June 13, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11
I've been watching the buzz build for Michael Moore's new movie for several weeks. One of the most fascinating indicators so far has been the IMdb movie ratings, which interestingly enough reflect the polarization of politics in this country.
Ever since this movie was added to the IMdb database, it has been receiving a 70% to 30% split in people rating it 10 vs 1. A very very small percentage of people are rating it anything between. This clearly shows the hard-line partisanship of political activists trying to use IMdb as an early indicator to the rest of the world about how to react to the movie, which doesn't even hit theatres until June 25. Fascinating...
For a better understanding of what's going on here, read some of the user comments. Remember, probably less than a few hundred people worldwide have seen this movie to-date.
The message boards are full of threads (like this one) from activists saying they're creating multiple fake IMdb user accounts just so they can vote 1 on this movie. Seems a little pathetic.
Posted by Cameron Barrett at June 13, 2004 11:16 PMIs it any more pathetic than sit-ins, hunger strikes, or marches? Those traditional tools of the left-wing protestor are generally ineffectual, often illegal, and always disrespectful.
This IMDB get-out-the-vote campaign is stupid and ineffectual. Just as are all astroturf campaigns.
Posted by: Bill Brown at June 14, 2004 09:51 AM
Always disrespectful?
I'm not a left wing protestor, nor even a left winger, but I do not think that this description is fair, or accurate.
Posted by: Robert at June 14, 2004 08:36 PM
Hunger strikes, sit-ins, and marches aren't, by their nature, disrespectful? Hunger strikes are the adult equivalent of a temper tantrum, sit-ins block traffic or disrupt work, and marches inevitably entail shouting epithets or slanderous slogans.
I suppose the last type could be respectful, but I haven't encountered such an animal.
Posted by: Bill Brown at June 15, 2004 10:07 AM
If you really think that it's preferable to allow you or your fellow citizens' civil rights to be abrogated rather than show disrespect by participating in a sit-in or march, your priorities are messed up.
Posted by: citizen Able at June 15, 2004 03:49 PM
It really depends on what you define "civil rights" as. There are some pretty dubious rights being asserted and many of those I would greatly prefer to be abrogated.
Posted by: Bill Brown at June 16, 2004 09:52 AM
Civil rights: the right to vote, the right to freedom of movement, the right to get a cup of coffee at Woolworths, independence from a colonizing power.
What dubious rights are being asserted? Do these rights being asserted diminish you in some way?
Posted by: citizen Able at June 18, 2004 10:14 AM
Talking of astroturf campaigns, here's some useful info about the anti-Fahrenheit 9/11 campaign group 'Move America Forward' (MAF). The one that's been pressurising movie theaters not to show the film. Turns out, it's nothing more than a front for a GOP-linked public relations firm, Russo Marsh and Rogers. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the fact that RM+R set up MAF is not mentioned anywhere on the MAF website...
Furthermore, this firm made 2.5 million dollars from GOP politicians in 2001/2002. And nothing from Democrat politicians. What a surprise.
See backgrounder on Move America Forward
plus a backgrounder on Russo Marsh and Rogers who are behind the Move America Forward fake campaign
plus the fiasco over Move America Forward's internet address registration info
Posted by: the dope on Move America Forward at June 26, 2004 06:26 PM
