User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 13

Thread: Came across an interesting article

  1. #1
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i was debating over wiether or not to post this here but it is an interesting read. not looking to start up any more political discutions. i missed the original story on the murder of the guy so i dont think it was well publisized here in the states but i could be wrong

    A Hush Over Hollywood
    by Pat Sajak
    Posted Nov 30, 2004


    Picture this:

    Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It’s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.

    So I’m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

    The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh’s crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood’s creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!

    Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh’s murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore’s size would provide a great deal of “bulletin board” space.

    Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they’re not Christians or Jews.

    There’s another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?

    As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world?

    As I said, it’s a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  2. #2
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I saw a lot about it in the Guardian (UK) and other non-US media that I read online.

    I checked the online archive of our local paper (Hartford Courant) and it looks like the first mention of the murder was an opinion article this weekend, nearly 4 weeks late. I checked the Boston Globe and it took that paper a week to mention the murder. Not wanting to limit myself to a blue state perspective, I checked Jackson, MS' Clarion Ledger, but it doesn't seem to have reported it yet. The Houston Chronicle, on the other hand, actually mentioned it the day after the murder and a number of times afterwards.

    The murder did happen on election day and not much paper & ink was spent on anything but the election. But the US media (not including the Wolf Point Herald-News) mostly fails to open people's eyes to what's happening in their world.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #3
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    nah we dont print much about world stuff we are a local paper and print mostly local with some state news. honestly i came across the article in another forum. just wierd that i havent heard about it through other sources. stuff like this usually would be big news.

    Rattler
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  4. #4
    SirKristoff is a poopiehead Ozzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Greenswamp, NC
    Posts
    13,747
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The media don't care about reporting something unless it's going to bring them ratings. People are not going to stand up and voice their opinion about something that won't affect them. I think it comes down to people really just don't care.

  5. #5
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    People can't care about something if they don't know it exists.

    Rattler's Wolf Point paper looks like a typical local paper - I read what Rattler stuffed in a box when he sent a package to me. I love local papers from other places and never miss a chance to read one. I don't expect news from the Netherlands in a local Montana paper, but there should be the good and the bad from the community. Being dependent on advertising dollars, it's hard to take on local powers, but some have done it very well. It must be especially tough in the upper plains because of all the economic and social changes.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Desert USA
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    its one thing for a local paper to be criticized..they cant get all their news if they dont know about it.

    heck i remember hearing something about this, but it was a quick note about a guy named van gogh that was murdered..
    they didnt say anything about notes and who did it or why.

    my thoughts?

    1) they didnt know
    2) they dont want to know
    3) bigger fish on the market
    4) more important things

    5) kind of a twist here.. a giant loop. hollywood is made mostly of liberals..and i mean rather far liberals.
    if they talk about it, that means that they are against that kind of an act (which alot of people are)... but then that means that they too are affected my terrorism (since most think that they are far better protected).. yet this was a guy who was dutch.. that doesnt affect them.. you know? cause it was somewhere else.

    like most americans, they must think that if it doesnt happen to them, then it doesnt matter or isnt that important.

    except for michael moore,i really dont see any directors talking about much of anything.. its always the actors, etc.. that are speaking out. last time i looked, they were hired for their looks and acting ability... not their political views. but oh well.. im just a poor average jane doe.. so what do i know or care about.

  7. #7
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Plenty of directors and others speak out about all kinds of things, but they don't get much coverage on the evening news. In part, it'll come down to the question of who'll sell the most magazines if Time's cover story is "Movie Stars Speak Out" while Newsweek does "Other People Speak Out". But this liberal believes the corporate media focus on what wealthy entertainers think because they're only liberal on social issues that matter not one little bit to big corporations. When it comes to money, something corporations care about very deeply, the stars are reliably conservative. And they're rewarded - the recently passed Federal Budget includes $336 Million of tax breaks for Hollywood.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #8
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK, my two cents. First, this story was covered in every major newspaper and news network in the US. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and Faux News all covered the story, including the context, the investigations, and so forth. That the story didn't catch on to become a day-to-day thing is attributable to a few simple reasons. First, it's not a sexy story. It's a single murder in a foreign country. People are murdered every day. And this didn't have the sensational appeal of, say, the Laci Pererson case. Secondly, there just isn't much to say about it as far as new information.

    Everyone of any integrity opposes this murder. But what is there to say about it? Is there a policy question therein? Not really. Is there a political controversy? Not really, conservatives and liberals alike oppose this. In fact, I've heard just as little from the Hestons and Sellecks about this as from the "liberal" Hollywood people. Why are we talking about them, though? What's the real issue here? What relation does Hollywood political activists really have to this story?

    Here's what it is: Pat Sajak wants to make some cheap political points at the expense of liberals. He acts as if a single murder in a foreign country should spur Michael Moore to be as concerned about it as he is about the disastrous policies and outright lies of the Bush administration, which is an absurd position on its face. Moore's concerns are closer to home, and are his to decide, not Sajak's.

    Sajak's implication that liberals are "for terrorism" because Bush is against it is infantile, moronic, and unfortunately indicative of the level of debate currently in vogue in this country. I would suggest he grow up.

    Capslock
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •