Fox News recommends seeing 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

[Sig]

Here is my best Michael Moore impression:

O.k. folks, I can see that some of you are depressed, lacking optimism, have immense anger at the world, and even more anger at this miserable country we are cursed to live in. I know quite well that misery loves company..... so please come over here with me and my cronies and let's brood over how terrible life is made by those develish people on the right (Moore's right= anything short of radical liberalism).

O.k. folks, I can also see that some of you actually look happy. Let me be the first to tell you that you are not happy! In fact, you are actually under the spell of the vast right-wing conspiracy of happiness. Don't you morons realize that it is impossible to be truly happy in this armpit of a society called the United States? It's not your fault, don't feel bad. Spend some time with me and my good friends and we will convince you that you are actually miserable and depressed. You guys just don't get it, anything on the right is bad. This is precisely why I don't even use my right hand when I pee. Only the left hand for me. It's little things like this that are my daily reminder why I should remain unhappy for the rest of life.

Now people, in case you forget these powerful lessons I have taught you.... I will make movie after movie explaining why the United States sucks and why the government should be overthrown by the brilliant leaders like myself, my good buddy George Soros, Jenean Garofololololo, Al "I invented the Inernet" Gore, Howard "I scream a lot because I'm little" Dean, and most importantly our soon to be France transplant.... his highness Jacqueline Shiiiiiiiiirock... rock.... rock!!! Can you feel the excitement? I may actually get through a sentence without being negative now that I am imagining my quasi-socailist dream team taking over. It's only quasi because I threw in my conservative friends Al Gore and Howard Scream. Who said I can't be around conservatives? Al and Howard are so conservative to me that I can barely stand to look at their voting record. Screamy actually supported the 2nd ammendment, which is unbelievable in my vastly superior mind..... but I think he'll come to his senses eventually.

In closing for you in the back row, if by chance you were not able to hear my message... I'll boil it down for you. The United States is a cess pool of a country and you should be pissed off that you have live here. If you're not pissed off, well then you have been brain washed by the right..... because everyone should be as miserable as I am. Some people who claim to be 'logical' frequently ask me why I don't leave if I'm so miserable? The answer is simple really, how can ensure everyone else is miserable if I leave and don't have someone to fill my negativity pulpit?

 

[Sig]

As for his movies, 'Canadian Bacon' was good for a few laughs.

 

[Eric5273]

So, are you telling me that Germans thought living in a free society involved being beaten up by Hitler's goons, where people were arrested, tortured and/or killed for speaking out against the Nazis?

The masses were not being beaten up, arrested, tortured, and/or killed and the masses did not speak out against the Nazis. And those who suggested that these things were taking place, they would probably be called "conspiracy theorists" by the common person. The common person would have told you that only the terrorists/communists were being arrested, and they deserved to be arrested.

Perhaps you have the impression that Germany was divided much like we are in the United States today. Well, this was not the case at all. Even throughout most of WWII, Hitler enjoyed approval ratings of over 80% and was perhaps the most popular leader (among his people) in the 20th Century.

He was able to accomplish this through tight control of information. Every aspect of information was controlled by the Nazis. But the average person did not know this. They liked Hitler because every bit of information the average person in Germany had access to showed him to be a great leader.

[BTW, I am Jewish and am in no way defending Hitler -- just discussing the facts of how he deceived a rather well-educated public]

Yes, but a good propaganda machine is useless if dissenting opinions are heard. The only way propaganda works is if all other information sources are squashed.

Exactly my point. And this exists to some degree here in this country. Obviously nowhere near the extent that existed in Germany as we have the internet and some alternative media sources. But the majority of Americans get their information from television, and the flow of information there is very controlled. Very few Americans listen to Pacifica radio and watch Michael Moore movies.

Propaganda is useful for many forms of disinformation, but it's very tough to convince people they lead a free life when they are being violently oppressed.

