[moki]

Just some interesting excepts from this review of "Fahrenheit 9/11"; I highly recommend reading the entire article.

from: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

.....

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

--snip--

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States...

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

[Spliff]

Moki,

I agree, it's a devasting article by Hitchen's. It's what he specilizes in.

But we've already got a thread about this article:

The Left pilloried by the Left

[moki]

Originally posted by Spliff:
I agree, it's a devasting article by Hitchen's. It's what he specilizes in.

But we've already got a thread about this article:

Apologies for missing the thread. Regardless, it certainly is a hit piece -- but it's a well-written and amusing hit-piece.

It also does a good job of punching holes in the "facts" that the film is based upon -- as does the Newsweek article on the subject, if you haven't read it.

Look, we all know what this film is about. Even Moore said it himself. It's a thinly veiled attempt to get Bush out of the White House. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps the lack of sincerity in the piece is its downfall.

A work can be interesting and enjoyable as a movie -- but it can also be indefensibly based on false premises and innuendo as a "documentary."

[moki]

A very poignant comment on Moore and the film, by someone I know how is no Bush sycophant.

.....

Moore calls Bush a liar because he used the political system to communicate fiction. Moore uses the documentary system to communicate fiction. Bush was mislead, Moore makes money by being a professional misleader..the ultimate form of propaganda. Bush is a serving politician. Moore is a wealthy corporation fooling the buying public.

Moore says he is using facts when in reality he is using the power of emotion to appear as facts (Bush reading the book, vs Bush's heartfelt sorrow at deaths) Moore says his film is a documentary when it is the purest form of propaganda (using out of context images and inflammatory words to incite hatred)

Moore is is the monster he once hated. A Stupid White Guy, A corrupt corporation and a professional liar. Time for a doco on Moore....

[Timo]

I've always thought if we could sell Mr Moore to the Right (or do some kind of prisoner swap), few prices would be too much.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by moki:
. . . Moore says his film is a documentary when it is the purest form of propaganda (using out of context images and inflammatory words to incite hatred)

I mostly agree with Hitchens' assessment of Moore, but it's worth noting that Moore has publicly acknowledged that the movie is a political statement and nothing more. He doesn't claim that it represents a complete or balanced picture, and it's not necessarily his fault that film festivals tend to put such films in the "Documentary" category (not that he goes out of his way to discourage them ). It's just that anything that isn't a dramatization gets put into "Documentary." What they should probably do is create a new category for "Best Political Rant" or "Best Political Satire" or something.

I think conservatives are frustrated by his success, just as liberals are frustrated by Rush Limbaugh's success. They can't fathom it. But like Limbaugh, he articulates the feelings of a lot of people, and he can be funny. I think of him as an absurdist as much as anything - whatever your political orientation, how can you not laugh (or cringe, or both) when Dubya gives a soundbite on terrorism, then says "Now watch this drive!!!"?

[Will McGoonigle]

Hi, my name's Andrew Moki Welch and I want you to buy my software and vote George Boof. Now watch this drive huhuh.




Hint hint Moki, you're not that different from Moore's worser aspects.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by moki:
A very poignant comment on Moore and the film, by someone I know how is no Bush sycophant.

.....

Moore calls Bush a liar because he used the political system to communicate fiction. Moore uses the documentary system to communicate fiction. Bush was mislead, Moore makes money by being a professional misleader..the ultimate form of propaganda. Bush is a serving politician. Moore is a wealthy corporation fooling the buying public.

Moore says he is using facts when in reality he is using the power of emotion to appear as facts (Bush reading the book, vs Bush's heartfelt sorrow at deaths) Moore says his film is a documentary when it is the purest form of propaganda (using out of context images and inflammatory words to incite hatred)

Moore is is the monster he once hated. A Stupid White Guy, A corrupt corporation and a professional liar. Time for a doco on Moore....

Amazing how "objectives commentators" can use "name calling" in their critique.

I prefer Ebert...

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:
Hi, my name's Andrew Moki Welch and I want you to buy my software and vote George Boof. Now watch this drive huhuh.




Hint hint Moki, you're not that different from Moore's worser aspects.

What an incredibly mature response! I look forward to reading more enlightening posts that make my brain want to grow arms and strangle you, then me.

[xenu]

If Moore gets this much hate press, he must be saying something worth hearing.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by xenu:
If Moore gets this much hate press, he must be saying something worth hearing.

Contradict "facts", expose discrepensies, false allegations and convoluted logic equals hate press? You sound like Moore.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Amusing post from Volokh. Like him, I can't confirm the authenticity:

Moore and the New York Times:


Dan Gifford passes this along; it was apparently transcribed by a listener, purportedly from the June 18, 2004 Late Show with David Letterman. Don't know if it's true, and I won't assume that it is. But it's at least a good joke:


David Letterman: How do we know what's in your film [Fahrenheit 9/11] is true?


Michael Moore: Because I got most of my information from The New York Times.


Audience: Wild laughter.


Letterman: Strains to repress laughing


Moore: What's so funny?



(I should mention that Moore was indeed on the June 18 show, but the excerpt available on the highlights site is only of Moore's memories of his Oscar night).

[Orion27]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Amusing post from Volokh. Like him, I can't confirm the authenticity:

I read the the Times ( print version ) everyday. I wonder how many in this Forum do.
Barring even the recent trouble at the Times ( questionable accuracy of it's reporting and credibility of it's staff ) the joke is still funny. Sadly, the New York audience got it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Amazing how "objectives commentators" can use "name calling" in their critique.

There's no such thing as an objective commentator. The ones who are honest about their biases are the second-best thing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:
Trash

You are a simple man.

[Will McGoonigle]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are a simple man.

That's a compliment. You're a complicated Christian terrorist who thinks Israelis would like him.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:
That's a compliment. You're a complicated Christian terrorist who thinks Israelis would like him.

Christian terrorist?


And I know many Israeli's. I almost married one.

I assure you, I am well liked by them.

[DBursey]

You're well liked by and almost married an Israeli man? Good for you! Confession is good for the soul.

Edit: Winking smiley takes edge from post

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Will McGoonigle:
That's a compliment. You're a complicated Christian terrorist who thinks Israelis would like him.

Those are some rather serious accusations; care to back them up? Particularly the "terrorist" bit?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There's no such thing as an objective commentator. The ones who are honest about their biases are the second-best thing.

Isn't that what Moore is?
I prefer it when the critic is at least polite, like Ebert.

BlackGriffen

P.S. Cut it to McGoony. You're making an @ss of yourself and hurting your cause.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Those are some rather serious accusations; care to back them up? Particularly the "terrorist" bit?

It's ok.. he isn't doing anything buy harming himself.

[itai195]

FWIW, a negative review from a liberal author at Salon. Seems pretty thoughtful.

Although he has stated that his aim is to force the election's outcome by calling attention to the Bush administration's web of duplicity and deceit, Moore, ever the self-promoter, is the real star of "Fahrenheit 9/11." I agree with probably 95 percent of Moore's politics. At the very least, I'm convinced that George W. Bush is the most dangerous president of my lifetime -- he long ago superseded even the spurious, deceitful Nixon. But even though I'm part of the choir Moore is preaching to, I can't help blanching at his approach: In this increasingly treacherous political climate -- particularly as we approach an election whose impact may resound more thunderously than any other in recent history -- preaching to the choir just isn't good enough. "Fahrenheit 9/11" shows evidence of being better researched than any of Moore's previous films. An article in last Sunday's New York Times made much of Moore's hiring former New Yorker fact checkers to vet it. But Moore's case is undermined by his jokey, faux-populist self-righteousness (a quality the left seems to despise only when it's exhibited by those on the right) and by the slapdash connections he makes between various facts and events. The issues at stake are too serious for a spotlight-hungry manipulator like Moore to be mucking around with.

Moore isn't wrong in considering Bush's actions grave sins against the American people. The problem is that instead of marshaling his strength to drive home his genuinely good zingers, he bunny-hops across the landscape of his movie, scoring cheap points wherever he can. He uses his smirky, aw-shucks filmmaking techniques to encourage complacency in his audience even when he thinks he's doing the opposite: To hammer home the point that Bush is a marauding cowboy, Moore gives us a mock-up of the opening credits to "Bonanza," with Bush's face superimposed where Lorne Greene's should be. (The faces of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair round out the fearsome foursome.) The screening audience I saw the movie with giggled appreciatively, delighted to see George W. made to look like a buffoon. Elsewhere, hokey hoedown music plays in the background against images of Bush, who's fond of stomping around in a cowboy hat on his endless Crawford retreats. (Bill Clinton's enemies often used similar "hick" music to paint him as a dumb rube from the South -- but then, the use of country music is the universal signal for "Looky here -- a stupid person!") Moore doesn't realize that in falling back on the cliché of painting the president as a cowboy, he's missing the real phoniness: Bush is a New Haven-born blueblood who affected a Texas demeanor.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by itai195:
FWIW, a negative review from a liberal author at Salon.

The author evidently doesn't have a clue when it comes to Nixon. Nixon was paranoid and a liar. He was vindictive, an anti semite and went about purposely inciting the political opposition. Together with Spiro Agnew, there was never a more chilling political couple.
Bush and Cheney are babes in arms compared to them. Boy, you guy's need to get a grip.
You don't have a clue.

[itai195]

How about reading the review rather than attacking the minutiae of the author's political beliefs? There's stuff in there that anyone can agree about:

Moore is a very specific and slippery kind of bully: He glides along on his underdog status as if it were a parade float. He professes to feel great compassion for the common man. Yet over and over again, in movie after movie, he invites the audience to chuckle over ordinary people. Why? In "Fahrenheit 9/11" he lists the countries that stepped forward as members of Bush's Coalition of the Willing (Palau, Costa Rica, Iceland, Romania, Morocco, and the Netherlands among them), accompanied by funny stock footage of people in costumes of many lands. If Moore is the left's great spokesman by default, shouldn't he be using his influence (not to mention his money) to raise the level of political discourse in this country instead of lowering it? Instead we have a filmmaker who manages the feat of getting liberal audiences to laugh at how funny those foreigners are.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There's no such thing as an objective commentator. The ones who are honest about their biases are the second-best thing.

Which I tried to express by the use of< ">.

I do believe in a minimum of respect towards the reviewees. The name calling is not necessary, either from this guy or from Moore.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by itai195:
How about reading the review rather than attacking the minutiae of the author's political beliefs? There's stuff in there that anyone can agree about:

True, I agree with this point of view, but I expect to see the movie and make my own critique at some point.

[thunderous_funker]

I can certainly appreciate Hitchen's POV. I really can. However, that article reeks of seething personal animosity akin to sibling rivalry.

We could engage in some probing discussion about why our culture seems to venerate low-brow's like Moore and effectively ignore serious, dedicated seditionists and muckrackers like Hitchens.

Why is Limbaugh more popular than Wm F. Buckley?

I've always been a fan of Moore's but his rapidly expanding cult of personality is making it harder to remain so.

I guess the biggest problem I have with his critics, Right or Left, is that they seem to fall too readily into essentially the same camp: people who violently resent Moore's bully pulpit. People like Hitchens hate him for not being smarter, more topical, more accurate and methodical in presenting his arguments. Theirs is the anger of righteous indignation, wishing they had Moore's audience to really put out the "Real Story". They hate him for "dumbing down" complex issues and "preaching to the choir" instead of converting Righties or illuminating history's horrible crimes.

Yeah, Moore panders to his market. Just like everyone else in the entertainment business.

I guess I am always amazed that people are outraged or even surprised by that.

[mr. natural]

I'd like to suggest that it is also unwise of Hitchens to quote Orwell from 1945 when we live in a world almost 60 years removed from his time. For although Orwell was an incrediblely astute critic of his time and the politics back then, one thing is clear: This isn't then! So who the f*ck knows how Orwell would respond to the issues we are dealing with. Basically, Orwell could be quoted for and against a lot of what is happening today!

So, in this regard I find it presumptious of both Moore and Hitchens to quote him in this context, when as thunderous_funker notes, Hitchen's review amounts to a spat between op-ed essayists.

That is what Moore does: he presents an opinionated essay in film. Anyone critising Moore as a *documentary* film maker is just being stupid.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I can certainly appreciate Hitchen's POV. I really can. However, that article reeks of seething personal animosity akin to sibling rivalry.

We could engage in some probing discussion about why our culture seems to venerate low-brow's like Moore and effectively ignore serious, dedicated seditionists and muckrackers like Hitchens.

Why is Limbaugh more popular than Wm F. Buckley?

I've always been a fan of Moore's but his rapidly expanding cult of personality is making it harder to remain so.

I guess the biggest problem I have with his critics, Right or Left, is that they seem to fall too readily into essentially the same camp: people who violently resent Moore's bully pulpit. People like Hitchens hate him for not being smarter, more topical, more accurate and methodical in presenting his arguments. Theirs is the anger of righteous indignation, wishing they had Moore's audience to really put out the "Real Story". They hate him for "dumbing down" complex issues and "preaching to the choir" instead of converting Righties or illuminating history's horrible crimes.

Yeah, Moore panders to his market. Just like everyone else in the entertainment business.

I guess I am always amazed that people are outraged or even surprised by that.

