Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11

CmdrTaco posted about 10 years ago | from the what-channel-would-air-it dept.

Movies 2464

telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

He can suck my ass ! (-1, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | about 10 years ago | (#10189291)

Free Saddam, you fucking yankees !

questions have been raised (4, Informative)

dirvish (574948) | about 10 years ago | (#10189292)

You've got questions? He's got answers [] .

Re:questions have been raised (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189340)

He will have to put down his bucket of chicken and comb his greasy hair before I pay any attention to him. What a slob.

Re:questions have been raised (5, Insightful)

savagedome (742194) | about 10 years ago | (#10189361)

Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'. Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'. You need to take it with a grain of salt.

Nobody wants to talk about the real issues anyway. Both the parties are busy butchering each other on stupid stuff.

Faren-hype 9/11 (2, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 10 years ago | (#10189371)

You've got questions? Moore has deceptions [] . This guy counts 59.

Bush got his share too... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189404)

Like, oh I dunno, why he was AWOL?

Re:questions have been raised (3, Interesting)

dnno (773903) | about 10 years ago | (#10189392)

And what, may I ask makes his answers correct?

Re:questions have been raised (4, Insightful)

dirvish (574948) | about 10 years ago | (#10189458)

How about his sources?

My question: (4, Funny)

cliffa3 (789920) | about 10 years ago | (#10189403)

Will it air on Disney?

Re:questions have been raised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189407)

Opinions, not answers. I'd like to see the source of his 'information.'

Re:questions have been raised (-1, Redundant)

Carbonite (183181) | about 10 years ago | (#10189441)

Why not examine the truth [] of those answers?

Good! (4, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | about 10 years ago | (#10189299)

It will get people to vote either to oppose Bush or to oppose people who are influenced by the movie. Either way, democracy wins over apathy!

Re:Good! (2, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | about 10 years ago | (#10189416)

The problem is that Michael Moore - a private citizen - has a right to get this on the air. But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond. Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.

That's not very democratic.

Re:Good! (5, Insightful)

rlglende (70123) | about 10 years ago | (#10189461)

Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.

The manipulation of the mob is always easy, and modern media and concentrated media ownership has mad it even easier. Now, even a boob like Bush can succeed.

The US Constitution also tried to limit government power to prevent a boob like Bush from doing great damage. Too bad we ignore those parts of the Constitution, also.


McCain-Feingold (1)

russotto (537200) | about 10 years ago | (#10189300)

Wouldn't McCain-Feingold effectively prevent this?

Re:McCain-Feingold (2, Insightful)

pHatidic (163975) | about 10 years ago | (#10189373)

Well this isn't a political ad. It is just critical of bush but doesn't support anyone else, so I don't see what the conflict of interest would be. /voting for Nader

McCain-Feingold could be more accurately renamed (1)

scotay (195240) | about 10 years ago | (#10189414)

The Status Quo Protection Act

The Fox Guarding the Henhouse Act

The Free Speech is a Myth Act

Re:McCain-Feingold (1)

danheskett (178529) | about 10 years ago | (#10189451)

No, it would only prevent people taking out ads to refute the airing of the documentary. Since this isn't technically a political ad and doesn't endorse or mention a "candidate", it's a-okay. But mind you, the RNC or a Bush supporter can't take out ads to refute the points raised in the film.

Not Fox (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189302)

Not Fox News, that's for sure...

Re:Not Fox (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 years ago | (#10189442)

Actually, I could see Fox doing it. They go for money. By running the movie, they would control all the ads that are displayed and they could come on with commentary about the movie. IOW, turn it from semi-documentary to a true mocumentary.

Hell yeah (-1, Flamebait)

metalac (633801) | about 10 years ago | (#10189306)

Of course people should see this. I still can't believe this election is going down to 50-50 in the polls. I mean come on. How many people you know off that got laid off? I know of 3 just in my imediate family. And some of them STILL can't find a job. Also the whole Iraq thing, don't get me started on this.

The dude has to goooooo.

HA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189375)

you're right it's not going to be 50-50, Bush didn't even lead Gore by 5% in September, he now leads Kerry by DOUBLE DIGITS!

Re:HA (0)

EnderWiggnz (39214) | about 10 years ago | (#10189438)

except that the polls only show a 2 point bounce for bush, and the 11 point bounce was... well... a fabriacation out of thin air.

its gonna be fun to watch dubya fail.

