Movies instead of Campaign ads?

[araine901]

Do you think the right should do an campaign movie too? If an anti Kerry person chose to make a movie making Kerry look like a choad, should that be regulated like a campaign ad? Will elections of the future use this to get around “campaign finance reform”?

Making people pay to see their advertisements is pretty capitalist, I am all for it. Personally I think within the limits of liable and slander laws people should be able to say am make ads up to the end. I think the finance reform is retarded and this “movie” just proves it. Where do we go from here?

[Yankee911]

It's June 30th where I live. How long do you think it took for Moore to make his movie? That **** takes time. But I think you can right it on your calendar for 2007 or whatever that you'll see a nice Neocon Productions of a similiar type movie.

The advantage Moore had was Bush was in office. If Kerry wins, the movie thing will work. If Bush is re-elected, you have to try and guess who will win the Dem nomination beauty contest before you make your movie--or make 3 films about the top 3.

I think you are ****ing-A correct on elections of the future using a movie. It's nothing new. Ever watched Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl? She helped make Hitler.

[techweenie]

I have no problem at all with using movies to campaign.

But I'm surprised you think this is new, or limited to the left.

The religious right promoted "The Clinton Chronicles" a paranoid fantasy that threw every nutcase claim about Clinton (CIA stooge, serial rapist, mass murderer, etc.) into one steaming sludgeball and sold tapes through Jerry Falwell's organization to people like Mul.

Reasonable people saw it for what it was -- a 'documentary' on the level of an 'aliens created the pyramids' scam. But for a certain segment of the population -- those wearing tinfoil hats -- it was gospel.

[araine901]

Tech:

No I dont think political documentaries are new. (rememer I am only mildly retarded, some believe Mul to be severly retarded) But I am speaking in context of the campaign reform where I understood that negitive ads about a candiated cannot be aird within a cirtan window nearing the end of the campaign. My question is should movies like the anit clinton one and any anti Bush ones be subject to this. I know they are not, I am just wondering what the next election will be like if this is the "loophole" to CFR?

[techweenie]

araine: Sorry for misunderstanding.

Here are my thoughts:

The 'fairness doctrine' was ended under Reagan, so the broadcast media no longer have a legal responsibility to air 2 or more sides of an issue.

As far as campaign finance law, it might be argued that MM's film is like a PAC-funded activity, and as such, if it's against one candidate, but does not promote another, I believe CFR rules don't apply. (CFR is kind of a sham, anyway, by comparison to the McCain Feingold attempt.)

Good question.

[speeder]

If any Republican ever makes a political propaganda film that smashes box office records and opens at #1, (like F911), I'll eat my shorts. That's on record right here!

In the words of a famous sissyhawk, "Bring 'em on!"

[araine901]

Tech: I agree, I dont think it should apply and I agree it is a sham.

Speeder: We both know there anent any of us righties that are artsie enough to make a decent movie. Besides 90 min of John Kerry would put anyone to sleep.

[SteveStromberg]

The Nazi used movies for propaganda . Here a link Note this is Nazi Site so it may offend and I do not endorsing their Veiws like any one would think that the Nazi were anything but evil.Just post to show the simalairity to Micheal "I wish I could be Joesph Gerblels" Moore movies.`

http://www.hitlerwasright.info/

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by techweenie
The religious right promoted "The Clinton Chronicles" a paranoid fantasy that threw every nutcase claim about Clinton (CIA stooge, serial rapist, mass murderer, etc.) into one steaming sludgeball and sold tapes through Jerry Falwell's organization to people like Mul.

Where was the "right-wing media" on that one?...Hmmmmmmm?...Tech, I am sure you gave a "woo-hoo" or a "yaaa f#$k Bush!" or a standing O' when Mooreon was spinning a yarn that probably made "The Clinton Chronicles" look like a verbatim transcript.

Clinton wasn't a serial rapist, perhaps, but Juanita Broadderick (DEMOCRAT) sure has a compelling story, replete with lip biting to the point of drawing blood...We do know for a fact that Clinton is a serial sexual harasser and pathological liar, which makes Juanita's story that much more believable.

I haven't seen the movie (hate to burst your jump to conclusions) so I will stop my apologia here.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by SteveStromberg
The Nazi used movies for propaganda . Here a link Note this is Nazi Site so it may offend and I do not endorsing their Veiws like any one would think that the Nazi were anything but evil.Just post to show the simalairity to Micheal "I wish I could be Joesph Gerblels" Moore movies.`

What I find really interesting is the very same hallowed body of moral giants that gave MM an oscar for best fiction, gave Leni Reifenstahl (Hitler's film-maker) a special mention last year...hmmmm...go figure.

