There is nothing in the profile indicating whether this is posted by MM or whether it is a cut and paste from one of his sites, or what; but the idea that Republicans and the right wing control the media is pretty far-fetched.

Perhaps Moore and his followers should read from the following:

IT AIN'T NECESSARILY SO: HOW MEDIA MAKE AND UNMAKE THE SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF REALITY. David Murray, Joel Schwartz, and Robert Lichter. Rowman and Littlefield, NY. 2001.

COLORING THE NEWS: HOW CRUSADING FOR DIVERSITY HAS CORRUPTED JOURNALSISM. William McGowan. Encounter Books, SF. 2001.

THE NEWS ABOUT THE NEWS: AMERICAN JOURNALISM IN PERIL. Leonard Downie JR, Robert G. Kaiser. Alfred A. Knopf, NY. 2002.

MEDIAMAKING: MASS MEDIA IN A POPULAR CULTURE. Lawrence Grossberg, Ellen Wartella, D. Charles Whitney. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. 1998.

MEDIA, COMMUNICATIONS, CULTURE: A GLOBAL APPROACH. James Lull. Columbia University Press, NY. 2000.

REPUBLIC OF DENIAL: PRESS, POLITICS, AND PUBLIC LIFE. Michael Janeway. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1999.

BIAS: A CBS INSIDER EXPOSES HOW THE MEDI DISTORT THE NEWS. Bernard Goldberg. Regnery Publishing, Washington DC. 2002.

THE MEDIA ELITE: AMERICA'S NEW POWERBROKERS. S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, Linda S. Lichter. Adler & Adler, Bethesda. 1986.

SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT. Ann Coulter. Crown Publishers, NY. 2002.

THE OTHER PARENT: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE MEDIA'S EFFECT ON OUR CHILDREN. James P. Steyer. Atria Books, NY. 2002.

The point is the the media is complex. To make the overly simplistic claim that "the Right" or "The Republicans" own the media is a gross oversimplification.

My own anecdotal perspective is that liberals have strong influence in the television and movie industry; but that the right wing dominates radio and internet. But this, also, is an oversimplification. The issue of media's control and influence is far too complex to make such oversimplifications.

Moore has stated repeatedly that if F9/11 helps drive George W out of office, it will have met it's objective. Hardly the kind of motivation that drives an objective, balanced documentary. It is propoganda. While I'm sure some of the claims are true, it is not a documentary. It is slanted by the artist's own words.

Well, the site doesn't let more than one user use the same name, and the "michael" who posted earlier claimed to be from Norway.

That list of books happens to be from a lot of people who cant say anything about being biased....one author in particular from that list (Ann Coulter) is such a lying crazy person that i really could careless what she writes down on paper....seriously....we can push book lists on each other all day and some of them have truth in them and some of them are total opinion often times with incorrect facts in them...but the bottom line is that the battle for who can prove who is in control of the media is a stupid stupid struggle.....who cares....

Thormachine,

I think Mr. Dark was disputing the claim that the Republicans or conservatives control the media, as claimed in the "letter" from "Michael Moore" posted above.

Otherwise, you're right. I'm with Mr. Dark in that my experience with the media is that it's slanted liberal; your experience may differ.

Careful consumption of the media is what's called for.

Best,

Pete

Thormachine: Again, you missed my point. My point was that the claim by the Moore excerpt that the media is controlled by the Republicans is overly simplistic. I intentionally listed books that took both sides of the argument to back up my point that the question is not so simply disposed of. But you have made it clear in another post that you don't bother to research or do the reading, so the book list, of course, is useless to you.

Heyhey!
Ouh,it is just me, the idiot from Denmark.
..and the words are of course from MM�s newsletter...just thought you�d like to read it...

...and to everybody!
I�m sorry if I offended you,I didn�t meen to.
I should have edited myself before posting, sorry!
-but I still believe that you have to open your eyes and not just brush it off as "it was a bunch of fanatic morons...."
Thanks

Here's my e-mail to Mr. Bradbury:

Hi sir.

