Free Speech...unless you attack Democrats by Hero

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
...Funny, I remember a certain inflatering movie about Ronald Reagan in 2003, not long after he died...I'm just sayin...

Didn't Republicans get that Reagan movie pulled from the network broadcast and it aired instead on Showtime? Neither party seems to have a problem with censorship when it suits their purposes...

That being said, ABC can say that President Clinton was a transvestite, wife beating, Russian spy if they choose to. And about half the country will believe it.

So much for that liberal media bias, aye fellas'?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 4:06 AM

DREAMTROVE

The democrats in question are the Clinton admin, which *is* the Bush admin, so what does it matter?

The thing is trying to shift 9-11 blame to Clinton, sure, but why bother? I mean, if all Bush is guilty of is failing to prevent 9-11 then who cares? If you look at past presidents, the record for handling a crisis in the first year is pretty terrible. If anything, Bush's response to Katrina merits more concern.

My concern with Bush and 9-11 is that someone in his administration was actually guilty of planning the attacks. I think people brush this idea off, and that's a bad idea. Terrorists high in the US govt? And the evidence to back this up is all over the web, and a solid 10% of it seems to be actually true, which put much more evidence against members of the Bush admin than against members of Al Qaeda, particularly Bin Laden.

On another note, Armitage admitted to the Plame affair.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 4:18 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Hero

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
I don't know if this is true, but I think anyone making a documentary on a tragedy as huge and with such global consequences as 9/11 should really steer clear of any domestic political issues. Using it to have a dig at another political party seems pretty callous to me.

Did you enjoy 'Fahrenheit 9/11' which, oddly, was released in 2004 in the midst of an actual Presidential campaign to attack an actual candidate (as opposed to attacking the husband of a potential candidate in a campaign that is still over a year away)?

Republicans were angry with Michael Moore, but I don't remember them trying to censor him...he was even a guest at their convention.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 4:20 AM

ANTIMASON

Hero- i wish you would take the time to consider that both parties are in fact controlled by the same money interests, who use the opposing philosophies to play good cop/bad cop with the American public. for example...border security; neither party is stating the obvious(minus a few republicans) that national security is IMPOSSIBLE without border security, and America + millions of immigrants = third world economy; so why are our best interests constantly being defied? its not that hard to do the right thing.... only its because OUR interests are not the objective; PERIOD. im tired of listening to people get duped by this phony partisan rhetoric and influence... because they are both corrupt and diceptive idealogies devised to give false choices, rather then to offer solutions

as DT stated, when you look into the political reality of the New World Order agenda, suddenly the letter in front of a candidates name becomes trivial and irrelevant; the same CFR, multinational elitist agenda is forwarded regardless, because the central Banks finance everyone and anyone to complete each phase of their fascist global monetary plot

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 4:36 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

It’s funny to me that when the Democrats get caught red handed doing something hypocritical or just down right nasty, it seems to turn out to be a product of the environment. Everyone’s hypocritical. Everyone’s corrupt. But when the Republicans get caught, well then it’s a cultural of corruptness within the Republican Party or a vast Right-Wing conspiracy. So we’re all to blame for the faults of Democrats, but Republicans are on their own.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 4:41 AM

Its nearly laughable that you dredge up some unproven BushCo conspiracy theory when we have the central {convicted} actor caught with the bloody evidence stuffed into his underwear, trousers and socks. We all know about the classified documents Sandy Berger sneaked out of the National Archives. Why does Berger get a free pass on this?. Or did BushMoronGenius fuity oaty bar Berger with sublim transmissions?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html

Quote:
the edit alters the controversial scene in which Sandy Berger refuses to give the CIA authority to kill bin Laden. Also, the film will now be billed as based only “in part” on the 9/11 Commission Report.

Patterico: "it appears that the particular scene probably didn’t occur exactly as depicted in the film. The scene was probably overdramatized and made into a composite of various failures.

But while Clinton’s failure should not be overstated, neither should it be understated."