Just gotta hate the Islamic cheerleaders of the left....'GOOOOOOOO ISLAM!!!!!!"

[nullh2o]

I hear Peter Jackson is a Nazi as well.

& Renée Zellweger is a KKK cheerleader.

Right?

[Superman]

Mul, Araine, I think you should pursue this. I hope you try to get this movie banned. Even if you don't succeed. And I hope you do succeed. Complain complain complain. Please.

[araine901]

Superman, Have you taken your meds? WTF are you talking about? Please show me where I said I wanted to ban any movie? Do I think it is a biased attempt to get Bush out of office, yes. Do I think people have a right to make and see a movie like this? Yes, This is america, I have spent enough time in Comunist contries to have a healthy respect for the 1st amendment. My point above was; will this become a standard for elections in the future? Will I see the movie? Most likly, I have seen all of MM's other movies. I think he is very talented at bending truth to prove his points. Everyone does it, inculding you. Nothing new.

[Superman]

Hey hey hey hey. You may have misinterpreted the tone of my post. No, I did not think you were inclined to ban this movie or any other. I didn't even think I could thrill you into that notion. And I was even smiling when I read your post, until I got to the part where you called me a truth-bender. Sounds like the "L" word to me.

[araine901]

I am not a very smart person so you will have to explain how I should have interpeted that post. Dont take the truth bending comment personly, you must have "Misinterpted" my intent. We all pick sides on issues and in many cases selectivly purseue the points that meet our agenda. Doing insurnace claims invesitagtions I learnd that every story has three sides not two. one side, the other side and the truth and the truth is not mutually exclusive to either side. And in case you are wondering everyone means everyone inculding you and me.

[Superman]

Insurance adjuster expounds on the essence and prevalence of "truth."

Three baseball umpires were having beers after the Saturday games. One compliments the other two on their effectiveness calling pitches, then says "Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call them as I see them." Three beers are hoisted, then drained.

The second umpire, after expressing his professional respect for the other two, says "Some are balls and some are strikes, I call them as they are." Three beers are hoisted and drained.

The third umpire announces he must leave for home, compliments the entire group for their infallible plate calls and says "Some are balls and some are strikes, but they ain't nuthin' 'til I call 'em."

I call this my existentialism joke. Now, if you take offense to this then I'm going to lose my good humor.

[350HP930]

I have heard that the worse that can happen is that F911 may not be advertisable during the last month of the election, but no law can keep it from being shown at the theaters.

That certainly won't stop the right wingers from trying though.

[pwd72s]

Hey, I have no problem with the movie...I hope people are smart enough to recognize it for what it is. Not entertainment, not documentary, but propaganda filming...If they aren't smart enough? Well, then the nation deserves what it gets.

[dd74]

Moore broke big ground with F-911. And it is predicted that it will swing a sizeable block of voters. The Republicans are already getting their aspect of the industry in gear, and are hurrying to get out a counter to Moore's work. But it might be a matter of too little too late, and will probably be held up as a defensive action against Moore's accusations more than anything revealing.

Keep in mind that Hollywood is no stranger to this style of film. Propaganda is in its blood. There's nothing new here. What I find strange is how polarized the critics were as to whether F-911 was a good or bad movie.

As a film, in and of itself, it probably does suck because like all of Moore's work, F-911 is linear; has no arcs; contains no story.

As a documentary, it probably is lousy as well as documentaries try to provide two sides to an argument.

As a propaganda tool, however, F-911 is probably quite effective. The problem I see with the movie is it leaves itself open to too many interpretations of what it's supposed to be - but that's just on the surface.

My deeper concern is that this sort of candid-camera style of movie making can and will influence the election, and demonstrates furthermore the ongoing hand-in-hand progression politics and the media take together.

What's the lesson for GW? In the end, as much as he or any candidate might admonish Hollywood, they should never discount Hollywood's influence in politics. This machine is much bigger than government. That's why Clinton did so well, and why so many influencials in the media turned the other cheek to his misdeeds. He had a face for the camera - and still does. Plus he respected the industry as the industry did Clinton.

[araine901]

I dont think it fits under the current CFR as an anti candidate advertisment therefore wont be subject to its rules. Nor do I think it should be either. I think people should be able to say whatever is legal. Once the move into slander and lible then they should be stoped.

Personly I find it hillarious that the left are willing to pay to watch thier advertising. At least the republicans feed you thier line of crap for free. Now which is the party of capitolist bastards?