This violent oppression you speak of was not out in the open. Most people were completely unaware and went about their daily lives as usual. Rumors of concentration camps and such did circulate, but they were nothing more than rumors -- "conspiracy theories" to the average person. The Jews had simply been relocated to another area. Who would really believe that their government was exterminating millions of people. Would you?

Even after the war, when shown the remains of the concentration camps, most Germans claimed these camps were set up by the Russian (Communist) Army to create anti-German propoganda and make the Nazis look bad. It took years before most Germans accepted the Holocaust as fact. It's fair to say that if the Nazis had won the war and were still in power today, the holocaust would not exist in history books.

Originally posted by nkb
When you fear for your well-being or life if you speak up, no amount of propaganda can convince you that you live in a free society. Give me a break.

The average person did not fear for their life any more than you fear you will be arrested by the FBI for having ties to terrorism. Yes, people were arrested and did disappear, but these were the "bad guys", the ones who had been responsible for the Reichstag fire, the ones who were plotting the destruction of Germany. (is this starting to sound familiar?)

Originally posted by nkb
While I agree with you that we need to be careful about losing personal freedoms, as seems to be the case recently in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism, you are painting a far bleaker picture than warranted.

I agree with you here. But you have to give extreme examples to understand that this can & has happened in the past. Do NOT believe for one second that we are immune to such a thing. It can happen right here in the good ole USA.

In Germany, this was not something that happened overnight. This was a slow process which took about 6 years.

Someone above mentioned the Reichstag fire. Much of the steps taken by the Nazis after the Reichstag fire resemble the steps taken by our government after the 9/11 attacks:

1) Our Patriot Act is very similar to the Nazis' Enabling Act, which was passed immediately after the Reichstag fire. Just like the Patriot Act, the Enabling Act was only a "temporary measure" to deal with the current terrorist threat. Unfortunately for Germans, that threat lasted as long as the Third Reich did. We are also told that the "War on Terror" will last perhaps 20 years or even longer.

2) The round-up and indefinate detention of "terrorists" after the Reichstag fire was very similar to what we saw here after the 9/11 attacks. There are still hundreds of people being detained for well over 2 years, none of whom have been charged with a crime or allowed to defend themselves in a court of law.

3) Much like Bush's justification of the invasion of Iraq, Hitler's justifications to invade Austria, Checkoslovakia, and later Poland were very similar. Hitler claimed these countries posed a danger to Germany, and he also accused their leaders of being oppressive to their own populations. German media told a story of the populations of these countries welcoming Nazi soldiers with open arms and being quite appreciative that they were "liberated".

Do yourself a favor.....go to google and type the following in the box: Reichstag Fire 9/11

Then press search and pick one of the many thousands of links and read. Whatever your opinion of current events are, you have to admit there are way too many similarities.

As Americans, we need to be aware of history and keep a very close eye on what is going on today in our country. We cannot afford to sit idle while our freedoms are taken away in the name of fighting terrorism. Even if the freedoms being lost are not things that affect you, you still need to be concerned.

 

[huckster]

using an historical perspective, we've done much less restriction of freedoms/citizen rights than what we did in WWII. Consider detentions of germans/japanese, citizen watchgroups, etc. We didnt deport these people, we held them. And in much larger numbers than what we are doing today.

Considering the nature of the warfare we are being attacked with today, I'm surprised there havent been more detentions/deportations.

Im continually surprised by the public's expectation of safety/protection, but general unwillingness to make sacrifices.

Michael Moore seems to take the high road, but it doesnt lead anywhere.

