Comments on: Michael Moore, Fred Thompson, and ‘Controversy Marketing’

By: Jon W

Jon W — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:25:52 +0000

One of the reason why this “works” is because the media and various commenters choose to rhapsodize about style over substance. All these quoted comments linked in the article talk about Thompson “playing hard” but you’ll notice that they don’t seem to focus on what he actually SAYS. Why is this an example of a “tough” response to Moore? How is it a “PR oppurtunity” if Thompson shys AWAY from the debate? Well it is when our slipshod, complacent lazy media falls alseep at the wheel and refuses to call a spade a spade.

By: CK

CK — Wed, 23 May 2007 19:33:49 +0000

Hey Matt: I agree with what you say above. A shift in new technologies (e.g. the rise of print, the rise of radio, TV, the rise of cable over major nets) always begs the question of the irrelevance of the others. Which doesn’t happen they all just find their rightful place. That said (!)…this medium flattens (or just plane eliminates) the barriers to entry, which is new territory for us all. For some scary, for us exciting.
Hmmm, I wonder, while we bat around phrases like “the conversation age,” or my personal fave of “The Share Economy” we should be calling it, to your point, “The Age of Access” since people needn’t call in favors to access Moore…or anyone with an online presence.
Anyhow, didn’t mean to get off-track and will most definitely let you know my take on Moore’s new film soon.

By: Matt Grant

Matt Grant — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:33:19 +0000

Thanks for the comments and various video links!
CK – I agree that we need a mulit-prong media approach. When saying, “we don’t need the traditional media” I meant that, thanks to the web, we all have access to a broadcast platform that allows us to produce our own media (and not just influence the mainstream media from the bottom up). In other words, the significance of YouTube, in contrast to say, the National Review Online, is that you don’t need to know anyone there to get into the forum. Thus, Fred Thomspon could post a response to Micheal Moore (which Moore even linked to from his website) without calling in any favors or even cultivating a relationship with an editor or columnist somewhere.
Matt

By: donforse

donforse — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:41:43 +0000

Check out my Fred Video!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L92d0ioaArU

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:20:13 +0000

Sorry — That was the trailer… Here’s the Michael Moore interview:
http://video1.brain-terminal.com/michael-moore/call-to-arms-lq.mov

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:23 +0000

Paul – There’s in interesting video clip of an Moore-esque interview of Michael Moore himself at indoctrinate-u.com. He didn’t duck the question, and he pretty much admitted what you just said.
Interesting stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2u9OJvw5wk
Full disclosure: Although I’m familiar with the substance of his works and ideas, I’ve never seen a Michael Moore film.

By: CK

CK — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:22:21 +0000

“PR professionals, marketers, and politicians alike have something to learn from all this. The small lesson would be, if your marketing involves instigating a public debate, as Moore’s often does, you should realize that your PR opportunity is also an opportunity for your opponents, or, to put it in business terms, competitors.”
I need to see this movie before I comment as to how well it’s done. But I found a lot of differences in his first 3 films, actually. And if anyone wants to see the MOST vocal opinionator they need look no further than Rosie O’Donnell’s blog…which is among the most popular (and controversial). She’s very authentic and, like Moore, isn’t afraid…and become a bit of a conspiracy theorist these days–we’ll see how that plays out but she centers on her audience in all of her web ‘movie’ (her video blogs) as she centers on reader Qs & As. She’s holding a conversation and for that, she gets beacoup respect from this marketer.
I’ve always seen Moore’s purpose is to START the conversation…if he’s starting it on both sides? All the better. In the recent Time cover story on Gore he talks of the new politics being that of consensus. We’ve found out what happens when we’re too far left or right–or I should say, when we just don’t talk–we need communication (and that starts with a conversation).
And onto your other question of who needs TV? We all do. Very much so. We just get to influence it more from the bottom-up (hallelujah) but we absolutely need a multi-pronged media strategy to deliver our messages and now, to offer consumers/business a feedback loop (because an email to the anchor is so 1999).
And BIG congrats on joining the Fix!

By: Paul Barsch

Paul Barsch — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:51:36 +0000

Matthew, thank you for highlighting the exchanges between Michael Moore and Fred Thompson. Very interesting. Now onto Mr. Moore…
If the purpose of a documentary is to present a balanced perspective with many points of view and unbiased approach, don’t watch a Michael Moore film. If you are looking for a subjective point of view, then Moore’s films are just that, and very entertaining. Just don’t get caught up in the hype!