« Armitage: "I Screwed Up" | Main | "I thought you were watching the explosives!" »

When the cure is worse than the disease

Let me make clear I've never been a big fan of Disney and ABC. When Disney bought ABC, I feared the worst -- and those fears were confirmed when Disney turned ABC into a marketing arm for the company.

But now, with ABC's planned "docudrama" on the leadup to 9/11, I find myself in the very uncomfortable position of defending them.

Just for the sake of argument, let's presume that all the program's critics are correct (a severely dubious possibility, but let's run with it). Let's say that the piece is a total smear of the Clinton administration and a near-perfect whitewashing of the Bush administration in recognizing and addressing the rising threat Al Qaeda posed. That through half-truths, selected omissions, and outright fabrications (kind of a mirror-image Fahrenheit 9/11), the tale told is all about how Bill Clinton was too busy selling military secrets to China, boinking everything in a skirt, and arranging the murders of dozens of people who might have some dirt on him, and the Bush administration was too busy trying to put "W's" back on their computer keyboards (you can't talk about Wahabism, War on Terror, or World Trade Center without that key letter) to catch up on what was brewing.

So, what should be done about it?

According to some key Democrats on Capitol Hill, it's a Capital Offense. They want to "look into" revoking ABC's broadcasting license and putting the network off the air.

It's a familiar tactic. During the 2004 campaign, some folks put together a piece on the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. When Sinclair, a chain of television stations, planned to air it, a bunch of the Left wanted to pull their licenses, too.

Now, I've been offended by my share of things on television. Janet Jackson and that boob (no, not Justin Timberlake) bugged me -- mainly because I hated that grotesque jewelry she wore, mutilating the natural beauty and grace of the human female breast. I also thought it was almost as tacky to pull that off (no pun intended) during the Super Bowl, an event billed as a "family-friendly" event -- and very few families would consider a pierced nipple "something the whole family can enjoy." (For one, infants could injure themselves.)

And when CBS (in an eerily-prescient form of "fake but accurate") planned a "biography" of Ronald Reagan that was little more than a thinly-veiled smear piece, there were lots of howls of protest and outrage. But the strongest action I can recall was a threat to boycott sponsors of the shows. And it worked -- CBS moved it to Showtime, a network completely free of advertising sponsors to threaten.

Instead, the Democratic party is showing one area where it actually has some testicular fortitude -- if you say something (or even might be planning to say something) that threatens their heroes, that makes them look bad, they'll go straight for your jugular with all the power of the federal government they can muster. Constitutional principles (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on) be damned.

So if you like the idea of Congress deciding just what opinions and viewpoints can and can not be aired over the public airwaves, feel free to support the NutRoots' takeover of the Democratic party and their move to take the reins of government. For one, it'll take that awful burden of thinking for yourself off your hands.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When the cure is worse than the disease:

» The Bullwinkle Blog linked with Primary Colors

» rightlinx.com linked with Primary Colors

» Joust The Facts linked with Furtive Glances - "Movin' Too Fast" Edition

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» Sister Toldjah linked with Word of the day: DEMOFASCISTS (UPDATED)

» Nobody asked me, but... linked with More on the Disney DocuDrama

» Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with Presidential Daily Brief to Clinton warned of Hijackings

» The World According To Carl linked with Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed Yet Again

Comments (102)

Jay:It would be ex... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Jay:

It would be extremely interesting to have someone compile a list of all the threats made by senators and congresspersons and who said them. It would be fun to dredge it up at election time, when they start hollering about constitutional rights.

BTW, I seriously doubt that ABC is going to air anything close to the show that was originaly planned.

I would also note that non of these voices were to be heard when Far. 9/11 was released.

Jay et al:What i s... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay et al:

What i see is righties weeping and stomping their feet because you thought you were going to get another opprtunity to beat up on Clinton. You don't need any motivation....he's your bogieman for all the world's evils anyway. You all sound uttlery foolish.....as if there is some real threat to free speech here.

I've been saying this all a... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I've been saying this all along. There are very few, if any, lefty trolls on this site who have not at one time or another (or constantly in some cases) accused the right wing as being fascists. I realize that every thinking person knows that this is simply projection, which is very commonly employed by the left.

If Lee, Hugh, Muirego, Brian, BarneyG200, feild-negro, and the rest of the secular socialist troll crew on this site want to see a real fascist, they need look no further than the closest mirror

Jay,You make a good ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Jay,
You make a good point, but frankly I am too busy laughing at the comment about the "w's" on the typewriter and the pierced nipple to even address it! Great point about the Swift Boat special. I had forgotten all about that one.

Hugh,So you don't ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Hugh,

So you don't think threatening a television station that you're going to pull their license if they air something that doesn't conform with your worldview (religion) is not a threat to free speach?

9/11 wasn't released on TV.... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

9/11 wasn't released on TV. The national media has gone to crap ever since Reagan began its deregulation and consolidation.

And don't talk about speech being controlled talk about libelous content being held and next talk about the Republicans bill just passed to "control speech" by raising huge fine for bad language. They want to control speech on cable and they also are not supporting net neutrality.

That you guys want lies and mis-information to be broadcast before the elections says a lot about how desperate you are, how bankrupt you are and how little the truth supports your position.

Bottom line Clinton was far more responsive to the terrorist threat pre- 9/11 then Bush. And the public should not be mis-informed on these issues using the publicly owned airways.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

Hugh,I think what ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Hugh,

I think what the issue here is that plenty of "damning", extremely critical movies and "documentaries" have been made about the Bush administration and no one has tried to stop it. But when something is about to air that would paint the Clinton administration in a poor light we have the censors rushing in with huge black markers and lawyers looking at ways to revoke ABC's broadcast rights.
Didn't we just see a "docudrama" in the UK that features president Bush's assassination?

For 6 years we've been told that all of the world's ills are the direct making of the current administration and I think it's normal to want a little vindication for that.

Bunyan:Point out t... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Bunyan:

Point out the threat to "pull" their license. You folks are really acting silly on this one.

Hearlder:That's lo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Hearlder:

That's logical. We got bad so now it's your turn to get bad. You in schoolyard or something?

I've been saying this all a... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I've been saying this all along. There are very few, if any, lefty trolls on this site who have not at one time or another (or constantly in some cases) accused the right wing as being fascists. I realize that every thinking person knows that this is simply projection, which is very commonly employed by the left.

If Lee, Hugh, Muirego, Brian, BarneyG200, feild-negro, and the rest of the secular socialist troll crew on this site want to see a real fascist, they need look no further than the closest mirror

Posted by: P. Bunyan


Hey DING DONG,

Do you understand that one of the main tenant/ methods of Fascism is consolidation of the media (started by Reagan) and involves use of propaganda? This is propaganda that would never have been allowed pre-Reagan.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

Oh yeah and one other tenant of Fascism is to have an ignorant, uniformed , easily manipulated, appeasing public...THAT'S YOU!!!!!!

Hugh,There's a key... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Hugh,

There's a key part you're missing here. Republicans got the Reagan mini-series knocked off by protesting, writing letters and threatening boycotts - which we all have the right to do.

No Republican lawmakers ever threatened Congressional action against CBS. No Republican threatened their broadcasting license. If you cannot see the difference between governmental action and private legal action by individuals i.e. boycotts, then it is obvious that you are significantly more ignorant and stupid, or dishonest, than you've let on.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Harry Reid and his cohorts just threatened to do exactly what the Constitution forbids them to do, promising punishment by the government for the expression of views with which they disagree.

The Democrats have not been able to articulate a unified view of any issue for nearly a decade. But with this episode, at least, we now know exactly what the Democrats have come to stand for.

And you've revealed a great deal more about your character that you realize.

Look in the mirror muirego.... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Look in the mirror muirego. Over 80% of the broadcast media in this country is socialist (left wing) biased.

I'm sure that was Reagan's plan...

My God, how the tables have... (Below threshold)
pharcyde:

My God, how the tables have turned. Why is the Clinton response to the film any more outrageous than the Bush response to Farenheit 9/11? Aren't the circumtances similar?

it seems that the people in this and other right wing forums are less indignant about idealogially motivated media when it is someone they dislike at the wrong end than one would have thought when everyone was taking the moral high road against Michael Moore.

Also, how does this film reconcile with the Right Wing talking points that the MSM being controlled by liberal socialist fanatics? I;m sure we'll never hear that one again, right?

My God, how the tables have... (Below threshold)
CenterLeft:

My God, how the tables have turned. Why is the Clinton response to the film any more outrageous than the Bush response to Farenheit 9/11? Aren't the circumtances similar?

it seems that the people in this and other right wing forums are less indignant about idealogially motivated media when it is someone they dislike at the wrong end than one would have thought when everyone was taking the moral high road against Michael Moore.

Also, how does this film reconcile with the Right Wing talking points that the MSM being controlled by liberal socialist fanatics? I;m sure we'll never hear that one again, right?

pharcyde/CenterLeft:<... (Below threshold)
D_Hoggs:

pharcyde/CenterLeft:

Exactly what was the Bush response to Farenheit 9/11? Because as far as I remember, there was NONE! Thank you for bringing that up by the way, I was just about to.

Muriego said, "That you guys want lies and mis-information to be broadcast before the elections says a lot about how desperate you are, how bankrupt you are and how little the truth supports your position."

Oh really? Wow, ok, where were you when Michael Moore was sitting in a place of "honor" with Jimmy Carter? I don't remember anyone in the Republican party bitching and moaning about that steaming pile Moore made and liberals swooned over. All I can say is HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!

I heard that they cut the s... (Below threshold)
moseby:

I heard that they cut the scene that depicts bubba rollin barbra striesand in flour...

What you didn't address, is... (Below threshold)
Rance:

What you didn't address, is the plan to introduce this into schools as part of a curriculum package by Scholastic, Inc.

I agree that ABC/Disney should be able to broadcast it regardless of its veracity. Introducing it into history classes is another thing.

Martin:For the ump... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin:

For the umpteenth time point out THE THREAT. Point out THE PUNISHMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I really have come to expect more from you. This whole arguement is ridiculous and absurd. Is it politica? Of course it's political? But to read that letter as "threatening to do exactly what the Constitution forbids..." is a silly stretch.

"Ignorant, stupid, dishonest..." What is that about? It tells me you know your argument has no merit. My "character"? What's that about? If you need to insult and challenge "character"l you have nothing to say worth hearing.

Farleft: " Why is the C... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Farleft: " Why is the Clinton response to the film any more outrageous than the Bush response to Farenheit 9/11?"

How many Republican politician treatened to close the theaters that show Micheal Moore's disingenuous secular-socialist propaganda film?

Hugh, please read closely, ... (Below threshold)
D_Hoggs:

Hugh, please read closely, form the letter to Disney:

"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest."

"We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon."

A veiled threat is still a threat.

muirgeo -- not to be too pi... (Below threshold)
wavemaker:

muirgeo -- not to be too picky, but landlords have "tenants." Political parties have TENETS.

Hugh:That... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Hugh:

That's logical. We got bad so now it's your turn to get bad. You in schoolyard or something?

By vindication, I did not mean revenge, I meant exoneration. This isn't a tit-for-tat argument in my mind.

Posted over at Wizbang Poli... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Posted over at Wizbang Politics: Same subject of course.

I have been following this story and the fury that is being generated by the Left is amazing. This morning it occurred to me that I had seen this all before. It was the Muslim response to a group of cartoons that they believe insulted their central religious figure. I am sure we are only a short way from Kos calling for the beheading of the executives at Disney...

Posted by: Lee Rodgers at September 8, 2006 08:45 AM

Martin,I think you'r... (Below threshold)
[email protected]:

Martin,
I think you're being a little nieve about "No Republican lawmakers ever threatened Congressional action against CBS." for the airing of a Reagan mini-series. What do you call holding up federal action on rules to restrict ownership of local TV stations? Sound like a threat to Viacom's first amendment rights to me. You can't broadcast with out a FCC license.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/

"Showtime and CBS are both owned by Viacom, which is anxiously awaiting federal action on rules to restrict ownership of local TV stations. Failure to enact such changes could cost Viacom millions of dollars, said Jeff Chester, head of the Center for Digital Democracy, a communications lobbying group."

If that's not a government threat to their broadcast license and bottom line, I don't know what is.

So don't freak out about a perceived threat by the Dems when your side used actually government intimidation to silence a First Amendment protected broadcast.

PS
I thought the whole Reagan mini series was pack of left wing lies. I just wanted you to take off your right wing rose colored glasses and see how the real world works.

Well, when your whole world... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Well, when your whole world revolves around conservofacist lies...

Jay Tea: "They want to "look into" revoking ABC's broadcasting license and putting the network off the air."

... you've got to expect to lose a battle once in a while.

The lies you guys tell are wearing thin on the American Public.

Heralder:Thanks fo... (Below threshold)
hugh:

Heralder:

Thanks for the clarification. Don't agree with your point but appreciate your view.

Hugh

I thought "fake but accurat... (Below threshold)
tarheelcan:

I thought "fake but accurate" was OK. So isn't "embellished but accurate" also OK?

[email protected],I read the ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

[email protected],

I read the article ... but could you please direct me to a quote by any elected Republican Congressman threatening to punish CBS for "The Reagans?"

