Report No Evil

It is becoming increasingly the norm for Internet readers to rely on blogs as a primary source of information. With this new found competition that moves faster and relies less on journalistic objectivity, traditional media outlets have found themselves losing influence. In an effort to mimic the speed and impact of the increasingly influential blogosphere, some of them have developed a taste for innuendo and insinuation that rivals the most incendiary and virulent blogs on either side of the partisan divide. These same traditional players, to their discredit, couch their opinions in the language of objectivity and seem to have a pathological need to fit news into easily digested stereotypes.

A perfect and unfortunate example of this is a Portfolio Magazine article, "Film No Evil," written about a movie that I have directed and produced called U.N. Me. It is a documentary that is an irreverent, sardonic and, at times, tragic film about the failure of the United Nations to live up to its founding ideals. In reporting on the film, they have written an article that is riddled with errors and misrepresents the scale and spirit of the film.

The United Nations' failure to live up to its ideals has been, for a variety of reasons, a conservative bailiwick. This is despite the fact that the U.N's inability to properly deal with issues such as nuclear proliferation, human rights, genocide and peacekeeping are issues that should and in many cases does, ring alarm bells across all political ideologies. The Portfolio article attempts to portray my movie as a right wing film whose sole marketing outlets and appeal are to Evangelical Christians. While this movie certainly does appeal to Evangelicals, and their support is certainly greatly appreciated, it is mistaken and -- worse -- disingenuous of the author to imply that they are the only political community that we would market the film to. Particularly because she and I had numerous discussions about our efforts to market and engage people of all political stripes and having seen the film she is certainly aware that we have made a concerted effort to assure its political neutrality and broad political appeal. More than half of the movie deals with the United Nations' failures in combating human rights violations around the world, particularly in Africa. This is hardly an issue that solely appeals to the right. Yet, instead of using this article to trumpet an issue that could bring political camps together and to counter a stereotype, Portfolio chose to ignore the ethos of the film and use the distasteful politics of division.

The Portfolio article further attempts to marginalize the overall prospects of the film by contending that the movie holds no real interest to distributors and will have a very small release footprint. These statements have no basis in fact and could not be further from the truth. There are very few documentaries that can attract, as we did, major studios to agree to attend private screenings, including Paramount, Sony, Fox, the Weinstein company, and Samuel Goldwyn among many others. Because we received enthusiastic responses from many of the distributors who have seen the film, we have never had to contemplate releasing it ourselves. One of our offers proposes opening the film in several hundred theaters across the country, establishing U.N. Me as one of the largest releases ever for a documentary. Hardly the inconsequential offers Portfolio is trying to make them out to be.

The most confounding part of this experience has been the author's personal stance on the film. She has repeatedly expressed her admiration for what we have accomplished over the phone, in person, and in writing. "EXCELLENT! Really entertaining." she wrote in one email. "Still haunted by what I saw," she wrote in another. Though the author of the article does claim that it was her editor who took an "overly cynical" approach to our movie and the article.

Portfolio's attempt to paint the film as something it is not by using political titillation and creating divisions where none exist is certainly not the way to steal back relevancy from the blogosphere. In our brutally divided political landscape, nothing would bring me greater joy and a sense of accomplishment then if this film could bring left and right together on this issue. Not that you would ever know it from the Portfolio magazine article.

Go see the trailer of the film and decide for yourself at unmemovie.com, and let me know what you think.

Comments

[howdi7]

I have seen the trailer and am interested in learning more. The Conde Nast (how is that for a moniker?!) writer may have looked at this from a financial perspective. That shouldn't be the issue at hand. Rather it is how we best deal with world instability, wars, terrorism, disease and poverty. Though the UN may have once held enormous promise, it has been hijacked by a large number of autocratic governments which lack moral scruples and favor self-interest above all else. As to whether the US has been a force for good or not is besides the point. When black becomes white, as in Zionism = Racism, and when the lunatics (Libyans, Iranians, Cubans) run the asylum, we ought to hold an objective discussion about the UN's merits. When we see deliberate murder, if not genocide, in Darfur with everyone pointing fingers at someone else, we must demand answers. Who is responsible for the UN's ability to discuss ad nauseum but not to act responsibly? Perhaps Horowitz (is that a better name than Nast?) will offer some light. on this subject After all, the UN was established with an important mission. No?

[samhsol]

It is about time that the U.N. get exposed for the level of incompetence, cronyism and corruption embedded into the organization. In addition, it has been hijacked by countries that are unbelievably corrupt and violate human rights in a big way. We need to have ways to expose this and if a movie can do this, so be it. Just look at the Durban conference or the what happened with the Iraq oil-for-food program. This is big time corruption using a lot of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

[radatzn]

If you believe that the UN has an important role to play, then you should be interested in understanding its failures. How is this a "left" or "right" issue"?

[teekeeroom]

If Horowitz's post is accurate that speaks poorly of Portfolio. Then again whose to say that Horowitz is totally accurate.

I'll see the movie (if I think its worth the extortion that theaters charge) and judge for myself.

Frankly I don't care who is supporting the film, as long as its good.

[Eric G]

Of course the UN is flawed. Evidence? Poverty, Outrageous War, and Human Rights violations persist all over the world. Why is the UN Flawed? The blame goes directly to the Charter itself and the establishment of permanent Security Council members, which is akin to an upper-house of parliament, but with exceptionally greater powers (unanimous requirements as opposed to permanent veto.) From that error, any state actor inside the council with a penchant for imposing global hegemony (ie, the United States) has the ability to do so. Neoliberalism, hegemony, and imperialism have infected the United Nations system. So it's not that the UN couldn't work, it's that it needs drastic reform -- but from the perspective of knowledgable cosmopolites and not people who practice post-Westphalian International Relations.

Of course, I haven't seen this movie so I will not comment on it at all. But there is hope for the UN if more Americans get invovled and realize that we need to concede some of these incredible ascriptions of power.

[hammerheadman]

The U.N. is the only thing keeping this world together. Without it we would go back to another world war. If you want to be critical go ahead, but by definition you have to be right wing to critical of what the U.N. does.

Anyone who can not see that Africa would become a complete bloodbath is blind. The U.N. is the line in the sand between the civility and instability.

[JWK1234]

It's about time someone exposed the UN for the anti-democratic freeloading thugocracy it is. Horowitz has big balls to take them on, since not only the UN but the sycophantic Left will attack him for it. Since when is exposing corruption and dictatorships a rightwing phenomenon?

[mrny11]

It is time the farce of the UN is exposed. A system run by bureaucrats from dictatorships who have never learned the meaning of human rights could never be trusted to guard the safety of those in dire need. Nor can they be relied upon to pronounce fair judgment of intensely complex situations.

[TexasProgressive3]

By dictatorships you, and your fellow Horowitz staff member JWK1234, mean the United States, correct? Because the US is the one who vetoes most of the meaningful UN resolutions along with Israel and other US stooges. But JWK1234 you are correct when you say the UN is undemocratic. Since certain powerful nations like the US have veto power, a resolution passed by all other nations can be sandbagged by the US. This is especially detrimental in the UN Security Council. So, basically it's the US's corrupt foreign policy that is the major stumbling block to the UN's ability to succeed.

[jmonop]

I read the huffington post version of the magazine article. I assumed that this was another right wing Michael Moore wanna be.

Now I am interested in seeing this movie.

Although I am still a little skeptical.

[Mikerw]

It is rather amazing that reporters who describe themselves as journalists, such as at Portfolio, can get away with writing articles they know are incorrect. Where is the editorial oversight?

As to the U.N., as citizens we need to be concerned that an organization like this may in fact be highly flawed. As they say the first stop in curing alcoholism is admitting to the problem. We need to understand the problem if we are to ever make the UN successful at its mission.