Re:Hell yeah (1, Insightful)

erotic_pie (796522) | about 10 years ago | (#10189378)

Someone explain to me how the presedent hurts/creates jobs, that is something that has never made any sence to me.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189380)

Bush fired three people in your immediate family? Wow!

Must be a family of LOSERS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189426)

Only dipshits get laid off. I bet they were polishing the one eyed cyclops... or the two eyed cyclops.


Re:Hell yeah (5, Funny)

Max Threshold (540114) | about 10 years ago | (#10189388)

There aren't really that many Bush supporters. Do you know any? I've met about three. The official polls simply reflect how many votes Diebold is planning to give him.

One thing is for sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189453)

There are a hell of a lot more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters.

Enjoying your democracy? Selecting the least of two evils? Yeah this is a great country. Lots of choice there.

Re:Hell yeah (0)

p4ul13 (560810) | about 10 years ago | (#10189400)

The economy was on the down-turn at the end of Clinton's reign. The current economoy isn't all W's work.

I'm not a big fan of his, but fair is fair.

Re:Hell yeah (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 10 years ago | (#10189431)

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

Presidents don't make jobs. In the best case, they can get the hell out of the way of the companies that do make jobs. I hate it that your friends don't have jobs, but perhaps you need to look elsewhere for answers. As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees. It became too big a hassle. Then again, in my 40 years, I have never been more than two weeks without a job, and never accepted unemployment checks, choosing a lower job until I could work my way back up instead. I guess its just a matter of choice.

Who is President simply does not affect jobs the way so many state, but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.

Wait, slightly confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189308)

Why would this invalidate his Best Documentary status?

Re:Wait, slightly confused... (1)

dirvish (574948) | about 10 years ago | (#10189343)

It probably doesn't. He's just stirring things up.

Re:Wait, slightly confused... (2, Informative)

dirvish (574948) | about 10 years ago | (#10189396)

Actually, the answer is in the article:
The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

Re:Wait, slightly confused... (1)

SemperUbi (673908) | about 10 years ago | (#10189399)

Why would this invalidate his Best Documentary status?

Because in order to qualify for Best Documentary, the film must not have been shown on television prior to the award.

Re:Wait, slightly confused... (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 10 years ago | (#10189402)

it was never a documentry to start.
this is just an excuse.

Voters don't think (5, Insightful)

fred3666 (539394) | about 10 years ago | (#10189309)

This election hasn't been about issues anyway. It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.

Re:Voters don't think (1)

Shisha (145964) | about 10 years ago | (#10189391)

And I don't think there can be much question as to whether F 9/11 is a propaganda or not.

If a movie (book, article) presents strictly one side of the view, tries to piece together facts into tenuous conspiracy theoris (yes, Mr Moore, everyone know everyone else in the big bussiness world, if not personaly then they certainly have a common acquintance) then it is, by definition, propaganda.

And propaganda is always bad, even if it's trying to be for a good cause.

Re:Voters don't think (5, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | about 10 years ago | (#10189420)

As a Canadian, I find American politics to be... disturbing. It seems most of the media is about politicians attacking each other rather than promoting themselves. Growing up in Canada I don't remember seeing this here, but lately its started to become the same thing here. Rather that promote their plans for the future, they basically take the stance of, well at least we're not doing what the other party is.
I'd rather see politicians telling us what there plan is rather than spending their air time making suggestions about who inhaled while they were in college.

I know why (2, Insightful)

metallikop (649953) | about 10 years ago | (#10189310)

Mostly because the facts are so skewed that this can't be placed in Documentary.

Michael Moore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189315)

ths dude is a subversibve charactor, this movie is designed to be decieving and subversive...

Re:Michael Moore (1)

fpillet (41353) | about 10 years ago | (#10189444)

At least he asks questions and raises concerns. Maybe you're expecting Rush Limbaugh to ask them? Hrmm...

Oh yea.. (1, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 10 years ago | (#10189318)

And I am sure his reasons are pure, simply wanting to inform the electorate....Right.

Agree or not, its simply propeganda, and he has made enough money that he just wants the POWER he thinks he would get if Kerry won, so he could take credit and be even "more important" than he already thinks he is.

What do people that have too much money want? Power.

Re:Oh yea.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189472)

Money? Power? Um... Wasn't it Bush that said, " Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

Um, thoroughly comtemplation? (2, Insightful)

biffnix (174407) | about 10 years ago | (#10189319)

Was that supposed to be "thoughtful contemplation?" Perhaps before the good Commander posted that, he should have paused for a bit of thoughtful contemplation...

