Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

ASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for 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 Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

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.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.

[ 05-05-2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Well, it wouldn't be happening if you damned liberals hadn't handed over huge hunks of the private sector to the gummint to manage. If state governors didn't have control of the faucet of money flow through tax breaks and other gummint money programs, Disney wouldn't be having to factor the gummint into its business decisions. This ain't a problem with Disney of business -- it's fallout from society letting government get its big fat hands into too many cookie jars.

Erm, I guess it's clear that I think it's Disney's business to run and Disney's decision to make. In light of the circumstances, it sounds like a reasonable decision.

Anyway, perhaps Mr. Moore could take it up w/ Disney directly. In fact, if he walked/ran from Michigan to Florida (rather than fly or drive) to meet with them, maybe he'd at least look presentable the next time he decides to use an awards show as a political pulpit.

Do liberals really do that kind of thing in America? Seems quite erm..un-liberal to me [img]smile.gif[/img] No wonder so many American's hate liberals!

But it's still surely not a desirable thing to be occuring? The self-censorship that occurs in the US can only be described as sinister from an outsider's point of view. Read some Chomsky, he has a lot to say about things like this

I'm glad SOMEBODY at Disney figured out that pissing off over 50% of the population is NOT a good business strategy. 'bout <font color=steelblue>censored</font>' time.


<font color=steelblue>
Edited for extreme profanity.</font>

[ 05-07-2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

So instead they piss off the other 50%. Smart move on their part!

[ 05-07-2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Actually DBear, it's more that 50% that like Bush.

Uh, Shamrock? If more people here read Noam Chomsky, more people would despise him and the left.

Yeah. Damn friggin clever. I'm sure they make much more money on that movie by not releasing it.

Disney keeps Miramax from distributing a movie. In my opinion, that's a pretty shitty thing do do, no matter what movie that happens to be.

[ 05-07-2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Blame the liberals!!! They should all be dragged out into the street shot! No real American wants everyone to be clothed, housed, fed, and to have healthcare regardless of economic conditon.

Kill them all, starting with Mr. Moore, for his audacious film full of critisim of our beloved leader, Bush, the first president ordained and guided by God personally.


Death to the liberals! (Though I am unsure what liberals have to do with a major entertainment conglomerate practicing what basically amounts to political censorship)


(This post is chocked full of sarcasm- in case you can't tell)

Thanks, Chewie -- I agree 100% [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

I had a post on this last night that failed to go through. Little time today. Basically, it's the fault of big government -- which liberals tend to support. If we had not let our government become such a financial actor, Disney would not be factoring the gummint's opinion into Disney's business decisions. The enemy here is government hand outs and incentives. The problem with government is that its a self-propogating monster. It just grows and grows and gobbles up society. 40% of Americans depend on the government for their money in one way or another. How far a cry from socialism it that? (None if you as me.)

To wrap back around and close the loop here, I note every liberal I know supports more government involvement in just about everything. They want to feed the monster. Almost every government employ will vote Democrat and support more government employment, hiring, and growth. It's simply what is.

Now, to put on the other hat for a minute, I note that Republicans are really interested in the government money too -- they like to spend it on companies they own or are friendly with. So, they aren't exactly the "good guys" here. But, at least some Republicans I know would like to see a real downsizing of the government -- and that would be a nice start.

[ 05-06-2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Terrible move!! Just like they did with images with flag drapped coffin. What's going to be censored next?!

Chewie, do you relize how offense that statement was, even though you weren't serious. How would you feel if I said kill the conservatives for supporting this shitty president.

Gab,

According to some I am a consumate liberal. That is only half-true. For example, I am pro-choice, support affirmative action, and oppose the death penalty.

On the conservative tip I also believe in shrinking government spending (and cutting personal taxes) and drastically curtailing encrouchment into the lives of private citizens. We can begin by ending the expensive and unsuccessful drug war and reducing our 'costly to maintain' nuclear arsenal by 75% with the eventual goal of total worldwide disarmament. I beleive that deficits are bad and balanced budgets are the way to go.

On the liberal tip I think that corporations should bear a heavier tax burden and should recieve the strongest penalties for enviromental transgressions.

And-so-on-and--so-on-doobie-doobie-doo-whah....

In general I think the terms liberal and conservatives are typically used as giant red herrings. They are often labels used to distract away from addressing real issues in a meaningful way.

My blantantly obvious (as well as duly noted) sarcasm was designed to adress this point. I would perhaps find it more offensive (or rather distasteful) that someone would go totally off-topic to attack the mythic liberal love of big-guvernment rather than address the implied political pressure being brought to bear upon a media conglomerate by the so-called "conservative" majority party currently in power.

The same converative party that currently rules the Federal Censorship Commission (A.K.A the F.C.C.) The same conservatives that have increased government spending more than %10 since becoming the majority in the leglislative branch and controling the executive branch. The same conservatives that have expanded the drug war and spend billions to fight adult entertainment. I could go on and on about how ridulous these so-called conservatives are throwing our money away and infringing on our liberties. I have not even touched upon how they are pushing their veiws of religion into government in ways that smacks of theocracy.

Bottom-line, many liberals arent that liberal at all and many conservatives are really fakes- theocrats and/or authoritarions in diguise. Both sides have those who would or do push extreme agendas that serve their vested interests and have no need to find the middle ground.

So you'll just have to over-look my sarcastic little rant hinting at a final solution for the liberal problem. The irony of liberals being invoked in this issue threw me into sarcasm overload.

How 'bout we... censor everything offensive? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

One thing you have to understand is, Moore's criticism of Bush, especially for being connected to the Bin Laden family, whether they were or not, is likely going to be the same one-sided reporting, biased representation and paranoid assumptions that comprised his previous film. The results promise to be VERY ugly, and I can't blame Disney for not wanting to release, also in lieu of their connections to the G-Monster, which means they're forced to think of the government as well. Besides, this is Disney we're talking about! This isn't just any studio, and Miramax should have known better... To think that these same people backed Gangs of New York...

Was this quote lifted word for word from an Anne Coulter book or speech? Because it sounds a LOT like her.

What's the big deal? Disney just said they will not distribute the movie. Thay didn't say Moore could find someone else to release his latest hunk of shit.

LOL i hear a lot of squealing' like stuck pigs going on here :D

Awwwww shucks guys, I’m sure the government will be able to handle the truth because they have nothing to hide (have they?). And if Moore is lying in his film the mainstream press will destroy it in 5 minutes flat [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

So what’s the problem? :D If you don’t like the film just switch the TV over to fox news. If you don’t want to read his book read the comic strips instead. Why do the paranoid hate freedom of speech or expression so much? They go on and on about freedom of rights but if a train of thought goes against their beliefs they don’t blink when big business try’s to shut it down! If you feel that the film is misleading, watch it first for yourself then use the free press to ridicule it! Please don’t use the modern day method equivalent to stoning the producer and burning his medium

Oh and welcome back to Ironworks Khazadman [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

Looks like both Lion's Gate and Sony Classic is interested in picking the film up-
From IMDB:

Uproar Over 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Heats Up

Controversy is again swirling around provocative documentary filmmaker Michael Moore (Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine) following Miramax's announcement on Wednesday that it will not be distributing Moore's latest film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Earlier, the Walt Disney Co. said that it would prevent Miramax, which it owns, from releasing it, even though Miramax had financed it. Zenia Mucha, a spokeswoman for the company (herself a former adviser to New York Republican politicos George Pataki and Alfonse D'Amato), said that "it was not appropriate for Disney ... to be the distributor of a politically charged movie in an election year." Critics immediately pointed out that some of Disney's ABC radio stations present a daily barrage of politically charged programming, generally reflecting conservative opinion. "All I can say is, thank God for [Miramax Co-chairman] Harvey Weinstein, who stood by me during the entire production of this movie," Moore said in a statement posted on his website on Wednesday. The film is due to compete at the Cannes Film Festival next week for the festival's Palme d'Or award. Michael Barker, co-president of Sony Pictures Classics, which released the controversial Oscar-winning The Fog of War, told today's (Thursday) San Francisco Chronicle that he expects to see Moore's picture at Cannes and that he might be interested in distributing it "if Miramax pitches it to us and it's anything like The Fog of War." Likewise a Lions Gate spokesman told the Toronto Star that his company would also consider releasing the film, adding: "We tend not to be frightened off the controversial projects." Ironically, the title of Moore's film derives from the 1953 Ray Bradbury sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451 about a society that burns controversial books, forcing a group of dissidents to memorize the classics in order to preserve them. The ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 bear the tagline: "The Temperature Where Freedom Burns."

