On Wednesday 23 June 2004 1:37 pm, you wrote:
> It's certainly not premature for the NY TIMES writer who actually saw the
> film and then did a little independent fact-checking to speak of the film's
> merits.

Um...my point is that there is *one* writer.  We know not his bias, either.  See
my previous post on corrobative evidence.  Surely you don't think that one (weak)
article is enough to declare that F 9/11 is factual?  I could just as
easily publish an article stating the problems with F 9/11 and declare it all unfactual.
Then people could reference me...

> I'd like to add that seeing this film is one of the VERY FEW ways to SEE
> both sides of the issue. The mainstream press is very much behind Bush.

If this is your assertion, I would like you to document it with evidence.  I will leave
it up to everyone reading this post to decide for themselves whether or not the
media has a right-bias, left-bias, or no bias at all.

This is just anecdotal, but I do disagree with your assertion.  The story of Abu Ghraib
and Gitmo has been recycled again and again by the NYT, LATimes, and
the broadcast media outlets, with no real new news to report.  Why would they
be doing this if they were all "much behind Bush"?

> Furthermore, I am increasingly bewildered at the lack of understanding that
> the real issue is is one of politically-motivated sponsorship. The film was
> not originally scheduled to open here. That can not have been for economic
> reasons. If so, I'd like to ask why a smaller market like Johnson City was
> scheduled to see the film before we were,

I can't answer this one, because I know not who makes the decisions as to what
movies an individual cinema will play.  I think a plausible scenario is that the person
making the decision in Johnson City likes left-wing politics, so that person wanted
to play the movie regardless of the economic risk.  That's at least as good of a guess
as you have.

> especially in light of the fact
> that this film will obviously make a LOT of money for any theater that is
> unafraid to screen it in the face of death threats like the one that
> occurred in Illinois.

Do we know this for a fact?  I guess in the end the numbers will tell, but without having
a crystal ball at our disposal, we don't know, at this point in time, whether or not the movie
will be profitable for theaters here.  We live in a more conservative belt of the country
here; so, I can imagine that a theater would estimate that not as many people would be
interested in the movie.  That outlook sounds reasonable to me.  Whether that outlook
is correct or not remains to be seen.  So, I would not look for conspiracy theories where
there are none; remember Occam's razor.

> I think we "owe it to our country," if I may be so
> bold as to recycle your very loaded rhetoric, Mr. Hyams, to stand up for
> those who have been silenced because they express views that do not serve
> the interests of a very controversial administration.

I am a little confused as to why the above quotation is considered rhetoric (or even loaded rhetoric),
but OK. My only point was to say that when watching a movie that has a definite policital intention,
be on your guard and use your brain.  You will only see in that movie what serves to make Mr.
Moore's point and intention; no more, and no less.  One side of the story.

I would urge the same caution if Rumsfeld picked up a video camera, shot a documentary, and put
it in movie theaters.

Daniel Hyams