Joe G.
Bishop, CA

I'm so excited (1)

ejbvanc (558014) | about 10 years ago | (#10189323)

that slashdot likes to put it's political slant here and there. But then again, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality" - JFK

Liberal media is teh suck (-1, Troll)

erotic_pie (796522) | about 10 years ago | (#10189325)

Imagine if the republicans released a video like that (which actually there probably are some) they would never get the kind of publicity that F. 9/11 has gotten. And if it did the media would make it look evil and wrong, or "hurtful". Down with the liberal media

Re:Liberal media is teh suck (1)

GeckoX (259575) | about 10 years ago | (#10189430)

Liberal media ehh?
You'd better check again who owns what media corporations in the US my friend.

Re:Liberal media is teh suck (1)

almostmanda (774265) | about 10 years ago | (#10189462)

Grow up. The media doesn't have a political stance, it has a business stance. It's not concerned with a right or left agenda; it's concerned with it's own existence and profitability. If F9/11 hype is going to attract viewers/sell papers, that's what's gonna be in the news.

please correct spelling error - s, not c (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189327)

"Controversial" please, thnx

Dumb The Vote (5, Insightful)

Foofoobar (318279) | about 10 years ago | (#10189328)

Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.

And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years), it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.

Re:Dumb The Vote (1)

savagedome (742194) | about 10 years ago | (#10189459)

Most of them can't even program the VCR

I might be missing something but how does the ability to program a VCR make anybody more/less intelligent than others?

forgoe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189331)

c'mon, people, that [] doesn't even look right for chrissake! how can you misspell a simple word like that?

Moore (5, Interesting)

pHatidic (163975) | about 10 years ago | (#10189334)

People keep saying Moore's movie isn't a documentary because it's full of bias. This is a load of crap, all documentaries have bias. Everything ever written for that matter has bias. If F/911 can be said to be not a documentary it is because he doesn't actually really document anything. It's just him talking over CNN and fox news footage for two hours. That is the thing that pissed me off about this movie, that in the previous ones he and his film crew are taking all the footage, but in this movie its just him narrating his opinions on top of stock footage. It cheapens his message (which I agree with) and lowers the quality of the experience overall.

Re:Moore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189465)

not that it's biased, but that it contains untruths, or stretched facts..

FCC should allow it (4, Insightful)

WaRtHaWg (55454) | about 10 years ago | (#10189336)

After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.

Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189470)

Do you count MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC as 24x7 ads for Kerry. Throw in the LA Times and NY Times and you have what's known by most as "the liberal media bias."

Influencing the vote with emotions (1, Troll)

Max Threshold (540114) | about 10 years ago | (#10189337)

It's not like Bush hasn't done worse in this campaign. Anything that prevents him from waging war on freedom and democracy for another four years is a Good Thing in my book!

Release date (1)

someguy456 (607900) | about 10 years ago | (#10189341)

Well, since the movie has been out since what, June 23-25?, I'd say there's been plenty of time for everyone who desires to do a "thorough contemplation"

thorough contemplation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189342)

What undecided voter, at this point in the us, ever contemplated anything but where to buy there next cheeseburger?

Question (1)

cerberus4696 (765520) | about 10 years ago | (#10189345)

I know this thread is going to burst into flames faster than some object which is highly flammable, but wouldn't a TV airing of a movie of this nature constitute a political advertisement? And aren't there rules about that? At the least, wouldn't stations that air the movie be required to give the Bush campaign equal time?

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | about 10 years ago | (#10189421)

Bush brought this up when he said 'lets ban the 572s' Not a peep out of Kerry. He cries like a baby about the swift boat ads but he has benifited like hell from soros and moore.
Is kerry going to cry like a baby when we face critizism from foreign countries?

Fair and Balanced (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 years ago | (#10189347)

"one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

As opposed to all of the partisan commercials, and of course, the Fair and Balanced(TM)(C)(Patent Pending) "news".

