Has Hollywood's Influence on Politics Become Dangerous?

[Shuckins]

crowMAW,

I respectfully disagree.  There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore.  These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.

One CANNOT debate with a "documentary."  The number of Moore's interviewees who have expressed outrage over how their statements have been edited and doctored calls into question his methods.  I strongly suspect that the edited statements which contradict Moore's beliefs no longer exist.  These people's statements have, according to them, have been altered out of context to cast them in a bad light.

There is a definition for this type of act...it's called character assassination.  "Tail-Gunner" Joe used the same methods to ferret out "Communists" in the government back in the 1950's.  He destroyed the reputations of many innocent people and never displayed a hint of conscience.  Joe had HIS supporters too, who believed that the ends justified the means.

Moore's is a political campaign.  If this were a Democratic or Republican effort their activities would be regulated by federal campaign laws.  PAC's can no longer air political ads for a period of two months prior to an election (That is blatantly unconstitutional, by any definition of the term.).  Moore acknowledges no rules but his own.  Look at the timing of the release of this "documentary;"  it will be in theaters in time to give Kerry a boost as the Democrats meet for their national convention.  It will also, undoubtedly, become available on dvd just in time for the November elections.

Unless he's sued for libel, which could take months or years to go to court, what chance do his victims have of stopping him from having an impact on the election?  Even if a libel suit were successful it would take an inordinately stiff financial judgement to make a serious dent in the profits he's going to make from this scurrilous "documentary."  

Don't you see...if Moore gets away with this, he will open a Pandora's box.  How many other citizens will conduct "investigations" or publish private "interviews" for the purposes of character assassination late in a campaign year, when their victims have little time to deal with them?

Make no mistake about it...Moore does not want a debate of his "facts."  If he did, this would not be a "documentary" which is available for consumption only.

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

[Lance]

I saw the movie.  It is a rebuttal to the administration's well-known and well-covered arguments for the Iraq war.  It makes some points, misses on others.  It isn't at all objective.  No equal time is given to pro-war arguments within it.  So what?

The pro-war arguments are all well known.  They are espoused by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc... and show up on the nightly news and in the papers.  They are discussed by the right-leaning pundits in the various media outlets.  The most bass-ackward inbred Alabamian (sorry Hblair!) can judge the conflicting input from two different sources and form their own opinion as to what they believe to be true or not.

If the movie is tripe filled with lies, get the lawyers out and sue for slander.  Otherwise, I'd say the public should be given more credit at being able to make up their own minds.

[Gixer]

If Bush wasn't such an idiot and make such bad decisions like the invasion if Iraq he woudn't have so much to say. And the topic of Hollywood's influence wouldn't exist.




...-Gixer

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Gixer
If Bush wasn't such an idiot and make such bad decisions like the invasion if Iraq he woudn't have so much to say. And the topic of Hollywood's influence wouldn't exist.




...-Gixer

Spoken like a true clueless nonresident.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Shuckins
crowMAW,

I respectfully disagree.  There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore.  These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.

So you honestly believe that if someone called and proved them wrong or had a valid point they did not agree with that it would make it on the air? I have listened to Limbaugh a few times, and it doesn't work that way, they have an agenda, and they get paid too much money to let that agenda get challenged. It is the same, they are there to sway the way people think. They just work opposite ends of the spectrum.

[rpm]

I wonder if there was this much uproar when John Wayne did a pure political propaganda piece for Republicans?

Plot Summary for
Big Jim McLain (1952)
U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee investigators Jim McLain and Mal Baxter attempt to break up a ring of Communist Party troublemakers in Hawaii (ignoring somewhat, as do their superiors in the Congress, that membership in the Communist Party was, at the time, legal in the U.S.)

Critical response to the film was divided by coast. Eastern reviewers found it oversimplified and irresponsible. One, according to Randy Roberts and James S. Olsen in their book "John Wayne: American," wondered "how many loyal Americans may actually have converted to communism out of embarrassment that their country could produce" such films as "Big Jim McLain."

On the West Coast, however, the film was lavished with praise by film industry publications. Audiences seemed to agree, perhaps enthralled enough with Wayne's presence to overlook the film's sketchy storyline and the lead weight of its politics. "Big Jim McLain" became the most successful film of its anti-Communist genre, grossing $3 million.

As the film winds up, the Commies have once again gotten off on the Fifth, a privilege, McLain laments, intended for "honest, decent citizens." Still, he is optimistic about the future, so long as there are big ships, soldiers and girls like Nancy.

That Wayne's character, Jim McLain, shared initials with Sen. Joseph McCarthy is considered no coincidence. Wayne has said he believed the film helped the election of the Senator for his second term in 1952. And though it's hard to believe that anyone would swallow the sentiment of a film like this one, laughable now in its heavy-handedness, it is chilling to consider how many lives were destroyed by the shrill propaganda of films like "Big Jim McLain," when Cold War hysteria suspended America's disbelief on and off the screen.

[Holden McGroin]

Did John Wayne market that as a documentary?

[Toad]

Moore's piece is no longer being marketed as a documentary if the papers are right.

It's now billed as an "op-ed piece" by his distributors.

BTW, where's all the Euro's who said MM was going to be denied his "free speech" on this film?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Shuckins

I respectfully disagree.  There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore.  These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.

One CANNOT debate with a "documentary."

-snip-

 Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

Buahahahahahahahahah... hehehehe LOLOLOLOLO.........

[Ozark]

Has Hollywood's Influence on Politics Become Dangerous?

