About censorship - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 06:39 PM

Since everyone seems to be a google master here, and very much in touch, I find it sort of interesting that no one decided to comment on the ABC 'issue' right now or of the thre US senators making threats to a corporation if they happen to run a docudrama 'as is' without bowing to their political will.

Am I the only one who has heard of this in tfp?

Where are the cries of government censorship of free speech?

I'm very confused

dc_dux · 09-08-2006, 06:59 PM

Its deja vu all over again.

Think back to November 2003 and a CBS mini-series on the Reagans.

Quote:

CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves received a letter from RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie expressing alarm over the Reagan project.

Though no one at the RNC had seen "The Reagans," the letter insisted that either a panel of Reagan pals and historians screen the project before broadcast for "historical accuracy" or the network run a disclaimer crawl at the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the movie, advising viewers that "the program is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans and the Reagan Presidency, and they should not consider it to be historically accurate. . . .

"It would be reassuring to know that the program in its entirety . . . had been subject to review for accuracy," Gillespie wrote.

Though the letter was polite as all get-out, the point being made was unmistakable:

"If your series contains omissions, exaggerations, distortions or scenes that are fiction masquerading as fact, the American people may come away with a misunderstanding of the Reagans and the Reagan Administrations," the letter said ominously.

The Republicans simultaneously launched a Web site, SupportReagan.com, to protest the miniseries that they have yet to see. On the home page, the RNC hawks its own upcoming video, "Real Reagan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Elphaba · 09-08-2006, 07:01 PM

It is so well covered everywhere else, why bother? Feel free to answer your own question, u2.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

It is so well covered everywhere else, why bother? Feel free to answer your own question, u2.

O'rly?

So when democrat senators THREATEN a corporation, thats nothing, but when left wing flim makers invent pure fiction about Reagan without any facts to back it up thats censorship?

I'd have to call this the hypocrisy of the tfp left, you complain and whine about the government taking freedoms YET when democrats do it in plain sight you turn a blind eye.

If you want to ride the high horse, you need to always ride it, not dismount for political gain.

dc_dux · 09-08-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

O'rly?

... when left wing flim makers invent pure fiction about Reagan without any facts to back it up thats censorship?

One can only wonder how you can characteriize the Reagan pic as pure fiction when it was never aired. DId you have a private viewing before it was scrapped. Even the RNC didnt screen it before their letter with the demands and ultimatums..

Hypocracy....hmmmm....pot calling the kettle black?

I do applaud the conseratives who have criticized the ABC 9/11 film for its inaccuracies:

Quote:

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:
The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator:
One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:
Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show:
I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended.

Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:
If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.

Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:
I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them.

A call for something approaching reality when it is being presented as a "docudrama" is hardly censorship.

Elphaba · 09-08-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

O'rly?

So when democrat senators THREATEN a corporation, thats nothing, but when left wing flim makers invent pure fiction about Reagan without any facts to back it up thats censorship?

I'd have to call this the hypocrisy of the tfp left, you complain and whine about the government taking freedoms YET when democrats do it in plain sight you turn a blind eye.

If you want to ride the high horse, you need to always ride it, not dismount for political gain.

u2, didn't you know that it is the same film maker that did Reagan and now911? Oh, wait...you thought I was wrong about this being well covered elsewhere. I guess I'm reading more than you are.

flstf · 09-08-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Since everyone seems to be a google master here, and very much in touch, I find it sort of interesting that no one decided to comment on the ABC 'issue' right now or of the thre US senators making threats to a corporation if they happen to run a docudrama 'as is' without bowing to their political will.

Am I the only one who has heard of this in tfp?

Where are the cries of government censorship of free speech?

I'm very confused

I have seen several news reports regarding this and think the government should not be trying to pre-censure TV movies. In the case of this fictional docu-drama they are just giving it more publicity which will result in increased viewers. I probably would not have even heard of it if they hadn't tried to censure it.

Maybe the Republicans are behind this controversy over censureship in order to get more people to watch.

Superbelt · 09-08-2006, 07:50 PM

These two shows have lots in common. Lots was made up about 'The Reagans' and it was rightfully pulled. Lots of scenes and 'information' was made up for this pseudo-documentary but it has yet to be pulled.