I have a letter signed by the top leadership of the Congressional Democrat Party with a clear threat to revoke ABC's broadcasting license unless they accede to the Democrat Party's demands.

You have nothing more than speculation by some lobbyist named Jeff Chester.

Are you kidding me?

It's so incredibly outrageo... (Below threshold)
Davidlin:

It's so incredibly outrageous for any bureaucrat or politician to threaten someone's broadcasting license for putting something on the air that reflects badly on them. It's a communist tactic, pure and simple. The fact that they can even threaten to do it without facing universal scorn is very threatening to our democracy. And Kerry started this. The fact that they might actually cause this program to be canned is beyond outrageous. Can you imagine a Republican doing this? They wouldn't even think it.
If the Islamists are unhinged, their leftist cousins are clearly moving in that direction. And who is more dangerous? The idiots who can destroy a building, a city or a way of life for future generations?
Who has damaged this country more? UBL, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter?

Hugh,You're more t... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Hugh,

You're more than capable of seeing a challenge to Democrats' patriotism in an innocuous statement like "... we should not forget the lessons we have learned from not taking threats seriously ..." by Bush Administration officials

... but you simply find it impossible to see the threat implied by Reid's citing of the Communications Act of 1934 and the continued existence of ABC's broadcasting license?

Sure ...

I'm sorry but it's time to ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I'm sorry but it's time to reveal the dark secret, the unassailable truth, the secret that haunts America, the fact that every health care insurer refuses to admit. The right wing of this country suffers from paranoia as evidenced by your delusions of persecution regarding this ABC thing. In psychiatry a delusion is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

Now we have people saying things like: :a clear threat to revoke","threatened to close theaters" "the punishment by the government", "going to pull their license" etc. ad nauseum.

Perhaps if you all sought care together you get a group discount?? Health care costs might even decline, we might have a national boom. But then, there's always the issue of Bill Clinton hiding under each and every one of your beds...oh if the commies have gotten out to make room.


Hey old "pucker puss" (lee ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey old "pucker puss" (lee lee) is back! Wait--hmmm are we sure it is the real one. Could he be going by the moniker of "hughie", "preying mantis","mun-go"."1/2 [email protected]:30",etc. They have to be one of the same as there could not be that many dumbasses in the world.

Martin:Taken out o... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin:

Taken out of context and standing alone I would not say that phrase is a challenge to one's patriotism. Taken in the context of the speech as well as other speeches by Rumsfeld, Cheyney and Bush over the past few weeks the intent is clear. Don't be so naive.

How can one be a threat when one is powerless? Also, do you really really believe there would be an effort to revoke ABC's license? If you do I feel sorry for you.

Again, it's politics. Not nice politics but then I'm sure you folks appreciate not nice politics.

jhow:Perhaps anoth... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

jhow:

Perhaps another delusinal paranoid? I yam who I yam to paraphrase Popeye the sailr man.

Don't know Lee....don't agree with a lot of what Lee has to say but by God I'll defend his right to say it....also anyone's right to say it ain't so.

Hey Tea,Don't be a... (Below threshold)
JohnMc:

Hey Tea,

Don't be apologic about defending ABC. Truth should be defended by all regardless of the source.

Personally, I think ABC sho... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Personally, I think ABC should be allowed to broadcast this pile of crap. It's the first ammendment. And, of course, opponents should be able to protest, boycott or whatever else they choose to do in exercising their constitutional rights.

Of course, the key area of dispute is, does the scene with Sandy Berger letting Osama get away reflect reality, or is it dishonest propaganda. I believe the latter, but I'm ready to hear evidence that this scene was accurate. Fire away!

muirego:<bloc... (Below threshold)
Mike:


muirego:

This is propaganda that would never have been allowed pre-Reagan."

Pining for tighter government control of the media like the 'good ole days', are ya ? You're doing an excellent job of making P Bunyan's argument for him.

From a commentor at ThinkPr... (Below threshold)

From a commentor at ThinkProgress:

I agree with most all of you! Never. ever, ever watch ABC again. This will drive them into the sewer and they will have to accept money from the same advertising entities that do so well on Fox cable. By god, them damn ABC conservatives will… actually prosper. Must be some damn Carl Rove conspir…wait, got tin foil in my mouth, hurts fillings….there. better… and did I mention that Dick Cheney is reported to own a TV that will actually be able to pick up this ABC illegal transmission? We all know that this conspir……wait, more tinfoil…. that’s better….we all know that Dick Cheney will use this undocumentery as an excuse to launch cruise missiles on the Clinton Library.
Comment by Uncomfortable truth — September 5, 2006 @ 2:48 am

Can the film now be counted... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Can the film now be counted as a campaign contribution to the dimwit party? I think it can and it is most likely a crime since it (cost of the film) exceeds the limits on contributions. The pundits and politicians can do and say what they want but the voters in mid America think the democrats just comitted a major felony. The average working american would be charged with a felony for making a threat like that to any company in the world.

USMC Pilot,There a... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

USMC Pilot,

There are enough copies of the unedited version out there to compare the edited version to. I know Rush Limbaugh has a copy, Hugh Hewitt has one too. Trust me, we will know what got chopped by Tuesday.

Personally I hope the Democrats and their nutroot tools and trolls keep up the lunatic rantings. Right now they are doing the equivalent of turning the Democratic Titanic around to hit the iceberg a couple more times. I am going to enjoy watching the floorshow.

Scrapiron -The vot... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Scrapiron -

The voters in mid-America don't know what the word felony means, and they think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

BTW, a good example of a felony are the dozens of times when the "President" violated FISA...and he continues to do so. (See the law—it's a felony with punishment by fines and prison terms.)

Mob Boss: Well, Hugh, it'd ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Mob Boss: Well, Hugh, it'd be a real shame if somebody busted up your store.

Hugh: The mob CARES about my store!

Finding "you're unpatriotic" in sentences that don't come close to hinting at it isn't paranoid, apparently, but seeing a threat to a license when a Senator mentions --- for no reason, mind you --- the power of Congress to control licensing is just absurd, eh?
-=Mike

lol @ Rovin's post.<p... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

lol @ Rovin's post.

lol at the idea of Cheney bombing that appropriatly testicle & penis shaped building in Little Rock

Hey "hughie" will you defen... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey "hughie" will you defend old Billy Bob's right to lie also ("I did not hump that there gal under my desk") he he ("yam"- a member of the sweet potato family)

For those that claim that t... (Below threshold)
millco88:

For those that claim that there wasn't a veiled threat in Reid's letter, then why was there a reference to the 1934 Communications Act?? Is that a normal response by a senator when one of the broadcast networks shows something with which he/she disagrees??

Remember this letter was sent in a climate where CW believes the Dems will regain control of at least the House, implying the threat has some teeth to it. IOW, it's only a veiled threat because there's a possibility the Dems could do something about it.

Hugh,Taken out... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Hugh,

    Taken out of context and standing alone I would not say that phrase is a challenge to one's patriotism. Taken in the context ... the intent is clear.

Ahh ... so you do understand the importance of context. Good. Now, if only you were honest enough to take into context that there is no reason to mention the Communications Act and ABC's broadcasting license, unless to highlight the fact that they, the Democrats, can do something about its continued existence?

    How can one be a threat when one is powerless? Also, do you really really believe there would be an effort to revoke ABC's license?

Now I see that you're acknowledging that it is indeed a threat. But that we shouldn't take it seriously because the Democrats are a minority in Congress.

Interesting.

    Again, it's politics. Not nice politics but then I'm sure you folks appreciate not nice politics.

I'm sorry, but considering that each and every single time a Bush Administration official gives a speech, the Left shrieks at the top of its lungs that the right to free speech is threatened, I seriously doubt you'd be quite so sanguine if the GOP were to send such a letter to CBS, even after it runs "Death Of A President".

:-D ... But I give you this; you are a very slippery character. I'm very impressed.

I thought the Bush administ... (Below threshold)
ACeer:

I thought the Bush administration was responisble for the poor box office performance of Basic Instinct 2? Man, 'dem Bushies are powerful.

Martin:Good try bu... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin:

Good try bud. Tis I who believe it is you who are slippery. You left out a key point I raised about context. I included the speeches recently given by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheyney. From them there is a clear political meaning.

Because I raised a debating point about powerlessness to act certainly doesn't mean I agree it was a threat. Good try at a trap...but no catch.
It is politics, politics and more politics. Admittedly, by the dem senators. You'd think you folks would admire it.

muirego:Thi... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:


muirego:

This is propaganda that would never have been allowed pre-Reagan."


Pining for tighter government control of the media like the 'good ole days', are ya ? You're doing an excellent job of making P Bunyan's argument for him.

Posted by: Mike

Absolutely. We ARE the government and the airwaves are owned by the people.
I suggest we regulate them for fairness and honesty. And also they should be broken up so no monopolies exist. But apparently you think it would serve the public interest to deregulate them, let them be owned by a small number of multi-national corporations and allow them to lie as much as they want.....you silly little know-nothing insignificant background Orwellian character you.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

"Oh please I want to be a s... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

"Oh please I want to be a stupid propagandized media controlled mind-bot....just plug me into the Matrix. I don't care if it's reality as long as I THINK ITS REALITY I"LL BE FINE."

A group quote by all living conservatives/ excluding the ones in charge

JHOW66Wrong, yams an... (Below threshold)
waldo:

JHOW66
Wrong, yams and sweet potatos are not in the same family.

They want to "look into"... (Below threshold)
mantis:

They want to "look into" revoking ABC's broadcasting license and putting the network off the air.

Cute, you put "look into" in quotes as if you're quoting someone. But you're really just making it up. Sure, it was stupid for the Democrats to even write such a letter, and even dumber to bring up licenses, but the fact remains that the networks do use our airwaves for free and have responsibilities to live up to. If they don't and are called on it, that's not a threat.

You people are ridiculous.

Here's Sen. Brownback "threatening" the networks licences,
and here's Rep. Pickering doing the same, and Rep. Upton.

Well, they mention broadcast licenses and the networks' responsibilities to the public, so they must be threats, right? A imagined...er, veiled threat is still a threat, right?

Hope your vapors clear up soon, folks.

Hugh,So if the Rei... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Hugh,

So if the Reid letter was only about politics (your contention), what's wrong with the Reps politicizing the contents of that letter?? Isn't that basically what's going on, the Reps demonstrating what giving Congressional control to the Dems would mean??

millco:Absolutley.... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

millco:

Absolutley.....nothing wrong at all.

Absolutely. We ARE the g... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Absolutely. We ARE the government and the airwaves are owned by the people.

Wow. You really aren't a fan of the 1st Amendment are you? And since when do we OWN airwaves? Can I sue you for violating my airwave property boundaries? Does my airwave property boundary follow me as I travel, or do I trespass on everybody else's airwaves?

Truly deep stuff.

I suggest we regulate them for fairness and honesty.

Bye-bye all licenses, since the news has never been fair nor particularly honest.

But apparently you think it would serve the public interest to deregulate them, let them be owned by a small number of multi-national corporations and allow them to lie as much as they want.

Hmm, how about we try this?

There are more television channels than, say, newspapers. Why don't we heavily regulate NEWSPAPERS, since they are, by far, the more rare outlet for info?

Or would you see that for the patently ridiculous idea that it is?

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

And pointing out that Clinton's people were hardly bastions of excellence about terrorism --- just as Condi gets trashed --- is somehow incorrect?

Got it.

Cute, you put "look into" in quotes as if you're quoting someone. But you're really just making it up. Sure, it was stupid for the Democrats to even write such a letter, and even dumber to bring up licenses, but the fact remains that the networks do use our airwaves for free and have responsibilities to live up to. If they don't and are called on it, that's not a threat.

Small problem.

The examples you cited aren't comparable.

Brownback dealt solely with fines. While absurd nanny-statist of him, it's a far cry from SHUTTING THEM DOWN. Ditto Pickering.

All we've learned is that the lefties will heartily support government shutting down the press they don't agree with.

They have a lot more in common with our opponents than even I could have fathomed.
-=Mike

While absurd nanny-stati... (Below threshold)
mantis:

While absurd nanny-statist of him, it's a far cry from SHUTTING THEM DOWN.

They said they were going to shut ABC down? When?

There is a ESPN commercial ... (Below threshold)
plainslow:

There is a ESPN commercial where Dwayne Wade is sprucing up his video's. It's just like this.

Hugh,That's fair. ... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Hugh,

That's fair. I would agree that the letter isn't a substantive issue (no licenses will be revoked), only a political miscalculation by Dems, especially this close to an election they're supposed to win.

It's just another example that this election is like a football game between two 8-8 teams. Neither is good enough to win on their own, so they try to capitalize on the other's mistakes.

millco:Couldn't ag... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

millco:

Couldn't agree more. Nice to see someone as astute as me!!!!

ABC's decision to promote t... (Below threshold)
esmense:

ABC's decision to promote this "docu-drama" by releasing review copies exclusively to extremely partisan, conservative outlets gave the game away. That action revealed that in their own estimation this is a purely partisan endeavor aimed at a specific, limited political audience -- and aimed at serving specific political interests during the election season -- rather than a disinterested work that's intention is only to present an historically accurate representation of events to the public at large and raise issues of significant concern to all Americans.

Political players come and go. But powerful media interests are with us always. When such interests let themselves be so nakedly pressed into the service of specific political players, they encourage extreme cynicism among the public at large and do great damage to the public trust.

We need some ethical and disinterested players among the most powerful interests in our society to speak, at least on occasion, to our common interests and deeply shared values as Americans, and to encourage the unity that our forefathers recognized as essential to our strength as a nation.

That there are no longer such players -- among our religious leaders, our political leaders or our corporate and media leaders -- is a loss to the entire nation.

I think tennis is a better ... (Below threshold)
jack oneil:

I think tennis is a better analogy and this letter was definitely an unforced error.

This reminds of the last major election when the Dems were convinced that they would win and win easily. They will not win this time either and that will be crushing. In fact, I bet they are so sure they have not even thought of contingency plans.

The simple truth of the mat... (Below threshold)

The simple truth of the matter is that almost everyone in our government, from Jimmy Carter through G. W. Bush on the morning of 9/11/01, as well as the various Congresses from the 1970s to the 2000s, and most in the CIA and FBI, failed to take the threat of international Islamic terrorism as seriously as it needed to be. All of the warning signs were read wrong, downplayed, ignored, or thoroughly misunderstood, or mis-communicated, or lost in the bureaucracy, or forbidden to be shared with competing intelligence agencies, etc. etc.

Clinton and his team were in office for 8 years and had numerous attacks to deal with, but chose to use diplomacy and criminal justice. Bush chose to start formulating a more comprehesive approach, nothing of which even came close to fruition before 9/11. Neither administration was steller, neither administration recognized just how dangerous the climate was becoming.

The 9/11 commission got it right: there was a "lack of immagination."

But since 9/11, Bush has been utterly determined that it not happen again--and to also stamp out the incredible evil of Islamic fascism/terrorism. Bush got the message loud and clear. It's such a bloody shame that the Clintonites care more about their legacy than the future.

But bitching about the lead up to 9/11 and who was to blame is like the old slur that FDR know of and let Pearl Harbor happen.

Free speech is a very selec... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

Free speech is a very selective concept with the Dems. One more reason they don't get my vote.

I suggest we regu... (Below threshold)
Mike:
I suggest we regulate them for fairness and honesty. And also they should be broken up so no monopolies exist. But apparently you think it would serve the public interest to deregulate them, let them be owned by a small number of multi-national corporations and allow them to lie as much as they want.....you silly little know-nothing insignificant background Orwellian character you.

Are you truly such an illiterate, ignorant moron as to not see the irony of calling others facists while at the very same time advocating that only government filtered programming be allowed ? Surely, not even you are that stupid.

What are the democrats afra... (Below threshold)
G-Monster:

What are the democrats afraid of? What is in this movie? Does it have anything to do with documents Sandy Burglar stole? I think everyone is curious now. I would like to buy 100 dvd copies of the original version. Where can I buy them?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, bla... (Below threshold)
Thor4:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Such hypocrites. You would all be up in arms if your Chimp in office was the subject of the same sort of twisted facts on film.
Stop trying to act outraged. It's just plain hollow.

The democrats have put ABC ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The democrats have put ABC in a position they can't wiggle out of, if they show the movie the democrats will revoke their license (first they have to regain power) and if they don't show the movie due to blackmail by the democrats the Republicans and true Americans will send the democrats home in droves come Nov. I don't know one person that is in favor of giving in to blackmail.

I sent my comment to ABC this morning:

"Either show the 'Path to 9-11' in its entirety or make a public admission on every newscast that you were blackmailed by the democratic party into changing it".

A simple and short notice that they are being watched and the next move is theirs to make or break the network and put all broadcasters in a position that they will have to bow and scrape to the democrats before each broadcast or lose their broadcast license.

Objections to subject matte... (Below threshold)
esmense:

Objections to subject matter that appear on the public air waves -- and efforts to limit what appears -- come from every place on the political spectrum. These efforts have never been limited to one political party or one side in the ideological debate.

Republican office holders certainly have made threats against the licenses of particular media players in the past, and most likely will do so again in the future.

And if the issue is gross distortions of the truth and efforts to influence public opinion with lies and other forms of dishonesty, they will have a point.

Freedom of the press does not excuse either dangerous irresponsibility or slander. The media does have ethical responsibilities to the public, and they should be pressured to live up to those responsibilities.

As for purely political speech, the media, and most of the rest of us, were probably better off during the days of the Fairness Doctrine. That doctrine required presentation of "both sides" of political issues and required that the broadcat media offer opportunities for rebuttal of partisan presentations and arguments.

The lifting of that doctrine has encouraged more angry, colorful and extreme partisan speech in the media, that many may find more entertaining -- but it has also encouraged the increasing number of, and increasingly angry, colorful and extremely partisan attacks against the media that we see today.

Thor4, you are an idiot, pl... (Below threshold)
D_Hoggs:

Thor4, you are an idiot, plain and simple.

Bush has already been the subject of "the same sort of twisted facts on film", several times in fact. There have been countless books, articles, news reports and films about Bush that are factually incorrect. Have you heard Bush complain or speak up about ONE single one of them? No, you haven't, I challenge you to find me one example. The only hypocrites here are you and the other moonbats and the democratic party. If the white house had tried to squash any of the "patriotic dissent" against Bush, liberals would go stark raving mad shouting about the first amendment and republicans being fascists, yet when the democrats want to trample the first amendment it is all well and good. The issue here is that Clinton and the democrats don't give a crap about the truth, or te future, they care only about their "legacy". The reason you don't here Bush crying about all the garbage written and produced about him is that he would actually like to get some work done for this country.

By the way, this is extreme... (Below threshold)
esmense:

By the way, this is extremely vague --

"According to some key Democrats on Capitol Hill, it's a Capital Offense. They want to "look into" revoking ABC's broadcasting license and putting the network off the air."

Can anyone tell me specifically who "some" are? And provide precise quotes of their alleged threats?

esmense, you bring up a goo... (Below threshold)
D_Hoggs:

esmense, you bring up a good point about the fairness doctrine. In regards to ABC's "docu-drama", everyone who has viewed it has said that it is unflattering to both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Sounds fair. Of course you only hear one side crying about it.

Thor4 - Heard of Mikey Moor... (Below threshold)
James Brewer:

Thor4 - Heard of Mikey Moore and F9/11 which I am sure you believed to be fact.

esmense - Care to apply fairness doctrine to NPR, ABC news (GMA). NBC new (Today's Show), and CBS News?

D_Hogg --When it w... (Below threshold)
esmense:

D_Hogg --

When it was Reagan's ox being gored (and "legacy" being threatened) -- at least as perceived by Republicans -- the crying was all on the other side. And the network (NBC, in that case) responded by pulling the program from its broadcast outlet.

