'Fahrenheit 9/11' Moores new film

[2pints-mate 0]

Go on Plucky!

[Plucky 0]

Okay, okay

 

I thought F9/11 was a really good film. I shook my head at a few parts, but basically agreed with almost all of it. Before I get called a 'sheep', pandering to the bias, I've thought this way since 2000.

 

I've been a HUGE fan of MM for years. I saw him speak at my university in 99. I loved his TV shows (Bravo) before that. I'm thinking that most people don't have a clue about the guy until they see his body of work. All most people know is his tirade at the Oscars and F9/11. You should see what else he has done.

 

You can call me a lamb, but I'll call you uninformed. Hell yes the movie was skewed and had spin. Do you watch the news? Same thing. Moore, no matter what his distracters say, has made America THINK. That can't be all bad, can it?

[bobby12 0]

I think F9.11 was good but it just skimmed the surface (compared to the lecture I was just talking about, and whos website is From The Wilderness ).

 

He spent too much time making Bush look like a fool, which I thought was a waste of time for two reasons:

 

1 - Everybody already knows this.

2 - It comes across as non-objective.

 

People seem to think its ok for MM to be non-objective because it 'balances out with our biased, one-sided media' but I thinks thats balls. If he wasnt people to take him seriously he needs to be more evenhanded. I had the same complaints about his movie 'The Big One', particularly the ending which is supposed to show Nike to be the bad guy, when in fact I came away agreeing with Nike and understanding their motives more (despite MMs one-sided-ness).

 

Anyway, my point here is that MMs movie is a bit superficial and if anyone wants to know more about it, you should go to the website above and order the video 'The truth and lies of 9.11', or download it from the internet.

[NoFakie 45]

 Quote:

Originally posted by bobby12:
This movie is actually just a 2 hour lecture by the guy who runs 'from the watchtower ' magazine, but very very detailed.

Is Mike Ruppert a Jehovah's Witness?

BTW, he also crops up in "The End of Suburbia", a documentary about peak oil.

I don't especially like MM as a person, but he's doing a great job of conscious raising. The only other people who reach that number of people are flag wavers. Modern politics is based on everyone being too busy watching sports, buying gadgets, or, like 1 in 4 Americans in full-time employment, trying to work enough at $8.75 an hour or less to make ends meet to worry about what the government is doing. MM's methods are crude, but that's possibly why he's successful. As for F9/11 being primarily anti-Bush, even Chomsky has come out and said people should vote tactically for the Democrats, not for Nader/Camejo or the Greens whose policies are no doubt more compatible with Chomsky's concerns. Historically, US re-election campaigns are always won and lost by the incumbent, not by the challenger. I don't like tactical voting, but this is what you get in a exclusively first past the post system.

[bobby12 0]

oops! I meant 'From The Wilderness' of course!

[Plucky 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by bobby12:
particularly the ending which is supposed to show Nike to be the bad guy, when in fact I came away agreeing with Nike and understanding their motives more (despite MMs one-sided-ness).

You agreee with Nike? I HATE you! Down with University of Oregon! OSU! OSU!

Trust me, Phil Knight is a crook.

[DumbStick 13]

Do you boycott Nike?

[Plucky 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by DumbStick:
Do you boycott Nike?

I don't buy Nike products. So I guess, yes.

I doubt anyone on here understands my motives for this besides the typical Nike bashing stuff. Nike is in Oregon. Phil Knight went to University of Oregon in Eugene. I went to school at Oregon State University. By default, I hate UofO and always have. F the Ducks! Oh, the whole human rights thing kind of bugs me too.

[damian 0]

I am not sure if I can go without commenting on MM’s somewhat unethical manipulation of the mass mind that is too lazy to think and question. This happens to be what politicians like Bush rely upon themselves. MM rests quite a lot on innuendo that emotionally feels good to see on screen and fuels the anti-bush verve. However it is in a few cases rather hollow innuendo. He implies, infers and prompts the imagination of the mass mind to jump to a conclusion without actually providing evidence. The Bush/Bin Laden link is an example of this.

 

It was good to see the film and he certainly demonstrated skill in his doco craft, but I think that my conscience requires me to admit MM’s clever tricks and use of innuendo are as sneaky as those which he tries to attack. I couldn’t help but raise an eyebrow at the methods of influence that he used in a somewhat unethical manner. I am not sure he has risen above the game-show-host-like political talking heads that most of us loath.

 

I am also not entirely sure that he helped his country as much as he might like to think. Full disclosure of alternate views are essential, but vehement attacks from within only weaken the whole. I think that America and Americans might be justified in being very disappointed in MM, even if they are very anti-bush/Iraq war. However, perhaps in the absence of any other strong peoples voice of discontent, MM’s voice is better than nothing.

[mina2 6]

What exactly is the deal with Nike that makes them so bad / more bad than others?

[rachael 0]

"typical Nike bashing stuff"

 

Yeah, I'm not too up on that, I thought they were really popular. I should listen to things more perhaps...