 

[Eric5273]

Considering the nature of the warfare we are being attacked with today

The Germans in the 1930s could have made the same claim. After all, there were many terrorist attacks, the largest being the burning of the Reichstag. Hitler spoke of the same terror problem that Bush does, except instead of them being Islamic Fundimentalists, they were Communists & Jews. And instead of claiming that they had been trained in Iraq & Afghanistan, he claimed they were infiltrating Germany from Austria, Poland, Checkoslavakia & Russia, and he claimed that those governments were responsible and had to be defeated if Germany was to survive. The more attacks there were, the more the German people rallied around Hitler and the Nazis. With each passing attack, more and more freedoms were stripped away from the German people in the name of security.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin

 

[brahtw8]

using an historical perspective, we've done much less restriction of freedoms/citizen rights than what we did in WWII. Consider detentions of germans/japanese, citizen watchgroups, etc. We didnt deport these people, we held them. And in much larger numbers than what we are doing today.

It was unconsitutional then, and is unconstitutional now, despite such idiotic decisions as Korematsu v. U.S.

 

[satan_srv]

The Germans in the 1930s could have made the same claim. After all, there were many terrorist attacks, the largest being the burning of the Reichstag.

Hitler burned the Reichstag on purpose and blamed it on the communists to scare the people into giving him dictatorial powers.

 

[huckster]

exactly..Hitler fabricated the 'terrorist threat' you refer to.

I hope nobody actually thinks that 911 was the action of the American government.

You are, of course, aware of the hypocrisy of quoting constitutional founders on the subject of 'liberty'? Their definition was much different than our definition today. Im not knocking our aspiring to higher ideals, but it is a balancing act. "Without security, there is no liberty, whether we deserve it or not." huckster

 

[Jimbo]

Here's a perfect example of what a slimeball Michael Moore really is.

There's no way that Moore simply forgot about this or was embarrased. I think he purposely waited until the horse was out of the barn.

I hope Bradbury sues the jerk.

____________________________


Moore Film Title Angers Author Bradbury

Jun 19, 5:52 AM (ET)

By PAUL CHAVEZ

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.

"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't have done it."

The 1953 novel, widely considered Bradbury's masterpiece, portrays an ugly futuristic society in which firemen burn homes and libraries in order to destroy the books inside and keep people from thinking independently.

"Fahrenheit 451" takes its title from the temperature at which books burn. Moore has called "Fahrenheit 9/11" the "temperature at which freedom burns."

His film, which won top honors in May at the Cannes Film Festival, charges that the Bush administration acted ineptly before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, then played on the public's fear of future terrorism to gain support for the war against Iraq. It opens nationwide next Friday.

Bradbury, who hadn't seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised Moore would call back.

He finally got that call last Saturday, Bradbury said, adding Moore told him he was "embarrassed."

"He suddenly realized he's let too much time go by," the author said by phone from his home in Los Angeles' Cheviot Hills section.

Joanne Doroshow, a spokeswoman for "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the film's makers have "the utmost respect for Ray Bradbury."

"Mr. Bradbury's work has been an inspiration to all of us involved in this film, but when you watch this film you will see the fact that the title reflects the facts that the movie explores, the very real life events before, around and after 9-11," she said.

Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

Moore's film needed new distributors after Disney refused to let its Miramax subsidiary release it, claiming it was too politically charged. The documentary was later bought by Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who lined up Lions Gate and IFC Films to help distribute it.

The movie's distributors are appealing to lower its R rating to PG-13 and a screening has been set for Tuesday by the Motion Picture Association of America's appeals board.

Bradbury's book was made into a 1966 movie directed by Francois Truffaut. A new edition of the book is scheduled for release in eight weeks, Bradbury said, and plans are in the works for a new film version, to be directed by Frank Darabont.

 

[Eric5273]

Hitler burned the Reichstag on purpose and blamed it on the communists to scare the people into giving him dictatorial powers.

exactly..Hitler fabricated the 'terrorist threat' you refer to.

You two sound like a couple of wacko conspiracy theorists. I suppose you also believe that aliens killed JFK and we never landed on the moon.

