Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

[bolokshi]

1. Who cares!!

why trying to discredit Moore for.....bottom line they refused to distribute his movie thats it!!

[genius]

123. Right. Moore was telling the truth. The headline is a lie. Read.

It's like the headlines after the recount that said Bush won. Although Gore had won, the headlines made it look like Bush had won. The writer is just trying to stop the demonstrations against Disney. But, those who aren't braindead won't fall for the false headline.

[4_Legs_Good]

2. Yikes!

Bad boy, Michael!

Yer giving us a bad name.

david

[wubbathompson]

3. That wasn't a very smart move

Why admit it one day later?

[DoktorGreg]

7. I bet he got a visit from the MIB

And was told to avoid planes, trains and automobiles

[genius]

124. Just read. The headline is false,

[leftistagitator]

4. What total propaganda

I saw the CNN interview, he said that the president of Miramax promised Moore that Disney would change their mind and distribute the film once it was done. Is the Independent owned by Murdoch? It's amazing how disingenuous the Right can be.

[4_Legs_Good]

9. ahhh, well that's a relief

to manufacture a publicity stunt is wrong when you're trying to be right.

I'm glad it's more a matter of spin than substance. Thanks for clearing it up a bit.

david

[Barrett808]

23. Don't see anything like this in today's CNN transcript

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/06/ltm.02.html

COLLINS: Miramax Films confirms its parent company, Walt Disney, won't allow it to release Michael Moore's new documentary. But Disney says Moore is free to find another distributor or to distribute the film himself. The documentary, "Fahrenheit 911," criticizes President Bush's handling of the terror attacks.

Jen Rogers takes a look at the controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEN ROGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Michael Moore has never hidden his feelings about President Bush.

MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: He was never elected by a majority of the citizens of this country, and I'll keep saying that until he's out of there.

ROGERS: Now, in his latest documentary, "Fahrenheit 911," he's taking his criticisms to the big screen, or at least trying to. The movie, said to be sharply critical of Bush, and according to The New York times, links Bush and prominent Saudis, including the family is of Osama bin Laden, has become the center of controversy after Moore announced on his Web site that the Walt Disney company was blocking distribution by its subsidiary, Miramax.

MOORE: It's disappointing that Disney doesn't want people to see this. You know, there are no bad things in it. You know, there is no sex and violence. There's just some truth about what's happening to this country.

ROGERS: In a statement, Miramax said, "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably." But for Disney's part, there doesn't seem much left to resolve.

MICHAEL EISNER, CEO, DISNEY: We just chose not to be involved.

ROGERS (on camera): Any chance that Disney will change their mind?

EISNER: We've made our position very clear on that.

ROGERS (voice-over): In a written statement, the company said, "In May 2003, the Walt Disney Company communicated to Miramax and Mr. Moore's representatives that Miramax would not be the distributor of his film. Contrary to his assertion, Mr. Moore has had and continues to have every opportunity to either find another distributor or to distribute the film himself." Regardless of who actually ends up distributing Moore's film, the current controversy is publicity money can't buy.

MATT FELLING, THE CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The big winner in this entire fiasco is Michael Moore and Michael Moore's publicity team. They should send thank you cards to the Disney people.

ROGERS: For now, dueling press releases will have to do.

(on camera): While the release date for Moore's new movie may still be months away, congressional hearings could be held sooner. On Wednesday, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey called for the Senate Commerce Committee to look into what he has called the pattern of politically-based corporate censorship.

Jen Rogers, CNN Financial News, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Moore says he will screen the film next week at the Cannes Film Festival.

[bicentennial_baby]

26. It was on Aaron Brown last night

Here's what was said:

MOORE: What I know is, is that Michael Eisner went and had a meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel at Endeavor, and told him at this meeting that there is no way he will allow Miramax to distribute Michael Moore's film, because, in doing so, it will anger Jeb Bush and put Disney at risk in Florida. They were up for millions of dollars of task abatements, tax incentives, whatever.

BROWN: They deny -- they don't deny the meeting, obviously, with the agent. They deny that they said that. No doubt in your mind that was said?

MOORE: No, no doubt at all.

BROWN: OK.

MOORE: Oh, absolutely not.

In fact, I got a phone call immediately after the meeting. I was told this. And we decided, along with Miramax, to do our best to try and convince Disney to do the right thing. And we have spent months trying to do that. We have been very quiet about this.

BROWN: This has gone on pretty much a year, hasn't it?

MOORE: Yes, that's right.

BROWN: Why not a year ago just go find another way to get the movie out there? MOORE: Because a year ago, we were already making the film. We already had a deal. We had a contract with Miramax to distribute the film. And this happened all after we did this deal.

And Miramax felt very confident that Disney, once they saw the film, would distribute it.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/05/asb.00.html

[Barrett808]

46. Well, that would seem to undermine the thrust of the Independent's story

Doesn't say "stunt" to me.

[Misunderestimator]

105. GOOD FOR MICHAEL MOORE

I'd rather have someone in there fighting our fight who knows how to work the movie and publicity business. I don't care if this was a stunt. Does anyone? If it gets ONE more person to watch the film, then I'm satisfied. Period.

[VolcanoJen]

37. Complete and utter propaganda and lies.

Where, in that article, does Moore do what the headline promises... admits Disney "ban" was a "stunt?"

What a load of crap, and a horrible piece of journalism.

[Zhade]

79. The Independent has NOTHING to do with the right.

NT!

[leftistagitator]

82. Well apparently they've been infiltrated.

See post #26 for the truth about what Moore said. Moore was promised that Disney would change their mind and distribute his film by the president of Miramax, and he had a contract with Disney to fall back on. He said nothing about this being a stunt. That kind of spin can't be accidental.

[stoptheshrub]

104. To play devils advocate...

Most people didn't like the idea of Gibson passion but it was aired anyway. Disney doesn't like Moore's movie and it probably won't air. But heres the difference as I see it.

-like Gibsons movie or not he knew he could not get it on screens going through big name hollywood so what did he do??? Got what private investor he could and ponied up the rest of the money.

_Moore on the other hand made EVERYONE of like minded thinking look bad by admitting he knew disney would not release it. He could easily have gotten the money independently and run with it. If you pay for it then they can't censor you.

peace out

[Dookus]

5. that story's sorta spun...

he was on Aaron Brown last night, and said that while he knew Disney didn't want to distribute it, he had signed a deal with them and had confidence that Miramax would change their minds.

The deal they signed, btw, does NOT allow for Disney to back out because they don't like the political content of the film.

[Momgonepostal]

6. I want to like Michael Moore but...

..stunts like this make it difficult. I don't appreciate being lied to. He's making himself and his position look bad, IMO.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

11. his position

you mean the position that Bush slurps on Saudi schlong?

[Tina H]

13. Occasionally Moore seems to let his righteous indignation . . .

somewhat compromise his credibilty. And I am not using the phrase "righteous indignation" sarcastically. I believe that his indignation is sincere and righteous (in the good way).

[tkmorris]

44. He didn't lie to you

Oh forget it. If you really want to like Moore it seems odd the lengths that you are going to NOT to like him.

[Momgonepostal]

113. What odd lengths?

I don't appreciate being played and manipulated. That hardly makes me unique.

[RummyTheDummy]

118. a stunt?

I think your letting the Right define "stunt" for you. I view it as a situation where Moore was told one thing early on, then led to believe Disney would ultimately relent and distribute the film.

[genius]

125. Then look at the truth. Moore told the truth. Literacy is a good skill

Did you also fall for the "Bush won Florida?"

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. oh no

they're going to discredit Michael. All is lost. Nobody's going to see the movie now.

bizarro world off/

[0007]

40. "Nobody's going to see the movie now. " - wanna bet?

Michael Moore will make more on "Fahrenheit 911" than "Bowling for Columbine"

Get ready to eat your words.

[sandnsea]

10. IF that is what it is

Further down in the article:

"But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working."

I'm beginning to think there's no truth anywhere anymore.

[Briar]

12. That's a highly interpreted headline

Moore only said he knew Disney would try to ban the film a year ago. I seem to remember him saying much the same, that his agent had been told so a year ago, on BBC2's Newsnight last night. He wasn't hiding anything, and he did not "admit" to staging a "stunt". A year is a long time, long enough for lots of persuasion in the hope of changing minds.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Like Mel Gibson

.

[pinto]

15. idiot.

[KittyWampus]

25. Did You Read The Article?

Didn't think so...

maybe idiot wasn't the right word to use here...

[pinto]

32. yes, and think I see your point.

[FlandersFeelds]

16. Why not just call it what it is. A lie

He lied and he should fess up.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

18. ok, I'll call it what it is

A decision by Disney to evade taxes. How is it a lie? Because he announced it now and not a year ago?

[KC21304]

19. What lie did he tell ?

[Th1onein]

28. The only people calling it a "stunt" or a lie is the Right Wing

[Democat]

35. Get lost!

Go back to where you came from and stop spreading lies.

[DS1]

38. jesus, get a hold of yourself

:eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. To whom did Moore lie?...

Is Disney blocking the release of the movie or not?

[NMDemDist2]

52. oh FF not a great way to start I fear

please show me what lie you are referring too, but welcome to DU :hi:

[DS1]

66. Yeah, gotta love the welcome wagon

:eyes:

It's a bit on the manipulative side if he's known this for months and comes out with this big announcement days before Cannes.

[RetroLounge]

74. Go away

eom

[FlandersFeelds]

80. No.

MM is a fake and a liar IMO. His outright lie that he walked out of a bank with a gun in BFC for opening an account was bullshit and a lie.

I don't have to like the guy and I am not fooled by his antics. Just because someone hates Bush does not make them a decent or honest person.

[soaky]

92. you claim it's a lie

he claims it's the truth
How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine" - the bank scene is described about half way down the page.

i know who i'm more inclined to believe

[Danieljay]

96. a couple of links for ya Mr. Flanders

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/suntimes_20010128.php

Note the second one is a copy of the article in the Chicago Sun times.