 

But I just found this----

 

::::::::::::::::

 

Greek legend suggests that Nike was the goddess of "victory." And victory, too, has become a watchword for Nike CEO Phil Knight. Nike's corporate success and swaggering Swoosh rarely have been countered. But as New York counselor Elizabeth Howard chronicles, that could all be changing. Nike, in fact, has been hit by a series of body blows, from faltering sales and earnings to child labor accusations to social responsibility failures. Nike's most formidable opponents, according to Ms. Howard, may be a committed band of worldwide community activists, who resent Nike's practices and are prepared to meet the company, toeto-toe.

 

NIKE-BASHING IS OLD news. Pundits,journalists and activists, of one sort or another, salivated at the opportunity to kick the bad boy of

sneakerdom when the company took a nasty fall and gave signals early in the first quarter that their earnings would be disappointing. CEO Phil Knight

also announced restructuring charges in the millions, job cuts worldwide, and a reduction of spending on endorsements and advertising.

 

Nike confronted the issues that other companies are going to face in the next few years: competition, labor and overproduction. There were inventory

problems, particularly in Asia; a trend away from sneakers to what is being called the "brown shoe craze," with people turning to hiking boots and

rugged styles; and internal management problems.

 

Who missed the trend shift? Who missed the oversupply problem? Who misjudged the pricing issue? Who took their eyes off the global

marketplace?

 

In the weeks following the announcement of the earnings downturn, Nike was slammed. Suddenly it was the newsstand that was emblazoned with the

Nike logo, with headline after headline speculating on what had gone wrong. Why the antiNike movement? After all, while we may not have the

Swoosh tattooed on our bodies like Nike employees, we cannot deny that winning is a part of our American heritage.

 

Because of its position as number one and its in-your-face-attitude, Nike had become a target - for the media and particularly activists.

 

Labor and human rights groups had been hounding Nike for years over its labor practices and the condition of its factories in Asia, and the media had

been trailing close behind.

 

SPINNING" PERCEPTION

 

Every "public relations" attempt Nike made to convince the public that its working conditions in Indonesia and Vietnam were satisfactory was

dismissed as "whitewash." Former Ambassador Andrew Young was retained to undertake an "independent" assessment of Nike's Code of

Conduct in Vietnam, Indonesia and China. Mr. Young's report was soft on Nike with comments like, "The factories that we visited which produce

Nike goods were clean, organized, adequately ventilated and well lit" and "I found no evidence or pattern of widespread or systematic abuse or

mistreatment of workers."

 

In the final comments Mr. Young wrote, "It is my sincere belief that Nike is doing a good job in the application of its Code of Conduct. But Nike can

and should do better." The report was widely criticized. In October 1997, Nike asked a group of MBA students at Dartmouth

College's Tuck School of Business to undertake a study that was described as an investigation into whether wages paid by Nike contractors in

Indonesia and Vietnam matched the workers' cost of living. The study, which found that Nike wages provided not only for basic needs but even for

a significant amount of discretionary income, was severely criticized as being methodologically and analytically flawed, and too much under the

direction of Nike. It was as embarrassing to the Tuck School as it was to Nike.

 

Last November, a front-page article in The New York Times reported that Ernst & Young had published an inspection report for Nike, which found

"workers at the factory near Ho Chi Minh City were exposed to carcinogens. . . and that 77 percent of the employees suffered from

respiratory problems." This report provided more fodder for Nike critics.

 

Who are the activists? What drives them? I interviewed Michael Gitelson, a social worker at the Edenwald Gunhill Neighborhood Center in the Bronx

and one of the main organizers of a settlementhouse protest and demonstrations against Nike Town in New York.

 

CONFESSIONS OF AN ACTIVIST

 

Mr. Gitelson reported the following: " At first we were just annoyed that a lot of kids in our program were wearing these Nike sneakers that we knew

they and their families couldn't afford. It really bothered us that people were either going without or somebody was stealing to get these sneakers.

 

So when we found out what was going on in Indonesia, Vietnam, and China - that bothered us even more. Nike was taking huge amounts of money from our kids and then exploiting even poorer people to an extreme."

 

This drove Mr. Gitelson to action. "At first our kids wrote letters to Nike suggesting that the company treat its workers better. After awhile we started

the Great Rebate Campaign. We asked the kids what would be a fair price for a pair of Nikes, taking into account that Nike has to make a profit and

workers' pay should increase.

 

"They determined $40 is the most they should have to pay We sent 100 letters. In July 1997, we got a form letter from Nike that addressed basic

issues but didn't really address any of our concerns. This got us mad."

 

The form letter was the catalyst for organizing a demonstration to give sneakers back. The United Neighborhood Houses signed onto the project,

eventually leading to the participation of 11 settlement houses.

 

ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY

 

"I started working the Internet and got responses from all over the nation, including the United Auto Workers. However, we didn't want Nike to think

this was a front for the unions. We wanted to maintain a grass-roots campaign against Nike."