Michael Scheuer, the chief of the Bin Ladin station thought the capture plan was “the perfect operation.” It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States.

In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Didn't Republicans get that Reagan movie pulled from the network broadcast and it aired instead on Showtime? Neither party seems to have a problem with censorship when it suits their purposes...

You are correct. Hmmm...Saw the movie, don't have showtime. Can't explain it...maybe a free preview weekend.

Republicans were outraged at this movie, which delt only with the subject of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, because it was entirely fabricated and airing at a time when President Reagan had an illness that so completely negated his ability to speak for himself or defend his record. However the official Republican position was that CBS and Showtime should make an effort to show that the movie was fictional (ie strategic disclaimers), much like ABC is doing by acknowledging several times during its airing that 9/11 is based on the Report, but is an entirely fictional dramatization. Turns out the guy playing Clinton is an actor...although the top of Monica's head makes a brief cameo (actually several brief cameos...one right after another...bobbing in and out of the picture while she is apparently helping the President...hmmm...buff his shoes).

The Reagan was pulled because a few million average people didn't think it was right to show that movie when he was so sick he could not defend himself. In this case, ABC can air the movie and Clinton, as demonstrated so effectively this week, can seek to defend himself and set the record straight. The American people should be given an opportunity to decide for themselves.

Lets not forget films like this have been around since films were being made. Good examples include 'Hoffa', 'JFK', 'Tora Tora Tora' and 'Ghandi'. Bad examples include 'Nixon', 'JFK', and 'The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course'.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 5:45 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
This mini-series is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. You can bet it is light years more accurate, more fair and more objective than Michael Moore's sad satyrical 'mockumentary' about Bush.

Funny. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste called it 'very inaccurate and unfair,' and said it was full of "errors and mischaracterizations."

BTW, why are you fascists so afraid of Michael Moore? It's like you're obsessed with him, you rant and rave about him every chance you get. I've never heard anyone complain about (m)Ann Coulter nearly so much, though that's probably because everyone knows how irrelevant that horse-faced attention whore is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:09 AM

You're ignoring a double standard by ABC right off the bat.

First off, I expect that if anything had been factually inacurate, as in proven to be slanderous, in Farenheit 9/11, the GOP would have sued the pants off him for defamation, or for whatever legal recourse it could have followed.

In this case the facts were ignored, inspite of being available. The story is intentionally inaccurate, and yes the writer director is a partisan hack.

Second, Disney distanced itself from Farrenheit 9/11. They produced this "documentary" which they are now calling a drama for like 40 million dollars and plan to air it commercial free. I see hypocracy in that. This is free GOP propaganda that they can't and now won't, even call a documentary.

So show me where the hypocracy lies. It's not with the dems here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:19 AM

Yeah, Finn,

absoulutely the case. but it doesn't include hypocracy. What makes the GOP so heinous is that they are a bunch of Emler Gantry's doing one thing and effecting moral outrage at everybody else when they do it. That very hypocracy is what is so sickening. Democrats, like republicans, may cheat on their wives, but they don't preach about it as if their shit doesn't stink.

And somebody make clear for me where the hypocracy is in the Dem party again? Cuz I'm not following it.

- on edit. I could probably find some hypocracy in it. I like about a 3rd of the dem party. The rest, like antimason said is just an aspect of the status quo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:33 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Have there been any advanced screenings of said program? Seems to me that alot of people seem to have an opinion on a show that hasn't even aired yet.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:44 AM

Yes, there have been advanced screenings. After getting a crap load of complaints on inaccuracy, ABC released a statement admonishing the viewers for criticizing an unfishined product.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:46 AM

Hero,
I don't buy your claim that the main motivation was that Reagan was sick and couldn't defend himself. The main motivation for trying to get the Reagan mini-series pulled, at least from my perspective, was that artistic license had been taken with the facts. Here's a collection of quotes from that period of time: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-supporters-condemn-fic
tionalized.html

More on the ABC GOP-u-drama* later...