Rokken! I love your new sig! And it's from a REAL War President!

Thanks! Yeah it is sad to see how far the Republican Party had devolved in 90 years.

some fun Teddy facts-
He was famous for being anti racist.

When he was police chief of New York City an anti-semitic high German official was visiting New York, he made sure that the entire police detail who would protect the German were Jewish.

He is the youngest man ever to serve as President (at the time he took office).

He is the first U.S. President to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

He is the first President to fly in a plane, ride in a car, submerge in submarine and visit a foreign country during his Presidency.

He started work on the Panama Canal.

He was a strong environmentalist.

He liked children so much, that many times he was found playing with kids in the White House.

The Teddy Bear was named in his honor.

[ 05-07-2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

DBear, you'll want to clean up your language if you're going to keep posting. I haven't been following this thread and someone just alerted me to the above, so I want to take the opportunity to remind everyone to keep it family friendly.

[ 05-07-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Right behind you on this one! [img]smile.gif[/img]

And Khazad, the if is the whole point. The American right doesn't read Chomsky or anything similar because of this automatic disdain for the liberal. Yet we cannot ignore that whilst some of their points are just as daft as those coming from the far right, people like Chomsky still have important points to make, whether you agree with them or not.
It's the failure to even consider alternative points of view as having merit that is largely responsible for America's foreign policy performance.

[ 05-07-2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

It goes well beyond the mere failure of consideration with regards to alternative veiwpoints.

What we have is people in power who rarely take account for their own blunders and, without a doubt, seek to destroy any internal dissent by just about any means neccessary.

We have seen a CIA operative's cover blown because her husband had the ballz to blow the whistle with regards to the African uranium intel error.

We have a long line of public servants including: Generals, counter-terror experts, leading economists, and others who have endured character assassination ranging from their very loyalty to country being questioned to petty name-calling for questioning the wisdom of the current administration's various policies.

What we have seen in the last four years is the death of compromise, moderation, and centristism in favor of blind, narrow ideaology. This has only fed the polarized partisan system that is not only prone to error due to the rigid adherence to party ideaology, but is divisive in a way I can only consider "unAmerican".

In my opinion, It will be a while before our political system recovers from this schism that is a long time brewwing. We may not even be past the worst. But I shall remain steadfastly optimistic for the day when bipartisanship, compromise, moderation, and mere basic honorability is restored in the halls of the White House and on the floor's of the leglislators.

[ 05-07-2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

But Shamrock we have been trying some of the loony things the left wants to force on us. Like Johnson's idiotic war on poverty. Trillions were spent on it, yet we still have poverty.

And by the way, it turns out this whole Disney thing is just another lie cooked up by Moore to get publicity for his latest piece of junk. He's known for a year that Disney was not going to distribute it.

Sounds a lot like the right's idiotic war on drugs.

Sounds a lot like the right's idiotic war on drugs. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, true. And I'm wondering, is that terrorism thing still around? I thought some folks said they could get rid of that...

Hmm...i'm not sure a war on poverty is an idiotic thing to try however...

I remember a French minister giving a rebuttal to the criticism by an American one over the new EU working time directive (which limits the number of hours per week somebody can work) and he said (roughly, my memory fails me) "in Europe, we judge the success of our economies not by how close it is to a capitalist ideal but by the amount that somebody has to work to have a good standard of living". (One of the most sensible things i've heard coming out of a French minister for a while that!). Thus we largely avoid the issues that are discussed in the 'working poor' thread.

Sure, our productivity may be slightly lower than the US, but it's the price we pay for supporting those who can't support themselves. As long as there are decent measures in place to prevent benefit fraud I cannot see what any 'decent' human being (please don't think i'm passing judgement, just my opinion) can have against it.

Linking to Chewie's post, perhaps it is the polarization (for want of a better word) between left and right in the US that means things like the above are almost taboo. In the UK for example, our left-wing parties have some right-wing policies and vice versa - this (asides from being a pain at election time) seems to be a very sensible system, because both parties are free to adopt the best policies for a given situation. In the US that doesn't seem to happen to the same extent.

