's statement, by his making it, made it true. If I get on a national platform and offer my money or services to someone, haven't I made the offer, regardless of whether or not I called up their main office beforehand?
Lyle, your reasoning on this is so perverse I hardly know what to say. A quick bit of googling produced several article recounting Moore's offer. Apparently he's been making this statement in get-out-the-vote speeches for some time. Clearly he's teasing Sinclair, and knows full well they will never accept his offer -- but that changes nothing in the nature of the offer. Also, for the record, Sinclair has frequently declined to comment in news stories about their plans to air the anti-Kerry film, so they certainly are not going to rise to Michael Moore's bait.
Thanks for the link.
I had heard it several places, but did not have a link. Sinclair's official response is "no comment". We will never know, because they will never actually say yes or no. But seeing as how they are not showing it, and chose instead to not show the Kerry film, we can only assume by the facts that it will not be shown. If it is shown, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. Unlike with Iraq, where there were no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaida, and he actually had evidence to support this fact. He chose to look at the evidence that there was and showed that to Congress and the UN. As more evidence came out, people began asking questions. Your argument is tenuous at best.
Moore has been giving his DVD away at certain stores, telling people to d/l it for free, and offering to let TV stations show it (free or not). No one has accepted, and there is no evidence that he has turned anyone down who has offered. Therefore, unless it is shown, the evidence points to the fact that no one wants to show it. Somehow, I have the feeling that if he did turn someone down, we would have heard about it. People would love to prove that he isn't as altruistic as he says he is. Since he is offering, and the networks are saying "no comment", I think that actually proves they won't show it.
By your logic it would be more like saying there might be WMDs or ties to Al Qaida, but since we don't know for sure, we shouldn't attack until we are sure. Which is what we should have done. Which if we did, I would not be voting for Kerry.