Noone tried to build a lesson plan for school children around 'The Reagans'. ABC, this trash's producers, and Scholastic intended to use it for educational material. Not fictional entertainment as it really is.

Considering we spent millions and years studying the whole 9/11 issue. And even released a comprehensive report about it. That the writer/producer couldn't even stick to that. That they roundly blame Clinton but don't even show Bush sit in a chair like a corpse for minutes after being told about the attack.
It's less than two months until the mid term elections. And whatever perception about Clinton the public may garner from this will translate to national office democrats across the board. It's not censorship. It's preventing unfair campaign practices.

I think if they do air it, the Democrats should go after their broadcast license.

And no, I am not a fan of Clinton whatsoever. Mistakes were made across the board. BushII made plenty himself. But for some reason they are absent from this hack job. It's an attempt to lay everything at Clinton's feet. Fault reaches back decades to Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon at the least.

Why were right wing bloggers and Rush Limbaugh allowed to pre-screen the movie, but Clinton and Richard Clarke not?
That alone shows the agenda behind it.
Why don't we just let ABC greenlight a docudrama written by Sean Hannity about the various democratic senate candidates currently polling ahead of Republican incumbents.
A shot of Casey snorting coke. Tester fondling a 6 year old child. Lamont beating his wife. Sherrod Brown lovingly caressing his lifesized doll of Adolph Hitler and Mrs. McCaskill cheating on her husband.
Why censor it?

Elphaba · 09-08-2006, 07:59 PM

Superbelt, well said and thank you.

Sun Tzu · 09-08-2006, 11:22 PM

It would be interesting to know if the changes are a result from sheer pressure, a pay off, or legal grounds. The problem is changes forced by the government that violate the Constitution. Thanks for bringing the subject up learning the boundaries of slander and what is considered spreading messages of hate. I don’t know if the latter of the two does have any Constitutional limitations, but I will research.

Bush decided to give his speech at the same time as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Since everyone seems to be a google master here, and very much in touch

I've thought the same thing in the past. Long drawn out debates looking through google to find points to support what I'm saying, and then thinking why am I doing this? These are obviously educated people that are in the very least; engaged. I'm sure they have had the option of looking at the very same material I am so am I trying to change somone's view here when I should know better. Do I like to argue? Do I need to feel the need to be acknowledged that I'm right? Or am I trying to learn something? I cant really say anyone is complacent around here, so reading the different views is entertaining. Not that I have some sort of mental block because I enjoy learning. But when it comes to politics, I think it actually is a place to vent and be heard out of sheer frustration over the worlds situation.

I'm fortunate enough to live across from a public library, but how would posts quoting sources without links go around here?

pan6467 · 09-08-2006, 11:36 PM

I find it weird, the only people I see saying Clinton doesn't want this movie seen and is complaining about it is...... the GOP and people with ties to Disney/ABC or the subsidiaries.

I have yet to see or read Clinton or any of the advisors in his office talk about the movie (unless they have connections with ABC or other Disney subsidiaries)..... but maybe I am not up to date on it.

I also find it odd, that the distributing company for Limbaugh and Drudge is ........ ABC. Couldn't be Limbaugh and Drudge are just trying to plug the company line.... they are always a free thinkers and never need to be told what to say, and would not plug a movie that could make millions in DVD sales, right?

Or let's see the 700 Club is on ABC Family Channel, ABC has HUGE stakes in Hannity's radio show, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Larry Elder to mention just a few more who would never go out and say "Clinton is crying about this movie, you really need to see it." They'd never, ever say anything like that to get ABC some decent ratings, they are legitimate newspeople who broadcast non biased, true hard core news that is never slanted nor have a hidden agenda........ right?

And if ABC were to cut out the "controversial" segments due to "pressure" but release them on DVD the sales of that DVD wouldn't go up any, would they?

Hmmmmm.

And with the GOP governor in Fla. who can make life tough on DisneyWorld and Disney under fire by the Religious Right (who happen to control the GOP)for having "Gay Pride days", trying to show they can do a hatchet job on Clinton wouldn't help them in any way..... right?

So in the end, it's all about the money that can be made, screw any truth..... Right on!

Oh yeah and Michael Moore getting a new multi-million dollar deal with Disney's Miramax, doesn't have any interest whatsoever in how well this film does...... Right?