I wish we could get away from the "hate" word. Save from the ideologues, the American people have an enormous capacity for forgiveness. I trust Moore has been cut down to size by right thinking Amereicans on both sides of the aisle. The beauty of our system is we will not allow oneto get too big for his or her britches. Which is why Buckley was never the populist choice. God love him but he was too damn Yankee, too damn Yale and too damn smart. Limgaugh on the other hand is smart, fat, divorced and speaks a commoners english. Same message different style. Limbaugh as opposed to Moore has a greater capacity for the truth and accuracy. No one begrudges Moore's partisanship, energy and quite frankly good ole' boy friendliness. They do and will demand excellence, accuracy and truth if he wants to play in the big leagues of American politics. We should demand and expect no less.

[itai195]

Limbaugh has a greater capacity for truth and accuracy?

A key part of the Bush administration's case that Iraq and al-Qaida were dangerously in cahoots rested on the assertion that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Saddam's intelligence agents in Prague not long before the attacks. The bipartisan 9/11 commission discredited that assertion last week in a staff statement: "We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available -- including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

Radio host Rush Limbaugh, however, offered a different version of the 9/11 commission's findings during his June 17 broadcast:

"The [9/11 commission] report said that Mohamed Atta did meet with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001. We've known this for a long time."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I wish we could get away from the "hate" word. Save from the ideologues, the American people have an enormous capacity for forgiveness. I trust Moore has been cut down to size by right thinking Amereicans on both sides of the aisle. The beauty of our system is we will not allow oneto get too big for his or her britches. Which is why Buckley was never the populist choice. God love him but he was too damn Yankee, too damn Yale and too damn smart. Limgaugh on the other hand is smart, fat, divorced and speaks a commoners english. Same message different style. Limbaugh as opposed to Moore has a greater capacity for the truth and accuracy. No one begrudges Moore's partisanship, energy and quite frankly good ole' boy friendliness. They do and will demand excellence, accuracy and truth if he wants to play in the big leagues of American politics. We should demand and expect no less.

"big leagues of American politics"?

You do realize that Moore is in the entertainment business don't you? I take Moore as serious as I take Dennis Miller or Bill Maher.

The biggest difference between Moore and the likes of Limbaugh or Coulter is that the political establishment treats Limbaugh and Coulter like politicians or, even worse, "analysts" instead of the pandering entertainers they are. They aren't in the truth business. They aren't even really in the politics business. They are in the boredom-killing, commercial plugging, tell-the-rubes-whatever-they-want-to-hear entertainment business.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by itai195:
Limbaugh has a greater capacity for truth and accuracy?

Please observe "staff" report, not commision findings which will be at odds with the "staff" report. One of the criticisms of this commision has been the failure to reign in a more idealogical partisan staff. You just witnessed a media backstep on this same issue of al qaeda contact with Hussein but you insist ignoring that fact also. Governor Keane and Democrat Hamilton have said as much also. You will be very hard pressed to find inaccuracies by Rush. And if found, immediate public apologies and corrections follow. He can't afford to do less. There is a reason for his popularity. People trust in the accuracy of his reporting while taking into account his chauvinistic spin. You don't give the American people much credit. Which is why GB will win in the fall.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
"big leagues of American politics"?

You do realize that Moore is in the entertainment business don't you? I take Moore as serious as I take Dennis Miller or Bill Maher.

The biggest difference between Moore and the likes of Limbaugh or Coulter is that the political establishment treats Limbaugh and Coulter like politicians or, even worse, "analysts" instead of the pandering entertainers they are. They aren't in the truth business. They aren't even really in the politics business. They are in the boredom-killing, commercial plugging, tell-the-rubes-whatever-they-want-to-hear entertainment business.

No. Moore is a propagandist of the worst kind. An ideologue who distorts the truth without shame. By the way, are there no equally talented leftist entertainers? Talk about boredom, even the leftist money people know when they see a rat hole ( Air America ) into which not to pour their money. The left is a negative, pessimistic downer.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Orion27:
There is a reason for his popularity. People trust in the accuracy of his reporting while taking into account his chauvinistic spin. You don't give the American people much credit. Which is why GB will win in the fall.

Total BS. Rush has fans for the same reason any public personality has fans--THEY AGREE WITH HIM.

And don't equate Rush's fans with "the American people". Rush's fans are no more objective and discerning in the aggregate than Jay Leno's fans, Jimmy Kimmel's fans, or even Michael Moore's fans.

I'm not a fan of Moore because I think he's upholding some higher standard of truth and morality. I'm a fan because he has consistantly made me laugh over the years. Although I will admit he is getting less funny.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Orion27:
No. Moore is a propagandist of the worst kind. An ideologue who distorts the truth without shame.

That is what we call entertainment.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Please observe "staff" report, not commision findings which will be at odds with the "staff" report. One of the criticisms of this commision has been the failure to reign in a more idealogical partisan staff. You just witnessed a media backstep on this same issue of al qaeda contact with Hussein but you insist ignoring that fact also. Governor Keane and Democrat Hamilton have said as much also. You will be very hard pressed to find inaccuracies by Rush. And if found, immediate public apologies and corrections follow. He can't afford to do less. There is a reason for his popularity. People trust in the accuracy of his reporting while taking into account his chauvinistic spin.

Uh how does that disprove what I wrote? Regardless, even if I were to take your position on this matter, the commission didn't say one way or another whether that meeting actually happened. So Limbaugh's quote is still inaccurate. Beyond that, this is a quote I just read about earlier today, and I'm sure I could find a lot of others with a quick Google search. At the very least, he's proven his own beliefs about drug abusers inaccurate (or accurate, I suppose, depending on one's opinion of the man...).

You don't give the American people much credit. Which is why GB will win in the fall.

Err, right...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Orion27:
No. Moore is a propagandist of the worst kind. An ideologue who distorts the truth without shame. By the way, are there no equally talented leftist entertainers? Talk about boredom, even the leftist money people know when they see a rat hole ( Air America ) into which not to pour their money. The left is a negative, pessimistic downer.

Propaganda implies systemic dissemination. I don't believe any entertainer would fall under that heading. Not really.

Also, there really is no such thing as "The Left" even though we might use it mythologically. There never has been. Even the Democratic party is about as ideologically fractured as you could possibly imagine. The idea that there is some kind of Liberal Solidarity is laughable at best.

Oh, and I don't consider "Canadian Bacon" to be negative or pessimistic. In fact, I thought it was pretty damn funny.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Propaganda implies systemic dissemination. I don't believe any entertainer would fall under that heading. Not really.

Also, there really is no such thing as "The Left" even though we might use it mythologically. There never has been. Even the Democratic party is about as ideologically fractured as you could possibly imagine. The idea that there is some kind of Liberal Solidarity is laughable at best.

Oh, and I don't consider "Canadian Bacon" to be negative or pessimistic. In fact, I thought it was pretty damn funny.

Moore lost his way after ' Roger and Me' which almost pulled me back to my wayward liberal youth. I'm hoping Moore will be rehabilitated and someday realize the damage he's done. He's lucky to have been born an American.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Moore lost his way after ' Roger and Me' which almost pulled me back to my wayward liberal youth. I'm hoping Moore will be rehabilitated and someday realize the damage he's done. He's lucky to have been born an American.

The damage? You mean all the people who bought a book or forked over $10 for a movie they ended up not liking?

Perhaps he should be sent to a camp to be politically rehabilitated??

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Orion27:
You will be very hard pressed to find inaccuracies by Rush. And if found, immediate public apologies and corrections follow. He can't afford to do less.

That's a real stretch. A simple Google search will turn up loads of stuff on Limbaugh. Entire books have been written. Moore's outlandishness is just more concentrated in the form of his movies.

There is a reason for his popularity . . . People trust in the accuracy of his reporting . . .

That's just the problem.

Here we have the mirror image of the "Is Moore an entertainer or a journalist?" question. Whenever Limbaugh's more idiotic pronouncements are highlighted, CRASH HARDDRIVE et al. are quick to tell us that he's just an entertainer and that they don't understand why liberals get exercised about him. I wish he were right, but the fact is that there are millions of people like yourself who think of Limbaugh as "an accurate reporter." Ditto for Moore. My opinion is that both have some valid political points to make, they just tend to make them in outlandish and sometimes misleading ways.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Contradict "facts", expose discrepensies, false allegations and convoluted logic equals hate press? You sound like Moore.

Yes, the attacks against Moore are mainly personal, and therefore come under "hate press".

We all know GWB has never lied, has never made false allegations, and has never used convoluted logic.

If Moore can help remove him from office, then more power to Moore (no pun intended).

[alphasubzero949]

You know...it's funny how some of you are quoting bashing reviews and editorials to make your point about Moore. You don't think these guys have an agenda? How about taking the time out to find out which parent company owns the source you're getting your review from (be it TV, cable, radio, magazine, newspaper) and compare it to this report put out by WhiteHouseForSale.org.


When you consider that only 6 corporations control all of the media in this country (Bagdikian, 2000), and every single one is for Bush, it should be no surprise then that you're seeing/reading a lot of Moore bashing.

Here are the 10 media powerhouses (remember, there have been mergers...and some companies have shares in the others)

Click