That's why when if i ever end up arguing with American's in a right-wing forum over foreign policy for example, i'll be labelled a bleeding-heart liberal, even though I would consider myself standing to the right of centre. There's no flexibility in the American system, so everybody who criticises one aspect of a right-wing government automatically gets associated with the extreme left-wing. It's like Israel branding people anti-semitic for criticising their activities in Palestine and not understanding that it's perfectly possible for one to be anti-zionist without being anti-semitic. In order to solve America's poverty problem, the whole country needs to understand that you don't have to be a liberal in order to worry about a welfare state and bring some compassion to a capitalist system.

Edited and added for clarity

[ 05-07-2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Heh, yeah i just read that. He is a nutter sometimes. I certainly don't like him as a person, and i don't agree with a lot of his views, but I would challenge anybody to say that America wasn't better off following the release of Bowling for Columbine for example.

Whether you believe it all or not, if it makes just one person in America sit up and think, maybe do some research about all the instances about the US overthrowing democracy for example, then it's worth it.

You never know, that one person might have been the next Rumsfeld.

And how has he been producing the film then? Did Miramax just give him an "Okay we're gonna make the movie, but you'll have to know that we won't distribute it. Please take it elsewhere when it actually starts to make money"
Sources please!
There may be a logical explanation to why Moore knew that Disney would turn him down and still stayed with Miramax. Please post a link so we can read it.

From my POV it looks like a pretty stupid move from Disney, because this issue is doing a great deal of publicity for a film which won't make THEM any money when it's finally released by someone.

To call Moore a crusader for the Truth by any stretch of the term insults crusaders and the truth.

If Dave Hardy can bust Moore down like Moore busted Heston's chops, I'm sure the government can handle him, after all, this is the same group of fine folks who part of the lid on Kennedy for nearly 30 years...

America wasn't better off following the release of Bowling for Columbine.

[ 05-07-2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

I disagree.
Because BFC made us "bleeding heart liberal Europeans" realise that there are some "bleeding heart liberal" Americans" too, which greatly improved the opinion Europeans (especially intellectuals) had of the US.
Believe it or not, BFC was the base of a major opinion change in Europe. Many people now don't think badly about the US but only about the US government, which can be shrugged off easily in the near future when the government changes (be Bush reelected or not, it's only a matter of time). A lot of bad prejudice against the American people is gone and that's thanks to Mr. Moore and his movies.

Well you better be prepared to hate the US for a while Faceman because the left in this country is self-destructing. Why else would they run a self-confessed war criminal for president.

How does the ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away make our lot over here better? It doesn't.

Bowling For Columbine hasn't improved America, but projected a false image of America. One is given the sense that Americans are a bunch of fringe-lunatics on the edge and ready to snap at any moment, that all gun owners are racist twits etcetera ad infinitum ad nauseum ad absurdum. Moore is a salesman, pure and simple. He doesn't care about the American people any more than John D. Rockefeller or James Pierpont Morgan did. He wants money, and selling people on 'radical' ideas based on shock-u-mentary styled pretenses happens to be big business.

It's as George Carlin said:

"The biggest industry in America today is the manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of bullshit. High quality bullshit, 100% pure American Grade A bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless."

Priceless!!!

We're all ignorant I tell you!!

Ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away?
*THIS* is why America has a bad image over there.

Interesting quote usage, by the way. I doubt Georgie himself would take either side in this debate, however.

Priceless!!!

We're all ignorant I tell you!! </font>[/QUOTE]Though you are trying to display whimsy wit, you're right. We are all ingnorant ..... about a great many things. There are many things that I am ignorant of, and since you are not omniscient, there are many things you are ignorant of.

Ignorance is lack of knowlege, and since knowlege is categorized by topic, ignorance itself is thereby topic specific. Even the most sheltered ingorant fool can teach a Nobel Prize winning Phd something.

Ignorance is lack of knowlege, not lack of intelligence. But surely you knew that. ;)

I'm going to ignore your introducing statement and still disagree.
BFC does NOT present all gun owners as a group of racist, lunatic, right-wingers.
1. It would be a far stretch to present them as a small number of "gun-nuts" in a country where there's about 1 gun/inhabitant.
2. It's clearly stated that Canada has a lot of guns while presenting Canadians as a bunch of very peaceful people (Unfair or not, but gun owners are not attacked here specifically

IMHO the movie raises the issue the US has with violence, be it fictional or very real.
"WHY do [Americans] kill each other at this rate" is the question MM repeatedly asks and comes up with a lot of possible answers which he then procures to discover don't necessarily apply.
The film doesn't give any answers or come to any conclusions on this issue - which may be viewed as a weakness or as a strong point from different POVs.