All joking aside, you don't seriously think that Hitler did these things all by himself, do you? Many hundreds (or even thousands) of people had to have been involved. There was a huge investigation after the fire and about a dozen people were eventually sentenced to death. That means judges, witnesses, police, etc, all had to be involved in a massive coverup. The newspapers (which were independent much like our newspapers) had to cooperate and print these false stories. The Rechstag (German Parlament), which consisted of more than 400 members, had to pass such legislation to give Hitler dictatorial powers. That is a lot of people. Are you suggesting that all these people were involved in such a massive conspiracy and yet word of this never leaked out to the German people? Do you believe that such a massive conspiracy is possible?

 

[huckster]

Read up on Hitler's rise to power. His 'brown shirts' quietly terrorized and strongarmed people to forward what became Hitler's party. The punchline is the leader was then kicked out (killed i believe) for challenging Hitler for the top position once they were in a position to take over.

There was no "Vast conspiracy" initially. Once Hitler was in power, he quickly proceeded to eliminate the parliament and consolidate his position into that of 'dictator'. He used some strongarm tactics to get there, but mostly he was a product of the german populace who were in an extreme recession and wanted change. They certainly got it.

 

[Eric5273]

There was no "Vast conspiracy" initially.

After the Reichstag burned down (3 weeks after Hitler became Chancelor of Germany), there was a large investigation, hundreds of people were arrested and detained, and about a dozoen people were tried and convicted in a court of law -- all of them being sentenced to death. Several days after the fire, the Reichstag (German Parlament) passed the "Enabling Act" which gave the police more powers. It was a temporary measure which suspended some civil liberties and was meant to help the police to deal with the current terrorist crisis.

Keep in mind that at this point in time, the Chancelor's position in the German government was similar to our Vice President. Hindenburg was President at the time and was in a more powerful position than Hitler. Hitler had run for president in 1932 and had been defeated by Hindenburg. At this point in time, Hitler did not use any "strongarm" tactics as he was not in a powerful enough position yet to do so. Those tactics came much later on.

If the Reichstag was indeed burned down by the Nazis, as most historians believe, then it was indeed a "vast conspiracy" involving at minimum hundreds of goverment officials. At minimum, it had to involve the following people:

1) Judges who saw over the various trials of those conviced and executed for burning down the Reichstag

2) The many witnesses at those trials, who gave evidence against the accused people

3) Police who investigated the fire

4) Members of the Reichstag, the majority (over 90%) of who voted for the Enabling Act

5) The newspapers who all began printing anti-communist propoganda and encouraged the idea that the communists were behind the current wave of terrorism.

If you read your history, you will find out that many people spoke out in protest about all of this. But the German press never covered any of those stories, and those individuals were arrested and detained along with the other "terrorists". Hitler was backed by all the large corporations who also controlled the newspapers. As a result, the newspapers cooperated with all the Nazi propoganda. Any who did not were quickly shut down, as they were obviously supporters of the terrorists and the Enabling Act gave the police the right to do this. Many journalists were jailed along with all the other "terrorists".

The Nazis won the majority in the Reichstag, not because they were the only alternative -- there were many political parties in Germany at that time. They won because they spent the most, by far, on their campaigns. They even received large campaign contributions from foreign corporations such as BP, Ford, Standard Oil, etc.

There is a reason why historians refer to the political system of Germany as "fascism" and not "dictatorship". Fascism is the opposite of communism, which is why the communists were such enemies of the Nazis. Fascism is where the corporations & big business control a "puppet" government, and this is much the way the German system worked during this period. Hitler was mentally unstable, and most of his supporters were well aware of this, but his policies were good for business. If any of you have watched the movie "Schlindler's List", then you have seen a very good example of how a very mediocre businessman made millions in this system of slave labor and a war economy.

If anyone is interested, below is a link to an excellent (and long) research paper which documents much of the billions of dollars made by large corporations in Europe, before and during WWII as a result of Hitler's policies.

Nazis in the Attic

 

[nkb]

The masses were not being beaten up, arrested, tortured, and/or killed and the masses did not speak out against the Nazis.

