Educa Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Depends on which Chanel you watch!! *********************************** A US cable TV company is refusing to show a three-hour election eve special with filmmaker Michael Moore. The show included a showing of his movie documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The company, iN DEMAND, which had signed a contract with Moore, said its decision was due to "legitimate business and legal concerns". ************************************************** He said he believes iN DEMAND decided not to air the film because of pressure from "top Republican people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 I think they should show it on the comedy channel, it's the best laugh I've had all year. I'm being serious too, I've not laughed so much all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 But is it democratic to show a three hour special knocking one party immediately before an election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Probably just as democratic as the shows slagging off Kerry for Vietnam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 The problem with Michael Moore's stuff is that it is presented as a documentary. We always assume that documentaries always portray the facts. Surprise surprise Michael Moore makes stuff up but justifies it with "But it could have happened....". Yeah right. Still, it impresses the shallow..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Bit off thread... interesting site all the same. http://www.anxietyculture.com/ Government plans to spit in faces of jobless... The UK government is running a TV campaign against “welfare fraud”, which stigmatises unemployed people by perpetuating a “sponger” stereotype. Meanwhile, government figures show that welfare fraud is not a big problem. For example, the cost of “fraud and customer error” in Jobseeker’s Allowance was a mere £0.26 billion last year.* Compare this to other big annual drains on public money: Business Fraud: £14 billion Internal Government fraud: £5 billion Cigarette smuggling: £4 billion Organised crime (estimated): £50 billion Corporate tax loopholes (estimated): tens of billions Welfare fraud accounts for less than 1% of total UK fraud, so why does the government want to make such a big issue out of it? One answer is that they need a justification for “getting tough” on unemployed people. Welfare fraud provides such a justification. Meanwhile, their tough approach makes people fear unemployment. They need us to fear unemployment so that we meekly accept low-paid jobs. They want us to meekly accept low-paid jobs because 90% of new jobs are low-paid (and because they don’t want to upset the corporate world by doing anything to push wage levels up). And of course there’s the additional benefit (to them) of directing public hostility away from its natural target (the establishment, the government, the authorities – historically the most popular targets of public wrath) and towards a “safe” target instead: unemployed “scroungers”, “drop-outs”, individuals who don’t fit in. *Source of welfare fraud figures: http://www.dss.gov.uk/publications/2001/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.