[FlandersFeelds]

99. That was not my point

The fact is that he would still need to pass a NICs check and he would need to pick up the rifle from a FFL dealer. He would not walk out of the bank with a rifle like his false "documentary" showed.

[Viking12]

103. You are calling someone a liar w/o any clue

Either you've come here with an agenda or you're clueless (maybe both). You're making claims with no substance and no knowledge of the facts.


"When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922)."

[genius]

121. Moore told the truth. You fell for the Republican lie.

He never said it was a stunt. Disney has never before ordered Miramax not to distribute a film -- no matter what the objections to the film.

[indie_jones]

127. Disney HAS refused to distribute other Miramax films

Disney refused to distribute KIDS, even though Miramax financed the film (they said it was due to the NC-17 rating).

Miramax found a new US distributor for DOGMA when Disney said they didn't want to be associated with that film due to its content.

How many distributors did Rob Zombie burn through to get "House of 1000 Corpses" theatrically released via Lion's Gate? I think it was roughly three ... maybe more.

Moore isn't being censored. Unlike Rob Zombie, who had several concrete distribution agreements that imploded, Moore knew a year ago he had no distribution for his movie, and he just waited until the 11th hour to find proper distribution so he could play free speech martyr. No one stopped him from making the film -- clearly he received financing TO make it. If someone had seized his footage THAT would be censorship.

[genius]

128. Miramax wants to distibute the film. Disney won't let them

That is censorship.

[indie_jones]

131. "Miramax wants to distibute the film. Disney OWNS MIRAMAX"

Plain and simple -- if Miramax was an independent company, they could distribute anything they want. They're not. They're essentially OWNED. They have a master, and the master said NO. The master has said NO to other film projects before. The master said it wouldn't distribute Moore's film one year ago.

Moore agreed to take the production money without distribution and now he's pretending to be a victim of a deal he agreed to? That's a stunt, not censorship.

[genius]

132. Miramax is an independent subsidiary - not a division

of Disney. There is a lot of difference when it comes to taxes. The head of Miramax was certain Miramax would be able to distribute the film and Moore trusted that he would be right.

It's easy to flame the Moore if you don't want Kerry to become President. Moore's the guy who's going to put Kerry in the White House. The fact is it was not a stunt and the headline was a lie.

[indie_jones]

135. That's why I said "essentially owned" in my post

Miramax has a master. The master said it wouldn't put out the film in May of 2003. End of story ... no censorship required.

Moore did a GREAT job putting Nader in the White House last time around ... Nader didn't even qualify for funding. And Moore REALLY helped Clark, didn't he?

Dishonesty is NOT going to help Kerry. Nor will circus stunts.

[Bridget Burke]

139. The film will not be a circus stunt.

I can tell that it's making a lot of people very nervous. They ought to be.

[Gothmog]

17. Weinstein told him that Disney would change its mind

Moore signed a deal with Miramax and was told that Disney did not want to distribute the movie but would change its mind when the movie was completed. Moore relied on H. Weinstein and Weinstein failed to deliver. That does not make this a stunt.

As it turns out, Moore is going to do very well with the picture and someone will distribute the film.

[lefty_mcduff]

20. VERY Misleading Headline (odd for the Independent).

Moore doesn't admit anything of the sort.

[genius]

122. The writer must have stock in Disney. I hate these false headlines

What is worse than the headlines are the idiot Democrats who fall for them.

[Just Me]

21. He's playing the "game" and people are bitching?

Give me a fucking break, already.

[gratuitous]

22. The headline rather overpromises

In fact, in the entire story, there is no "admission" from Michael Moore. The only quote attributed to Moore is that he had a contract with Disney to distribute the film, and a Disney mouthpiece who says that the contract was for financing, not distribution.

So, in reality, the headline doesn't match the story. Which is really kind of weird, isn't it, because it makes Moore out to be a liar with words he never said? {Smacks forehead} Ohhhh, I get it now!

[damnraddem]

24. But the big question is:

will the film be distributed? The article says: "Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor." Is that the only problem; or can Disney keep it from being distributed?

I don't always agree with Moore; and this stunt looks stupid on his part. But his productions are always worth seeing; and the public needs to see them.

[KittyWampus]

27. It Wasn't A "Stunt". The BIG Question Is

why is the Independant essentially smearing Moore and why are DU'ers blindly following suit.

[rednek_Liberal]

81. Are there no MARKETING people in here??????

C'mon people, MM was waiting for the right time to
let loose on this one. He didn't lie, he just waited until it was advantagous to the film to announce the Disney decision. Everyone here has seen the same tactics used by the Bush Crime Syndicate, so we should just get over ourselves in thinking that this is important.

[Demoiselle]

95. Old Marketing Person Here...

Michael Moore is entitled to publicize his work...and this fracas is a perfect instrument to do it with. I don't care when Disney said they wouldn't distribute it, Eisner looks like a sleaze regardless of the timing, and the point about corporate censorship in this country is well taken. By the way, I was convinced from the minute I heard of the Mel Gibson Passion anti-Semitism controversy that it was a set-up by Gibson and colleagues to get attention in the press that money simply cannot buy. "Smuggled script" indeed! Bah! I mean no disrespect to the scholars and critics who reacted in alarm and made their feelings known..they were right to do so....but Mel's outraged innocence was pure humbug. I think Moore has handled this thing rather more honestly, actually. And I ain't his biggest fan, either.

[info being]

134. I thought it was a brilliant pre-emptive strike

It puts Disney and Jeb Bush on the defensive. I guess some people here would rather be moraly pure than effective.

[demdave]

29. Does anyone have a link to the interview transcripts??

There seems to be a lot of disagreement about what he said. Thanks

[bicentennial_baby]

33. See Post#26

I think the interview being referenced is the one I saw last night when he was on Aaron Brown. I posted a snip and a link above.

[librechik]

30. That's Show Biz!

so, he should be doing it different? and be a total unknown? Let him flim flam. It still beats Rush.

[Dr Fate]

31. He fooled the media into talking about his movie. Good move.

As another poster said, dont bitch just 'cause Mike knows how to beat them at there own game...

P.T. Barnum is American as Apple Pie!!- except the "suckers" were the media this time!!!

[Just Me]

59. Damned straight!!! Let's get off our "righteous" peddles, already.

Geez,...like any individual somehow holds the trademark/patent/copyright on righteousness.

We are HUMAN BEINGS!!!

HELLO!!!

Just stick with BEING human and let go of all this crazy bullshit,...

,...please?,...

Sometimes,...I do get so frustrated on this board,...BUT RARELY DO I BEAT EVERYONE UP OVER MY FRUSTRATION.

*whew* I needed that rant.

[Democat]

34. The article headline is a right wing LIE!

Read the transcript - Michael Moore said nothing of the sort!

[demdave]

39. The "Independent" is right wing???

Since when?

[leftistagitator]

62. Apparently since now

Read post 26, that has the transcript of what Moore actually said, which is being spun so badly by the Independent that it can't have been a mistake.

[Just Me]

67. Your name is so,...interesting,...

,...do tell,...how did you come up with it?

[leftistagitator]

75. Well, I cycled through a few others that were already taken

And I had just read the book that Abbie Hoffman's brother wrote, so I guess I had the whole 60's "Leftist agitators" theme running through my head. It's a little ironic, because I've come to find out that I'm to the right of some here on DU. But it's a little late to change my name to pragmaticleftistagitator, so there you go.

[Democat]

71. Read the article and read the headline - it is right wing propaganda

I don't care if it's printed in the Democratic Party times, it is right wing propaganda and a lie.

Read the article - read Moore's quote - the headline is made up by someone who does not like Michael Moore for the benefit of the right wing in America.

[rucky]

36. I would like to go on record to say...

I knew it all along!

[Snellius]

41. Moore was just forcing them to show their cards

Whether or not, Moore knew Disney would not distribute his film, nevertheless, they would not distribute his film.

[indie_jones]

42. Moore is a worm

The guy is definitely trying to hype himself, no matter what the cost. Kevin Smith pulls the same kind of stunts, but Smith doesn't consider himself above admitting it's all hype.

Take a look at Moore's website:


http://michaelmoore.com

He boasts:

"Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Yet note the actual line in the NY Times:

"Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor."

The New York Times didn't come to that conclusion ... Moore's agent did!!

Sometimes I swear this guy thinks liberal-minded Americans are as stupid as Bush.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. IMHO, there's not a lot of critical thinking in your post. Nice try.

[Dr Fate]

50. He's P.T. Barnum & Mark Twain rolled into one...

He's anything but a worm- he's a brilliant self-promoter who just fooled the media into talking about his movie for at least 2 straight days.

You dont "work" with the media when you area lIberal- you beat them at their own game.

DEMS could pull a more subtle version of this- we need to "fool" the media inot talking about us more often...

[Habibi]

56. Oh, give it up

The keyword in this excerpt is "officially," not the nit-picky distinction you're trying to make.

"Liberal-minded"? Around these parts, we ain't afraid to say "liberal" Period.

[indie_jones]

65. Oh please ... spare me the newbie hazing theatrics

Great you like to call yourself "liberal." I don't ... because I'm not. Not entirely. I am, however, currently a Democrat. Is that OK? If not, I'll go back to being Independent.

And really, denouncing the thoughtfulness of my post in a subject header isn't particularly thoughtful.

Moore has been intentionally misleading twice in as many days. When Rove or Limbaugh does it, they're sick; when Moore does it, he's a showman?

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing politics played out like a three-ring circus. I'm sick of being treated like a slack-jawed fool who can't recognize truth from hype. So no, I neither appreciate nor respect Moore's PT Barnum fantasies.

Moore's film has the potential to affect this election IF he plays it straight. If he decides to conduct himself like a snake-oil salesman, his film *might* still win an award or two, but it won't change the course of anything important.

If Moore was smart, he'd try to delay the release until late September or even October. The earlier it comes out, the more time critics will have to fact-check his assertions, and surely we all realize that Moore doesn't hold up well when fact-checked.

The more stunts he pulls now, the closer his film will be scrutinized later. So what you choose to see as "showmanship," I see as "digging his own grave well in advance."

[DrWeird]

69. You know who's worse then Moore?

Trolls.

First they get an account here, of course in order to do it they have to lie in the online agreement. And then they complain about other peoples "dishonesty." And then they lie even more and pretend that they're democrats.

And then they're stupid enough to think we fall for it.

What a pathetic group of clusterfucks.

[koopie57]

70. well you are new here

and saying a lot of ugly things for a newbie. A little respect shown to the people who have been here a very long time and who know a whole lot more than you would not be a bad idea. Probably would be a decent thing to do as a matter of fact. You can state your views, but you need to show some respect. Or don't you believe in respecting others? And I consider myself a newbie still.

[indie_jones]

78. Yow

I've been lurking long enough to know that DU has a history of VERY hostile behavior toward Moore for his Nader association in 2000.

I'm saying Moore is being misleading ... is the truth ugly or something? Not my fault.

And please remember: respect goes both ways.

But thank you for reminding me why I don't post here more often.

[koopie57]

87. I'm glad you don't post here very often

and I don't feel I was disrespectful to you in anyway. My truth is that you were disrespectful. And your arguements are so stupid. (If respect goes both ways according to you, then I am going to assume that according to your philosophies, disrespect goes both ways.) You bitch at us cuz we were hostile toward Moore and his Nader association in 2000, but you come on here calling Moore a lier. Yow ... not sure what that means, but it seemed appropriate to put here.

[KAZ]

72. Dittos mmmarke. n/t

n/t

[soaky]

77. Moore doesn't hold up well when fact-checked???

And on what basis do you make that assertion?

[KAZ]

83. Have you read anything on this thread?

I didn't think so.

[soaky]

90. kaz

are you referring to me or pattyb? my question was clearly directed at the claim in post 42.

[KAZ]

91. Sorry. my mistake. n/t

n/t

[soaky]

93. s'ok

just checking!

[rednek_Liberal]

86. Yes please do tell .....Enquiring minds want to know

If you ever took the time to read one of his books
you would see hundreds of footnotes and source citings and an appendex the size of that "O'really" book.

[indie_jones]

97. Assertion?

The guy is an inveterate deceiver! (And note how that's not an attack on anyone posting here.) His deceptions are very much intentional as evidenced by his "The NY Times says Disney's tax status is endangered," bit. Moore's deceptions have been very well documented over the years ... here's a taste if you've somehow missed it:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

Scroll down to the bottom for more. And keep in mind: Moore once had Spinsanity on his list of must-see/favorite links ... until they critiqued his 9-11 screeds.

I used to really like Moore's work, but he has real problems when it comes to telling the truth. If you think fighting lies with lies is productive, then I guess Moore wouldn't bother you. But stunts like this bother the hell out of me ... especially when said stunts involve crying "censorship." Sure, we're all free to claim we're censored, but people who habitually cry wolf, as Moore has, end up detracting from REAL issues of free speech.

[mmm]

114. Hey! Moore is the good guy; Rove and Limbaugh are as**oles!

Sounds like you are a Rove and Limbaugh apologist... are you?

[never cry wolf]

63. Check this out

Moore was quoting the Times article from May 5th, not the one from may 6th posted on his web site, there IS a link to the May 5th article where you will find:

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

On edit: How the hell could he cite a Times article that came out today, yesterday????????

Mucho lacko critical thinking!!

On second edit: deleted inflammatory subject header, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[indie_jones]

68. The quote is attributed to the agent

Again, the NY Times did not come to that conclusion ... Moore's agent is making this claim.

How much critical thinking is required to recognize this?

[rednek_Liberal]

85. If he was thinking of you he'd be right

Exactly which conclusion are you referring to
a) that Disney will endanger Tax breaks or
b) that Jeb Bush will be angered (Thus endangering tax breaks. Why else would tax breaks be endangered?)

[indie_jones]

130. Dude, where's my agent?

I'm not referring to the conclusion (which is conjecture anyway); I'm referring to Moore's statement that:

According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

The NY Times did NOT come to that conclusion in any article or editorial. They were citing remarks from MICHAEL MOORE'S AGENT!! Remarks that were denied by Disney -- and Disney's denial was also published by the NY Times!!

Y'all are lambasting the Independent for "spinning," but if Moore was honest he would have written:

According to MY AGENT, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida ...

Moore is very clearly suggesting that the NY Times came up with this on its own ... not his agent, who wouldn't and shouldn't be considered a solid journalistic source.

[genius]

133. If you can't see that your argument doesn't follow your information

then please look at what you have said again. It is one thing to be anti-Moore. But we shouldn't be fed misleading information. There is a difference between offical positions and expressed concerns.

[indie_jones]

136. OK

OK then: Prove me wrong ...

Show me where the NY Times determined that Disney turned down Moore's movie for tax purposes.

Now, DON'T show me a quote attributed to Moore's agent ... because I've seen those.

When a writer says, "According to," it normally means that the statement was developed, presented, and often believed by the source mentioned. The New York Times did NOT assert that Disney was backing out because of Jeb ... it merely quoted Moore's agent. NYT also countered that quote.

The honest way to present that tidbit would have been to directly quote the agent, but Moore is feigning validation from a fairly reputable source ... reputable enough to publish information countering Moore's agent.

It's also possible Moore is just a journalistic boob, because he also claims on his homepage that the New Yorker "broke" the story about the prison tortures, when the article he links to credits CBS for breaking the story. If he really is a boob of that magnitude on something so simple, then maybe Disney doesn't want to deal with the implications of Moore's sloppiness.

[Shakespeare]

137. Not a journalistic boob & you haven't followed the details RE CBS/NYer

He may have linked to the CBS story, but if you'll bother to go look at CBS's response to why they decided to run the photos, it's because they got word that Sy Hersch's story was going to print in the New Yorker. They ran the photos first, but it's Hersch's story, and even CBS says so.

And please, please tell me you're not so naive that you really think Disney isn't worried about retaliation from the Bush family (in this case, tax breaks in FL)--if you have any doubts about their capacity for vengeance, I have two words for you: Valerie Plame.

Your outrage with Moore is growing a bit tiresome, especially as you continue to overlook the fact that Disney is indeed blocking distribution--doesn't really matter if they decided to block it last week or last year.

[indie_jones]

138. Disney Refused KIDS Due to Pressure from Clinton?

CBS still "broke" the story by every definition of the word "break." They chose to run with it first -- regardless of the reason. Yes, I know the New Yorker research pressured them, but they're still first.

NO, I DON'T believe Disney is all that concerned about Jeb and friends. I can think of a hundred more plausible reasons why they wouldn't put the film out.

Plus ... DISNEY IS NOT BLOCKING THIS FILM!! They're simply not distributing it.

Disney HAS chosen not to distribute other films before -- should I blame pressure from Clinton for KIDS and DOGMA? Of course not.

Moore has pulled stuff like this before when he didn't feel like he was getting his way. When Salon ran a critical piece on Moore's intern hiring practices a few years ago, he claimed it was a personal grudge dating back to Mother Jones ... and it was because Salon ran ads for Borders. When a lawyer proved that Moore re-edited several of Heston's speeches together to appear as if it was one speech, Moore said the lawyer was part of a Reagan-era conspiracy to squash Mike's work (even though he didn't deny he played fast and loose with the editing).

The man needs a tinfoil hat that reads "Out For Trout."

Still waiting on that NYT quote ...

[Shakespeare]

140. It's WHY they're not distributing it--they've said so themselves.

Disney SAID they're not distributing it because they consider it a political hot potato--this isn't something that's simply in the realm of "allegation." Where Dogma is concerned, they bowed to extreme pressure from the catholic church. Again, another instance of Disney bowing to political pressure. As far as whether one should consider it "blocking" release of the film--that all depends on how easily Disney allows Miramax to exercise its option to shop the film to other distributors. That has yet to be resolved, so the film's not totally in the clear.

And if you think Disney isn't concerned about its tax breaks in Florida....well, then you ARE naive.

Regarding the bit about Heston's speeches--at no point did Moore claim it was a single speech, and anybody with half a brain who watched Bowling for Columbine didn't come away with that impression, either. The lawyer "proved" nothing. Was Columbine deliberately sensational? You betcha. And so what? Because it was sensational doesn't mean that it was untruthful--and before you throw that tired URL at me, his "lies about BFC" have been uniformly debunked.

Moore, agree with him or not, raises hell when he's challenged. Yay for him. I remember the dustup with Salon quite well, and both sides had valid points. Salon, to their credit, ran his rebuttal in its entirety. I'm not sure how you think that's relevant to the current matter, unless you're using the argument that "Moore's an asshole, therefore everything he says is a lie." That's a logically unsound position. Very, very weak.

As a former reporter and editor, I could get into a protracted and probably deadly dull debate over who should be credited with "breaking" the torture story. I'll pass for now, but if you REALLY want to get into the finer points of what constitutes a scoop, especially as it concerns print v. broadcast, then I'm game. As I said in my first post, CBS even notes that Hersch had the story first.

As to the NYT quote, I have no idea what you're talking about. That's not something you're responding to from my post, so perhaps you meant to address that to a different poster.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. DOES ANYBODY HERE READ BEFORE POSTING?

Christ.


:freak:

[KAZ]

58. Apparently not. n/t

n/t

[rocktivity]

45. BUT DISNEY ADMITTED IT, TOO!

I read yesterday where someone at Disney said that Moore knew as of May 2003 that they weren't interested in distributing the film. And Michael states on his web site that the battle had been going on for nearly a year.

If the Guardian wants to make itself useful, the reporter should ask Disney why they won't let Michael find another distrubtor if they aren't interested.

On edit: Here we go--Michael posted this on his site yesterday.
Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing..."Fahrenheit 9/11"...

For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge...

Nice try, but they got it wrong.

:headbang:
rocknation

[indie_jones]

47. Note:

There's no reason to ask Disney "why won't they let Michael find another distributor?" They've already said:

Contrary to his assertion, Mr. Moore has had and continues to have every opportunity to either find another distributor or to distribute the film himself.

[rocktivity]

53. They're saying they said that NOW...

Why didn't Disney tell Michael to take a hike a year ago? Did they keep hinting that they might change their minds until it would be too late before the election to get another distrubtion deal?

:headbang:
rocknation

[genius]

126. DIsney had never prohibited Miramax before. This was censorship

It is important not to buy into the right wing lies about Michael.

[w4rma]

51. The film has been made. Who is the distributor, then? (nt)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. To be determined.

[truthisfreedom]

54. well, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

something sure stinks. not sure what it is yet.

[Piperay]

55. Not smart

makes Moore look like a liar and a flake. :thumbsdown:

[Democat]

73. Read the article - the headline is anti-Moore propaganda!

The headline was written to attack Moore, it doesn't speak truth.

[ElementaryPenguin]

57. Moore is brilliant! This will be a monster hit!

:bounce:

[loudsue]

61. He knew a year ago, but Disney kept PAYING him to continue the movie

THAT is why he believed Miramax that Disney was still going to distribute the film.

I saw him talking about it last night on Aaron Brown, and he made it clear that, even though Disney had said a year ago that they weren't going to distribute it, the fact that they kept PAYING MICHAEL MOORE to make the film, he BELIEVED his agent at Miramax that Disney WOULD STILL distribute the film.

The whole interview made PERFECT sense. The article is nothing but a rightwing spin of LIES LIES LIES.

And there are a bunch of "newbies" on this thread that are trying to trash Moore. Hmmmmm.

Must be a DAMN GOOD MOVIE!!! Makes DUers go "hmmmmmm".

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Buns_of_Fire]

98. Timing is everything

Assuming Disney was bankrolling him for Farenheit 911 (thru Miramax), had he made a stink of the distribution issue a year ago, Disney could well have just STOPPED paying him to make the film -- as in, ordering Miramax to pull the plug on the whole project. In that case, presto, no film, no problem for Disney.

But now, the movie is "in the can," on Disney's dime, to be released at Cannes next week. MM got what he needed -- it's finished, ready to go, and I've no doubt he'll find a distributor. In the meantime, he's getting mucho publicity (at Disney's expense).

The players got played. Gotta admit, the guy's good... :evilgrin:

[bullimiami]

64. That headline is an outright LIE

I watched the Moore interview.
There was no way to spin what he said into that BS.

[pschoeb]

76. Independent admits Moore headline a "stunt" to sell newspapers

this would be my headline. Unfortunatly newpapers left or right or center, like controversy in their headlines because it helps sell their product. It's rare to actaully see an unscewed headline, which is very sad. Unfortunatly journalistic hypocrisy is not dead.

Patrick Schoeb

[goforit]

84. roflmao!!!!........Hope Moore has a backup with another film.

If he doesn't then..........
this was all in vein!!!

[John_H]

88. More Accurate headline: Independent Seeks Disney Advertising

[PATRICK]

89. Moore gives good example of turning the tables

This was obvious to all of us that it was extremely odd Disney would touch this project and NOT attempt to squelch it. It was even more obvious why the three monkey media could never imagine or admit to imagining such a thing. SOP is to be shocked when the innocent liberal is bushwhacked at the pass and then move on.

The real story is why it never occurred to a single media outlet what this odd couple production was all about.

I bet the real surprise was that Disney believed Moore was going to sit on this film until close to the election when it could be hit and delayed until it had no effect on the great god W's victory lap.
If I am not mistaken he is suddenly ahead of schedule (as planned) and Eisner now is forced to doubly make a fool out of himself and grimly forge ahead with his now useless distribution ban.

Behold pro campaign directors, this is how you fight them with brains. They are now in a lose lose situation of either uselessly imposing censorship while pumping publicity for the film or sponsoring anti-Bush truth under the Disney aegis. People trying to defend the torture of Iraqis are now logically, by virtue of W's choked out apology, enemies of Bush and against the "heart of America". In essence Bush has called them all nuts, just as we have done all along.

No wonder they want to can Eisner. Moore really picked the right loser to tweak.

This is how exposed and inflexible the other side is, how utterly predictable, how limited in what they do once you understand they are crooks.

Take the sad example of the Florida Democrats(and any Dem going to Florida for justice) and how they always look like Alice's White Knight waving as Nerf sword in front while being stabbed by a real sword in the back over and over again.

Once you understand their rules it's as easy as chess and most of these elite jerks can't even get checkers. Probably the media headline is just another dumb misinterpretation, a stunned bemusal of disbelief that Moore could foresee(and count on) such a thing coming. The media by now might be just that dumb. After listening far to long to some of the fairer pundits and reporters I am afraid they are.

[robbedvoter]

94. Surprise, schmurprise - censorship is censorship # 26 clears it

Desperate attempt to spin.

[Bridget Burke]

100. New headline: "Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban' "

It seems to have changed since the beginning of the thread. Actuall reflects the content of the article.

This topic surely brings out the trolls!

Stunt or not, lots of people will see the movie. Go, Michael.

[Citizen Daryl]

101. I read the CNN interview ... he admitted NO SUCH THING.

Have I said yet today how much I *HATE* these people?!??

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. Interestingly, The Independent has changed the story slightly

the headline is now
"Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'"
though they don't say who is accusing it of being a stunt (apart from themselves). They say
But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working.

[rocktivity]

108. Absolutely fabulous news, sweetie darlings!

We were right--the story WAS a smear!

As Judge Judy says, "I don't believe your story because IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!" Well, it didn't make sense to me that Mike would hang around Disney for a year knowing he'd be disappointed, nor did it make sense that Disney wouldn't let Mike go if they wanted nothing to do with the movie. There were pieces missing from this puzzle, and I'm grateful to Loudsue and Patrick for supplying them. Disney WAS deliberately stringing Mike along by paying him, and Mike outsmarted them by finishing ahead of schedule and shipping the movie to Cannes. Now Disney will either HAVE to let him walk away (with THEIR money, LOL), distribute the movie (with their tails between their legs), or explain why they financed a movie they had NO INTENTION of distributing (Censorship? Breach of contract? YOU make the call, Mr. Einser!). NOW this story makes sense!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Richardo]

106. This is why I don't like Michael Moore...he's the O'Reilly of the left

He diminishes his messages by selective manipulation of the facts and blatant showboating.

[Misunderestimator]

107. Once and For All... Will Someone Please Explain

How there are so many people on the left that bash Michael Moore??? I just don't get it. It's like we just can't take a little wart here and there, so we cut off the entire limb instead of seeing its usefullness in our cause. And Michael Moore, who I respect and admire, is doing more than most of us here, and possibly more than all of us, to bring the truth to those who are still living in lalaland.

GO MICHAEL.... LOVE YOU MAN!!

[Bridget Burke]

110. Let me break the news to you.....

Some of the people who post at DU are not really on the left. Sad, but true.

Others may dislike him since he's not a tortured intellectual, writing in obscurity. He's actually made a bunch of money.

Then there are the Nader supporters. Moore was one, but has moved on.

Moore gets the attention of those who may not yet be ready for more intellectually rigorous thinkers. Good for him.

[rman]

109. except for the fact that the ban is real. corrected headline:

"Moore admits Disney 'ban' was not recent"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. Since this is the UK, Moore can sue them for libel...they have to prove

the STUNT part was true....Moore should file a lawsuit for this headline.

[davidinalameda]

112. okay--let's lose a little bit more credibility

the freepers are gonna eat this up

[dolstein]

115. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so

And to think I was branded by at least one DU'er as a corporate whore for pointing out that, given the history with films like Dogma and Happiness, it should have come as no surprise to Michael Moore that Miramax would not be allowed to distribute Farehnheit 911.

[genius]

116. NOT A STUNT: Are people here dumb enough to fall for hyped headlines?

There Is a difference between knowing of problems in advance and creating them as a stunt. Disney, for the first time in its history, prohibited Miramax from distributing one of its movies. Even if he knew about Disney's objections, the head of Miramax did not think it would be a problem. Why would he think so? It had never been a problem in the past.

What is really upsetting is that someone twists the facts for a headline that makes censorship look right and people here are ready to fall for it. No wonder our country is in danger of four more years.

[samsingh]

117. no where does it say moore admits to a stunt

[Bridget Burke]

119. C'mon, you're expecting people will actually read the article

before popping off! That's no fun.

The title has changed several times since the original posting.

[genius]

120. It doesn't. They're just trying to discredit him.

Perhaps they are trying to hurt his chances at Cannes. Those who want to supress the film are really nasty.

[nolabels]

129. Jeepers creepers where did you get all them freepers

"Eat what and die?"

Read that on train car that past my town. Unlike the right people on the left can be resurrected a few times after committing a mistake (unless its too egregious or course). Judging people on their good will and intent rather some perceived so called "sin" is how it works.

The thing that tickles me is the right, at one time, accused the left of wanting to make everybody a communist, but lately the Fascist Corporatists and the Wing Nuts seem to have a much closer resemblance to the old stalinists of yore.

Coming here to debate you might get by, but purging your :puke: here like its a dipository..........well forget it.

I just hope they are happy with their Humpty Dumpty

[NashVegas]

141. After Careful Consideration, We're Locking

The original headline of the article may have changed from what was originally posted, or the poster may have changed it.

Either way, it's an apparently misleading article. Thanks to the eagle-eyed ones of DU for taking it apart.