I agree with your statement, but that is how oppression works. It's logistically impossible to beat up the masses. It is the threat of violence that keeps people in line. As long as an individual knows that they will very likely be punished for speaking out, they will keep quiet. Hitler's brown shirts (in the beginning) and the Gestapo (once Hitler was established in power) were very effective deterrents to dissension.

Even throughout most of WWII, Hitler enjoyed approval ratings of over 80% and was perhaps the most popular leader (among his people) in the 20th Century.

That's a pretty weak argument. You are quoting approval ratings under a brutal dictatorship? Of course the ratings were high, for two reasons: 1. People were punished for speaking out and 2. In a tightly controlled propaganda machine, you can make your approval rating whatever you want. I bet you can find incredible approval ratings under many other dictatorships, like Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Ceacescu, Milosevic and such.

This violent oppression you speak of was not out in the open. Most people were completely unaware and went about their daily lives as usual. Rumors of concentration camps and such did circulate, but they were nothing more than rumors -- "conspiracy theories" to the average person. The Jews had simply been relocated to another area. Who would really believe that their government was exterminating millions of people. Would you?

I disagree completely. First of all, you have to separate what was happening to the Jews and other "undesirables" with what was happening to everyone else.
A lot of people were unaware, or ignored, or worse, agreed with what was happening to the Jews. Anti-semitic feelings were high, partly because for years they had been bombarded with propaganda that it was all the Jews' fault. But, if you weren't Jewish, you had nothing to fear from that angle.

But, the majority of people knew that speaking out was equivalent to suicide (whether it was about discriminating against Jews, or voicing displeasure with the government, or disagreeing with the war), because anyone who did was arrested, possibly never to be seen again.

It's fair to say that if the Nazis had won the war and were still in power today, the holocaust would not exist in history books.

I partially disagree, only because if the Nazis had been successful, they would have proudly recounted how their efforts rid the world of the "evil" Jew.

Someone above mentioned the Reichstag fire. Much of the steps taken by the Nazis after the Reichstag fire resemble the steps taken by our government after the 9/11 attacks:

While I agree with you about questioning the methods our government is using (Patriot Act, detention of suspects without charges, justification for invading Iraq), I think you are going overboard here. I know you are trying to illustrate the extremes here, but you are quoting incorrect information. Comparing our situation to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union is complete exaggeration.

 

[nkb]

Keep in mind that at this point in time, the Chancelor's position in the German government was similar to our Vice President. Hindenburg was President at the time and was in a more powerful position than Hitler. Hitler had run for president in 1932 and had been defeated by Hindenburg. At this point in time, Hitler did not use any "strongarm" tactics as he was not in a powerful enough position yet to do so. Those tactics came much later on.

Once again, you are incorrect in your statements, as you were earlier about Hitler being elected (forgot to point this out before).
At the time of the Weimar Republic, the Chancellor (or Kanzler) was supposed to be the main man. The president was elected by popular vote and intended to be a figurehead. However, the president was the person who appointed the Chancellor, and the parliament (Reichstag) had the power to dismiss him.

Because of the difficulty of creating a workable majority in parliament, Hindenburg was able to use his position to basically rule the country, and the office of president became more powerful than intended.
But, through his strong-arm tactics, Hitler essentially forced Hindenburg to appoint him as Chancellor, and, as soon as Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler combined both positions into one.

 

[Eric5273]

You are quoting approval ratings under a brutal dictatorship? Of course the ratings were high, for two reasons: 1. People were punished for speaking out and 2. In a tightly controlled propaganda machine, you can make your approval rating whatever you want. I bet you can find incredible approval ratings under many other dictatorships, like Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Ceacescu, Milosevic and such.

You give the public too much credit. The public are sheep and can be told to think (and believe) whatever the leaders wish. Nazi Germany was not ruled through force, but almost entirely through propoganda. The people thought Hitler was a great leader. Yes, people were punished and often executed, but this was not known to the masses, as the local news station did not cover such stories (I'm being sarcastic here). If you had spoken to the average German person around 1938 and suggested such things, you would have gotten the same reaction as someone who today accuses the US government of the same.

Think about it. If none of our media had covered the passing of the Patriot Act, would you even know such a law existed?

If none of our media had covered the stories of the detention of over a thousand "suspected terrorists" after 9/11, would you know such a thing even existed?

During WWII, it was not known to the US public that over 100,000 Japenese were in detention camps. Anyone who suggested such a thing back then would have been called a nut.

Such rumors which tell of things not covered by the media are almost always dismissed as conspiracy theories. That is because you have been told how independent and fair our media is. Well, Germans were told, and they believed, the same about their media. They had many newspapers, all of which were independently owned. So when the front pages showed the French dancing in the streets of Paris and cheering on the Nazi soldiers, they believed it. Much the way the crowds cheered on our soldiers as they knocked down Saddam's statue. Only later on did we find out the whole incident was staged.

The Germans were not happy when they were "liberated". During the late 1940s, there was a huge resistance movement much like what is going on in Iraq. The difference was that we had many more soldiers there to stomp them out.

 

[Eric5273]

Because of the difficulty of creating a workable majority in parliament, Hindenburg was able to use his position to basically rule the country, and the office of president became more powerful than intended.
But, through his strong-arm tactics, Hitler essentially forced Hindenburg to appoint him as Chancellor, and, as soon as Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler combined both positions into one.

Yes, but these "strongarm" tactics were not violence. Because the Nazis controlled more than one third of the Reichstag, they had to ability to walk out and call for new elections. They did this several times, and there were 3 elections within a year and a half, and each time the Nazis kept gaining in power. Because of the chaos in the Reichstag, Hindenburg was not able to get any of his agenda passed, and his approval ratings greatly suffered as Germany was in the midst of a great depression. Finally he gave into Hitler and appointed him Chancelor.

When Hindenburg died, the Reichstag (not Hitler) voted to combine both positions into one.

But my original statement that the Chancelor was a less powerful position was true. In 1933, the position of Chancelor was much like our Vice President. The Chancelor served as the head of the Reichstag, much like the Vice President is the head of the Senate. While the Chancelor could introduce legislation & have influence over the Reichstag, the President had complete veto power.

Much of this political maneuvoring is the same crap that goes on in our own government. Watch Michael Moore's movie next week and see how they passed the Patriot Act. It will make you sick.

 

[nkb]

Here's a perfect example of what a slimeball Michael Moore really is.

There's no way that Moore simply forgot about this or was embarrased. I think he purposely waited until the horse was out of the barn.

I hope Bradbury sues the jerk.

If this is the best you can come up with, then Michael Moore appears to lead a pretty clean life.

As much as this article tries to portray Moore as a slimeball, I read between the lines that Bradbury is a whiner. He doesn't own copyrights to the word "Fahrenheit", so he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. As far as Moore not calling back, I probably would have done the same (obviously I don't know the details behind this exchange, as I am sure you don't either). Someone makes an unreasonable demand, I would tend to ignore them also.

Alluding to other people's work is not a new idea. Have you ever heard of Weird Al Yankovic, for example?

 

[Eric5273]

Instead of attacking the content of his movie, they have personal attacks. If his movie was pro-bush, then they would praise him.

 

[wildbill846]

Instead of attacking the content of his movie, they have personal attacks. If his movie was pro-bush, then they would praise him.

I haven't seen this movie, so I cannot comment on it, but I can say I don't agree with his previous works either. He just goes a little overboard for my liking....

 

[Ojas]

Another movie

Since we’re on the subject of a movie and since the media’s influence in communicating information to the public been referenced several times in this thread, I’m curious if anyone’s seen Control Room, a recently released documentary which looks at how the Qatar-based al Jazeera network, as well as the networks we are used to seeing report news on the war.

If you have seen this movie, do you have any comments relevant to this topic you would like to share?

 

[Eric5273]

Re: Another movie

Since we’re on the subject of a movie and since the media’s influence in communicating information to the public been referenced several times in this thread, I’m curious if anyone’s seen Control Room, a recently released documentary which looks at how the Qatar-based al Jazeera network, as well as the networks we are used to seeing report news on the war.

If you have seen this movie, do you have any comments relevant to this topic you would like to share?

I really would like to see this movie. During the war I was watching the regular American news networks as well as reading the news reports on Al-Jazeera's English webiste, and also watching the reports on the BBC World News. All I can say is it was as if I was watching 3 different wars. Al-Jazeera and BBC clearly gave more detail and seem to get more behind the lines than the American networks which tended to spend more time analyzing everything & interviewing various experts, but not showing as much actual footage. The best seemed to be the BBC, but then again, I'm sure I missed much of the detail on Al-Jazeera since I was only reading the articles and seeing still pictures, and not actually watching the network.

What is interesting is the perspective everyone has on this stuff. Most Americans would tell you that Al-Jazeera is full of pro-Arab/anti-American propoganda. But go around the Arab world and ask, and the average person will tell you that Al-Jazeera is too pro-Western and many there think it is a creature of the CIA, since it is owned & run by Qatar's pro-American government. The other Arab news networks are much more anti-American than Al-Jazeera which tends to be the more liberal & pro-western voice of the Arab world.

I'll probably wait until that movie is available on video, as there are no theaters showing it near me.

 

[wildbill846]

Of course, I also believe it was the BBC that reported that the Jessica Lynch rescue was all staged, and they are also the ones that reported the more recent "wedding party" incident in Iraq. Personally knowing people involved in both events, I can tell you the BBC may have a different view point, but not always an accurate one.

 

[nkb]

Of course, I also believe it was the BBC that reported that the Jessica Lynch rescue was all staged, and they are also the ones that reported the more recent "wedding party" incident in Iraq. Personally knowing people involved in both events, I can tell you the BBC may have a different view point, but not always an accurate one.

Which makes the argument for listening to more than one source for your information. I'm sure the American media has gotten it wrong at least as often as the BBC.

In fact, American media is generally more likely to screw up a story, or skew the situation, since they are far more sensationilist than European media.

 

[Eric5273]

The whole Jessica Lynch thing was staged. She herself talked about it in an interview a few months ago and it is all in her book. Cameramen set up cameras to film the event, and when everyone was ready, our military raided the hospital where she was being kept while the hospital crew hid under tables & desks. There was no Iraqi military presense there.

She was being kept in an Iraqi hospital and was receiving better care than the Iraqis who were there. In her interview, she talked about how the nurse sang to her and how they were all so nice. While their medical facilities are not nearly what we are used to in the United States, she did receive exceptional care by their standards. In the end, there was absolutely no evidence she was ever raped or abused, as had been initially reported. All her injuries were obtained when the vehicle she was in crashed.

It wasn't just the BBC that reported that, but every other non-American news source around the world and even some American news sources. And her book tells the same story.

 

[Eric5273]

In fact, American media is generally more likely to screw up a story, or skew the situation, since they are far more sensationilist than European media.

Trust me, rarely do they "screw up" the story. If it is reported wrong, it is usually intentional, and that goes for both sides. I read some small independent web blogs that have more accurate news than almost all the large media giants with their dozens of reporters and millions of dollars in budget.

Most corporate-owned news organizations have agendas which outweigh their desire to accurately report the news. The only places you tend to find accurate news are PBS-like stations that have no profit-making agenda, and even then, they can be influenced to be pro-government as they rely on the government for funding.

If you want accurate news, listen to (or watch) public stations that do not receive government funding, something like the Pacifica radio network.