shakran

Well, I can claim to be a martian, but it doesn't make it true. If it's fiction, it's fiction, whether it's a soap opera or a "docudrama."

Note that my comments are directed at the ABC film, not F911.

That's true, and I was not precise enough in my wording two posts ago. I should point out, though, that not everyone really knows the difference between a documentary and a docudrama. In fact, if you want to be precise about it, there IS no hard-and-fast difference because there is no hard-and-fast definition of either.

As I touched on there are no rules that make a film a documentary. You don't have to go through a checklist in order to have it called a documentary. I could go out and make a bunch of crap up about the Yeti, make a film out of it, and call it a documentary, and nothing bad would happen to me.

You can dramatize in a film and still call it a documentary. You can fill the whole film with nothing but truth (reenacted) and call it a docudrama. Basically you can call anything you broadcast just about anything you want as long as you're not identifying something as news (public service) or children's programming when it isn't.

My point in the comparison is that one fiction is really no different than the other, and if some idiot is going to come out and tell us we can't air something because it's fiction, then we have to ban ALL fictional programming in order to maintain the "logic" of the situation.

Basically they can air whatever they want. They can tell us George Bush is a woman if they feel like it, and if someone chooses to believe it as truth, it's not ABC's fault that the guy fell for it.

I would take a different side if this were on a news program - then it better damn well be the truth or I'll go apeshit.

But non-news programming - - hell, I don't really care what they put on there.

Bout the only thing you might have missed is that this docu-whatever-they're-calling-it-now has nothing whatsoever to do with the news business