Nice Sentence ending (5, Insightful)

scotay (195240) | about 10 years ago | (#10189352)

airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

Since when have the American electorate ever shown thoughtful contemplation? We sell our presidents like soda. The electorate consistently rewards mud slinging (or fails to vote against it) and runs on emotion rather than reason. That's why we get the government we deserve. McCain-Feingold will never change this fact. Until people stop voting for the 2-party duopoly and stop rewarding the lies, this mess will continue.

helps or hurts? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189354)

even if we assume it to be pure propaganda, would you say that a partisan filmmaker saying the president is wrong hurts more or less then the Vice President of the United States saying that if voters make the "wrong" choice in November, the terrorist boogyman is literally going to kill them?

link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189405)

forgot my link []

Mccain-feingold (5, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | about 10 years ago | (#10189356)

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

Not to mention it may very well be prohibited under the mccain-feingold act, a trashy unconstitutional piece of legislation if there ever was one.

Funny how the supreme court finds it more important to protect simulated child pornography (unimportant) and is okay with silencing political speech (the most important type!).

If someone ever finds the supreme court's balls, please return them to washington. They're desperately needed.

Moore made a ton of money (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | about 10 years ago | (#10189357)

So follow his lead, make a movie or write a book on the next election. It doesn't matter if anything you say is true, just be politically charged, and you rake in the $$

moore.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189359)

he is a moron... fortunetly worse then kerry.

"kerry for president? do you really like jane fonda that much?"

Re:moore.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189450)

Oh yeah, and Bush is a genius... "fool me once... shame, shame on you... fool me.... never fool me again."

Moore biased? (2, Insightful)

seasunset (469481) | about 10 years ago | (#10189360)

I find it funny when people say Moore is biased. Yes Moore is biased, just like 99.9% of the media.

The only reason Moore looks strange is because:
1. Is assumes honestly that he is biased
2. People are only used to see things in the media from an angle that is different (almost opposite?) from his (which is, BTW, probably even more biased than his)
3. Is style is different from the usually polished media.

More discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189362)

There is a discussion about this over at [] about the possibile ramifactions a network would have by running this movie, as well as the issues Moore might run into with the current campaign finance laws which currently abridge the right to free speech when it comes to politics on TV.

bowling for columbine (1)

Coneasfast (690509) | about 10 years ago | (#10189366)

i am not planning to see F911 at all. i saw bowling for columbine, and some of the things he said (especially about canada, eg, number of guns) are just BS.

anyways, i'm already anti-bush, i don't need a movie to convince me of it.

Bush's DUI (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189369)

When it came out about Bush's arrest right before the election, I think it hurt Gore. I don't know if Gore had anything to do with it, but it looked that way and that's all that matters.

This could have the same effect. But I have heard of people being persuaded by it. If thorough contemplation worked then attack ads wouldn't be so effective and this is movie length attack ad.

Want to energize the Republican base? (0, Troll)

jea6 (117959) | about 10 years ago | (#10189376)

Want to energize the Republican base and get them to the polls en-masse? Screen this movie on TV. I think that the Republicans have done a fair job discrediting the movie so far.

Stupid, stupid, Democrats. How can they be fumbling so badly at mounting an effective campaign against Bush? Making Moore a lighting-rod will only guarantee a Bush victory.

I heard an Edwards clip last night. He's still got a good message going. Kerry puts me to sleep. Is it too late to reverse the ticket?

And they don't have half the war room competence Clinton had to respond effectively to Republican half-truths. Of course, when you have so many half-truths of your own...

Re:Want to energize the Republican base? (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 10 years ago | (#10189474)

what was edwards message? Sue your way to prosperity?

Moore legitimizes more and more blatant propaganda (0, Flamebait)

rlglende (70123) | about 10 years ago | (#10189383)

The US gov already uses the world's most sophisticated propaganda, tho Bush's big lies have gotten so big a lot of people are beginning to notice.

Moore may as well be working for Republicans as a distractor. Certainly he makes their jobs easier.


War (2, Interesting)

curtvdh (738461) | about 10 years ago | (#10189384)

It was the Republicans who decided to center this entire campaign around Iraq (proably to distract the sheeple from the appalling domestic issues). I think that Moore's decision is the correct one - show the populace that Bush's war is actually his weakest plank - not one on which he should be focussing...

I eventually came to a decision (3, Insightful)

palad1 (571416) | about 10 years ago | (#10189397)

After scrutinizing thoroughly both candidates' proposition, my mind is set.

It was nor quick nor easy, but I'm really confident about my vote now.


Shouldn't show it (1)

Sebby (238625) | about 10 years ago | (#10189401)

If the movie/documentary/whatever is obviously anti-Bush (haven't seen it yet) and they're trying to accelerate the process in order to meet a deadline, then I don't think it should be showed as it's apparent there's some sort of political agenda involved - it would be like if they'd been allowed to show Swarchennger's (sp?) movies just before the CA elections. It's just not right.