* Man, I wish I had come up with that one on my own

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:59 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

When will you people ever learn that it does'nt matter who you vote for, support or believe in you still end up with "The Government" or "The administration"
The pointless Right-to-Left (as if such a thing as a left and right actually existed in US politics) mud-slinging means precisely Fuck-all in the real world.
And your Constitution means even less otherwise your "Government" and "Administrations" would'nt be constantly slapping you in the face with it when it suited them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 7:27 AM

An additional thought that occurred to me: ABC is very f*ck*ng smart.

I would wager dollars to donuts that ABC already has more accurate verions of the offending scenes in the can and they released this version of the show to prompt this controversy.

Think about it. There will dozens of 9/11 programs on next week, but this is the only one that is being discussed on the news channels every 15 minutes. Their competitor's news channels, no less.

This is millions of dollars in free advertising and will inevitably lead to higher share. As I said, very f*ck*ng smart. And you know the great thing about free advertising, right? It's something you just can't buy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 7:46 AM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

...First off, I expect that if anything had been factually inacurate, as in proven to be slanderous, in Farenheit 9/11, the GOP would have sued the pants off him for defamation, or for whatever legal recourse it could have followed.

Actually Righteous, I think such actions would have only lent more credibility to the film, and the GOP was right to simply ignore it at the time. Moore would have loved to get sued, and he would have laughed all the way to the bank with the millions more he would have raked in over the publicity.

I think what is most disturbing about this story and the Reagan documentary is the commentary on our culture today. I think its pitiful that our politicians are more afraid of a TV show than actual discourse that purports the same ideas. It is sad in my opinion that we as a people seem to form our opinions based on entertainment venues (be it cable news, network news, or TV shows) rather than personal research of the facts and an understanding of what's happening.

I think both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of trying to silence the other and you can point to successes in these efforts on both sides as well as failures. These kind of tactics hurt everyone and only create more lines of division, and our country divided is doomed!

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
And somebody make clear for me where the hypocracy is in the Dem party again? Cuz I'm not following it.

I agree. The Democrats have always had the position that Free Speech isn't for everyone. I seem to recall during the mid-'90s a piece of legislation known by many as the "Hush Rush" Bill to force radio and TV stations to limit Rush Limbaugh's speech rights because he was critical of the President. President Clinton...just like ABC...hmmm...

No hypocracy here. Double standards, bias, lies, prejudice, censorship...but not an ounce of hypocracy.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I don't buy your claim that the main motivation was that Reagan was sick and couldn't defend himself.

That was not the main motivation of the political attacks on the program. My point was that the more generalized disapproval voiced by average Americans, especially older folk, was because they seemed to be taking advantage of his age and infirmaty. That don't sit well with most people, regardless of how sympathetic they are with the target.

Its like prosecuting an old person for bad driving. Its an ugly job and even though I love jailing people for all manner of things, I love this slightly less (although seeing a Grandma in handcuffs is its own reward for my less then excessive hours and reasonable pay).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
That was not the main motivation of the political attacks on the program. My point was that the more generalized disapproval voiced by average Americans, especially older folk, was because they seemed to be taking advantage of his age and infirmaty. That don't sit well with most people, regardless of how sympathetic they are with the target.

You're now saying that it was not the main motivation, and yet you stated it as if it was.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The Reagan was pulled because a few million average people didn't think it was right to show that movie when he was so sick he could not defend himself.

I've posted a link to quotes supporting my claim. Where's the supporting evidence for your claim?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 9:30 AM

FellowTraveler,

I'm not sure I buy this theory. The movie was screened to hundreds of right-wing pundits who gave glowing reviews. Any change to the movie would result in a firestorm of protest from this group which ABC is courting to help with the publicity.