I mean really no one I mentioned would profit from ABC/Disney making a fortune on this movie, through ratings and the DVD release "with extras that couldn't be shown on television because of political pressure"....... why that would just be too conspiratorial to think of such things...... right?

By the way, because Drudge, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, the 700 club and so on complained and really tried to trash F/911 and make it sound so mean and nasty that "they felt it shouldn't be seen"...... how much did all that free press add to the movie's box office and sales...... but Disney/ABC and these people would not even think that telling people how controversial, partisan and what a hatchet job a movie would increase interest and box office.... right?

Charlatan · 09-09-2006, 02:56 AM

It's interesting how this isn't even a fly spec on the news here.

Daniel_ · 09-09-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It's interesting how this isn't even a fly spec on the news here.

Or here.

flstf · 09-09-2006, 06:18 AM

I don't see how we can be for freedom of speech and also want to censure speech that we do not agree with. In the case of this fictional series, some want to censure it before it is even broadcast.

Do we really want our polititians to threaten the license of broadcasters who air things critical of the government? Republicans and Democrats will rarely agree on which shows should be censured. It is scary to imagine our polititians requiring a seal of approval before TV shows are shown to the public.

pan6467 · 09-09-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't see how we can be for freedom of speech and also want to censure speech that we do not agree with. In the case of this fictional series, some want to censure it before it is even broadcast.

Do we really want our polititians to threaten the license of broadcasters who air things critical of the government? Republicans and Democrats will rarely agree on which shows should be censured. It is scary to imagine our polititians requiring a seal of approval before TV shows are shown to the public.

As pointed out in my last post, I honestly don't believe it is under any true fire. That the fire created was, in fact, self promotional bs. I can name movies and tv shows by the dozens that from the 80's till now have used the censorship ploy to gain ratings and box office.

For any true democrat to fear what is coming out, is showing hypocracy and is forgetting F/911.

Big deal a movie comes out, if it's not true facts will come out, creative liberties pointed out and the PEOPLE will decide what they want to believe. Much like F/911.

To me, I am more worried about what the above post pointed out.

If a media company owns both left (Moore) and right (Limbaugh), then the more division, the more hatred, the more controversy kept between the 2 parties the more money there is to be made.

If the parties and the people started coming closer together, working on compromises and had true debates and respect for each other, companies like Disney, that propagate, promote and benefit financially from the divide (and increasing it) would be hurting. But if they can create issues, strife and controversy where there really isn't any or very little.... they make more and more.

But then again, that's just an observation from a bleeding heart lib who doesn't understand how things truly work in the world.

Rekna · 09-09-2006, 09:05 AM

To me the only problem is if it is factually innaccurate and is release this close to the elections without proper time for a rebuttle it is unfair campaigning and is equivelant in my eyes as libal.

flstf · 09-09-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

To me the only problem is if it is factually innaccurate and is release this close to the elections without proper time for a rebuttle it is unfair campaigning and is equivelant in my eyes as libal.

I wonder if any polititians will file suit against ABC for libel if they air this fictional series?

They should be careful, the real blundering may be worse than this fictional portrayal.

Lady Sage · 09-09-2006, 01:14 PM

oops...... posting under her name..... sorry dear forgot to log you out

pan6467 · 09-09-2006, 01:18 PM

I honestly don't see it hurting the Dems (maybe Hilary). I think the vast majority have already made up their minds who gets their vote and will see this for what it is. Short of serious scandal... I don't see anything changing.

And again, it is all rumor, innuendo and hype as to what the movie will contain.

I don't know a single person F/911 influenced to vote against Bush..... but I do know a couple who changed their vote to Bush because of the movie.

We'll see if it lives up to the hype or if it's just smoke, mirrors and open for interpretation innuendo.

I have no interest and will not be watching it sooooooo.

Seaver · 09-09-2006, 01:33 PM

Looks like the claims that it is fake like the Reagan movie are false.

Quote:

Clinton aide says
9/11 film 'correct'
Producer consulted with military attaché
who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden
Posted: September 8, 2006
3:33 p.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Buzz Patterson with President Clinton
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.

Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.

Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.

The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.

As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.

Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (FrontPageMagazine.com)

During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics.

"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice."

Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.

An ABC executive who requested anonymity told the Washington Post the network has made "adjustments and refinements" to the drama that are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" by federal officials that left the U.S. vulnerable to attack, and "not any one individual."

Yesterday, the New York Post reported Clinton wrote to ABC officials, complaining the "content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, according to the Washington Post, has described a scene, in which she is depicted, as "false and defamatory."

The Senate Democratic Leadership sent a letter to Robert Iger – president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. – urging him to cancel the "grossly inaccurate" drama.

The Democratic National Committee today said it delivered a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures to ABC's Washington office calling on the network to drop its "right-wing factually inaccurate mocudrama."

Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.

Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a "conflation of events," but Berger, in a letter to Iger, said "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.

The scene in "The Path to 9/11," as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children's toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

"Berger was very agitated, he couldn't get a decision from the president," Patterson said.

Patterson noted he wasn't sure what Berger wanted to do – whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no – but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

In "Dereliction of Duty," published by Regnery in 2003, Patterson recounts an event in the situation room of the White House in which Berger was told by a military watch officer, "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike."

Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

Patterson writes: "We 'studied' the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed."

Harvey Keitel plays counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill in ABC's "The Path to 9/11

In another "missed opportunity," Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

As WND reported, Berger was the focus of a Justice Department investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.

FBI agents searched Berger's home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.

Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his clothing. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

Patterson said Berger's response to the "The Path to 9/11" is similar to his response to the accounts in "Dereliction of Duty," insisting the incidents attributed to him "never occurred."

Patterson said his book put him under intense pressure from Clinton officials – an aide even spoke of taking away his military retirement benefits – but when the title reached No. 1 on Amazon.com, "they shut up."

There are others who can corroborate his accounts, Patterson insisted, but they are still in military service and therefore legally bound not to come forward and make statements.

Three of the four other military aides who rotated being at the president's side were additional sources for his book, Patterson affirmed.

If ABC ends up pulling "The Path to 9/11," it won't be the first time Democrats have succeeded in pressuring a network not to air a politically charged film during a major election season.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, as WND reported, the Sinclair Broadcast Group canceled a planned showing of "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." The documentary featured former POWs who told how John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was used as propaganda against them by their North Vietnamese captors, allegedly intensifying their persecution and prolonging the war and imprisonment.

Superbelt · 09-09-2006, 01:57 PM

WorldnetDaily?

May as well have been an article from Weekly World News.

By the way:
I don't like censorship. But if they are gonna run with this, they need to give equal time to another partisan telling of the events.
Will ABC show F 9/11 on primetime weekends just like they want to with this new one?

Part of their broadcast agreements is to be net-neutral on politics. And yes that is a subjective designation.

pan6467 · 09-09-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Looks like the claims that it is fake like the Reagan movie are false.

Ok and that is news, how?

Didn't Patterson write a book a few years ago detailing pretty much everything in that article?

Doesn't you article say the director and he talked numerous times, my guess is he will be credited as a "consultant" or in some way was paid for those talks with the director.

Soooooo again, someone that has a connection to the film is trying to drive interest in it.

Yep, you GOP have the Dems right where you want them....

as you play sheep and go along with all these talking heads who are directly or indirectly going to make money.

Yeah, capitalism..... we'll control talking heads on both sides and create problems and hatred for both sides and we'll reap profit after profit......

Meanwhile, the division grows bigger, problems that need solved and could have been get turned into serious issues and we all laugh because our side is allowed to one-up the other.

Sounds like a winning strategy and in the best interest to the country and the people to me..... wellllllll maybe not. In fact it sounds like total greed with no consequences nor loyalty to the country or the people..... just the money that can be made by creating and keeping alive hate.

Elphaba · 09-09-2006, 04:08 PM

Just for shits and giggles, one Worldnetdaily must be answered by a liberal blogger whose article is hosted on TruthOut. And amen brothers and sisters, we do have another conspiracy theory.

Note: Please don't confuse this guy with Sidney Blumenthal. I have know idea who this Max guy is.

Max Blumenthal

Quote:

Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception
By Max Blumenthal

Friday 08 September 2006

Less than 72 hours before ABC's "The Path to 9/11" is scheduled to air, the network is suddenly under siege. On Tuesday, ABC was forced to concede that "The Path to 9/11" is "a dramatization, not a documentary." The film deceptively invents scenes to depict former President Bill Clinton's handling of the Al Qaeda threat.

Now, ABC claims to be is editing those false sequences to satisfy critics so the show can go on - even if it still remains a gross distortion of history. And as it does so, ABC advances the illusion that the deceptive nature of "The Path to 9/11" is an honest mistake committed by a hardworking but admittedly fumbling team of well-intentioned Hollywood professionals who wanted nothing less than to entertain America. But this is another Big Lie.

In fact, "The Path to 9/11" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision.

Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Televisionindustry." As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's "global training network" in film industry jobs "so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," according to a YWAM report.

Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled "Untitled History Project." "TFI's first project is a doozy," a newsletter to YWAM members read. "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).

The following month, on July 28, the New York Post reported that ABC was filming a mini-series "under a shroud of secrecy" about the 9/11 attacks. "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project,'" the Post noted.

Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive "Untitled" film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham.

Nowrasteh's conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too "politically incorrect" to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo - both friends of Nowrasteh - announced they were "partnering" with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as "A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center."

Since the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1992, Horowitz has labored to create a network of politically active conservatives in Hollywood. His Hollywood nest centers around his Wednesday Morning Club, a weekly meet-and-greet session for Left Coast conservatives that has been graced with speeches by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens. The group's headquarters are at the offices of Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a "think tank" bankrolled for years with millions by right-wing sugardaddies like eccentric far right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (Scaife financed the Arkansas Project, a $2.3 million dirty tricks operation that included paying sources for negative stories about Bill Clinton that turned out to be false.)

With the LFF now under Horowitz's control, his political machine began drumming up support for Cunningham and Nowrasteh's "Untitled" project, which finally was revealed in late summer as "The Path to 9/11." Horowitz's PR blitz began with an August 16 interview with Nowrasteh on his FrontPageMag webzine. In the interview, Nowrasteh foreshadowed the film's assault on Clinton's record on fighting terror. "The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests," Nowrasteh told FrontPageMag's Jamie Glazov. "There simply was no response. Nothing."

A week later, ABC hosted LFF co-founder Murty and several other conservative operatives at an advance screening of The Path to 9/11. (While ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, Clinton administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets were denied them.) Murty returned with a glowing review for FrontPageMag that emphasized the film's partisan nature. "'The Path to 9/11' is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible," Murty wrote. As a result of the special access granted by ABC, Murty's article was the first published review of The Path to 9/11, preceding those by the New York Times and LA Times by more than a week.

Murty followed her review with a blast email to conservative websites such as Liberty Post and Free Republic on September 1 urging their readers to throw their weight behind ABC's mini-series. "Please do everything you can to spread the word about this excellent miniseries," Murty wrote, "so that 'The Path to 9/11' gets the highest ratings possible when it airs on September 10 & 11! If this show gets huge ratings, then ABC will be more likely to produce pro-American movies and TV shows in the future!"

Murty's efforts were supported by Appuzo, who handles LFF's heavily-trafficked blog, Libertas. Appuzo was instrumental in marketing The Path to 9/11 to conservatives, writing in a blog post on September 2, "Make no mistake about what this film does, among other things: it places the question of the Clinton Administration's culpability for the 9/11 attacks front and center ... Bravo to Cyrus Nowrasteh and David Cunningham for creating this gritty, stylish and gripping piece of entertainment."

When a group of leading Senate Democrats sent a letter to ABC CEO Robert Iger urging him to cancel The Path to 9/11 because of its glaring factual errors and distortions, Apuzzo launched a retaliatory campaign to paint the Democrats as foes of free speech. "Here at LIBERTAS we urge the public to make noise over this, and to demand that Democrats back down," he wrote on September 7th. "What is at stake is nothing short of the 1st Amendment."

At FrontPageMag, Horowitz singled out Nowrasteh as the victim. "The attacks by former president Bill Clinton, former Clinton Administration officials and Democratic US senators on Cyrus Nowrasteh's ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" are easily the gravest and most brazen and damaging governmental attacks on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans since 9/11," Horowitz declared.

Now, as discussion grows over the false character of The Path to 9/11, the right-wing network that brought it to fruition is ratcheting up its PR efforts. Murty will appear tonight on CNN's Glenn Beck show and The Situation Room, according to Libertas in order to respond to "the major disinformation campaign now being run by Democrats to block the truth about what actually happened during the Clinton years."

While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It's almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.

Apuzzo launched a retaliatory campaign to paint the Democrats as foes of free speech. "Here at LIBERTAS we urge the public to make noise over this, and to demand that Democrats back down," he wrote on September 7th. "What is at stake is nothing short of the 1st Amendment."

I give kuddo's to Pan for seeing the profit motive involved in creating a public conflict to drum up viewers. I also see an ideological motive that is occuring shortly before the elections.

Surely the OP citing 1st amendment concerns one day after the "call to arms" is a talking point of coincidence.

shakran · 09-09-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Hypocracy....hmmmm....pot calling the kettle black?

Nice point, but we need to be fair about this. I beat Ustwo up pretty badly every time he answers an attack on Bush with a "well yeah but CLINTON did. . . " comment.

I don't give a damn what happened yesterday or who did it. Whatever it was doesn't make what someone is doing today any more or less right. So while the republicans were assholes about the Reagan movie, it just doesn't matter in the context of the current discussion.

Now here's where it gets annoying - - -none of us has seen the documentary, so we don't really KNOW if stuff is made up or not. Sure some Democrat congresscritters are saying stuff is false but 1) can we trust them (they are, after all, politicians hunting for votes) and 2) even if it were false, who cares? It's a movie. Documentaries are not held to the same standards as regular journalism is. If you don't believe me, go watch a Michael Moore video some time. The man makes a few good points, but it's not exactly balanced coverage.

An ABC journalist who makes crap up and is caught will be fired. The same does not hold true for someone who produces a "documentary" for ABC because documentaries are not now and never will be, news. In other words, if politicians want to stop the airing of a documentary because it has things that aren't true in it, then we also need to stop the airing of all movies, sitcoms, and soaps.

If they're really upset about it, perhaps they should make their own counter-documentary.

Rekna · 09-09-2006, 06:23 PM

if it can be argued that this documentary is factually as accurate as f911 then there is still 1 more difference between the films I see. f911 was shown in theators causing people to go out of their way and spend money to see it. In addition many theators (especially in red states) didn't even carry the film making it impossible for many people to see it. This documentary is going to be shown during prime time on a major network (free and accessable by almost anyone).

shakran · 09-09-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

if it can be argued that this documentary is factually as accurate as f911 then there is still 1 more difference between the films I see. f911 was shown in theators causing people to go out of their way and spend money to see it. In addition many theators (especially in red states) didn't even carry the film making it impossible for many people to see it. This documentary is going to be shown during prime time on a major network (free and accessable by almost anyone).

So what? Star trek used to be shown in prime time, free and accessible to almost anyone. Should we ban that because it suggests manipulations of physical laws that are impossible (transporter, holodeck, food replicators, and warp drive unless we figure out how to make enough energy per second to power the entire earth for a day)?

Perhaps we should have banned MacGyver because the way they showed him making bombs wouldn't work in real life.

Let's not forget that the first thing the Bill of Rights says (other than how much he loves Alyson Hannigan

) is that we have this neat thing called freedom of speech.

If the network wants to air something, they're allowed to. Even if it isn't true. If you don't like it, exercise YOUR first amendment rights and tell the world what a crock it is.

Elphaba · 09-09-2006, 07:09 PM

Shakran, it seems unlike you to compare tv drama's such as McGyver or Star Trek with something that claims to be a "documentary" based upon the 911 Commission Report. Not even ABC is willing to give the status of "documentary" to this film, but rather "entertainment" and "docudrama."

I have always given credence to your experience in the news 'business' and placed weight on your opinion. What am I missing in your post?

shakran · 09-09-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Shakran, it seems unlike you to compare tv drama's such as McGyver or Star Trek with something that claims to be a "documentary" based upon the 911 Commission Report.

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.

Quote:

Not even ABC is willing to give the status of "documentary" to this film, but rather "entertainment" and "docudrama."

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.

Quote:

I have always given credence to your experience in the news 'business' and placed weight on your opinion. What am I missing in your post?

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

host · 09-09-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

......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

No....but the stench comes from the controversy of whether....or not....this "presentation" is a $40 million partisan campaign ad:

Quote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-379111c.html
ABC's film flap

Trims 9/11 series as Dems howl

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

ABC is frantically recutting its $40 million miniseries about 9/11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.

Also feeling the heat was Scholastic, which yanked a classroom guide tie-in to the program.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the former head of the 9/11 commission and a paid consultant on the ABC miniseries, told the Daily News yesterday that some controversial scenes in "The Path to 9/11" were being removed or changed.

"ABC is telling me that the final version I'll be pleased with," said Kean, softening his own previous defense of the movie.

Unmollified, Democrats continued to demand that ABC yank the two-night docudrama that former President Bill Clinton's spokesman called "despicable." It is scheduled to start airing Sunday.

And Clinton's lawyer sent Kean a chiding letter expressing "shock" that a man so dedicated to accuracy had worked on a movie "that has been widely criticized for its libelous historical inaccuracies.".........

.........Asked if he had apologized to Clinton for inaccuracies in the movie, Kean quipped, "No, he was out campaigning against my son yesterday, so I didn't reach out to him at all!"

Kean's son is a GOP Senate candidate in New Jersey.

Quote:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...itroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM

Bipartisan Report Concludes Saddam Hussein Had No Relationship With Former Head Of Al Qaeda in Iraq; Taliban Claiming Responsibility For Suicide Car Bombing in Kabul; Thomas Kean Interview; Controversy Surrounds ABC Docudrama About 9/11; Ground Zero Air Quality; Samuel Berger Interview

Aired September 8, 2006 - 17:00 ET

.......BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Wolf, we've just received a copy of a letter from former national security advisor Samuel Berger and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright to Tom Kean, the 9/11 Commission chairman who was a consultant to ABC on this film.

Berger and Albright asked Kean to use his influence to get ABC to cancel the airing this Sunday and Monday. We were always seconds ago told of another letter from former Clinton aide Bruce Lindsay and Mr. Clinton's attorney Douglas Band (ph) to Robert Iger of the Disney Corporation also asking for the airing of this movie to be cancelled because of what they call historical inaccuracies.

Now we're getting no indications at the moment that the movie will be cancelled. But the fallout over this film is still at critical mass.........

.........On the political front, ABC is accused of a heavy slant against Democrats. Tom Kean, a republican, and the only 9/11 Commission member consulted for the film, got a letter from Clinton's office saying, your defense of the outright lies in this film is destroying the bipartisan aura of the 9/11 Commission.

Tom Kean's response to me, quote, "What possible political motivation could I have? Everybody who has seen it who is nonpartisan has praised it. The people in both administrations," Kean says, were inept to stop the plot." (END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: Media observers say all this criticism and buzz over the film will very likely generate huge ratings for ABC on Sunday and Monday night. But there is another snag. President Bush is scheduled to address the nation at 9:00 Eastern Time Monday night, likely right in the middle of part two of this series or at least when that part was scheduled to air. An ABC official tells me they're still figuring out how to deal with that.

BLITZER: Brian, thank you very much. And one of the claims about the ABC movie is that it does not mirror the factual findings of the report from the 9/11 Commission.

My next guest is the co-chairman of that commission, Thomas Kean, he is joining us from Philadelphia. He's the former governor of New Jersey.

Governor, thanks very much for coming in. I want to read to you from this latest letter to you. I don't even know if you've seen the actual letter from the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright.............

...........BLITZER: What about the scene involving Madeleine Albright? You suspect they've changed that one as well so that she is not projected as someone who tipped off the Pakistanis about a missile attack on Osama bin Laden and there may have been a leak which allowed him to escape?

KEAN: Well, I don't know about that scene. I think that scene is a little different because I think there was a real conflict between two areas of government as to whether you don't tell people you're going to hit Osama bin Laden in case he gets away and other branches of government that say if you send a missile over Pakistan, they may think it's India, they could start another war. So that was a real conflict and a real problem. And whether it was Madeleine Albright or somebody else, I suspect that probably took place.

BLITZER: What about -- It was definitely someone else because Secretary Cohen, William Cohen, the former defense secretary said he dispatched the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Ralston, to go to Pakistan to brief the Pakistanis once the missiles were on their way to the al Qaeda target and Madeleine Albright was not specifically involved in that.