My personal opinion about this situation is that the producers of the program -- who have been upfront about their political leanings -- certainly were politically motivated in terms of how they decided to both present and promote the material. They had a partisan objective -- in terms of both influencing public and historical perception and influencing the upcoming election. But I think ABC and Disney, much to their regret now, were clueless about that agenda. No large corporate entity that relies on the broadest possible public support can afford to pander so dramatically to a limited partisan audience. Such pandering inevitably engenders a huge negative backlash from those outside the golden partisan circle.

If this program is pulled or edited, it won't be because of letters from out-of-power politicians. It will be because of outrage expressed by hundreds of thousand of ordingary viewers.

The conservatives who post here may believe that Americans overwhelmingly see things exactly as they do -- but the fact is that millions of Americans don't. And corporate entities like Disney and ABC really can't afford to get on the wrong side of that large a segment of the public.

Thor4 - Heard of Mikey Moor... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Thor4 - Heard of Mikey Moore and F9/11 which I am sure you believed to be fact.

Posted by: James Brewer


The big picture of Michael Moores' film IS true. Rich guys with power start wars and poor kids fight them....they die and the rich get a little richer. Completely supported by the evidence.

You guys need to listen to Ike. I'm not the one making this stuff up.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

plenty of "damning", ext... (Below threshold)
Brian:

plenty of "damning", extremely critical movies and "documentaries" have been made about the Bush administration and no one has tried to stop it.

You're obviously forgetting Disney's decision to kill the completed F/911 and not release it, causing the producers to find another release outlet. This move was predicated on the threat of political fallout, namely the loss of tax breaks in the state where the president's brother was governor.

Hey "waldo" yams and sweet ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey "waldo" yams and sweet potatos are in the same "family" at my house. We eat them both. Ahem.
"

let's presume that all t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

let's presume that all the program's critics are correct (a severely dubious possibility
...
CBS planned a "biography" of Ronald Reagan that was little more than a thinly-veiled smear piece

That tells you all you need to know right there about where Jay is coming from. It is "dubious" that a movie about Clinton could contain mere inaccuracies, but an unqualified fact that the movie about Reagan was a flat-out smear piece.

And let's not forget the strawman where "Let's say that the piece is" is followed by a list of things no one ever said.

Esmense, the problem is wha... (Below threshold)

Esmense, the problem is what the crying was trying to do about it. The whole Reagan "docu-drama" thing caused conservatives to boycott sponsors. What we're worried is that liberals are talking about government regulation. Can you not see the difference? I believe in the right to free speech. I also believe in the right of a free press. How can you not see that this ABC documentary is both? What conservatives did was a "free speech" way of showing displeasure by boycotting sponsors in this capitalist way. If Democrats wrote letters amongst themselves to boycott sponsors of ABC, that would have been the correct action. Instead a few of them write a letter threatening ABC itself of Government action (please don't whitewash what the letter says, mentioning that ABC still has to have the Fed. Government's license-permission-to stay on the air is more or less a veiled threat).

Oh and technically another ... (Below threshold)

Oh and technically another "legal" way to go about this would be for them to sue ABC over libel. The fact that they AREN'T shows that they think it is factually accurate.

Jame Brewer --Of c... (Below threshold)
esmense:

Jame Brewer --

Of course the "Fairness Doctrine" no longer applies to any media outlet -- including the ones you mention.

You may be younger than me and so don't remember how things worked when it did apply -- when it was routine for news outlets to provide time, at the end of a broadcast, to individuals and representatives of groups who wished to rebut or provide another side to some presentation of a particular issue that had appeared in the news. Personally, I think such opportunities for rebuttal were a good thing.

Instead a few of them wr... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Instead a few of them write a letter threatening ABC itself of Government action (please don't whitewash what the letter says, mentioning that ABC still has to have the Fed. Government's license-permission-to stay on the air is more or less a veiled threat).

Try less. What action has been threatened? Reminding a network of its responsibility to the public because they are, in fact, using our airwaves, is not a threat.

If you want an example of a real threat, look at when the House passed their version of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, which provided for license revocation for three indecency violations. That is a threat, legislation introduced to force the networks to cease airing certain (ill-defined) content.

You'll see that Rep. Pickering is still pushing it even though the Senate axed that part of the bill:

Pickering suggested that future legislation could consider license revocation for multiple indecency offenses

A letter written to the network reminding them of their responsibilities to the public is not a threat, no matter how you try to spin it. If you think that ABC is worried about legislation designed to take away their license (which would no doubt be unconstitutional), or that somehow the Democrats are going to persuade the FCC to hold hearings on license revocation (which would also be unconstitutional since presumably ABC would not be in violation of FCC guidelines no matter what they air, unless it's bare breasts), rather than ratings you are delusional. And if you think that's what this letter means you are equally delusional.

FWIW I think the letter was a dumb move. Not threatening, just stupid. I understood when Clinton and crew complained, since they are the ones being portrayed, apparently inaccurately, but the Congressional Dems should have stayed out of it.

esmense, the problem with y... (Below threshold)
D_Hoggs:

esmense, the problem with your analogie is that noone in the republican party tried to stop the Reagan "film". That was done through boycotts of sponsors. That is VASTLY different from the higher ups in the democratic party threatening ABC and Disney. Furthermore, as has been mentioned before, the docudrama is apparently not kind to either the Clinton or Bush administrations, and I am sure that is rightly so, yet we only hear whining from one group here, arguably the one that doesn't want "truth-out". And if you really think that objections from the american public, which I guarantee you the majority of which would NOT support such censorship, are going to be a greater influence in the pulling of this docudrama then the letters and cries from the Clintonistas, then you are dimmer then any of us knew.

muirgeo, you are a total idiot, FAKE BUT ACCURATE huh. The bigger picture of F 9/11 is true?! Holy crap, I am laughing my ass off, your hypocrisy gets more and more transparent by the second. If that is truly the case, then why in the HELL are you arguing against the airing of this docudrama?! Cause surely "the bigger picture IS true", it has been corroborated by the CIA agent named in the Berger incident, as well as other Clinton Admins. Surely I jest though, you'd rather believe someone who has pled guilty to crimes that relate exactly to what the democrats are kicking and screaming about.

Henry --The broadc... (Below threshold)
esmense:

Henry --

The broadcast media are and alway have been government regulated. What do you think the FCC is?

I asked for some genuine and specific quotes from Democrats threatening ABC in a previous post, and no one has provided any.

As mantis points out in his post, reminding a powerful media network like ABC, and a content producer like Disney, of their public responsibilities is not a threat. Holding them accountable for the truth and accuracy of the material they broadcast is a public responsibility -- a responsibility that you and I bear as much as do members of congress.

