Baghdad Broadcasting goes to the movies
: It should come as no surprise whatsoever that the BBC does a puff piece on Fahrenheit 9/11.
45 responses to “Baghdad Broadcasting goes to the movies”
-
Yeah, it’s a puff piece. But the last 30% (201 words out of 676) of it covers opposition to the film/Moore…for what it’s worth.
BTW, Todd Gitlin has written his reflection of the film:
“Like beer advertisers that use bikini-clad women, Michael Moore relies on the power of association rather than proof…” -
Michael Moore is disingenous. Ok we’re all agreed. But calling the BBC the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation is honest, reputable work? It’s death has been reported many times, but maybe satire has finally flatlined.
-
Baghdad Broadcasting Company is truth in advertising. No satire, just fact.
-
This is what discredits your argument against Moore. You don’t object to the idea of disinformation, lies, distortions per se – only what the other side is saying whether it be true or not. I would have a lot more sympathy for those loudest arguing against Moore if the majority of them weren’t so dishonest. If they could find the intellectual and moral courage to abandon the excesses of their side (for instance Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation). But too much to ask – so screw’em. I’ll sit back and watch the war-bloggers blog themselves a heart attack as they choke and stutter as Moore’s film racks up the millions and chuckle over how I was informed that the initial public support for the war was a sign of the great wisdom of the American people and how they “got” the connection between Iraq and Al-Qeada while those of us who could read were left hopelessly behind. I guess this weekend’s box office is yet another sign of their wisdom. Hmmmm, maybe I too will go the movies tonight……
-
Might have been an idea to read the entire article – as in, to the end – before calling it a puff piece. But hey, that wouldn’t have made for a nice headline.
I sense a pot/kettle scenario here -
Wow a post about Moore without resorting to calling him any names…you are making progress Jarvis thank your shrink for us.
-
Michael
I took time and read the piece you linked to.
In my opinion Todd’s commentary distills to this: “That Michael Moore is such a kidder, and boy can he stretch the truth. But afterall, as a matter of conscience, isn’t he on the right track here?”
The piece is ripe for the fisking, and I’m sure someone will oblige.
I suggest that the effort required might be more productively used to question whether Michael Moore and the points he raises are a distraction from a gravely serious issue with which we as a nation are still confronted, and place our focus there instead.
On 9/11, as you may recall, the details were a little sketchy at first. I awoke to my radio alarm clock that morning; what I heard was an NPR news broadcast indicating that a plane had hit one of the towers. My first thought was that of a small private plane gone off course.
I took the 45 minute bus ride to my job where I learned that it was presumably hijacked airliners, and that a second plane had hit, and later, that the Pentagon too had been struck.
I can personally relate to the President’s need to reflect after he learned of the second airliner’s strike.
I too was visibly shocked and so were my all of my co-workers. We all took time to reflect, as a matter of fact, not a lot was said for several hours, as I recall.
Imagine if the victims in the Twin Towers had not become part of the rubble, and could instead be stacked like cord wood. It would make for a very compelling image to be sure, and one that should be rightly juxtaposed with Mr. Moore’s selected imagery.
Those of us who weren’t on site can only grasp our personal impressions of that day.
As the news came in, I soon realized that the attacks had been co-ordinated and executed by small groups of individuals operating independently of one another. There had also been some speculation in the media about a Middle Eastern connection.
I lived in downtown Minneapolis at the time. I knew the city had a significant population of recent immigrants from Somalia and other Islamic countries.
I soon began to ponder whether I too could become a victim on that day; my apartment was a 5 minute walk from the downtown district.
I WILL NEVER FORGET THE FEAR I FELT. I will never forget the wariness with which I viewed those who just the day before had appeared innocuous.
I vowed that day that myself and my countrymen would never stand to live in that kind of fear, and by God we won’t, I so desperately hope.
FYI, the real issue here is the choice between Eurostyle Realpolitik and appeasement of international terrorism, or the Bush Administration’s policy of preemption.
I had concluded that preemption was our only rational choice long before the President’s policy had been announced.
Those who’s responsibility it is to provide for our common defense can’t afford to delude themselves, and neither can we.
National Security should not be reduced to pop-culture sentimentalism and cocktail party chit-chat.
Afterall, more real life horror may be just around the corner; literally. -
John,
Of course how we respond to this new threat of internationa terrorism should not be relegated to cocktail chatter. But I presume you’ll also agree that debates over possible Presidential misconduct shouldn’t be discussed in terms of the weight of the man making the accusations. -
What IF Moore is right? What do we do?
