Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
Find a Conversation
Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
| Tue, 06-29-2004 - 1:31pm |
Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
- No
- No, but I plan to
- Yes
You will be able to change your vote.
| Tue, 06-29-2004 - 1:31pm |
You will be able to change your vote.
Pages
Does the 'regular media' obnixiously jump all over a person? Catch them off guard? Intrude on them? Are the 'regular media' deliberately editing footage of a 'regular interview' to the "greater good" of smearing someone else? MM does it all the time, unless of course it is someone who agrees with his POV.
I saw the film and place it in the film category called Propaganda.
In another thread I
< Does the 'regular media' obnixiously jump all over a person? Catch them off guard? Intrude on them? Are the 'regular media' deliberately editing footage of a 'regular interview' to the "greater good" of smearing someone else? >
As far as documentaries go, If I am thinking of the wone you mentioned, (the one I sqw was called 9/11 and if it is by the same people, it is rather emotionally driven, and while I did find it to be a good film, was it chock-full-o-facts> no. not really, some but then, Moore stated facts in his documentaries too. a documantary is a broad term. you can make a film documentary about anything you want... and as for the way they are reported, well, its pretty much anything goes. NOW, I did not go to film school, but I did go through a period in the 90's when all I watched were documentaries. All kinds of them. old ones new ones, and they varied immensely. So, while you may not like MM it does not serve a purpose to try to discredit his film genre at least no more than it does for a person to try to discredit say Dr. Kevorkians PhD.
No, they do not, they all up a person they want to interview, the person calls his agent, (or in a politicians case, his advisor, or PR person) finds out if it is a good idea to do the interview, and then the person and the persons agent and the interviewer kahve a talk it over, and the interviewer gives the agent and the interviewee a list of questions
they intend to ask and they two go over the list, and the agent and interviewee agree to do the interview on the condition that questions #3 7 8 22 and 24 are not asked and that question 16 is ok but must be rephrased and not rebutted. Then they go do the interview that way, and if the interviewer asks any of the questions they agreed not to then the interviewee refuses to do another interview with them, and it spreads across the world of the famous that such and such an interviewer is out to make people look bad and then that interviewer cant get another interview with anyone anymore, and their job will not just sit and wait. and THAT is what stinks about the "regular media" and yes, the regular media deliberately edits, of course, sometimes interviews do not go into print until the interviewer has it just the way he wants it, or the interviewers boss, and they smear people all the time.
How can you think that the world is perfect on your side of it but so twisted and horrid over here? *sigh* I will put you in my prayers.
Pages