Posted on 06/27/2004 1:24:36 PM PDT by wagglebee
NEW YORK They like Mike. While the country as a whole appears split, along political lines, over the controversial Michael Moore documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," movie reviewers at U.S. daily newspapers are not.
An E & P survey of 54 daily papers that ran reviews, in "red" and "blue" states alike, finds that 48 gave the film a positive nod, with only 6 abstaining, a 90% favorable rating.
The six in the "anti" camp were: Detroit Free Press, Denver Rocky Mountain News, San Jose Mercury-News, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Charlotte Observer.
Among the "pro" crowd were reviewers from moderate to conservative papers such as the Boston Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, Dallas Morning News, San Diego Union-Tribune and Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Many of the positive reviews expressed reservations but overall weighed in on the plus side.
Among the few negatives, Pheobe Flowers in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel called the film "hyperbolic hysteria," and Lawrence Toppmann in the Charlotte Observer observed that Moore "rakes muck like nobody else, but almost as much of it stick to him as to his subject."
But they were drowned out by praise, not only from some of the expected big city papers but from smaller towns. Bob Allen of the Denton Record Chronicle in Texas referred to "Maestro Moore." Philip Martin in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette called the film "tough and true," while James Sanford in the Kalamazoo Gazette found it to be a "skillfully" directed "two-hour indictment."
Mary Pols in the Contra Costa(Ca.) Times pretty much covered the waterfront in calling the film "passionate, clever, scathing, funny, snarky, brutal, sad, glib and at times superficial."
Two words...MEDIA...BIAS
The critic for the Orange County (CA) Register gave it an "A".
Wrong. The split along party lines EXPLAINS the reaction of the liberal press.
As if there isn't enough hatred in the world, let's be sure to support Moore's anti-Bush propaganda. Liberal media be damned.
The Fox News reviewer liked it two so I don't know
Exactly, they cannot understand how a century of unending leftist propoganda has failed to bring the entire nation to their Marxist way of thinking.
Well no wonder.....
In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.
In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.
In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.
In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, two voted for Ronald Reagan.
In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.
In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a book by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, "Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media." Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.
89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."
-Media Research Center
WHich is only further evidence that the editorial management of most newspapers is grossly out of touch with their consuming public.
The Fox News reviewer is a raging liberal. Roger Freidman has always been an elitist snob. The only reason he is at Fox News.com is that he is a hollywood insider and gets the dirt to report. The reason he ets the dirt is he is one of them.
Hey,
I don't know either, but I have decided that I'm going to hold my nose and go see Fat Boy's movie.
If nothing else, to know how to respond to the critics with something besides *ad hominem*, emotional, self-defeating arguments that automatically proceed from judgements about "bias", or "bashing the President".
Which don't go far in convincing doubters and skeptics that there isn't some sort of smoking gun, somewhere. You can only go so far with reminders about not wanting to give back-stabbing support and/or encouragement to the totally evil, S.O.B. Bast*rds, hacking off all those innocent heads in Iraq, and elsewhere.
At some point, your arguments have to stand on solid ground, and counter the factual points that the anti-war opposition think they're trying to make, to meet them head-on...
I don't know. ...I still have this on my computer's memory clipboard, I was e-mailing it to a friend, so that we could both go over it to attack the inaccuracies, point by point...
This is it. If anyone can point out holes, or offer other counter evidence, I'd appreciate it.
Bush's Accurate Case for War
by Robert Steinback
Let's alter history just a little bit, and imagine that President Bush had given us an accurate case for war in Iraq 18 months ago.
``My fellow Americans, I'm appearing before you today to ask for your support as I make the most solemn decision a president can make: Committing our military troops to war.
``We must remove Saddam Hussein from power, although his only known threat to the United States is that he hates us. While we know that Hussein possessed and used weapons of mass destruction in the past, we have no evidence that he has them today or that he's making more. But he hasn't proved that he doesn't have them, and this constitutes an urgent threat to America.
``So we must act now, because Hussein, who had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, might choose to give the WMDs that he doesn't have to Osama bin Laden, with whom he has never collaborated.
Hussein hasn't attacked us
``That's why I've decided to shift the bulk of our military resources away from catching bin Laden, who has already attacked us and vows to do so again, so that we can pursue a man who hasn't attacked us and almost certainly can't, based on the remote possibility that he'll give aid to bin Laden, who no longer is my top priority.
``My fellow Americans, the case is clear. We must liberate the Iraqi people, though we have little evidence that they want us to invade their country. We must give them a chance at democracy, though history strongly suggests that a Western attempt to impose a government in this part of the world is doomed to fail.
``Our very presence is likely to attract terrorists from all over the region and inspire new recruits, dedicated to undermining our attempts to impose a new government.
``Still, we must ensure the establishment of a new, friendly government in Baghdad that won't have a prayer of survival without our help. Before long, they'll beg us to establish a military base in Iraq -- which is our primary objective. That, in theory, will enable us to threaten every other Middle Eastern nation that dares to stand against us. Peace will reign, oil will flow and profits will accumulate. Admittedly, experts consider this a pretty far-fetched scenario, but we can't fail because God is on our side. He tells me so.
Dangerous attorney general
``But we face a long, difficult, bloody operation. More than 800 American soldiers will die and 4,000 will be maimed during the first 15 months of war. We'll honor them by saying that their sacrifices helped preserve American freedom, which in fact is threatened more by my attorney general than by Hussein.
``In addition, this war will put us at odds with France, Germany and many other of our traditional allies. But we'll work to repair those ruptured bonds soon, when we go crawling back to the world community pleading for it to bail us out of the tar pit into which we're about to leap.
``And so, my fellow Americans, I'm asking you to commit a modest $200 billion of your hard-earned money over the next two years to support this patriotic endeavor. Don't worry; your money will be in good hands, as we will hand out billions in no-bid contracts to corporations well known to people in my administration.
``And you can count on firm leadership from me until our mission is accomplished. So that you never lose faith in me, I will refuse to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong, whether it's intelligence failures, prisoner-abuse scandals or insufficient body armor for our troops.
``I'd like to tell you that America will prevail and that terrorism will be defeated. But I'm here to give an honest evaluation of our situation.
Strategy a `total disaster'
'So I am compelled to tell you that more than two dozen retired military brass and diplomats from both major parties who doubt the wisdom and sanity of my call for war will take the unprecedented step of publicly describing my strategy as a `total disaster.' They'll say that my approach will make the world less safe, alienate us from the very allies we need to help construct a global anti-terrorism alliance and undermine our national prestige and honor.
``And they'll be right. But here is the ultimate truth that so many of my un-American, unpatriotic critics overlook: You won't care. You'll still like me and support me, no matter how badly things turn out. That's because you have short memories, and you'll believe just about anything I tell you, even if it contradicts what I've told you before.
``So, in closing, let me say, God bless you, and God bless America.''
A liberal who is employed by Fox News (as an Entertainment Columnist).
Especially if they were Playboy bunnies.
Rent-a-critics. Don't want to tick off the Weinsteins.
exactly. Unless you see the movie, you can't criticize it. Reminds me of the Rabbis saying The Passion was like this and that, even before it came out.
Saying some "Moore hates America" talking points is not going to do any good. The movie makes some GREAT points, especially about the "Patriot" Act passed without anyone reading it, and why we kiss the Saudi's *ss. Also, used car salesmen comes off as more trustworthy as Marine recruits.
You need to ask yourself, why are Al-Queda, Syrians Chechen's are being killed in Iraq? Why is Iran massively funding the resistance fighters to kill hopes of a free and elected government in Iraq? What ARE they afraid of?
Read your post a second time, I guess you were looking for rebuttal to the crud. Sorry
Go to a multiplex, buy a ticket for another movie and then go into F9/11. Plex away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.