lol - im not siding with anyone!

my point was solely wrt to the apparent berg/f911 footage.

im still trying to understand how some unemployed 'kid' gets from zaccmass/911 to a personal zarq beheading to an interview for f911 which didnt get uncovered till a few weeks afterward.

my point is that its odd that moore quietly gave the video to the family out of respect, or some such. which is odd for two reasons:

a) moore is a publicity machine - the f911 publicity machine has fed on 1) the disney thing ii) the R rating iii) cannes iv) french filmstaff strike v) the pre-screenings this week vi) the fake anti-f911 websites vi) part-apologising for not disclosing the torture pix earlier vii) etc

b) moore is shameless - i) interviews with soldiers with hidden cameras ii) showing butchered bodies iii) showing sex-torture pix iv) etc

now, i dont begrudge moore for being a publicity machine, or for being shameless - and theres hardly a person who would argue that he's not these things. hats off to him as far as im concerned. and if he wants to be a class act, then good on him for that too. im just curious to know why he turned off both of his strongest impulses in the case of the berg video. even if he wanted to be a class act and not show the video (which was innocuous), then he could have fuelled the f911 media machine, explaining why he returned it to the family or something. but no - not a word. and im curious to know where dadbergs fire has gone since he was gonna peace the world in the name of his son. why arent dadberg and mikeberg sharing the stage? its not like famberg have gone underground - they put out a statement re the johnson family, and 3 outta 4 of them were being quoted today. which is all fine and good cept i wonder why folksberg talk about everything except the video of their son looking triffic which they seemed to go outta their way to avoid.

remember, nothing about the sunberg story made sense up to the point that moore claimed to have the video a coupla weeks later. its somehow easier to consider the f911/berg video as a part of that pattern, rather than imagining a single isolated incident of moore being a 'class act' for no apparent reason.

itll be interesting to see whether the bergs continue to get exposure bc of the johnson beheading, and whether any journo will remember to ask folksberg about the vid.

if that f911/berg video doesnt exist, then we are thru the looking glass.



On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:09:59 -0400, "Adam " wrote:

>
> Hey, hands off Moore!
>
> I can't believe you're siding with Lauder, mainstream media and the Bushs on
> this one.
>
> 1. Whether he should have shown 'the torture footage' earlier is debatable,
> but had he done so, and caused a similar outcry, he certainly would have
> gone down as the #1 trouble maker, causing disgrace, harm and danger to
> american soldiers in a cheap attempt to promote his film. The whole issue
> would have been tainted by attaching his name to it, and vice versa, to the
> point where a lot fewer people would take the matter seriously...And from
> the sounds of it, it wasn't as graphic as the pictures that came out, so
> might not have had the same impact.
>
> 2. See NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox....vis-a-vis Fallujah.
>
> 3. See NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox.....on any given "Expose"...
>
> 4. What was wrong with that? Don't you think it was the respectful thing to
> do? Had he released the footage to the press, he would have been attacked
> for disrespecting their privacy, blatant self promotion, etc...
>
>
> Don't struggle with the moral equation. It's pretty simple: He hates Bush
> and wants to get him out of office, and spent the last few years working on
> something that will encourage others to do so as well. Now what can be bad
> about that? ;)
>
>
> P.S. Millard and I are going to see the film on Friday (and I got tix to see
> an advance Wed screening as well...)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: luke
> Subject: more moore
>
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5239322/
> 'class act' moore:
> 1. held on to torture footage
> 2. showed images of corpses in various states
> 3. interviewed soldiers on film without their knowledge
> 4. gave innocuous footage to famberg cos it was a 'private matter'
>
> im struggling to understand the underlying moral equation...
>
> btw - famberg came out of retirement, with 3 of them giving interviews - no
> mention of the sonberg video.
> http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/8959217.htm
>
> ________________________________
> christian converts rule!
> wotisitgood4.blogspot.com