Fahrenheit 9/11

[Rapier Racer]

What's your opinion of this film? I would like to make it clear that I think America is a great country! But I can't stand its president and his administration, I also question any American who votes for him

[Lance]

.
i've not seen the film, but i belive that G.W. Bush is owned by the big corporations and in addition doesn't have a logical thought in his head. except possibly how to use doublespeak, calling a thing or policy the opposite of what it is. i believe that practice of his is quite intentional
.

[jospicy]

but surely the question has to be asked if there is any grey matter up there at all?? :dizzy :cowboy

[lunar]

There was some absolutely amazing footage in the film, which you wouldn`t see anywhere else - and that`s a good enough reason for anyone to see it.

[infoxicated]

The movie is a bit over the top in places, but, as a friend noted in discussion; with the media manipulation coming from the other direction, Michael Moore almost has to be sensationalist to counter.

I think if Moore wasn't so much of an idiot a lot of the time his message, and it's a good message, would have greater effect. He's never going to convince the southern states that Bush isn't their man, though.

[G'Kyl]

I never understood why people criticize Moore for being polemic. The point, to me, is quite simple: There are all kinds of social critics out there - but few listens to them, because they are sooo intellectually challenging. This is not what the masses need to wake up. They need someone like Moore. At least he is getting some attention. And in the end, does it really matter? You can still do what you want out of what he tells you. Just let him be heard at all.

Ben

[infoxicated]

I've no problem with him being heard - what I have a problem with is him being intentionally misleading. That makes the strength of his word no better than that of Bush and his staff on the other side.

[G'Kyl]

Yep, WHAT he says certainly doesn't have as much to it, really, as he wants people to believe. But then, as long as he has people believe in the general idea of his arguments, that is fine for me. I know what to make of it and think it's fine we now also got a _popular_ critic, cause that's unique. :)

Ben

[Auriterminal]

I realize I am probably a minority on this forum, but I am with the majority of Americans- I voted for G.W.Bush (and I love Wipeout, the music, the gameplay, the visuals). Now I noticed up until now, everyone on this thread is from a country other than the US, with the exception of Lance. Not living in the US, I think it is difficult to understand the nuances of American politics and who we are as a people. It is true that I have not seen F.9/11 (I don’t want to give Moore any money), but if you want to make a fully informed decision about F.9/11, watch the counter documentaries such as Celsius 41.11 or Fahrenhype 911. There are serious questions to the credibility of Moore and his films. I think it is important to hear all sides of the debate. I think too many people do not hear the other side and they will believe the myths.

[Rapier Racer]

so your saying you won't watch moors film but you expect me to watch these counter documentaries? and your telling me I'm only seeing one side of the picture, I already felt like that about Bush before that film was made anyway

[Lance]

.
myths are propagated/propagandaed by both sides. the side that has the greatest means and opportunities to propagate them is whichever one is currently in office in the White House, since they are constantly attended by the press who must hear and interpret every word. 'ordinary' citizens, meaning those who are not legislators or journalists generally have very little access to express their views in mass media. what Moore achieved in this direction is a highly unusual achievement, whatever he actually said or did not say.

what is often overlooked in the counting of the 'Blue' and 'Red' states, even here in the U.S., is how close the vote is, and how small a percentage of the total population actually voted. no matter who wins a presidential or other election, it is always questionable as to whether they even represent a majority, much less have a mandate [as G.W. has chosen to so act. whether he believes it or not is another question]. when people from other countries get their news from mass media, what they see is not the opinion of the american people, but the actions and statements of public officials, mostly those of the President of the country. please do not ever assume that the President of the U.S. [no matter what party or philosophical slant or corporate sympathy] truly represents the american people.

the current President does not represent my views. he has even recently rejected one of the few traditionally Republican party views [on gun control] that i do agree with. [oddly enough, 'liberal' though i am in many of my views, i'm with the late Charleton Heston and the NRA on this one. it's about personal responsibility and defense against the bad guys. there are not enough police in the entire world even if all of them lived in this country, to get there in time to prevent your getting killed by the bad guys. the police can only investigate and arrest after the crime is done. this is of no use to the dead and little or none to the damaged.]
.

