May 12, 2004


Australian Michael Moore publicist Stephanie Bunbury continues her good work:

Moore, the polemicist behind Bowling for Columbine, has spent the last week fighting Disney and, so far, winning every round. Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, about George Bush, the Bin Laden family and their collective dirty deeds, was made under the auspices of Miramax, a Disney subsidiary, but Disney is refusing to distribute it. Moore says that this is an issue of free speech, since its refusal may mean it is never seen in America.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 12, 2004 02:19 PM

Does the Herald ever fact-check anything it publishes?

Posted by: EvilPundit at May 12, 2004 at 02:24 PM

I love this from her column:

"In a delicious twist, the Disney PRs are bleating that Moore is - well, heavens - trying to whip up publicity."

Well, DUH! But she conveniently ignores the fact that Michael The Moor is lying (or at least twisting facts) to create his publicity. But, in the cause of the left, anything is allowable, so long as it isn't Bush.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 12, 2004 at 02:28 PM

Fantasyland, Tomorrowland, Aventureland, Frontierland, Fatland.

Posted by: ilibcc at May 12, 2004 at 02:34 PM

wasnt it exposed that he knew a year ago about disney's refusal to distribute the film? surely a professional journalist such as Bunbury would know that as well....

Posted by: Oktober at May 12, 2004 at 02:34 PM

He's right, you know. The First Amendment reads thusly:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, including distribution by Miramax, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Posted by: Tommy Shanks at May 12, 2004 at 03:15 PM

I'm kind of dispirited that she wasn't able to work in the fake turkey somehow. Shows a real lack of imagination.

Posted by: Melissa at May 12, 2004 at 03:25 PM

That's right, Tommy. I'd forgotten Michael The Moor rewrote the Constitution during the filming of Bowling for Columbine. He must have had a few spare moments between lying, filming, and stuffing his face.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 12, 2004 at 03:36 PM


You could have quoted the next bit, which said

This is unlikely, as several distributors are vying for it

Posted by: Andjam at May 12, 2004 at 03:37 PM

"Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

In a world where admitting to a publicity stunt is "winning every round"...

"...the Disney PRs are bleating that Moore is - well, heavens - trying to whip up publicity."

A world... where defending yourself against unfounded charges of censorship... is "bleating"...

"Moore says that this is an issue of free speech, since its refusal may mean it is never seen in America."

A world where the 1st Amendment has been rewritten, and one giant corporation controls every single tv channel and movie theater in the country... the world... of Fahrenheit 911.

Posted by: dorkafork at May 12, 2004 at 04:16 PM

Iv thought Congress acted Disney like some times but didn't think Disney was actually

Posted by: Gary at May 12, 2004 at 05:05 PM

Didn't any of you catch the law that Congress passed forbidding Miramax from distributing the film? I mean, people, chill wind...

Posted by: Sean M. at May 12, 2004 at 05:09 PM

The Passion of the Christ's distribution difficulties are a story not even six months old, and the Commentariat has managed to forget that it's perfectly possible to distribute controversial movies to a wide audience outside of normal channels.

And it's a very convenient forgetfulness. Acknowledging the ability of people to go around established players in a free market would make out all their cries of "corporate power" for the lies they are. And then how will the justify the erection of government regulatory bodies that will in fact exert such powers as they assign to corporations in their fictions?

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at May 12, 2004 at 05:52 PM

I don't suppose we could send flowers of thanks somewhere for sparing us more Moore?

Posted by: Fred at May 12, 2004 at 11:46 PM

Michael Moore bares his teeth in a seething rage at the injustices the mammoth, oppressive, DisneyCorp is inflicting on him. And discovering that he doesn't know what "polemicist" means and thinks it means he's a fabricating, non-hygenic, and self-absorbed asshole.

Posted by: BC at May 13, 2004 at 01:35 AM

"Moore says that this is an issue of free speech, since its refusal may mean it is never seen in America."

We should be so lucky.

Posted by: Rebecca at May 13, 2004 at 02:46 AM

Moore's schtick has always been the David and Goliath thing. This time he is David and Eisner is the hapless giant. Moore is pretending that Disney's refusal to distribute his new work is evidence of a Philistine Bush America where freedom of expression is being quashed on a regular basis. Moore needed a claim of censorship to play into the Fahrenheit 451 theme of his upcoming mockumentary.

Which is sadder: that the NYT bought his publicity ploy and agreed with his conflated, venal logic? Or, that a very, very rich man with lots of resources, industry friends and (subnormal) fans casts himself as an underdog?

Posted by: c at May 13, 2004 at 02:47 AM

Has anyone heard the rumour that Mel Gibson, with $600 from the Passion, is in talks with European backers, with an eye on Disney ?

Posted by: jafa at May 13, 2004 at 04:44 AM

I love the way they use the word "polemicist" when they mean "fact-free bullshit artist". Some apologist offered me the same job description for Mad Bob Fisk.

Posted by: Dave F at May 13, 2004 at 10:35 PM

Heh! Good observation, Dave. It always does help to inflate your own job description, doesn't it?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 14, 2004 at 12:45 AM