No more than AM radio influence on politics.

Here’s something strange; I dislike Bill O'Reilly’s FOX News TV show! However, I take time to tune in his radio program.

Now this, in the late 80’s I was lobbying the local radio station to air Rush Limbaugh. Back then (the late 80’s) it was a fun program. He was a new fresh voice making fun of government. Now, he takes himself too seriously. It’s not fun anymore, just attack and attack (with the agenda that was bought and paid for).

Rush was poisoned with fame and money.

That’s just my opinion.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by AKIron
Spoken like a true clueless nonresident.

Clueless?

For someone who fails to open his mind to any point of view or argument other then his own opinion. Defends even the most defenceless of decisions that even the current administration or the president himself have since dropped and distance themselves from, rather then admit they were wrong. And fails to have even the slightest opinion of his own on any subject other then regurgitating the same senseless arguments, ramblings and lies of the administration. Say’s that I’m clueless?

True I am a non resident, well done there.



...-Gixer

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Shuckins
There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore.  These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but their shows are hardly open mic opportunities. And even if a coherent rebuttle were allowed on these shows, O'Rielly and Rush have the last word or can clip the caller short.

And what about Coulter?  How do you have a debate against a newspaper column or book?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Toad
Moore's piece is no longer being marketed as a documentary if the papers are right.....

yep it's a crock-umentary

[Shuckins]

MT and crowMAW,

No local radio stations carry Limbaugh's program...never heard it.  So I do not know what format he uses...simply assumed he answered calls from listeners and/or had guests.

I know for a FACT that O'Reilly has guests on his show who debate the issues with him.  Yeah, he shouts quite a bit and he does have the last word...but dem...it IS his show after all.  Not wild about him myself...but he does "debate" the issues.

As for Anne Coulter...if you noticed...I didn't mention her at all.  

I stand by my original statement...it's impossible to debate a propaganda film posing as a documentary.  Are you familiar with the fact that the U.S. government banned Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will from being shown in the U.S. during the 1930s?  Roosevelt's administration knew that it would be difficult to block the impact images of a prosperous Nazi Germany would have on the Depression racked people of the United States.

My point here is that Moore has released his film at a point in time deliberately chosen to make it difficult for his targets to prepare legal challenges to his statements or to lessen the impact on public opinion.  So far those on these bbs who have seen it have been almost unanimous in stating that the film may be entertaining but it is anything but objective.

I hope he can prove his allegations, because he is more than likely going to have to prove them in court.

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Shuckins
No local radio stations carry Limbaugh's program...never heard it.  So I do not know what format he uses...simply assumed he answered calls from listeners and/or had guests.

I know for a FACT that O'Reilly has guests on his show who debate the issues with him.  Yeah, he shouts quite a bit and he does have the last word...but dem...it IS his show after all.  Not wild about him myself...but he does "debate" the issues.

Rush started out railing against anything in government that did not make sense...it didn't matter if it was Republican or Democrat.  I listened to his show regularly back then.  It was like any other radio talk show: 90% host speaking, occasional pre-screened caller comments.  Later he became an attack jock, but the show format was pretty much the same.  The callers are pre-screened and any guests are chosen by the show.  It is not open mic.  The host does 90% of the talking.

O'Reilly does have guests...guests he chooses.  And like you say, it is his show, so he runs the "debate".

Neither allow a truly balanced discourse any more than a documentary...and their shows are on every day.

Originally posted by Shuckins
As for Anne Coulter...if you noticed...I didn't mention her at all.  

Yup, I noticed...that is why I brought her back in.  If you want a "fair and balanced" discussion, then you cannot simply leave out glaring contradictory examples as you choose.

Originally posted by Shuckins
I stand by my original statement...it's impossible to debate a propaganda film posing as a documentary.
*snipped comment about banning to ask a question later*
My point here is that Moore has released his film at a point in time deliberately chosen to make it difficult for his targets to prepare legal challenges to his statements or to lessen the impact on public opinion.  So far those on these bbs who have seen it have been almost unanimous in stating that the film may be entertaining but it is anything but objective.

I absolutely agree with you here.  It is not objective.  It was made specifically to criticize Bush.  It may be libelous...Bush will have to sue to find out and like someone else mentioned that could end up letting a lot of skeletons out of the closet.  It would probably become Bush's Whitewater Investigation.

But your argument itself seems one sided.  What should happen to the non-objective radio/tv shows and books/columns published by conservatives?  Are you saying they should be banned along with Moore's film?  They will be spewing their propaganda right up until the election...which you pointed out, that PACs can't even do.  So, if you want fair and balanced, then most of Fox programming has to shut down, O'Reilly has to go on hiatus along with Rush and Coulter can't publish.  Let me tell you that I'd be first in line to argue for Coulter's right to publish so long as it means that Moore can publish too.

Originally posted by Shuckins
Are you familiar with the fact that the U.S. government banned Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will from being shown in the U.S. during the 1930s?  Roosevelt's administration knew that it would be difficult to block the impact images of a prosperous Nazi Germany would have on the Depression racked people of the United States.

Interesting. I know that Germany banned it after WWII for many years (although I think there has been some relaxing of that ban).  I would be interested in learning more about the US ban if you can point me to some info on it.  I'm surprised that a judge didn't slap an injunction on the ban since it is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

But I am concerned about the message you are sending with this example.  Are you saying that if an Administration does not agree with the message of a movie/tv show or book/newspaper and believes that it is pure propaganda, then it should have the authority to ban it?  Do you really want us going down that slippery slope?