Moore using Disney claim just for publicity?

An article I came across on Rense:

--------------
http://www.rense.com/general52/mooremax.htm

Mooreamax
By Lee
5-6-4

So, I'm away from a computer for a couple of days and the whole world falls apart. By now you have undoubtedly heard that Disney has refused to distribute Michael Moore's upcoming craptastic lie-fest Fahrenheit 911.
 
Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.
 
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
 
Okay, according to this Disney has been saying for a year that they would not permit Miramax to distribute this film. So this is coming as a big surprise now, right before the premiere of the film at Cannes? I don't buy this for a second. Harvey Weinstein is a smart guy, and he's a very active Democrat Party hack. I think he knew all along that there was no way that Disney would go for this, but he stuck with it because there was no downside to it. Back in February I wrote a post about the SuperBowl MoveOn commercial controversy, an incident which perfectly exemplifies the dynamic we see working here with Miramax.
 
Here's how it breaks down. MoveOn holds their commercial contest, which in and of itself generates a lot of publicity. Then they pick a winner, and attempt to buy advertising time during the Superbowl. This, for them, is a no-lose proposition. If CBS sells them the airtime then they get to show their commercial to a massive audience. If, as expected, CBS declines to air it, then MoveOn gets to spin it into a propaganda victory. . . . If your political enemies wish to silence you, that gives you a certain level of credibility that you might not have had before. So, by propagating the myth that people who disagree with the Bush administration are being "silenced" it is essentially saying, "Hey, our message is so right on that they have to resort to silencing us! What is it that they don't want you to hear?"
 
See my point? Weinstein has the opportunity to distribute Moore's film. Not only is he a friend of Moore and a fellow traveller, but Moore's films make quite a bit of money for very little cost.
 
Weinstein signs up to distribute Moore's film, knowing full well that Disney will most likely never go for it, a premise which eventually proves correct. If Miramax had persuaded Disney to permit the deal then Moore and Miramax would have had a solid distribution pipeline, which would have guaranteed that the film open on thousands of screens. With Disney pulling out both Moore and Weinstein have scored a massive propaganda victory and gotten millions of dollars of free publicity right before the film's debut at Cannes. "Come and see the film that the Bush administration and their corporate lapdogs at Disney don't want you to see!" And if you think I'm wrong about the spin and propaganda surrounding this incident, take a look at Mike's website.
 
Yesterday, I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.
 
Here's a typical Michael Moore blatant lie. Nowhere in the quoted times article does the word "anger" appear, yet he places it in quotes, thus making it appear that not wanting to anger Jeb Bush was the reason for Disney's actions. For the record, here is the actual Times quote.
 
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
 
"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
 
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
 
Now, let's assume that the Florida tax breaks were the reason that Disney chose not to distribute Moore's film. So what? That's a standard business decision. "Moore's film cost $4 million to produce, and has projected revenues of $30 million. However, by distributing it we stand to lose $1 billion in Florida tax breaks, so it doesn't make good business sense for us to do so."
 
Where is the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? That releasing a monumental lie-fest right before a presidential election might not endear you to a conservative state where the president's brother happens to be governor? Wow, that's some Machiavellian scheming that's been uncovered! Moore continues with his propaganda:
 
For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?)
A piece of art that might upset those in charge? Does he actually expect people to believe this crap? (Well, yes.) And it's a comedy? Methinks that Mikey is falling back on his "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" line again. Let's take a look at the description of this "comedy."
 
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
 
Wow, doesn't that sound gut-bustingly funny! I just can't see how this calm, satirical, comedic little art film could cause so much brouhaha.
 
http://moorewatch.com/
----------------

WHAT in the.............?     I posted the article in response to phlux.   He started this thread............I contributed something he may find of interest, supporting his view.     "shown what a bimbo you are".......?  Holy COW..........I hadn't even read your post!!   I just saw that phlux had started this thread, and coincidentally, I had JUST read the article on Moore and Miramax over on Rense, and so quickly posted it so he could see.   Holy cow.  Wow.   I guess I could take your critique of Rense personally, but that would be ridiculous. 

Man, I'm still shaking my head.........

Usually I do read all posts in order before posting, especially in small threads that haven't accumulated too many.   But this time I didn't, I just posted the article in response to phlux's opening post.