Cue... (2, Insightful)

Anti_Climax (447121) | about 10 years ago | (#10189409)

The Michael Moore is a Dirty Liar flamewar...

Love the color scheme BTW...

interesting (1)

Anubis350 (772791) | about 10 years ago | (#10189412)

itll be interesting to see if the stations will pick such a political movie up at the critical point moore wants them to. The networks may be afraid of offending a group that may still be in power at the end of the election.

Talk about win-win (1)

bullitB (447519) | about 10 years ago | (#10189413)

Either he gets it on TV and everyone gets to see more of his crap, or he doesn't get it on TV, and he gets to say it's a conspiracy to keep it "censored."

Moore's video has really influenced me (4, Funny)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | about 10 years ago | (#10189415)

Its a tough call. But after watching his movie I'm still on the fence. I'm either going with Ralph Nader, or Michael Badnarik. I know what all you are saying. Voting for Badnarik takes votes away from Nader and lessens his chances of being in future debates. Well I'm sick of this tired old argument. So all of you naysayers, I don't want to hear it! You have to vote with your heart.

IANAA but... (2, Insightful)

filipvh (193450) | about 10 years ago | (#10189419)

Thorough contemplation? Not meaning to flamebait but in this era of sound bites and "fair and balanced" news, how many voters are even capable of thorough contemplation.
Sure, Michael Moore plays the propaganda machine like a harp, but that doesn't mean his documentary shouldn't be shown on television.

You have to WONDER? (2, Insightful)

Tsar (536185) | about 10 years ago | (#10189423) has to wonder whether airing such a controversial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thorough contemplation."

You have to wonder?!? Of COURSE it does! What Michael Moore and his supporters have to decide is, are their reasons for removing George Bush so unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's survival that they justify any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation as the new standard of behavior in American society.

Oh, please (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189424)

Do you honestly thing GWB isn't above "influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation". That's all he's got. He hasn't done one good thing for AMerica. He's only made things worse.....unless you're a multi-millionaire

the 59 deceits are kopel's (1)

uunh haun (638348) | about 10 years ago | (#10189425)

As bad as anyone might think moore is, Kopel's article is and has always been puffed up with garbage non-deceits and empty, misleading bending of the facts. There certainly are reasons to go after moore, but it sure would be nice if his critics didn't use the same tactics. Unfortunately, his critics are exactly where moore borrowed his techniques that they loathe so much.

Point of View (1)

booch (4157) | about 10 years ago | (#10189427)

I suspect most people's answers will depend on whether they agree with Michael Moore or not. Which is a shame, because the same reasoning may well apply to the other side in a future election.

While I agree with Michael Moore that the Bush administration is corrupt and bad for the country, I think that his lobbying to play this on TV before immediately before the election smacks of electioneering. When Right-wing nut-jobs complained that commercials for Fahrenheit 9/11 should fall under FEC regulations, I thought that was ludicrous. But I think an obvious ploy such as this should be prohibited by the FEC (Federal Election Commission).

I've changed my mind about George Bush (0, Flamebait)

John_Allen_Mohammed (811050) | about 10 years ago | (#10189429)

I used to think he was an evil genius but after seeing Mr. Moore's film, it's a sure thing Dubya is just stupid & evil. The man has the mental capacity of a teenager and has the power to launch nuclear weapons... there's something about this situation that irks me, anybody else with me on this ?

My question is, what sort of safeguards are in place that would prevent Mr. Chimp from giving the go-ahead to start a nuclear holocaust ? A doctor ? Congressional approval ? A yes vote from a majority of his cabinet ?!

Questions? Lawsuits! (1, Interesting)

bolix (201977) | about 10 years ago | (#10189432)

The Republican Attack Machine would have persued any inaccuracies through legal means.

There are no lawsuits.

Whats the question?

Link to questions? (1)

JDRipper (610930) | about 10 years ago | (#10189437)

What kind of link is that? Right wing propaganda nutjob website presented as an opposing viewpoint of worth? Dave Kopel's article entitled "Loaded Guns Can Be Good for Kids" tends to show how much of a nut job this Dave Kopel guy is. Bah. There are many more worthy opposing viewpoints to Michael Moore's film. This politics section of Slashdot needs some better editorial work.

This is exactly why I don't like this man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189440)

Talk about trying to influence the election, not that there is anything wrong with that, but lets be honest, this man is trying to influence the election, and he is doing it using arguments which call for an emotional reaction as opposed thoughtful and careful look at the facts involved.

But to be honest, this man isn't the only one calling for emotional reactions. It seems as if I yearn for a time when logic and reason held a bit more sway on truth. I guess I'm just a bit old fashion.

The movie (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10189443)

I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Took it with a grain of salt.

I think Rush put it best yesterday. To strongly paraphrase a conversation he had with a friend:

Rush: I think that the whole Clinton heart attack was strategically planned by the left in an effort to drum up sympathy and take focus off of Kerry's naysayers.
Friend: What?
Rush: I think it's one big conspiracy by the left. His heart attack was staged at an important time in the election year.
Friend: Do you honestly think they would do such a thing?
Rush: No, but now you know how we felt about Fahrenheit 9/11.

Yes, I know Rush is a self-absorbed blowhard, and I'm not a Bush lover, but I thought the movie was a little below the belt.

/independent conservative

Never mind whether it's accurate or not. (1)

evslin (612024) | about 10 years ago | (#10189446)

Everyone's getting pissed off over a couple of 30 second spots from Swift Boat vets, what's gonna happen if a 2 hour John Kerry ad gets aired?

Then again, let it air ... maybe enough people will get pissed off and demand reforms to campaign advertising.

fark comment (0, Troll)

jzuska (65827) | about 10 years ago | (#10189447)

You forgot that Michael Moore is FAT!!!!!

It should also be noted... (3, Insightful)

l4m3z0r (799504) | about 10 years ago | (#10189448)

That Moore will instead be seeking the best picture nomination. Doubtful it will win but would be extremely interesting to see a documentary win best picture. Considering the competition I don't think it would be completely impossible either.

Its obvious to me at least that he will have to edit out portions of the film in order to be aired on TV. I fully expect it to showed on AMC(american movie channel). I wouldn't be surprised if many stations picked it up. Its sure to draw a large group of viewers. Whether or not any advertisers will buy time slots during it is another question all together.

Lastly I'd like to add that while some call it emotive and propaganda and claim it would be detrimental to our political process I'm going to have to dissagree. While the film is over the top and largely misleading it is still the only thing out there that questions effectively our presidents leadership. Which NEEDS to be called into question in order for democracy to work. War time or not, leaders need to be questioned. Even if there is no basis or ground for questioning them. They need to explain themselves adequately and constantly otherwise we have no accountability.

What planet are you from? (1)

smartalecvt (748879) | about 10 years ago | (#10189452)

" has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation"

First of all, get a spell-checker and a grammar book. Second of all, since when has an American election been about thorough contemplation? This election, in particular, is so viscerally geared as to render logic irrelevant. Did you see any of those ridiculous conventions? Lots of screaming, joking, and vitriol; almost no reasoning. [sarcasm]Can't wait to see the debates.[/sarcasm] What a fucking joke.

Show it (1)

deadline (14171) | about 10 years ago | (#10189454)

Since when did "thorough(ly) contemplation" have anything to do with elections or politics in this country.

For those that think F9/11 is truthful... (0, Flamebait)

Mz6 (741941) | about 10 years ago | (#10189466)

I beg you to read this! []

and then when you're done reading that, you can read all about the psychology Moore uses to dupe [] the viewer into agreeing with this deciets.

His movie is pure propoganda and will strive to do anything for the viewer to like him. I find it funny that Moore asks Congressman if they would send their Children into Iraq to fight a war, but Moore himself didn't even go to Iraq to get footage for HIS OWN MOVIE!.. Does anyone else see the irony?

You know this is happening in a dark room somewher (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 years ago | (#10189469)

Cheney: "Fight the bastard, throw some rule or regulation or contract stipulation in his face!"
Studio rep: "We've looked and tried we have very little to work with."
Cheney: "We invaded Iraq on less! Sue him or get some bullshit injuction!"
Network rep: "We may have a solution..."
Cheney: "Speak!"
Network rep: "It'll start playing and then..."
Cheney: "What? WHAT!?!?"
Network rep: "We'll suddenly cut over to Heidi.." *evil grin*
Cheney: "Brilliant!"
Network rep: "And they call us 'Liberal Media' HA HA HA HA HAAAH!"
Cheney: "HA HA HA!!!"
Network rep: "Bush will love it, naturally."
Cheney: "Oh, yes, it's about all we let him watch!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>