Voting out Bush does not seem sufficient for the crimes Moore has uncovered. Shall we hunt down all those defined in his movies? Will there be a Commission to investigate and bring charges?
OR
What do we do if he is wrong? Has our will been sapped such that we will not respond anywhere until/unless we are attacked? And then how shall we respond? With police only?
Whether Moore is right or wrong matters little on the question of keeping a viable military. we simply don’t need them anymore.
They die following orders of people who are not worth the benefit of the doubt. They act on decisions made by imperfect people using imperfect intelligence. Then they embarass us.
We cannot use the military against terrorists since they have no nation. We cannot respond against an enemy who lives in apartments here and there.
The question is less about whether Moore was right but “What Next?”. If he is right how do we change America? If he is wrong how have we been changed?
Or does it matter? -
Franky
Clearly so. I’m curious about why Moore’s body weight is apparently relevent.
What I see in this campaign is an attempt by the Left to re-define the debate in terms of the so-called culture wars, an arena in which they believe themselves to have better footing.
I believe though, that trivializing the stakes in the War on Terror endangers us all.
Because of the diversity of the Democratic Coalition and it’s fractiousness, I understand why John Kerry can’t afford to take a solid stand.
Unfortunately, these times demand decisiveness.
Todd Gitlin says,
“But when Moore was boosting Ralph Nader in the 2000 campaign and assuring his public that Tweedlegore = Tweedlebush, was he not made up for the cameras?”
I think the argument can be made that it’s because of bozos like Moore and Nader that Bush is in the White House in the first place. Ralph Nader got over 50,000 votes in Florida.
Don’t you think it’s absurd that Moore is now accusing George Bush of stealing the election in Florida?
Perhaps he is, as he should be, motivated by guilt. Although his despicable behavior in Europe does not give me much hope of that.
I am grateful that President Bush has what it takes to have risen to the challenges we face post 9/11.
I’m pretty sure that Gore would have chosen to continue to draw yet another and another new “final” line in the sand in response to Saddam’s continued defiance. Bear in mind that the threat posed by Hussein’s regime is not diminished in the least by the lack of direct evidence of colaboration with Al Qaeda on 9/11. The greater threat was the potential for Bin Laden to aquire a new sugar daddy in the person of Saddam Hussein.
Maybe Michael Moore’s most ardent supporters should ask themselves this question:
Well geeze, the last time anybody listened to this guy we got Bush, how do we know he’s right this time, and how do we know that we didn’t get lucky in 2000? -
we all know you didnt like the movie, buddy, thats cool. but i agree with the others, the article you linked to wasnt what’d i’d call a puff peice either.
meanwhile, F/9-11 made *another* $20mil this weekend, yet is still in less theaters than white chicks, dodgeball, the notebook, the termindal, harry potter, shrek 2, two brothers, and even Garfield: The Movie (all of whom made far less than $20 mil this weekend).
if you want to pick on something, pick on miramax + disney + whoever, for not being able to get this movie on more screens. -
Given the paucity of insightful or, simply, wolrdly news we recieve in this nation from our own news sources, I find it a little disheartening to hear someone dismiss the an article in the BBC as another expected piece of fluff. They certainly have a far better track record for pressing hard in interviews than most of their mainstream media counterparts. I mean, come on, who do we really have over hear? Barbara Walters? Dan Rather?
If can suggesst some thing that may seem naive, passe or out-dated, perhaps we and several other nations around the world should adopt international diplomacy stances that do not foster terrorism as a means of preventing it. Yes, surely something must be done to deal with the problem that exists currently. However, much like society’s continual efforts to combat crime, fixing the problem after it has become a problem misses the point. I work in healthcare and our main thrust in the profession is to prevent disease/disorders before they crop up. Terrorism, like an social malady, has diverse social and cultural roots. Trying to fight it with military might rather than by addressing this root causes overlooks a significant portion of the problem.
Perhaps, then, a signifcant beneficial effect might be seen by doing things to relieve third world debt, strengthen the U.N. by abiding by it’s edicts as we expect others to do, lending political advice (not might) to fledgling attempts at democracy and altering globlizing forces to be something that does not rape weaker ecomonies for the benefit of first world nations. -
Sure, Moore’s an idiot, and the last advice I would offer would be to listen and follow all he suggests. However that doesn’t detract from the questions he raises about the very real incompetence and dishonesty of this administration.
And to call the BBC story a puff piece is about as bad as the worst detailed accusation I’ve seen of Moore. So you misrepresent a story written by the BBC, then you label it a slanderous moniker in keeping with the piece that it never actually wrote. Low.