And how has he been producing the film then? Did Miramax just give him an "Okay we're gonna make the movie, but you'll have to know that we won't distribute it. Please take it elsewhere when it actually starts to make money"
Sources please!
</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>All the sources you need are provided in the opening post, <font color=white>Faceman</font>. Here is the relevant excerpt...

<font color=white>Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for 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 Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

<font color=yellow>"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."</font>

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

<font color=yellow>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.</font> 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.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."</font>

I know it is really hard to believe that Michael Moore would falsely portray himself as a hapless victim of a Big Business Corporation just to generate publicity for himself and his latest film, but stranger things have happened. :rolleyes:

As for all the outrage over Disney's decision, their right to make such a decision is also summed up in one line from the opening post...

<font color=white>A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films <font color=yellow>if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company.</font></font>

Some of you may disagree with the decision, but ANY corporation has the innate right to establish and enforce policies that protect the corporations best interests.</font>

[ 05-08-2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

I disagree.
Because BFC made us "bleeding heart liberal Europeans" realise that there are some "bleeding heart liberal" Americans" too, which greatly improved the opinion Europeans (especially intellectuals) had of the US.
Believe it or not, BFC was the base of a major opinion change in Europe. Many people now don't think badly about the US but only about the US government, which can be shrugged off easily in the near future when the government changes (be Bush reelected or not, it's only a matter of time). A lot of bad prejudice against the American people is gone and that's thanks to Mr. Moore and his movies. </font>[/QUOTE]Touche.

Oblivion, it doesn't matter whether you think Moore is right or wrong, a nutter or not, the point is that in the US the tendency is instinctively not to watch or even consider that some points raised might have credibility. This is unhealthy in the extreme as countless political philosophers have pointed out, perhaps the most noted that comes to mind being Mill.

As for your 'ignorant people across the ocean' comment, the European's are still willing to consider alternative points of view. Hence, "give us evidence that Saddam has WMD's and we'll help" for example. The American's in contrast, weren't willing to accept that he might not have any at all.

As for the comments about American's being false portrayed as ignorant by BFC, large swathes of the population are. Especially in the small, god-fearing towns that make up the bulk of middle America. My tutor for international relations has just come to the UK from teaching the same subject in America for several years, and he is amazed at how ignorant the average student he taught was about the rest of the world. It's hard for news from the next state to get on your TV in the US, let alone the rest of the world. When world news does appear, it's through blinkered and distorted eyes.

I would also like to consider myself as not being ignorant, having spent several months in America at various points in my life, and I have to say that the 'ignorant American' stereotype does seem to be accurate, and also that the 'bleeding heart liberal' seems to be the most informed type of American. I know schoolteachers who didn't realise that Britain was an island, but thought it was attached to mainland Europe. People think that Saddam masterminded September 11th because the government linked him to Al-Qaeda. People fall back on patriotism as a substitute for original thinking.

I just watched a news report which went to the hometown of Lynndie England and asked local residents what they thought, and their answers were apalling. Things like "well, people forget about the atrocities in World War Two" (which is relavent how?) and "this is them trying to show us as the bad guys. but we're not." It is this stubborn refusal to believe that the world view of the US as the 'bad guy' could be founded in some truth that is most damaging. All this taking place with the "patriotic shoe shop" (actual sign!!) in the background.

Sure, some people are indoctrinated to hate the US, obviously this isn't a valid viewpoint. But most Europeans are well-educated and have easy access to unbiased media sources yet large amounts would view America as the 'bad guy'. Even if you don't accept that this number of people must be right, the big failure is when you don't even examine the validity of their views.

Instead, dissenting voices are branded taboo - witness the vicious backlash amongst some of the American public against the French for example. Also the portrayal of the Arabic world as being almost sub-human and who's protests against American actions are brushed aside as if they don't matter. Of course, what the average american has never been told is that there have been several hugely succesful Arabic and Islamic empires before America was a twinkle in a pilgrim's eye. Civilization was born there and they have a rich history. Just because their culture is so different, doesn't mean it's automatically inferior.

But i digress. BFC was good for America because it gave the rest of the world hope that there are some people inside America who may yet consider alternate views, understand the need for the US to consider others in its foreign policy and ultimately make the world a safer place.