"The Big One"

Richard Gibson rgibson at pipeline.com
Sun May 17 13:31:03 PDT 1998


Michael Moore builds nothing but Michael Moore. People already know things are unfair and inequitable. Moore makes caricatures of working people (The rabbit woman), obliterates the history of real resistance (there were big battles in Flint when Moore was making his bogus docu-drama), and suggests, with a sly wink, that if we only knew what he knows (you can do well be acting like you are doing good), things would change. They wouldn't.

At 12:51 PM 5/17/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
>To: marxism at lists.panix.com <marxism at lists.panix.com>;
lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
><lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>
>>The exclusion of Michael Moore from network television is as much a form of
>>political censorship as is the exclusion of important working-class
>>struggles today.
>
>I think this is too simplistic a statement. Michael Moore had not one but
two
>different shots at TV NATION on two different networks, one on NBC (owned by
>General Electric) and then on Fox (owned by Rupert Murdoch).
>
>His ratings were never great and if the networks have any ideology, it is
>worship of the ratings. Add to the fact that key rating numbers are not just
>total numbers but the affluence of the viewers, since advertisers pay more
for
>young, upper middle class viewers (can we say Seinfeld). Tom Selleck was
paid
>big bucks for a new sitcom called THE CLOSER but when the ratings remained
low,
>they killed his show.
>
>Given these facts, TV NATION had trouble by the standard rules applied to
every
>TV show. We can argue with the rules for good measure, but to describe
Moore's
>case as censorship avoids dealing with some basic issues that the Left
needs to
>grapple with.
>
>I loved TV NATION, especially the second season on Fox. Moore made me
laugh and
>think. He obviously inspired deep fan loyalty (which is worthwhile to
>advertisers and may explain why he stayed on as long as he did.
>
>But he did not get the massive numbers of the top rated sitcoms or news
>magazines. This may be due to lack of promotion by the networks the show was
>on, but it also may have something to do with why Letterman's humor got
blander
>and more conservative when he moved his time slot - you can have attitude
and a
>point of view when playing to a small, niche audience but to survive in prime
>advertising times, you have to appeal to a low common denominator.
>
>Syndication and cable are opening up new opportunities for edgier, less bland
>shows, but in the meantime, it is self-delusion to just blame censorship
for the
>absence of leftwing shows. A number have gotten on TV, but none has ever
gotten
>gigantic ratings. If we had an example of a show with good ratings being
taken
>off, there might be a case of censorship, but I can't think of an example.
>
>Why leftwing shows don't appeal to really mass audiences is an important
issue.
>Moore has done better than almost anyone else and even he hasn't quite
made it.
>
>--Nathan
>
>
>
Rich Gibson Director of International Social Studies Wayne State University College of Education Detroit MI 48202

http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/index.html http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/meap.html

Life travels upward in spirals.

Those who take pains to search the shadows

of the past below us, then, can better judge the

tiny arc up which they climb,

more surely guess the dim

curves of the future above them.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list