Most people know I've had fun doing the online petition to bring back Commander in Chief, but I really didn't buy into the conspiracy theorists idea that Bush or republican officials put pressure on Disney and ABC; alleging that the show's impact on public opinions cast too much of a favorable light on democrats. Now I'm not so sure ... The ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 is drawing lots of heat and controversy with critics claiming its "subjective, republican vantage view" is an attempt to sway voters during an election year. ABC and Disney Attempting to Dictate Politics
Are you for or against free speech? Democrats are against it, apparently. Veiled threats against their broadcasting license? Guess all those cries of fascism were pointed in the wrong direction Being based off the commission reports, I'm sure Bush does not come off clean here. But since no one has seen the whole thing...lots of the anger comes from people trying to protect their legacy. Heres a nice flashback video http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm...5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/&fg=
They came out and said they would edit it. That is an admission of guilt. So your post is pure rhetoric.
"The ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 is drawing lots of heat and controversy with critics claiming its "subjective, republican vantage view" is an attempt to sway voters during an election year." FarenFart 9-11 is a mcuh better description of "subjective, vantage view". It wasn't played on a major network, but it got all the media and free advertising it could possibly want. Dems are just pissed that they were quoted and shown on camera in such vile ways. They really dispise truth these days.
What did you expect? "Edit it or we'll pull your FCC." hmmmmm.... not much of a choice is it? So much for free speech.
So you are okay with threatening to pull an FCC license then, to promote a certain point of view? Is that what you are saying?
FYI - that quote is not from my article; I never stated nor would I advocate a move as stupid as attempting to pull ABC's "public license" ... it's a free market; the viewers in the end will dictate how networks operate with show loyalty and sponsorship patronage. But it honestly seems like ABC is becoming as unbiased as FoxNews
Not much of difference between this and fareheit (sp?) 9/11...so who cares!? I didn't watch fat mans movie, so I'll not be watching this. I already know the dirt on everyone, so why watch a rerun of what I already know!?
I have not attempted to draw any parallels between this and Moore's movie; however, one would expect an open activist who is anti-Bush to be one-sided, but a public television network that prides itself on news and facts is a different story IMO.
Its not the point: Are you for or against politicians threatening the broadcast license for shows that they disagree with? Ever heard of prior restraint; its the very definition of censorship. ABC caving will just make it harder for networks to produce "controversial" topics lest they come under scrutiny too. Is that what you want - Fear of government to control network broadcasts? To your "point": This piece is put out by ABC entertainment, not ABC news. It is billed as a docu-drama (not a documentary), creative license being used is inevitable. If the incidents are accurate (even if dramatized), why the fear of them being shown? Clinton DID have chances to get OBL and bypassed them. Whether or not a phone was slammed or the exact language spoken is used in the film is completely irrelevant. If I get the concept right; CBS News airs known doctored papers to try and demonize Bush before the 2004 elections and tries to cover it up afterwards. Silence from the democrats. Reuters and other news outlets show fake photos, videos and newcasts from the Middle East (lebanon). Silence from the democrats. But show the entertainment division airs a docu-drama that casts light certain failures of the Bush admin. all hell breaks loose? Is that rational or sane? Of course not. Stop defending this rancid attack on the first amendment. Whether or not you like what is being broadcast is beyond the point. The only thing ABC is guilty of is pretending that "Lost" has a coherent plot.