Because you dislike the film, Jeff, you think the BBC shouldn’t report on this controversy? I’ve been in DC and NY for the past ten days and must have had a dozen conversations with people already about the film. Will you deny the film is creating a stir? Is that not cultural news? Then the film’s topic in an election year? If you as an editor canned a story on the film, your boss would quickly put you out of a job.
You’re doing yourself no favors with this obsession over Moore. -
Franky–did you dance and praise allah on 911?? Just wondering–must get tired licking that terrorist butt that you do daily. You make me want tp barf every time you post. You ,like Moore, are on the side of the enemy. Otherwise, you’d not be defending that piece of rancid blubbo.
{Face it, Michael Moore hates America. He goes abroad and tells the people in Europe that we are the dumbest people on earth. “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance,” he told the British press. “We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”
He explained 9/11 by blaming the United States: “We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.”
He insisted that the terrorists currently killing our soldiers in Iraq can be compared to our Revolutionary War heroes who fought off British oppression: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win.”} Keep hoping, Mikey. I keep wondering why this useless piece of skin stays in America. He has many fans in the ME.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/070404/opi_blindhate.shtml -
Thanks, Kat. I had forgotten how much I loved the “any criticism of the Administration is aiding the enemy” trope.
BTW, you ricidule Moore’s statements about general ignorance among the American population in regards to US foreign policy, and the US’s culpability in violence across the globe, but you don’t offer any evidence or arguments to refute the claims. Care to? -
Kat, I’ve seen what you post here. I know what -and how – you think. Any kind words from you would send me scurrying back to see what I wrote in a cold sweat and happily I’ll wear the bile stains from your comments with pride. You and your filthy kind spring up every generation; you’ve worn black shirts and brown, you’ve worn commisar outfits and you’ve had shaved heads. You and your authoritarian kind thrive on the fear and hatred of others. You are a blight on this human race and we would all be a lot better of without you and your stinking gene pool. But until a civilized society emerges, we’re stuck with you, so why not make the time a little more pleasant and be quiet.
Michael, there are some topics that have been ruled out of bounds here. Anything less than “US foreign policy has always been to the beneift of mankind” and you’re way out of line, mister.
What’s that I hear? the great wise people just spent another $10 paying to see F-9/11. What a beautiful day it is outside too. -
Kat, when you get around to closing that open bracket, let us know, okay? Your grammar and spelling are a giggle, but at least last time you opened a bracket, you closed it. Open brackets aren’t funny. That’s what terrorists do, leave open brackets.
-
Okay, my bad, that bracket closes in the third paragraph. Whew. I plead new contact lenses.
-
“meanwhile, F/9-11 made *another* $20mil this weekend, yet is still in less theaters than white chicks, dodgeball, the notebook, the termindal, harry potter, shrek 2, two brothers, and even Garfield: The Movie (all of whom made far less than $20 mil this weekend).”
It’s in more theatres than last weekend and can only manage that? And Moore told us that the polls matter more… right now Bush has bounced back in the polls. -
And actually it made less than $17 million when you look at 3-day totals, which is the only way to compare it to last week.
-
Franky–why don’t you move to one of those nice lands where your beheader buddies dwell? Ride a camel, build a suicide vest, kill a Jew, and talk about how evil we are. Take Michael with you.
MZ–yes, we have made mistakes–big ones. We went into Somalia and Kosovo. We bombed innocent Serb kids in museums , in a train station, in their schools. We did it day after day, raining bombs on babies from 30,000 feet up. We didn’t go after Milosevic–we went after babies, aspirin factories, Belgrade Museum, Pristina ,a village filled with kids, etc.
We allowed the genocide of the Armenians, the Copts, and millions to die under Stalin and others–and we pretended there was no holocaust here. We allowed too many Jews to die before acting on WW2. Today we are allowing a genocide to take place in Sudan, Nigeria, Ambon. Yes, we have made mistakes–but the US is also the best country in the world. But let’s ask the muslim states to be accountable for the atrocities they have perpetrated and continue to. Let’s look at the real root of this current evil–the Koran, a terrorist’s manual. -
Yes, it was a puff piece. To think otherwise requires a bit of tunnel vision. It’s introduced as the film that sets light to America, igniting anti-Bush feeling from those who were previously passive.
It’s then deemed politically effective (the middle third); yes there are put-downs, but they aren’t contextualised and are over ridden by the introductory emotion.
Finally, the opposition to it is clearly partisan (the last third)- coming solely from ‘conservatives’. I guess that’s why Jeff doesn’t like the article: it excludes a large body of mainstream opinion (including his) that thinks Fahrenheit 9/11 is not much more than a piece of exploitative filth. -
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2004/07/05/Arts/moore20040705.html
Could you imagine conservative squaks if as policy a theater chain decided against showing a popular right-wing documentary?. The shreiking would only be matched by their little self-satisfied grins as they were once again able to feel victimised.
“The total now for Fahrenheit 9/11 has now reached an awesome $60.1 million after only two weekends against a budget of only $6 million.”
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8418
Watch the conservatives contort this one in to how this really reflects the film is doing very badly indeed. Hey why don’t you all start mass-buying seats for the anti-moore documentary and give the seats to homeless people and then claim it’s really popular as your crackheads snooze through the film. -
The CBC is as garbagey as the BBC–the Canadian version of the Baghdad BC.
I found a good article for your type, Franky.
http://americandaily.com/article/2867
{The Case For America Divorcing Its Haters
By Bruce Walker (07/02/04)
Why do men like Michael Moore live in America? Why, indeed, do so many people who profess hatred of America live in America? This is one of those forbidden questions in politically correct public discussions, which include these other Verboten queries:
“Why are textbooks and documentaries ignoring the overwhelming evidence that communist infiltration of America during the Cold War was greater, not less, than anti-communists in the 1950s and 1960s thought?” or “Why are there no feature films about the greatest holocaust in human history, the extermination by communists of 100 million souls in the 20th Century?” or “What was the attitude of Leftist Democrat icons like Harry Truman, Hugo Black, Woodrow Wilson, Tom Clark (Ramsey’s father), and LBJ toward civil rights before it was a vote-getter?”} HMMMMMMMMMMMMM????? -
Oh, and about the Baghdad BC–
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/04/nbbc04.xml
{BBC reports ‘littered with errors’
By Chris Hastings, Media Correspondent
(Filed: 04/07/2004)
A significant number of BBC news reports are untrustworthy and littered with errors because the corporation’s journalists fail to check their facts, according to e-mails sent by one of the BBC’s most senior news managers. His messages reveal that the credibility of the news service is “on the line” because of a climate of sloppiness.} chuckle chuckle -
I believe I now understand Jeff’s suggestion that the BBC article might possibly be considered a “puff piece”.
For some perspective check out this Houston Chronicle article from 7/2 by STEVEN ZAK
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2660449
The city dwellers among you might be not be able to relate to this, but in my opinion anyone who has smelled a hog feedlot has a pretty good understanding of what Michael Moore is about.
City dwellers, it’s worse than you can imagine. -
ok let’s put this another way:
http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice/latest/rank.html
Fahrenheit 9/11, over the last four days, which is the only way serious people measure the 7/4 weekend movie box office groses, was second only to Spider-man 2.
the movies that ranked #3-#10 were all shown on more screens than F 9/11.
to paint this film as anything more than an undebatable box-office success is ridiculous. particularilly in the heat of the summer blockbuster season.
your envy, hh, precedes you. -
Hey tony, Spiderman has trounced the Fatman this week. Three times the gross on one week. My guess, after the initial hype and the scurrying of Moore’s syncophants to the theaters the first week he is now in diminishing return mode.
-
onecent,
‘Diminishing return mode.’ Straight off the bat–once again–you don’t know what you’re talking about. A studio hopes for a less-than-50% dropoff for week 2. Potter/Azkaban dropped 63% in its second week. My cite for the 50% thing? David Weitzner, head of MCA global marketing, class lecture to my USC grad b-school class.
The ‘platform’ tactic that Weinstein/LGF are using with F9/11 is meant to lower the slope of subsequent weeks’ falloff in hopes of a long, long run. What’s more, the longer it’s in the theaters and therefore in the public eye, the better it does on DVD.
That this movie may break $100 million is a testament to the effectiveness of this marketing–and how many people are ready to take the plunge into despising this president. Nobody expected it to beat ‘Spider-Man.’ What’s more, F9/11 ads appear to be free to run all summer long.
Do some reading on film econ before you come in trying to spin with people who know better.
Kat, do you have loved ones who can help you?
I’m to the point where I look forward to your posts just because of the pained looks I can imagine on the faces of other ‘wingers here who once again have to admit the wacky company they keep. -
I’d still take anything what the BBC says over anything what that right-wing Al-Jazeera of the west Fox News.
-
Hee hee hee. Here I see the grand ideal that Moore’s girth is naught but a distracting trifle battling out the equally grand idea that Moore is wonderful and right because he makes lots of money.
-
Baghdad Broadcasting?! Oh Jeff, I hope you were drunk when you posted this.
-
“What’s more, F9/11 ads appear to be free to run all summer long.”
Moore wants it out on DVD in September so that’s rather doubtful. The film is a success but a for-the-devoted only success (still has a ways to go before it approaches the audience of 15 minutes of an average Rush Limbaugh show), and the slow rollout only hides that. Any film that doesn’t show an increase when it adds a significant number of screens doesn’t have staying power, period. -
John, I like your style. You are calm and persuasive. Well done.
-
BBC puts Fox News to shame, as you are probably aware. You think Fox is more objective? I can’t believe you really believe that.
-
“Objectivity” is a fallacy no news organization is capable of attaining.
-
The BBC are alright. They are getting better as well. The Bagdag tag you’re trying to give them is a bit piss-poor. You would be better served to pick out the individual journalists who you feel are disproportionatly biased against America as opposed to making a broad statement like that.
-
Okay, HH, I’m not going cite-fetching any more. Your turn. Back this up, please:
Any film that doesn’t show an increase when it adds a significant number of screens doesn’t have staying power, period.
I’ve given you the facts straight from a lecture by a senior studio marketing exec with 30 years’ experience. If you disagree, I’d like to see the source of your enlightenment.
-
Appologies from the U.K. for me being forced to pay for the BBC. It’s now unwatchable for me due to it’s relentless left wing partisanship, lying by ommision and legion incompetance.
It used to be known as the British Board of Communists!
P.S. British troops stopped watching the BBC during the Iraq war because it was such partisan rubbish. -
Napoleon Dynamite adds a significant number of screens. The result: more money the weekend following. F911 doubles the number of screens. The result: less money than the weekend before. The “source” is basic math. F911 is falling victim to its own high expectations and hype.
Here is box office expert David Poland: “And as if to prove its indie and liberal credentials, the approximate three million people who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 over four days this weekend are called ‘huge audiences.’ Worse… and actually factually inaccurate…. is the report that the film dropped only 12 percent from its opening weekend. The estimated 12 percent drop is based on four days this weekend versus three last weekend. Head-to-head the 3-day weekend dropped an estimated 31% and over 4 days the drop is an estimated 28%.” -
I too find the BBC unwatchable. They apparently think so little of the viewing audience that they feel the need to spell everything out for the viewer in terms of their own “correct” perspective. Why it’s so hard for them to show more than one side some respect is beyond me. I think it’s because many journalists want to change the world instead of informing the world so we can choose for ourselves. I think the news aspects of NPR have gone down hill since 9-11 as well. Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that there are many at NPR who emulate the BBC?
-
again HH, your arguement(s) hold no water. Spider-man set a freaking record this weekend. could that have something to do with the fact that Moore’s documentary “slipped”?
the flat-out truth is F-9/11 was second only to Spidey and beat every other movie out there in the top ten despite being shown on less screens.
by giving no props to a doc with no box-office stars, and turning your back on this unprecidented phenomenom, you are missing the boat.
all because you dont agree with parts of the film.
with your logic if Santa claimed to be a republican you would probably swear that he existed. -
Ooooh! That last portion of Poland’s piece kills off “Hollywood” HH:
Head-to-head the 3-day weekend dropped an estimated 31% and over 4 days the drop is an estimated 28%.
Up above I pointed out that dropping less than 50% is the real trick. F9/11 screamed over that benchmark by 61%.
But time is the thing, eh? We’ll check back on this after it gets nearer to, and even over, $100 million. -
“Like beer advertisers that use bikini-clad women, Michael Moore relies on the power of association rather than proof…”
Um… so, basically, Moore is fighting fire with fire.
Somewhere, someone pointed out that Moore used a misleading quote from Condi regarding Saddam and 9/11. She links the two in responsibility, then, lines later, says that she does not mean Saddam had an actual hand in 9/11, but rather as a dictator, he is part of those forces which produce and support terrorist tendencies. But, she still said, in a full, stand-alone, punctuated sentence, Saddam – link – 9/11. Perhaps the American republic is not as informed as it could/should be, but until recently, a majority of Americans felt that the Bush administration made the case that Saddam was, in some part, behind 9/11. Association, hardly truth, and it took how long for the administration to back track? Well, after we had already invaded, I believe.
Besides, if anyone has ever had to write any serious historical research, one knows that a historian is a storyteller. Facts stand alone, but without interpretation, they guide us nowhere.