Everyone, including you, me and Democratic members of congress, has a right to protest the actions of the media -- and try to influence their behavior when we believe it is detrimental to public interest or even just our own interest.

D_Hoggs --Use your... (Below threshold)
esmense:

D_Hoggs --

Use your common sense. The producers of this material did not promote their project heavily among conservative media outlets (while denying access to review copies to liberal outlets) because they thought the program would be perceived as critical of Bush. Quite the opposite. They knew that they had slanted the material to satisfy conservatives, and they knew that they could depend on conservatives to promote the project exactly for that reason.

As for threat of boycott, that is exactly what the hundreds of thousand of ordinary people who have been registering their displeasure with ABC and Disney have been doing -- threatening to boycott their products. In this case, advertisers haven't been threatened with boycott only because the program is to be presented without commercials.

If this program WAS highly critical of Bush would prominent conservative political figures make public protests (as they did with the Reagan movie)? Of course they would.

The tendency of partisans to ascribe saintliness to members of their team and the worst of human frailties to their opposite is amusing.

The fact is, in matters like this, there is absolutely no difference between how Democrats or Republicans behave.

we only hear whining fro... (Below threshold)
Brian:

we only hear whining from one group here, arguably the one that doesn't want "truth-out".

I really can't tell if someone making such a statement is really that ignorant of reality, or if they're intentionally misrepresenting the reality.

The ONLY so-called "whines" that have been made are those that are INSISTING the truth be told. And not some partisan version of the truth that Clinton will offer, but rather the hard, documented, right-there-for-anyone-to-see-if-they-bothered-to-look, can't-be-denied, actual, honest truth. Why are you afraid of the truth?

Brian:"The ONLY so-called "... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Brian:"The ONLY so-called "whines" that have been made are those that are INSISTING the truth be told. And not some partisan version of the truth that Clinton will offer.."

Really? Then why are the Clintonites and Dems the only ones crying about it?

Face it: The Reps would prefer a docudrama that makes them look good and the Dems look bad.
The Dems would prefer a docudrama that makes them look good and the Reps look bad.
But the only ones trying to change the show are the Clintonites.

By all accounts from people who have already seen it, BOTH sides made mistakes. Doesn't it make you wonder why only the Dems are protesting so much?

Why aren't the Republicans ... (Below threshold)
esmense:

Why aren't the Republicans protesting? Because the movie was made by ideological conservatives and Republican partisans -- and based, in part, on a book written by a Bush administration PR official.

The mini-series undoubtedly offers criticism of Bush administration actions -- or more likely inactions -- and it also reportedly criticizes the law enforcement and military agencies involved. But, what it doesn't do to the Bush administration that it does do with the Clinton administration, is make scenes and speeches up out of wholecloth in order to create false history. Furthermore, the false history thus created obviously is intended to serve the Bush administrations political interests.

So tell me, with all that going for them in this project -- the blame cast dramatically on the Democrats and a helpful-to-them false version of history broadcast to millions during the election season -- why would they protest some minor criticism of their own actions?

They would be fools if they did so. Because that kind of complaint would get the series cancelled -- and that wouldn't serve the Bush administration's purposes at all.

So if the letter wasn't a v... (Below threshold)

So if the letter wasn't a veiled threat, then where's their correction saying they weren't implying any actual action or anything like that? I'm sure they've heard by now what they're being accused of.


furthermore:
"But, what it doesn't do to the Bush administration that it does do with the Clinton administration, is make scenes and speeches up out of wholecloth in order to create false history."

Oh really? Have you seen it? I mean, in it's entirety. Because to my knowledge, those who have actually seen anything at all have only seen Part I, unedited. And considering that it follows a timeline, the role Bush's admin plays should be covered later. Likely in Part II.

One should not speak of that which one does not know. It could make one look foolish later.

So if the letter wasn't ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So if the letter wasn't a veiled threat, then where's their correction saying they weren't implying any actual action or anything like that? I'm sure they've heard by now what they're being accused of.

My guess is that if they have heard the silly accusations from Powerline and Wizbang, they realize that no normal people agree or even care, and it's not worth responding to. Something about wrestling with pigs comes to mind.

Oh and technically anoth... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Oh and technically another "legal" way to go about this would be for them to sue ABC over libel. The fact that they AREN'T shows that they think it is factually accurate.

Actually, no political figure really wants to sue for that because it's usually a bigger headache than it's worth. It keeps the smear in the air longer.

Use your common sense. The producers of this material did not promote their project heavily among conservative media outlets (while denying access to review copies to liberal outlets) because they thought the program would be perceived as critical of Bush.

To use one example, how did Hugh Hewitt get a copy?

He asked for it. WEEKS and weeks ago.

Did the leftie blogs ask for it?

Good money says no, they did not.

If this program WAS highly critical of Bush would prominent conservative political figures make public protests (as they did with the Reagan movie)? Of course they would.

It is and we're not.

Why aren't the Republicans protesting? Because the movie was made by ideological conservatives and Republican partisans -- and based, in part, on a book written by a Bush administration PR official.

Which would be news to the producer and executive producer of the piece.

Unless you think the writer has the ability to override the people bankrolling it and controlling all aspects of the production.
-=Mike

mantis; those "silly accus... (Below threshold)

mantis; those "silly accusations" are not coming just from Powerline and Wizbang. Although why you've singled those two out is clear to me as I've seen much of your commentary here. Considering that, I think my question was fair. As I stated myself, more than once, the letter can be construed as a veiled threat. It doesn't specifically say so, and I'm not convinced that it WAS a threat, real or imagined, but I understand why some people think so. Considering the visciouness of the dialogue that has ensued from all quarters since even before the letter, I can understand why tensions are high and one would come to that conclusion.

I am, however, curious about your assumption of what constitutes "normal people". Isn't that a bit subjective?

Really? Then why are the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Really? Then why are the Clintonites and Dems the only ones crying about it?

The answer is so obvious it makes the question ridiculous. Because they are the ones most harmed by the lies being shown. Because they are the only ones with enough integrity to point out the inaccuracies being told in a historical drama.

Face it: The Reps would ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Face it: The Reps would prefer a docudrama that makes them look good and the Dems look bad.
The Dems would prefer a docudrama that makes them look good and the Reps look bad.

Perhaps, but all I want is the truth. Don't you?

Because to my knowledge,... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Because to my knowledge, those who have actually seen anything at all have only seen Part I, unedited. And considering that it follows a timeline, the role Bush's admin plays should be covered later. Likely in Part II.

One should not speak of that which one does not know. It could make one look foolish later.

Sounds reasonable. I assume that also applies to the many conservatives saying "the movie is just as critical of Bush as it is of Clinton"? By your assessment, they have no way of knowing that, and are just making even more shit up as part of their partisan ranting. At least the left has a tangible something on which to base their criticism. The right has nothing with which to counter them, except for blind hatred.

Because they are the onl... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Because they are the only ones with enough integrity to point out the inaccuracies being told in a historical drama.

Explains the condemnation the Dems had for Fahrenheit 9/11.
-=Mike

Explains the condemnatio... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Explains the condemnation the Dems had for Fahrenheit 9/11.

Most liberals, myself included, have significant disdain for F9/11 and Michael Moore. For all the times the conservatives on this blog have rolled him out, I don't recall seeing a single post from the left defending him.

The difference is that conservatives' disdain of Moore arose immediately, based on nothing more than gut hatred. Whereas liberals, although admittedly inclined to favor Moore's positions to begin with, were open enough to listen to the rational (and I emphasize, rational) response and rebuttal, and then use logic and reason to ultimately agree that yes, in fact, Moore distorted facts and the film was in many ways inaccurate. Those "56 lies in F/911", although many of them are lies or stretches themselves, contained enough truth to reveal Moore's distortions to anyone open enough to accept the truth. Are you not open enough to accept the truth about "Path to 9/11"?

That you continue to hold Moore up as some kind of hero of the left shows just how out of touch you are with mainstream America.

Most liberals, myself in... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Most liberals, myself included, have significant disdain for F9/11 and Michael Moore.

Your ability to silence it truly is impressive.

For all the times the conservatives on this blog have rolled him out, I don't recall seeing a single post from the left defending him.

There were a few in one of these posts, arguing that the overall story was true.

The difference is that conservatives' disdain of Moore arose immediately, based on nothing more than gut hatred.

And not a long track record of outright lies, eh?

Whereas liberals, although admittedly inclined to favor Moore's positions to begin with, were open enough to listen to the rational (and I emphasize, rational) response and rebuttal, and then use logic and reason to ultimately agree that yes, in fact, Moore distorted facts and the film was in many ways inaccurate.

Yet...your side is threatening to yank a broadcasting license for a movie you haven't even seen yet. And you defend it.

Bizarre.

Those "56 lies in F/911", although many of them are lies or stretches themselves, contained enough truth to reveal Moore's distortions to anyone open enough to accept the truth. Are you not open enough to accept the truth about "Path to 9/11"?

What, that both sides were hardly perfect about terrorism before 9/11? Yup, quite open to it.

Your side seems incapable of handling ANY questioning of the Clinton record.

That you continue to hold Moore up as some kind of hero of the left shows just how out of touch you are with mainstream America.

That your side's political party hugged him and had him sit in the VIP box at their Convention shows that one side of the aisle is out of touch.
-=Mike

That you continue ... (Below threshold)
That you continue to hold Moore up as some kind of hero of the left shows just how out of touch you are with mainstream America.

Brian, that you forget that Michael Moore was given a position of honor at the last Democratic National Convention and several congressional Democratic leaders attended the premiere and praised the movie shows how out of touch you are with the current mainstream Democratic Party.

For all the Left's demonizing of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, et al, I don't recall any of those people getting anywhere near the attention and laudations Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, etc. have garnered.

J.

Your ability to silence ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Your ability to silence it truly is impressive.

What, we now have to actively protest Michael Moore? How about if we just let him fade away, or boo him when he tries to make political speeches at non-political events? When was the last time you heard anyone care about anything he's had to say? Certainly he is far less visible in Democratic politics than Ann Coulter is in Republican politics.

And not a long track record of outright lies, eh?

That's just admitting you support condemning a piece of work based on preconceived notions, and not on the merits.

Yet...your side is threatening to yank a broadcasting license for a movie you haven't even seen yet. And you defend it.

I'm not sure what this response has to do with the passage from my post that you're responding to. No, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I am relying on the statements from those who have, including the producers themselves and conservative pundits. If you wish to dispute that the scene descriptions being debated are not actual scenes from the movie, feel free to do so. But no one else has disputed that they actually appear in the advance copies of the film.

I haven't defended anything, nor do I agree that reminding a public broadcasting entity of their responsibility and requirement to use the public airwaves in a non-partisan way constitutes a "threat". At least, no moreso than any reminder to someone that they're not doing what they agreed to. When a cop tells you "when you got your license, you agreed not to speed", I suppose there's an implicit threat there that you risk your license by continuing to speed, but there's really no other way to tell someone that they're violating their agreement. Unless you think the networks should not be held to what they agreed to.

What, that both sides were hardly perfect about terrorism before 9/11? Yup, quite open to it.

Nice strawman, but no, that's not what I suggested you cannot accept. Though I also agree that both sides were hardly perfect about terrorism. Wouldn't you rather see the hardly perfect truth, as opposed to the hardly perfect falsehood?

Your side seems incapable of handling ANY questioning of the Clinton record.

I can fully handle the accurate record, as clearly and indisputably described in the 9/11 Commission Report. What I cannot handle is the false presentation of any record, Clinton or Bush. Apparently false records are OK with you.

Brian: " "Really? Then why ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Brian: " "Really? Then why are the Clintonites and Dems the only ones crying about it?"

The answer is so obvious it makes the question ridiculous. Because they are the ones most harmed by the lies being shown."

Uh, Brian, if you haven't seen the movie, then how do you know it's the Dems that are 'most harmed'? You don't.

.
.

"At least the left has a tangible something on which to base their criticism. "

Again, how do you know that if you haven't seen it? You can't.

.
.

" 'Face it: The Reps would prefer a docudrama that makes them look good and the Dems look bad.
The Dems would prefer a docudrama that makes them look good and the Reps look bad.'

Perhaps, but all I want is the truth. Don't you?"

And you expect to get The Truth out of some Hollywood production? I don't. It's a docudrama, for chrissake. Show me one, just one, that was 100% truth with no embellishments. You can't; but you sure are holding this one particular movie to the highest standards ever.

.
.

Face it Brian. The Dems are making themselves look whiny to the general public by protesting too much. They are also bringing extra attention to the movie and giving the appearance that they have something to hide, even if they do not.


They just don't look very grownup in this whole affair.



Brian :"...Michael... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Brian :

"...Michael Moore. For all the times the conservatives on this blog have rolled him out, I don't recall seeing a single post from the left defending him. "

Really? You must not be looking very hard. Actually, you must not be looking at all. Behold :

"The big picture of Michael Moores' film IS true... Posted by: muirgeo at September 8, 2006 03:55 PM "


And that is from this very same comment thread!

I am, however, curious a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I am, however, curious about your assumption of what constitutes "normal people". Isn't that a bit subjective?

By normal people I mean people not like us. Most people are not as engaged in politics and the news the way bloggers and blog regulars are. It isn't meant pejoratively.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy