Remember when certain Moore fans were all up in arms over Fox releasing Christian-themed films?

Well - where’s the outrage now that Mikey’s best friends in the movie business, the Weinsteins, are doing it?  Where’s the accusations of right wing bias?

Like I said then, this Christian movie thing is purely a business decision, and anything else is a partisan hack trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I guess people will say the difference is that Fox also has a news business and it comes down to how closely linked the divisions are.

CM - 07 December 2006 10:19 PM

I guess people will say the difference is that Fox also has a news business and it comes down to how closely linked the divisions are.

Why does that matter?  If it is a business decision or not, does it matter how closely linked they are?

JimK - 07 December 2006 09:49 PM

Remember when certain Moore fans were all up in arms over Fox releasing Christian-themed films?

Well - where’s the outrage now that Mikey’s best friends in the movie business, the Weinsteins, are doing it?  Where’s the accusations of right wing bias?

Because Mikey does not want to bite the hand that feeds him, despite the fact that he hates Jews like the Weinstein Brothers.

CM - 07 December 2006 10:19 PM

I guess people will say the difference is that Fox also has a news business and it comes down to how closely linked the divisions are.

They’re both subsidiaries of a parent media conglomeration.  One does news/politics and the other makes movies.  I just don’t see them as very closely linked at all.  News Corp also owns National Geographic Channel, but nobody bothers to link them with either Fox News or Fox Faith.  Or even Fox Sports en Latinoamérica!

There are stranger congloms out there.  ABC is owned by Disney and NBC is owned by General Electric, for goodness sake.  GE also owns Rogue Pictures, which specializes in action/horror movies.  Nobody accuses NBC of being linked with violence because of it.  (Actually, both NBC and Rogue are within NBC Universal, so you don’t even have to go all the way up to the conglom to link them.)

Maybe News Corp should have a different name because they do more than just news.  There is some history behind it, however.

The company that owns my company (a technology company) also owns a large coffee chain.  Other than the money, there isn’t much crossover as you might imagine.  It’s just business.

LD - 08 December 2006 11:22 AM

The company that owns my company (a technology company) also owns a large coffee chain.  Other than the money, there isn’t much crossover as you might imagine.  It’s just business.

I bet it’s cozier than you suggest.  Techies usually drink A LOT of coffee. ;)

Yeah, I don’t really agree either. Or care.

Sethery - 08 December 2006 11:52 AM

I bet it’s cozier than you suggest.  Techies usually drink A LOT of coffee. ;)

There actually is :)

We use their coffee and they use our technology products.  Though I think that was true before the same company owned both businesses.

Remember when certain Moore fans were all up in arms over Fox releasing Christian-themed films?

Presumably you’re referring to me; unfortunately for your point, I’m not a Moore fan. Oh well, nice try. Evidently I must have got to you though since it bugged you that much.

Well - where’s the outrage now that Mikey’s best friends in the movie business, the Weinsteins, are doing it?  Where’s the accusations of right wing bias?

Well, to be honest, this was the first I’d heard of it. So excuse me if I didn’t suddenly spring up to it. I can only respond to news events that are brought to my attention, you know. Presumably the liberal media conspiracy has prevented me from finding out what was relatively minor news until now.

But here you go - I still think it’s outrageous for a corporation to make specifically religious films, although I suppose you could make a compelling argument that since most films are works of fiction, perhaps the two are suited for each other. I think though that my main point is that MGM isn’t exactly well-known for having a news arm. Your comparison would be much more interesting if Disney started making specifically Christian films, since Disney also own ABC. Actually, it would be far more interesting if there was an ABC Faith label - in terms of brand structuring, creating a cohesive brand identity is what I’m interested in, and the fact that there’s a Fox News and a Fox Faith is far more interesting. That’s why I’m not convinced your argument of ‘it’s just a business decision’ waves it away - if anything, it’s a purposeful business decision designed to create a cohesive Fox brand identity.

Of course, there’s a real irony here. Guess who distributes MGM’s films internationally and handles MGM’s home video output?

That’s right - it’s Fox. So if anything, what you’ve just brought to my attention ends up being yet more evidence for what I’ve been hinting at all along. Thanks JimK!

*sigh*

Notice how he still ignores all the Fox divisions that DON’T support his theory of a right-wing, “eeeeee-vuull” “Fox Brand.” You know, like every tv division and every film division except News and Faith.

*cough*

News Corp also owns National Geographic Channel

Not surprised really.  JimK, Moore is a false dissident who won’t face real issues and when asked, he’ll declare it to be “un-American.” He only wants money and is controlled opposition.  Nothing more.  And btw, this tidbit might interest you.....  Fox ultimately made money off of Fahrenheit 9/11, thus proving DeusXM’s point.

*sigh*

Notice how he still ignores all the Fox divisions that DON’T support his theory of a right-wing, “eeeeee-vuull” “Fox Brand.” You know, like every tv division and every film division except News and Faith.

*cough*

Care to elaborate?

Notice how he still ignores all the Fox divisions that DON’T support his theory of a right-wing, “eeeeee-vuull” “Fox Brand.”

Notice how you still persist in trying to paint me as a liberal troll. Don’t think I ever said Fox was ‘eeeeeee-vuull’ or even ‘evil’. I think I’ve made the point several times that Fox is in it for the money and has found it makes its money best when it panders to the lowest common denominator - the sort of person who’s not adverse to watching boobs on TV but also blindly goes to church and an unquestioning form of patriotism.

Fox isn’t evil and it certainly didn’t create that sort of person, it just allowed them to entrench. At the end of it, like every other corporation they’re trying to screw you out of your cash. I’m not sure what’s happened with you, whether you’ve allowed to yourself to be co-opted by that market and turned into a commodity, or whether you don’t even realise it’s happening.

DeusXM - 13 December 2006 06:19 AM

Notice how you still persist in trying to paint me as a liberal troll. Don’t think I ever said Fox was ‘eeeeeee-vuull’ or even ‘evil’. I think I’ve made the point several times that Fox is in it for the money and has found it makes its money best when it panders to the lowest common denominator - the sort of person who’s not adverse to watching boobs on TV but also blindly goes to church and an unquestioning form of patriotism.

Funny how that description fits the highest common denominator, too - those who religiously watch the “Daily Show” on TV, drink and dope themselves blind yet know it all by questioning everything. Even the most mundane and seemingly innocuous, such as that gummy stuff on the inside of beer bottle caps. Surely it too contains petrochemical poisons?

Okayyy… well, moving on…

It’s safe to say that Moore will only “speak out” when it nets him publicity favorable towards him.  Otherwise, he doesn’t touch it.

Funny how that description fits the highest common denominator, too

Indeed it does. I’m assuming that’s a smaller market, though.