Free Speech...unless you attack Democrats
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Sunday, September 10, 2006 16:20
VIEWED: 8374
PAGE 5 of 6
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nationlism and Loyalism? are nasty words MalBadLatin.
I prefer patriotism and constitutionalism to the other kind of 'American'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza, go back to the post about the democrats trying to reinstitute the fairness doctrine and consider why they might need such a thing.
Nobody would allow themselves to be associated with Moore because of the very effective and dominating demonizing of him by the media, which is owned by massive companies with quite frankly, no short-term financial interest in helping to elect a democratic government.
They control almost all of the spin. They control the lense. You don't think they could effectively focus a legal case against somebody as controversial as Moore and make such an action seem right and just?
Now, I grant to you that sometimes things backfire...those things beyond the pale like the Terry Chiavo fiasco that even the media couldn't salvage, though they pushed it as far as they could.
To be fair, you may be right about this. Being that the media is pretty much the mouthpiece for the GOP, it is possibly fair to say that they were in a position so favorable that legal action would only have damaged it. If we go with this thought though, it would mean that we are comparing apples to oranges. The dems do not have the media, and therefore cannot easily counter the effects of negative press or even of slander, by simply renouncing it. Legal action would nearly be the only countermeasure in their arsenal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero wrote:
Quote:
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?
We might have our (vast) political differences, but in this instance, I'll agree with you. But I'd still like to clarify a few of your points.
1) "this particular option is critical of Clinton's failure to respond to Al Queda attacks in the 1990's. " I think you man his failure to *successfully* deal with Al Qaeda. He *DID* try to take the man out on a number of occasions, through the use of both air strikes and cruise missile attacks - one of which hit a "baby formula factory", and for which his administration took a lot of crap from Republican pundits. Remember that?
2) "...the President was too busy hadling other "affairs" to notice." True. But note also, that when he DID launch attacks on Bin Laden, he was accused by the GOP of "wagging the dog" in order to take heat off the investigation of his "other affairs". In short, the GOP said that he was attacking a target that was insignificant in order to avoid an unrelated scandal that was quite significant.
3) "I'm certain that there are people here who think that anything less then full blame on Bush is biased..." I'm certain that there are, too, but I'm not one of them. I *think* (not having seen the movie myself) the point they're going for is that 9/11 occurred because a slew of American leaders either ignored or underestimated Bin Laden's resolve and resources.
4) "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?" Probably not. And he's now been exactly as successful in killing Bin Laden in the last six years as Clinton was in his eight. Biggest difference there, I suppose, is that while Clinton failed to deal successfully with Al Qaeda, he did it on a lot smaller budget, both in monetary terms and in terms of lives lost on all sides.
Will the movie make me think that Clinton is pure evil? Probably not, but I never had a very high opinion of him in the first place. I might be a liberal, but I can honestly state for the record that I never once voted for Clinton. :)
Mike
Remember, Kiddies, you can't spell "QUAGMIRE" without "I", "R", "A", & "Q"!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Funnier. 9/11 Commission CHARIMAN Thomas Kean actually worked as a consultant on the mini series.
The producers and writers of the movie have said the script was based not only on the commission report but also on two books — “The Cell,” by the former ABC newsman John Miller and Michael Stone, and “The Relentless Pursuit,” by Samuel M. Katz — as well as personal interviews. They also say the script was vetted by lawyers, terrorism experts and former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the commission’s chairman, who is credited as a senior consultant to the mini-series.
Mr. Kean, whose report criticized both the Bush and Clinton administrations, said Tuesday that the miniseries, like the report, was balanced. “People in both administrations are not going to be happy if it’s portrayed accurately,” he said.
First of all, who are the fascits ? If you don't even know the meaning of a word, I'd suggest you avoid trying to use it in a sentence.
As for Michael Moore, his name appropriately comes up w/ this movie because of his 9/11 mockumentary. Beyond that, who cares ? I personally wish he would simply fade away. But it wasn't the rest of America who put Moore in the President's box at the DNC. It was the radical, hard core, extremist Left which has taken control of the Democrat party. Anne Coulter isn't given 'rock star ' status nearly to the degree as Moore.
So when it comes to whining about the attention Moore gets from the Right, I'd say you doth protest FAR too much.
But talking about FASCISTS, it's the Dems who are trying to intimidate ABC w/ the force of Gov't to do their bidding. Just read the letter that Harry Reid sent to the execs over at ABC. It sounds very much like a mafia strongman making ABC an offer they can't refuse. " Do what we say, or else! "
I'd like to think ABC will do the right thing and air the mini series as is, but we all know that big business will kow tow to the threats of the Imperial Federal Gov't.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
...Being that the media is pretty much the mouthpiece for the GOP, it is possibly fair to say that they were in a position so favorable that legal action would only have damaged it. If we go with this thought though, it would mean that we are comparing apples to oranges. The dems do not have the media, and therefore cannot easily counter the effects of negative press or even of slander, by simply renouncing it. Legal action would nearly be the only countermeasure in their arsenal.
Well, here is another issue all together that we could have a thread about all by itself. I'd disagree that either party could claim the media as their mouthpiece. Taken as a whole, the media is fairly balanced. For every conservative talk show host, there is a liberal blogger. For every liberal editor there is a conservative commentator. The problem isn't that the media is biased, the problem is that most people cherry pick the news outlets they choose to get their news from; usually outlets which mainly agree with their views.
I am certain that there are plenty of conservatives who feel the exact opposite is true about the media being the mouthpiece of the GOP. The fact that liberals believe the media is conservative and conservatives believe it is liberal is proof positive in my mind that it is neither. Given the number of news outlets available today, it would be difficult to say that either party is unable to get their message out there.
I am more concerned with the degradation of respect for the journalists in the eyes of the american people. If you cannot trust the sources you get your information from, how can you make good decisions about your future? I think skepticisim is healthy and warranted, but the outright contempt many folks feel for reporters these days is scary, and makes it all too easy to ignore the facts altogether and maintain an uninformed opinion.
Again, how journalism has managed to fall is another discussion altogether, and would certainly be an interesting one.
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME