PRIME example of Corporate Media journalism - AP Cannes article

from this AP article on Michael Moore's win:

"While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=502&e=2&u=/ap/france_cannes_awards

How many "critics?" One? Two? What are their names?

Subtly discrediting a film without any substance or merit to the accusation.

Perfect example of Corporate Media journalism.

David Germain is the writer of the article.

dgermain@AP.org

Let's ask him for a list of the "many critics" who said it was inferior.

an HISTORIC 20-minute standing ovation that the film got was because of some bad case of hemorrhoids all those folks (including the "many critics") at the Cannes Film Festival must have gotten -- you know how France is, don't you? Or is it not the media whores?????

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=5226314

I remember hearing 20 minutes from MANY sources.

Another example of whoring or just lazy journalism?

20 minutes is a very long time to cheer. I'd be willing to bet that BBC has it closer to the mark.

10 minutes? Nah. This film is destined to be a classic.

BFC. I think they just made it up out of thin air. Gawd I hate the US media.

I'd love to GRILL him/her on which critics and the number of sources for him/her to say "many critics."

dgermain@AP.org

Let's ask him for his sources.

Da BIG KAHUNA! :shrug: :wow: :silly: :argh:

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Cannes' Top Prize

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=502&e=2&u=/ap/france_cannes_awards11

"While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002."

Which critics?

Because I've read reviews that say this film is better than Columbine because Moore stays behind the camera more, and doesn't inject himself into the movie the way he has his other films.

I guess your sources are The Washington Times, Free Republic, and all the other RW wacknut sites who just want us all to shut up and be Good Germans.

You'd be less open to charges of bias for Bush if you'd site your sources. Didn't they teach you that in journalism school?

Regards,


Dawn R. Beck
Portland, OR

Is that the worst thing that can be said about it?

I doubt it's as good as Roger and Me, either. However, both were excellent documentaries and Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't as good, that doesn't mean it isn't worth seeing.

Should we stay away from The Return of the King because it isn't as good as Citizen Kane?

what a creep!

So sick of this corporate media propaganda BS.

No specific sources, but there seems to be a discrepancy between what critics are saying privately and what they're writing publicly. Because I've seen mostly positive reviews, especially when compared to Moore's other films.



Thanks for your note. I am sure that many critics felt that
way. Believe
me, I've discussed it with scores of people since we all saw
the movie
last Monday, and many of them have said the same in their
reviews. But
movie opinions are subjective, and I'm also sure many people
will find
the new film more poignant than the previous one.

The line in my story was not a personal criticism of Moore.
Like you,
I'm a big fan. The line was simply reflecting a prevailing
sentiment
among many who saw the movie. After last night's awards, I
talked with a
lot of people who, though thrilled that "Fahrenheit 9/11" won
for the
political statement it sends, felt that it was far from the
most
deserving movie in the festival's main competition.

At any rate, Moore hopefully is right that the award will help
secure a
U.S. distributor, so you should have the chance to judge for
yourself in
a month or two.

Regards,

DG

carlosmu74@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>
> Are you sure that "many critics" thought it was inferior to
his last movie?
>
> I'm a big fan of Moore's, and so I've been reading reviews of
Fahrenheit 9/11 with great interest, and I have to say I
didn't see what you are now reporting. In fact, the consensus
seems to me that it is much better than his other movies, more
serious and more poignant.
>
> Maybe you could update your story and provide the data to
support the strong statement you made about criticism of this
movie. It's only fair to the filmmaker, especially in a story
about his great achievement.

I'm sure you already know, but for other letter writers.... Your letter was strong, but not insulting. It didn't use curse words, or nasty statements. There was not excess puntuation!!!!!!

I've never figured out why some DU letter writers think that anyone would pay attention to crazy, overwrought, and hate-filled letters.
Most readers would toss it in the trash ( or delete) before finishing the first sentence.
They remind me of freeper letters to the DU administrators.

I want these reporters to READ the notes. I want them to know there's non-freepers out here paying attention to what they're doing.

Sounds like a typical good person caving in to Corporate Media pressure.

No names...again.

I guess this guy is more of a movie reviewer than a reporter, and it shows.

The factual claim he's making happens to coincide with the obvious knee-jerk reaction from partisan Bush supporters. Maybe the claim is true, but he should provide evidence. Why in the world should we just accept his word?

His article cites "critics" yet, when pressed, he says that he talked to "many people." He still fails to name a single movie critic, or even acknowledge that any of the "many people" were critics. Disingenuous, at best.

"Senator Kerry, sumsay you're a lying no-good weasel. How do you respond to that?"
Sumsay the moon is made of green cheese.
That's what sumsay.