Page 162 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

152 Chapter 6

disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed
~orces.'"' After considerable bad press, Sinclair eventually backed down from
running the entire anti-Kerry documentary, instead showing parts of it during a
"news special" about the issue.99 The controversy had done considerable damage
to the reputation of a company that most of the American public probably did
not even know existed before the 2004 election. Then again, the documentary
may have also helped win the election for George W. Bush by promoting false
attacks on Kerry and lending them credibility.

The Politics of Censorship:
The Story of Michael Moore

Censorship is an extremely effective method for limiting anti-war views because
it is so difficult to identify. Political leaders and media personalities often define
censorship exclusively through government efforts to control or omit controver-
sial content from newscasts and reports. Censorship of reporters and editors that
originates from within corporate media is often left unconsidered. As a result of
this narrow definition, many questions are left unanswered about the nature of
corporate media censorship. How many books do publishers reject because they
do not fit conventional norms that justify U.S. foreign policy? How many people
are not invited as guest news analysts for television programs because they ex-
press controversial anti-war views? How many anti-war academics and polemi-
cists are not considered for regular or guest newspaper columns? How many
films never get made or distributed because they fail to conform to mainstream
political perspectives?
Such questions are impossible to fully answer, since those censored usually
do not get the chance to tell the American public their stories. On occasion,
though, some stories of censorship are so blatant that it is hard to downplay
them. Such was the case with Michael Moore's problems finding a distributor
for his anti-war documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
Miramax had originally funded Moore's project, although the company
lacked permission from its parent company, Disney, to distribute the film upon
completion. Former CEO Michael Eisner did not want Disney to be associated
with this controversial film.loO Eisner explained his reasoning as follows: "We're
such a nonpartisan company. . . [consumers] do not look for us to take side^."'^'
Michael Moore, however, explained the reluctance as a result of Disney's sup-
pression of anti-war messages. Moore stated, "I would have hoped by now that I
would be able to put my work out to the public without havin to experience the
profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter."lO'This was not the
first time Moore had problems with censorship. According to Moore, Harper-
Collins, the publisher of Stupid White Men, originally threatened to shred his
book in the wake of 911 1 if he did not remove a chapter that was critical of
George W. ~ush."~ After drawing public attention to the issue, Moore was suc-
cessful in releasing his book, although it came out six months late. In reflection,
Moore claims: "I got lucky, but I wonder how many other people have been