More generally, there is a difference in my mind between a movie that is shown in theaters, where people have to pay money, and a movie shown on broadcast television. Broadcasters have a responsibility for what they provide free. Especially when ABC worked with Scholastic to provide fact sheets for students that contain historical inaccuracies. Especially when ABC sent out letters to a hundred thousand teachers to guide in the use of this film as a teaching moment. Especially when ABC is planning to run the movie without commercials to minimize the impact of an advertising boycott. Especially when the movie is advertised as being based on official reports when members of the official commission disagree. Especially when ABC releases screenings of the movie to people based on their ideology and reassures those idealogues that the final version will not have changes that would disappoint them.

Republicans have a long history of using 9/11 for partisan purposes. This is just the latest example.

On a side note, this movie is being advertised in Australia as "The Official True Story" with a fictional scene touted as, "how one decision changed our world."*

* I have not been able to personally confirm this account, my computer keeps locking up when I try to view the promo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 9:35 AM

Theres no end to the blame game, its a never ending circle jerk. Pre 9/11 the Clintons viewed the terror issue as an law enforcenemt problem. They blew it big time. Do I blame Hillary and Bill for 9/11 - No.

It's the dirty trick teams that both political parties employ and use to deceive the public - us. This time around Berger was the lead on the 9/11 dirty trick team. Sandy Berger stole and then destroyed archived documents that would embarrass the Clinton administration during the 9/11 commission hearings. He was convicted by a court of law for that crime.

Nixon, Carter and Reagan all had dirty trick teams and now the Clintons join the list.

Berger is the linch pin in all of this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 9:46 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Dems are simply scared of the rest of the world discovering the truth. This mini-series is based on the 9/11 Commission Report.

Except several members of the Commission say that scenes in the mini are false, or complete fabrications.

Or are you they type that thinks any movie "based on a true story" happened exactly like that.

And every movie adapted from a text follows the text to the letter....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Funny. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste called it 'very inaccurate and unfair,' and said it was full of "errors and mischaracterizations."

You might want to let people know that Richard Ben-Veniste has worked for the Clintons and has been hired, on many occasions, by the DNC.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:
Berger is the linch pin in all of this.

That's a pretty weak linchpin.

The funniest aspect of the Berger document shredding case was how utterly incompetent Berger was at his mission to destroy documents. According to the archives officials, he never had access to the originals, he was only working with (and stealing and cutting with scissors) copies. What a boob.

That's your linchpin?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Except several members of the Commission say that scenes in the mini are false, or complete.

What members, names please.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:05 AM

I don't get why your flaking for a convicted criminal. No one knows exactly what Berger stole.

EDIT BELOW:

I think Berger stole memos that had hand written notes contained on the margins, notes that would lead the commission in a direction that the Clinton admin. didn't want the inquiry to go.

EDIT AGAIN"

Will look at the history of those folks - thanks

I didnt mean to imply that 9/11 was Bergers fault, but to show that he is the G. Gordon Liddy of our time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Except several members of the Commission say that scenes in the mini are false, or complete.

What members, names please.

Jamie Gorelick, Richard Ben-Veniste, Tim Roemer, Bob Kerrey and even Tom Kean (who advised on the project).

EDIT (based on your edit): I'm not flacking for Berger. I think he was an idiot for destroying documents. I also think he was an incompetent idiot because he didn't get the originals. And I think that he should've spent some time behind bars rather than just getting a fine and temporary loss of his security clearance. But I also don't see him as a linchpin.

EDIT again: Here's a link to all the commission members: http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bios.htm
And here's a link to the statements the five members made about inaccuracy of scenes: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:29 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Funny. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste called it 'very inaccurate and unfair,' and said it was full of "errors and mischaracterizations."

You might want to let people know that Richard Ben-Veniste has worked for the Clintons and has been hired, on many occasions, by the DNC.

Yeah, and Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of this propaganda piece is a partisan hack who's co-authored books with Horowitz. Here's an interview with him:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865

I like how he talks about how there was no response to the bombing of the USS Cole. That was in October of 2000. Clinton had three months left in office. Bush had NINE months in office before 9/11, and he did NOTHING. And somehow it's all Clinton's fault? Gimme a break.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
More generally, there is a difference in my mind between a movie that is shown in theaters, where people have to pay money, and a movie shown on broadcast television.

The real difference is that if you pay for a movie and don't like it you've lost your money. If you don't like ABC watch CBS. If you don't like ABC or CBS then watch Sci Fi. If you don't like any of that watch something you've DVR'd (like the Cleveland Browns 27-13 win over the New Orleans Aints). Or don't watch anything.

Its called choice. The Democrats want less choice in this instance because this particular option is critical of Clinton's failure to respond to Al Queda attacks in the 1990's. Regardless of whether Clinton said a particular line verbatum (it is a dramatization after all) the idea is that we were attacked again and again and the President was too busy hadling other "affairs" to notice. Thats a legitimate point of contention and that was suggested at the time as a possibility.

I note for the record that the drama in question is no kinder to President Bush. I'm certain that there are people here who think that anything less then full blame on Bush is biased, the facts simply do not support such a conclusion. And there is no mention of the attacks being faked or the deliberate act of the American and Iseali govts, so some of you would not have watched anyway. Could Bush in less then nine months have prevented an attack by a force that Clinton had failed to deal with in his eight years? Thats a question worth considering and a drama I'd like to watch.

Quote:

Broadcasters have a responsibility for what they provide free.

Or they lose their license. Thats what the Senate Democrats said. Broadcasts must conform to Democratic standards or you will lose your broadcast license. Free speech...with the fine print.

Well I have something to say about the Democratic Party*********POST DELETED BY ORDER OF THE DEMORATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE**********************

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
FellowTraveler,
...I'm not sure I buy this theory.

Ahhh, why ya' gotta' blow holes in my crackpot theories? I guess I usually chalk this kind of thing up to good, old fashioned, greed instead of a sinister partisan plan. But, you might be right.

Although, ABC wouldn't actually have to change the offending scenes for my fantastical scenerio to be correct. I got that wrong initially, for sure. However, ABC running it with out commercials seems to, in large part, eliminate the profit motive.

But why would ABC, and thus Disney, be shilling for the Republicans? What is their motive if not profit? I understand why Republicans would want to muddy the waters, but what does the big mouse have to gain?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 11:22 AM

The 9/11 commission is loaded with political hacks from both sides of the isle. I find Jamie Gorelick especially repugnant. I couldn't find direct quotes coming from any of those you listed but I guess they would say something like that anyhow.

I don't care about the movie -no matter what form it might take after editing, its still Hollywood pretending to be objective - what a joke.

Sandy Berger is no idiot and whatever he was after was important enough to risk being caught and prosecuted over. He willingly took the fall for the Clinton team.

Why the staff allowed him to leave with the documents is another question that needs to be answered.

PS: I accidentally cut and pasted Jamie Gorelick into the Dictionary.com word search instead of the Google window - I think someone has been messing with the search engine over there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 11:36 AM

RAZZA, I disagree, on the grounds that every news organization could and would have had 24 hour news coverage about how farenheit 9/11 was proven false in court. As it was they gave it plenty of press from their constant outrage.

It is pitiful that the American public could be swayed by a fictional movie, I agree. It is inexusable that given that, ABC would outright fabricate facts of our history, which are sure to sway public opinion in a partisan way. This isn't about entertainment.

Nor is this a matter of censorship. Calling ABC out on its misrepresentation isn't a matter of censorship. Asking them not to play a dishonest piece of propaganda is not legislated censorship. It's asking them to remember their responsibility to the public.

Quite frankly, we should be demanding that our networks stay honest.

.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 11:40 AM

Fellow Traveler, Disney is a huge corp - what it makes from its network is not neccesarily the measure to go by. What it makes in tax cuts or deregulation, or any number of other republican politics that favor these guys would well make up for the 40 million dropped into this movie.

- edit - correcting factual error - earlier it said good guys instead of these guys

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 11:47 AM

there's another difference HERO. ABC is a beneficiary of our public airwaves. I'm all for partisanship, but the slant of this broadcast is veiled...there's no idiot in a bowtie making up shit as he goes along for everybody to take note.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:
Why the staff allowed him to leave with the documents is another question that needs to be answered.

PS: I accidentally cut and pasted Jamie Gorelick into the Dictionary.com word search instead of the Google window - I think someone has been messing with the search engine over there.

That's a very good question. Was that ever addressed in the plea deal?

And re: the dictionary.com. You got me curious so I tried it out. Pretty funny result

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
But why would ABC, and thus Disney, be shilling for the Republicans? What is their motive if not profit? I understand why Republicans would want to muddy the waters, but what does the big mouse have to gain?

I have no clue. That's the really weird part of the whole story. It's a 40 million dollar (production budget) commercial free gift to a production team that has ties to the ultra-fringe religious right. And, as Think Progress is noting, they're not getting any support from prominent conservatives. Even the guy who wrote the book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror" is saying that there's, "zero factual basis" for the letting-bin-Laden-go scene.

I'm reading that Disney's tax burden went down to zero by the time 2003 rolled around but that still doesn't seem enough of a good reason to run GOP propaganda right before an election.

I got no good answers for you. They couldn't have been played this badly, could they have?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 11:59 AM

Disney isn't shilling for the Republicans. Theres a significant portion of our population that are nationalists and believe that America is still the best place on the planet. Disney wants our money.

Soup: I forget a lot of the Berger stuff - But the anger remains

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Fellow Traveler, Disney is a huge corp - what it makes from its network is not neccesarily the measure to go by. What it makes in tax cuts or deregulation, or any number of other republican politics that favor the good guys would well make up for the 40 million dropped into this movie.

Corruption? In Washington? Righteous9, tell me ain't so! So, the motive could still be profit, just in a round about kind of way.

I still think ABC can play what they want. It may be misleading or pure fiction, but it's a private company and as long as the play by the established broadcast rules (no titties and no F word) they can air nearly anything. ABC isn't billing this as news. Well, they aren't now...

I would also have to agree that this isn't censorship. This is just a PR campaign. The same as was involved with the Reagan movie. Democrats are simply exercising their rights to free speech, as ABC is so entitled.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 12:25 PM

Nationlism and Loyalism? are nasty words MalBadLatin.

I prefer patriotism and constitutionalism to the other kind of 'American'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 3:08 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

The "Hush Rush Bill" was an effort to restablish the Fairness Doctrine which required equal time be given to opposing views. It had nothing to do to gagging the the founder of the EIB.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1256

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 3:19 PM

thanks for that information Veteran.

The Fairness Doctrine is something we should still be trying to get back on the books.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 4:12 PM

DC4BS

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
The "Hush Rush Bill" was an effort to restablish the Fairness Doctrine which required equal time be given to opposing views. It had nothing to do to gagging the the founder of the EIB.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1256

And the timing of it was pure, 100% coinkidink too!

Hahahaha...

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 5:20 PM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

RAZZA, I disagree, on the grounds that every news organization could and would have had 24 hour news coverage about how farenheit 9/11 was proven false in court. As it was they gave it plenty of press from their constant outrage...

Yeah right! I would agree if the courts were actually a credible source of finality on such an issue. As you know, Court decisions are incredibly contraversial. (Examples; OJ Simpson, Bush v. Gore, etc..) These decisions are just politicized or marginalized into obscurity. I don't think for a second that a suit against Moore would've had the desired effect of his opponents; mainly shutting him up and undermining his credibility.

In fact, I think it would have had the opposite effect of lending more credibility and giving him a larger platform to speak. Afterall, why would his opponents be so determined to shut him up if he was only spewing crap? Come on Righteous, admit that they were smart not to pursue any kind of legal action and let Moore and his supporters hang themselves.

It must have worked because there isn't a Democrat that will touch Moore with a 30 foot pole these days, and despite all of Bush's negatives at the time, he won the election with a huge margin by today's political standards.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:40 PM