As a fan, I was wondering if the tiff with Michael Moore was due to a misunderstanding. His calling his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" was actually an homage, an honor bestowed on you because Mr. Moore was very affected and impressed by your book "Fahrenheit 451".

Just as your book was about the burning of books to prevent independent thought, his movie is about the temperature at which "freedom burns."

The Bush administration is currently engaging in the deplorable activities like the thought police in your book--they pressure, they insult, they threaten and humiliate anyone who disagrees with their policies using their henchmen at Fox News and other right-wing spokespersons. Mr. Moore, remembering your book as a shining light against these bullying tactics, thought to then name is movie as a homage to your book.

I guess Mr. Moore's main fault was not trying to contact you first to tell you about it. He has said he regrets this though. You can read about this in...
http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movies/story.html?i...5d-b492-70071f256d53

Anyway, keep up the good work and I hope you live a long life.

VM, Manila

p.s. Your book "Fahrenheit 451" is a piece of art because true art "reveals or makes better the human condition." I think Mr. Moore's movie is also true art, and it's only fitting that the two are somehow related via the title. Peace.

>Ray Bradbury *criticized* Moore. If Moore can't handle criticism for his actions, he should leave public life.<

Glancing at my book shelf, I see two titles by Ray Bradbury: "I Sing the Body Electric" (also the title of a Bradbury short story) and "Something Wicked This Way Comes." Has Ray Bradbury apologized to either Walt Whitman and/or William Shakespeare for lifting lines from their work to use as titles for his own books? Are those Bradbury works going to be reissued with new titles? I think not.

Dave,

You're late to the game. Your points have already been rebutted by others on this site. You might take a little time and read through some of the threads and see if there isn't anything new you can contribute. I for one would welcome a new argument to this discussion.

Best,

Pete

>You're late to the game. Your points have already been rebutted by others on this site<

Thanks, Pete - I only found so many messages posted here - well, that's a newbie for you, my apologies. I'll see if I can find where my points have been "rebutted."

I now see it was, and wasn't (about MM).

Mr Dark,
if somoeone owns the media, do they not control what's being communicated through it? A very nice example is found in Canada. Please research who Izzy Asper was (died a few months ago), what his views were, what he told his syndicated newspapers to print, and who quit from the editorial boards of those newspapers in protest over such blatant "bias-ism".

Cheers, Translator

Translator,

I can't be bothered to look up anything on Izzy Asper - I'm far too lazy - but surely in Canada there were other outlets that offered different views from his. I think Mr. Dark's point was that the issue of media bias is quite complex. I think the media is too liberal and I believe you don't think it's liberal enough. I dislike this kind of resolution to an issue but surely the answer lies somewhere in between. As you've recommeneded elsewhere, and I've suggested above, a careful consumption of a wide variety of sources is in order.

Best,

Pete

I agree with Pete. The claim by Moore was that the right-wing Republican-controlled media was out to squelch his movie. There are various claims as to where media bias is present. The question of ownership is not so easily disposed of either. Sometimes conservativ-owned media outlets hire liberal point-persons because they are sometimes driven less by ideology than by return on investment. It is pretty naive to think that ownership automatically leads to editorial dictatorship. Liberals are often very, very quick to shut out and mock opposing views. Even in this thread, anyone who agrees with Bush must be falling for his lies, because smart people are against Bush. The deck is stacked.

Okay, I'm gonna take this one back and connect it to a controversial topic from a couple months ago. Yup, you guessed it! Everybody's favorite: Passion of the Christ! (how will he do it, you ask?)

Okay, so there's a touching scene in "9-11" with an Iraqi mother weeping for her lost son. It must be simply heart wrenching, and I mean no sarcasm by that. Truly you are meant to feel this woman's pain, and see the horrors of taking a human life, especially through violence.

My point? Well, I've come to a conclusion: One of these two following statements must, therefore, be true:

A: Fahrenheit 9-11 is anti-American.

or

B: Passion of the Christ is NOT anti-semitic.

Take your pick.