Normally I avoid the politics & religion thread like the plague as discussions in this forum are totally pointless because nobody listens to anything that might threaten their belief system or might actually make them see things from a different perspective. However, the politically motivated demagoguery of this thread is making me sick and I'm seeing a lot of hypocrisy over the issue of the this movie and freedom of speech. Might I remind people of the fate that the movie about the Reagans met? It seems to me, that people only hide behind the 1st amendment and freedom of speech when it suits their political agenda and then work feverishly to squelch or shout down any speech that they do not agree with at any other time. Freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility of being accountable for what one says and how one uses public airways. This type of responsibility shouldn't require government intervention; it should be an understood personal and social responsibility. Unforutnatly this personal accountablity is sorely lacking in this day and age. You may not like Michael Moore and you may not agree with his political stance (personally he is too extreme for my tastes), but he did understand his responsibility to be 100% factually accurate with what he included in his documentary given its political theme. EVERY item in F911 was vetted for factual accuracy, by a very highly qualified and experienced team of professional fact checkers, and documented on the companion website. If there was a question about something that was presented in the documentary it was very easy for one to use the documentation on the website to track back to the exact sources of those facts and see if they were taken out of context. Maybe two different people with different political persuasions could have interpreted the facts/quotes presented in F911 differently, but it was still actual transcripts/facts/quotes/video/photos that were presented and one did know when he was presenting facts, and when he was drawing his own conclusions of the facts he presented. The ABC movie on the other hand is a dramatic portrayal of what happened that blurs the line between documented facts, hearsay and dramatic license. In this mini-series dramatized (e.g. fictional/extrapolated) dialog and scenes are intermixed with real events and there is no way to know what is fact and what is fiction. This is highly irresponsible. ABC is trying to have it both ways, they want to claim that their miniseries is based on true events and that it is not an actual portrayal of what happened. In essence they are trying to capitalize on "true events" without having to be responsible for accurately presenting those events. The general population is not going to be able to separate fact from fiction and this will impact their impression of events. This subject is extremely politically volatile. As such the producers of the movie have an obligation to be 100% factually accurate, have an obligation to avoid taking any artistic license of events and have an obligation not to fabricate events for dramatic purposes. Either ABC needs to present the movie as historically accurate fact or as a work of fiction; they can not have it both ways. Just like the movie about the Reagans was pulled from network TV, this mini-series should also be pulled so that it can be fully vetted (and documented) with adlibbing and non-factual/hearsay scenes deleted. It should also be aired at a date and time when things are already extremely politically charged (e.g. after the November elections). Any scene that can not be documented and completely defended based on historical and factual documents (not hearsay books) should be removed from the movie. The producers of this mini-series should have had the personal responsibility to have done this on their own accord long before this became an issue, but then there would have been no controversy to stir up attention for an otherwise opportunistic mini-series to grab ratings. Finally NO ONE who decried or demanded the editing of the movie about the Regans because of its "unfair" portrayal of the Regans has any business hiding behind claims of freedom of speech now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Actually it's always been that way. The first media durning our founding was harshly political and at time extremely manipulative of the truth ie they lied. Like the Da Vinci code? Frankly I don't care, if people want to believe anything...whether they believe the Da Vinci code is based on facts (which 98% of it isn't) or they want to believe Fareheit 9/11 or this new 9/11 story....who cares!? I don't have the time to relieve them or their mysticism. People make money of other people's mysticism every second of the day...
Da Vinci Code wasn't presented as fact, it was presented as a fictional "historical" thriller. There is a subtle but very important difference. Like good science fiction it had some threads of reality woven in to make it seem more realistic and believable, but it didn't claim to be historically accurate or true life. This ABC mini-series is portraying real people and real events. Unfortunately people vote based on misimpressions and bad information due to their failure to look for the facts and understand the issues. With elections only a couple months away the last thing we need is the way people vote to be influenced by fictional/inaccurate information. Indeed, but I think the timing of this movie is exceedingly irresponsible. If it aired after the November elections I would probably care less. Personally I find most network mini-series to be pretty pathetic and I wouldn't have watched the movie about the Regans either. Nor do I ever watch any of the "docudramas of the week". Oh wait, I don't really watch any network TV.
Yes and no...the book has many things it claims as facts, which are not. Obviously the movie is drama...it's just that the book is portrayed as somewhat factual, which it isn't to any remarkable degree. I'm sure they have some other inaccurate information to base their vote off of, anyways. I understand your sentiments, I'm just not into the whole idea of idealism in this world (unless it's absolutely necessary)...I just deal with what comes to me. Frankly I can't stomach voting for either popular party, in most cases. I haven't voted for either...yet. But never say never. Boycott if you think it's that inaccurate, and dispel a simliar opinion. I'm not sure it will do a huge lot, but if that's your moral code it would make sense.
Really Actually, they're flip-flopping more than Kerry in a debate over it; first its drama, then its a documentary, but then it's both .... and when it comes down to it, the presentation (fact or fiction) won't matter, the impressions or damage will have been made or done.
The (commie)democrats are trying take away another one of the american peoples rights. What would of been the reaction if bush would of tried to have fahrenheit 911 censored? Oh i get it censorship must be ok, if the left doesnt like it. Its suprising how quiet the ACLU is on this issue.