 

POWER THROUGH VOICE, NOT SNEAKERS

 

The campaign organized by Gitelson had three demands: A living wage for Nike workers abroad, with independent monitoring. No sneaker should cost more than $40 in America. Serious investment into inner cities across America should be provided, with no one in the coalition taking any money from Nike.

 

According to Mr. Gitelson, "Besides wanting to take on Nike, we also wanted to teach our kids. We we were trying to teach kids how to gain

power in a more traditional manner, through collective voice, rather than the wearing of expensive clothes."

 

Why didn't Nike pay more attention to what was happening on the street? Why not listen to the young idealistic community workers? These

demonstrations weren't affecting Nike's bottom line, but they were becoming an annoyance. And when earnings took a hit, they made good

copy and damaging photo opportunities. Somehow, the Swoosh didn't seem quite as hip anymore. Nike should have learned a valuable lesson. When a multinational company achieves staggering heights of brand recognition and becomes an icon, it comes under increased scrutiny There is no rule of law in the global playground. Small activist groups can mount international campaigns with the tap of a finger on a computer; campaigns, mounted

without traditional press releases or public relations support and sparked with a limited budget, can wreak havoc abroad. Royal Dutch Shell learned

this after the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria and McDonald's learned this when accusations by two activists caused the company to go

through the longest libel trial in British history.

 

Nike had made four errors:

 

1. It didn't listen for change. With the mantle of leadership comes thenecessity to set higher standards. Nike did not listen closely and respond

constructively to external criticism.

 

2. It hasn't profited from 15 minutes of fame. Front-runners naturally attract media attention, yet Phil Knight had been surprisingly reticent with the

media. Nor did his company have solid relationships in place when they fell back. And by then, it was too late for spin and damage control.

 

3. It failed to heed the magic of technology. The Internet has opened new opportunities for groups to exchange information and coordinate campaigns.

Global networks can now monitor operations around the planet and create havoc with their passion.

 

4. Parochialism is akin to myopia. Americans are still perceived as callous colonizers. Highprofile companies, like Nike, cannot take the risk of being

so absorbed in the consumer/ technology culture without taking the time to learn about others.

 

It is tricky business tinkering with a brand image. With its Swoosh as the most recognizable logo in the global marketplace, what is the public

relations strategy that is required to soften the rebel image, while maintaining the hubris it takes to position a champion?

 

As a first step, Phil Knight announced at a spring press conference that Nike would raise the minimum hiring age for workers at shoe factories to 18 and at their other plants to 16. He also promised that Nike would require its overseas manufacturers to meet strict U.S. health and safety standards and allow outside labor and human rights groups to join independent auditors who inspect factories.

 

Accordingly, Nike is beginning to assume a more diplomatic attitude in dealing with others. It's hard to think of Nike as being "nice," but that's what

Nike seems to be doing. In marketing soccer, Nike has changed its in-yourface attitude, to one that includes "sensitivity training." Reportedly,

Nike will provide approximately $120 million over the next eight years to sponsor the U.S. Soccer Federation.

 

Despite this apparent change in course, activist Michael Gitelson, for one, isn't convinced.

 

"It's bogus," he says of Nike's new approach. "Just a public relations ploy They didn't really meet our demands."

 

And the two sides aren't talking. According to Gitelson, another New York campaign that will be even bigger than the previous two is being planned

this fall. As for Nike, it would rather its programs speak for themselves. Many of the new issues that companies face cannot be handled through

traditional public relations campaigns. Our new role as communicators is to listen to and explain what is happening on the street and to teach people

how to turn a situation inside-out and upside-down, considered from all possible angles.

 

A new emphasis should be placed on the importance of teambuilding, comprised of lawyers, corporate planners, policy experts and corporate

communicators working together to solve problems. The most important information today is that that flows into a company. That's where the most

important threats and opportunities reside.

[rach 1]

I saw the flick last night, makes for interesting viewing.

[snobee 0]

Just saw it.

 

MM's refined his product with a less in-ya-face-foot-in-the-door approach, altho subtle he ain't.

 

Pushing a barrow. Unashamedly - You Bet, but should have gone for the jugular.

 

Achieved the goal of smacking the closeted comfort zone of millions and cut direct to the bone - too close for some I guess who predictably cried leftist, distortionist, traitor...etc, while circling the wagons.

 

And the same recipe of ragged-edge exposure could easily be applied to many countries.

 

A slice of Japan Inc would be delicious.

 

Any budding tall poppy slayers?

[Ocean11 0]

snobee, interesting that you suggest that the same approach would be good in Japan. I agree. But on a lunchtime news/analysis program, I saw interviews with Japanese people who had seen it. One, a middle-aged business sort of man, said "I don't think you'd be allowed to make that sort of film here."

 

I'm not really sure if that's true or not, but it's interesting that anybody believes it...