[Lance]

.
as an off/on topic message here, i say that IMO, it is a mistake for us to discuss politics or religion here in the WipeoutZone. it is all very well to believe that we will remain civilised in discussing these things and will continue to respect each other, but in my experience, this does not happen in such discussions since both subjects tend to have non-rational bases even though one would think that at least politics should be based on rational points, but it usually is not, particularly in the USA at this time, where the recent election was not decided on practical economic issues, but primarily on religious and 'moral' ones, and secondarily, IMO, perceived national physical security, a perception arrived at by little in the way of scientific investigation.

and you see how inflammatory that last sentence could be.

i vote for no more political topics in the WZ
.

[Auriterminal]

Lance, I agree with you about no politics on WZ. There are plenty of other forums for that. But would you say that if a counter view did not show up on this thread? This is your forum, you’re the moderator. If you don’t want me to continue in this topic, I will respect your wishes. But I must answer the question about me not watching F.9/11. I said that I will not watch it to give Moore money. I do plan to watch it in the future, when it is available to be watched for free (such as TV). Your criticism that I don’t see the other side is incorrect. I spend on average four hours a day, reading, listening, and watching political news/commentary, including opposing points of views, such as democraticunderground.com and smudgereport.com. And if you are relying on mass media outlets to give you a balanced view, you should know the liberal bias in the media. Here is the most scientific evidence: Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184)

To the question on the majority of Americans, most polls show that America is more conservative than liberal (for example Battleground Poll Nov.2004 shows 60% of Americans are very or somewhat conservative, compared to 33% are liberal). And your assertion that the vote was based on religious and moral reasons is based on the, proven inaccurate, exits polls of Election Day. Not only was the exit polls incorrect, but the questions where divided in such a way that “split the vote”. Taxes were separated from the economy. War in Iraq was separated from war on terrorism. When you add the polls results (taxes with economy and Iraq with terrorism), the religious and moral reason to vote falls down to the bottom.

Again, if this topic will cause problems, I will not post anymore. I like the people on this forum. As Wipers, we can appreciate the graphics, the music, and the game play. And for that, we are more alike than not alike.

[Lance]

.
to answer/comment on your questions and comments in order [or at least starting out in order ;) ]:

yes, i would say that. i always have misgivings any time a politically loaded topic is started here, but this one seems potentially the most inflammatory of all that have shown up in WZ so far.

this is not my forum it is our forum.

i am only one of the five moderators, not THE moderator.

my comment on the reasons for Bush victory was not based on exit polls, but is my opinion based on all data observed by me. you do not know what my sources of data are; please do not assume. i pay very little attention to polls and surveys and regard all statements and speeches with skepticism. it is what people do, not what they say they do or what they say their motives are which constitute the truth of any social result. it is usually more instructive to find out who is conducting a poll/survey and why then to pay much attention to the survey/poll results.

the ''media'' may be perceived as 'liberal' by the
far Right, but in terms of numbers of radio opinion show hosts, that medium is utterly dominated by 'conservatives'. they are virtually all that exist in my home radio market; liberal commentators are unheard since the local stations are owned by a very few companies who own several stations each. two such companies dominate the local market and those companies choose to broadcast only the 'conservative' commentators. since the general population is not so one-sided in its tendencies, this is clearly an imbalance. no matter what method was used to achieve that, it is decidedly not healthy. from what i have heard, this is the general state of radio commentary through the entire country, with only a few local exceptions.

newspapers also tend to be politically 'conservative'. those owned by the Chicago Tribune, for example, as is the local large newspaper where i live. it has an effective monopoly on local printed news sources since it is the only large newspaper and dominates a market of considerably more than a million people.

the claim that the media are 'liberal' seems generally to come from the perception [at least from the perception of 'conservatives'] that television and movies are liberal in their presentation of political opinion, even though the three old major tv networks are owned by major corporations which are a vested interest and thus politically conservative, and the Fox network is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who attempted to buy Newt Gingrich, former Republican and conservative Speaker of the House of Representatives. the three old networks seem quite neutral to me these days in their presentations of news and opinion, unlike the 'conservative' Fox, but in any case, their viewership is decidedly not all that high in the ratings, due to so much choice of entertainment programming on cable. they are not the influence they once were, whatever their political stance.
'Hollywood', on the other hand is most definitely 'liberal'. i agree with you there, but not on any of the other points
.

[Auriterminal]

I did not intend to lessen the efforts of your fellow moderators. I only made the ‘the moderator’ statement in a general sense. Sorry for the perception of diminishment.

I agree that the radio stations are conservative, but that is a known upfront. You can choose to listen to it or not, that is the free market. And the free market chooses to listen to conservative radio. Despite the efforts (and financial push of liberals) of Air America, the liberal radio outfit, the market chooses not to listen (based on ratings). Conservative talk radio grew out of a market not by being setup by a group. But in the case of the old three, for nearly 50 years, that was the only choice for news (in video format at least).

It is a matter of perception, if one is liberal, one may see the major news as balanced, and not liberally biased. But it was Dan Rather that attended a Democratic fund raiser, and it was Walter Conkrite, ‘the most trusted man in America’, that admitted in his column a year or so ago that he was liberal. And even as the latest example is the fake National Guard memos, Mary Mapes (sp?), the producer of the story, has also admitted to being liberal. How can Americans trust that the news they got for 50 years fully told the story, without liberal bias? There is nothing wrong with liberal bias, as long as we know it upfront. I would say that Foxnews is balanced, but in my heart, I know that it is more conservative than anything else (ever thought a conservative would admit that?) But I like to think that their slogan, ‘fair and balanced’ means that they are ‘balancing’ the liberal bias of the other networks.

You also state that ‘three old major tv networks are owned by major corporations which are a vested interest and thus politically conservative’. ABC is owned by Disney, which is run by Eisner, a well known liberal, and former Democratic Senator, George Mitchell, also a liberal. CBS is owned by Viacom, the same company that owns the liberal MTV, VH1, Bravo, HBO, and Comedy Central. The people that ran Viacom/CBS are Sumner Redstone, Mel Karmazin, Leslie Moonves are known to have liberal slants. I don’t know much about NBC, but they are owned by GE, and the former CEO, Jack Welsh, seems to me to be more conservative. But NBC has Katie Curic, very liberal. I wouldn’t assume that corporations are so conservative. I suppose, more than anything, corporations are motivated by money, but if you want to know which corporations to patron, based on politics, visit www.buyblue.org

I got to say Lance, it is certainly a pleasure to debate these issues with you, as you seem to be intelligent and thoughtful. So many times, discussions like this are shouting matches (or the text equivalent, of all caps).

[Lance]

.
to further clarify one issue, when i say it is our forum, i mean that it is the members' forum, not that of the moderators.

i can choose to listen or not listen to any or all of the many conservative opinion show hosts, but i cannot choose to listen to liberal opinion hosts. there are none allowed by the companies that own the stations. this is not a free market. it is a market owned by those who have been able to influence the legislators to allow massive monopoly-tending ownership. quite possibly, though not to my certain knowledge, but to my suspicion, the deals that allowed such multiple ownership contained an agreed on, but deliberately not a matter of public record, proviso inserted by the involved legislators, that only opinionators supportive of their own party would be allowed programs on the stations owned by the company being dealt with. this is nothing new in politics, this sort of thing goes right back through human history in all countries and political systems. it is part of human nature. while it is true that such dealings are open to all parties, some parties are insufficiently ruthless and too thoughful of fairness to do it. they often do not survive. sometimes it takes another historical evolution before such parties come again. in the meantime, the citizens-general are exploited by the ruthless survivors. in my view, this is the current situation in the USA. no doubt you disagree. :)

i am quite certain that the liberalism of the decades retired Cronkhite has no relevance to current-day mass media opinionating in America. he is not a news reporter nor a commentor in any official capacity, and is rarely ever visible or audible to a mass audience at all. even back in his days as an anchor, it was obvious he was a liberal. that percentage of americans who trusted him to be truthful in his reportage were probably liberals also. but ol' Wally was pretty non-commenting in his reportage. he reported rather than commented. in case you wonder how i can know this, i am an old man who watched Chronkite when he was the anchor of CBS news. he was a model of fairness and accuracy in reportage.

the past performances of the old big three networks are also not relevant to the current discussion of what is happening now.

to dispose of a minor issue, Katie Couric is not a reporter nor a commentator on political issues; she is merely fluff on what is primarily a time-filling entertainment program, namely the Today Show on NBC, the network owned by the 'conservative' General Electric company once run by [the now-retired?] conservative Jack Welch. this program has only a reader of news headlines who does this for a very few minutes, which is usually just exactly repeated once each half-hour during the course of a multi-hour broadcast, and no in depth news or political comment at all, save during the initial conquest stage of the Iraq war, when live coverage of troop movement was constant and was truly news. but there was no political opinion expressed during this coverage that i can recall. [yes, i watched it for many many hours. left the television on all day so i could do so]. there was essentially no political slant to the coverage toward either side of the spectrum.

Air America. is that a group of radio station owners controlling the content of their stations, or is that a group of politically 'liberal' people who must attempt to get their programs on stations owned by other people than themselves? again, free-market choice is not necessarily what is at work here.

Dan Rather has always been an ass whom i do not respect. this is based on his personal characteristics, not his political leanings.

i'm going to post this right now even though i have not yet discussed all the points in your reply. my ISP is very unreliable and i want to get this up before they cause me another repeat of the aggravation of an hour ago
.

[SteadVex]

I'd like to point out my british view

if anyone has watched (not americans) the news when the iraq thing was going on, then watched the american news channels (yes we get them) its amazing the difference between the 2, the british channels and other countries channels seemed unbias on the news reports, but, well, i can not say the same for hte american ones.

i've watched the 9/11 thing, along with others, and i realise patriots of america don't like to admit they made a mistake with there choosing of leaders or whatever, but the proof that is show is quite, remarkable really, i never really thought that much about it, believed everything i was told, i'm not saying i'm for or against, but that particular film did make me worry about america's role of ruling the world.

sorry for posting, just i remembered reading an artcle on the BBC website on how nearly all EU countries believe america is threat to world safety or something similar, i think only 2 countries believed america were in the right, and that doesn't include the uk.

although i guess my view my be a bit biased against america (not being american in all) but america never helped the british take out ireland because a terroist group kept bombing major cities over the uk, infact they armed them if i remember right, yet the uk rushes to help 'disarm/destroy' iraq because of a couple of attacks, several times i have been in a city in the uk when a bombhad been discovered, and had to be evacuated from the area, in manchester there is a museam of that shows some of the wreckage that a bomb did in a shopping centre, always remember a traffic post split down the middle from the blast which was on the street opposite.

[lunar]

the british channels and other countries channels seemed unbias on the news reports

I wouldn`t agree with that - once the war started the BBC became a flag waving "support our boys" bumper sticker institution, with any critical analysis ruled completely off limits. After having its ass kicked in the Hutton enquiry the BBC has become fearful of the government in any reporting of Iraq/War on Terror. In my opinion they always put the government line first, then allow a varying amount of dissenting voices, often adding their own commentary to colour the viewer`s impression of these views. ITV and even Sky are often more challenging than the BBC, which is saying something...

The BBC in the war both reflected and helped create the public view. I don`t remember the exact statistics, but in pre-war polls something like 40% of the public supported the invasion of Iraq. Once the first missisles had been fired, however, the support for the war rose to around 70%, when the actual rights and wrongs of military action had not changed - just the facts about whether it would happen or not. I don`t see why the matter of whether a particular course of action has occurred or not should change a person`s moral/political standpoint about it, whatever that may be. So a lot of the public are incredibly irrational, really, and the British media suffers from the same irrationality.