Free Speech...unless you attack Democrats
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Sunday, September 10, 2006 16:20
VIEWED: 8374
PAGE 2 of 6
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME