Moore Smeared As Independant Claims He Admits Ban Was "Stunt"

[KittyWampus]

Why is the Independant smearing Moore? Do they have Mockingbird plants just like the NYTimes and W. Post?

Also, why are DU'ers falling for a misleading headline?

Apparently Moore was told about a year ago Disney wouldn't distribute the movie but the Producer assured him that it would be released.

Don't buy the bs. Mike makes NO SUCH ADMISSION in his CNN interview.

Oh, and by the way, it is STILL CENSORSHIP!

..............................................................................................................................................................
Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant
attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that
Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US
release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film,
a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September
2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on
distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. He does make that admission

but the story and headline do seem slanted.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/06/moore.disney/index.html

Moore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film.

Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year. We finished the film last week, and we take it to the Cannes film festival next week.

On Monday of this week we got final word from Disney that they will not distribute the film. They told my agent they did not want to upset the Bush family, particularly Gov. Bush of Florida because Disney was up for a number of tax incentives, abatements ... whatever. The risk of losing this -- we're talking about tens of millions of dollars -- they didn't want to risk it over a little documentary.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Also on Aaron Brown last night

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/05/asb.00.html

MOORE: What I know is, is that Michael Eisner went and had a meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel at Endeavor, and told him at this meeting that there is no way he will allow Miramax to distribute Michael Moore's film, because, in doing so, it will anger Jeb Bush and put Disney at risk in Florida. They were up for millions of dollars of task abatements, tax incentives, whatever.

BROWN: They deny -- they don't deny the meeting, obviously, with the agent. They deny that they said that. No doubt in your mind that was said?

MOORE: No, no doubt at all.

BROWN: OK.

MOORE: Oh, absolutely not.

In fact, I got a phone call immediately after the meeting. I was told this. And we decided, along with Miramax, to do our best to try and convince Disney to do the right thing. And we have spent months trying to do that. We have been very quiet about this.

BROWN: This has gone on pretty much a year, hasn't it?

MOORE: Yes, that's right.

BROWN: Why not a year ago just go find another way to get the movie out there? MOORE: Because a year ago, we were already making the film. We already had a deal. We had a contract with Miramax to distribute the film. And this happened all after we did this deal.

And Miramax felt very confident that Disney, once they saw the film, would distribute it.


(my emphasis)

[KittyWampus]

3. Um, No He Does Not. Where In Either Transcript Does Moore Say "Stunt"

or even imply it.

Here is the other bit from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/06/ltm.02.html

COLLINS: Miramax Films confirms its parent company, Walt Disney, won't allow it to release Michael Moore's new
documentary. But Disney says Moore is free to find another distributor or to distribute the film himself. The
documentary, "Fahrenheit 911," criticizes President Bush's handling of the terror attacks.

Jen Rogers takes a look at the controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEN ROGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Michael Moore has never hidden his feelings about President Bush.

MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: He was never elected by a majority of the citizens of this country, and I'll keep saying
that until he's out of there.

ROGERS: Now, in his latest documentary, "Fahrenheit 911," he's taking his criticisms to the big screen, or at least
trying to. The movie, said to be sharply critical of Bush, and according to The New York times, links Bush and
prominent Saudis, including the family is of Osama bin Laden, has become the center of controversy after Moore
announced on his Web site that the Walt Disney company was blocking distribution by its subsidiary, Miramax.

MOORE: It's disappointing that Disney doesn't want people to see this. You know, there are no bad things in it. You
know, there is no sex and violence. There's just some truth about what's happening to this country.

ROGERS: In a statement, 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 for Disney's part, there doesn't seem much left to resolve.

MICHAEL EISNER, CEO, DISNEY: We just chose not to be involved.

ROGERS (on camera): Any chance that Disney will change their mind?

EISNER: We've made our position very clear on that.

ROGERS (voice-over): In a written statement, the company said, "In May 2003, the Walt Disney Company
communicated to Miramax and Mr. Moore's representatives that Miramax would not be the distributor of his film.
Contrary to his assertion, Mr. Moore has had and continues to have every opportunity to either find another distributor
or to distribute the film himself." Regardless of who actually ends up distributing Moore's film, the current controversy
is publicity money can't buy.

MATT FELLING, THE CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The big winner in this entire fiasco is Michael Moore
and Michael Moore's publicity team. They should send thank you cards to the Disney people.

ROGERS: For now, dueling press releases will have to do.

(on camera): While the release date for Moore's new movie may still be months away, congressional hearings could be
held sooner. On Wednesday, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey called for the Senate Commerce
Committee to look into what he has called the pattern of politically-based corporate censorship.

Jen Rogers, CNN Financial News, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Moore says he will screen the film next week at the Cannes Film Festival.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Sorry, I had read your post as

"Apparently Moore was told about a year ago Disney wouldn't distribute the movie but the Producer assured him that it would be released.

Don't buy the bs. Mike makes NO SUCH ADMISSION in his CNN interview."

meaning you were claiming Moore hadn't been told a year ago. Now I realise your 'no such admission' refers back to the title 'stunt'. I agree you're right that Moore never called what has happened 'a stunt'.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Moore never said this is a stunt.

Disney said a year ago it would block distribution, now the movie is almost finished, and Disney is still saying that.

This has nothing to do with stunts.

[kaitykaity]

5. The Independent is a conservative paper,

so I'm not taking this article too very seriously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. No, it's not normally conservative

For instance, it's the paper Robert Fisk is published in, and it was against the invasion of Iraq.

As this study says, it's position during the 2001 election was pro-Euro, and although it wasn't pro-Labour, it did say 'don't vote Conservative' (which you might argue is a more left wing position than saying 'vote Labour').
http://newmedia.leeds.ac.uk/eurpolcom/exhibits/paper5.pdf

[KittyWampus]

9. I Think It's The London Times That's Right Wing

While the Guardian is Left and the Independant is a bit more "Left", IIRC.

That is why I wondered if they have plants like US media has.

[kaitykaity]

11. The Independent and The Guardian are sister

papers owned by the same company. The Guardian is liberal
and The Independent is conservative. (I got this from
Randi Rhodes, and she's usually pretty reliable.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Then you must be thinking of The Observer

which is a Sunday newspaper, and owned by the Guardian group. The Observer is slightly more conservative than The Guardian (The Observer did support the invasion of Iraq, but it wouldn't have been surprising for it to oppose it). Its position is more New Labour (but it's not a slavishly pro-Blair paper).

The Independent is owned by Tony O'Reilly, who used to be the chief executive of Heinz.

All 3 are socially liberal - I think they've all called for marijuana decriminalisation, for instance (The Independent made quite a campaign of it). I think all 3 may also have called for replacing the British monarchy with a republic, which is about as non-conservative a position as you can take in Britain, without manning the barricades.

[KittyWampus]

14. Well, It's Good People Seem Not To Be Taking The Spin

whatever which way the paper leans! :)

[K-W]

8. Knowing any business negotiation,

I have no doubt that the entire time people were telling Moore that it would be released anyway and that Disney sent mixed messages and so did Mirimax. If it wasnt until now that that the decision was considered final, then this makes perfect sense.

[seabeyond]

10. hey all i watched cnn last nite

and in one of these thread said exactly that and it wasnt because i read the independent, it was because moore isnt that good of an actor and i knew that is what he was doing. too easy to read. thats what happens with honest people. hey not a bug deal he played it and eisner followed

cool enough, it is a good movie i am sure and he will get a distributor and eisner wont piss off right, they are already mad at him, and this is an example for all along with nightline censor and air america expreience and howard stern in right wing censorship

[0rganism]

13. I've said from the beginning that this was a winner for Disney & Moore

Disney: gets to turn down the distribution rights in return for tax breaks and real estate favors from the bushistas.

Moore (and Miramax): gets extra free publicity for the film, resulting in bigger box office from a guaranteed anti-Disney movment.

Moore's getting to be a bit of a "player", methinks.