But that was another apparent distortion in the film. I don't know if the film has been changed. But what about the bigger picture? Because you investigated the Clinton administration and the Bush administration in the events leading up to 9-11. Those who have seen the film -- and I have not seen it -- say that the Clinton administration over the eight years they were in power, in office, that they -- at least you come away from the movie convinced that they were negligent, that they missed opportunities for a variety of reasons to destroy Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

KEAN: Well, two administrations missed opportunities. This starts on President Clinton's watch with the attack on the World Trade Center I. Then it covers eight years of the Clinton presidency. It covers six months of the Bush presidency. So obviously there's more about the Clinton administration. But you've got to remember the area they were working on. I mean, to be very fair to the Clinton people, a lot of this was done before we knew how bad Osama bin Laden was. This was before the attacks on the embassies in many cases. It was before certainly the attack on the Cole. We knew he was bad and there were people in the Clinton administration pursuing him pretty hard.

But we didn't know he was bad as he was or certainly what he was planning on 9-11. So it's unfair to look back and put their motivations in light of the attack on the World Trade Center, because it just didn't -- it's just not that way. It was a different kind of a world and they made decisions with different facts than we have right now.

BLITZER: I'm going to read to you one more excerpt from this letter that Madeleine Albright and Samuel Berger have written to you, although you haven't received the letter we have. I'll read this section: "Your continued defense of this deeply flawed production is especially hard to understand in light of your commendable leadership of the 9-11 Commission. Like much of the country, we were impressed by the care you and your fellow commissioners took to stick to the facts and to get it right for the American people and for history. Unfortunately, as co-executive producer of this miniseries, you and your new associates have chosen to go another way."

We're going to be speaking momentarily to Sandy Berger. I wonder, Governor, what you would say to him. What would you like to say to him, knowing what you know about this film, knowing your role in helping ABC and knowing, obviously, your role with the other members of the 9-11 commission in putting together that final report.

KEAN: Yeah. This is not a 9-11 Commission report, and this series is based on a lot of other things besides that report. It's a miniseries. It's not a product of ABC News. It's not a product of a documentary. It's very different. And it says right up front with a disclaimer exactly what it is. Nobody should have any doubt about that.

Having said that, I think it's a very powerful, very powerful series, and I think we'll understand a lot more about Al Qaeda when you watch it. But I would encourage people to look at it, make their own decision. We're having a tremendous debate on this and nobody has seen it. Let's look at it and I think perhaps we can have a constructive debate about it afterwards.............

.....and, there is this:

Quote:

http://www.christiancinema.com/catal...0&src=hp200609
News and Information
The Path to 9/11
Posted: Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The Path to 9/11
News Summary:
By Jeremy Reynalds
Correspondent for ASSIST News Service

......Director David Cunningham (To End All Wars) said by e-mail, “(It is) one of the few films ever to be allowed to film at the CIA headquarters at Langley. I ... spent a year-and-a- half working on this show along with an amazing team film makers.”.....

.........
Note: Director David Cunningham is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With A Mission (YWAM).

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001491.php
"Path to 9/11" Maker Has Evangelical Ties
By Justin Rood - September 8, 2006, 2:39 PM

The director of ABC's controversial "Path to 9/11" docudrama has ties to an evangelical Christian group whose goals include "transform[ing] Hollywood from the inside out," according to research by readers of prominent blogs.

"Path" director David L. Cunningham is also involved in "The Film Institute," an offshoot of the Hawaii-based global evangelical group, Youth With a Mission.

One goal of Cunningham's Film Institute is to "fast-track" students from a digital film program associated with the YWAM organization into positions "within the film industry, not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:o...d=3&lr=lang_en according to a cached version of page from a YWAM Web site. The original appears to have been moved or deleted.

The digital filmmaking program at YWAM's University of Nations appears to provide Cunningham's institute with its interns. The school's Web site encourages potential students, "If you are serious about allowing the Lord to use either your professional background in film and television, or your God-given desire to learn, don't miss this opportunity. Apply today!"

Our phone calls to Cunningham, the school, YWAM offices and YWAM directors in the United States were not immediately returned.

Cunningham's involvement with the Film Institute was http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:o...d=3&lr=lang_en disclosed on the now-missing YWAM Web site.

David L. Cunningham is also the son of YWAM founder, Loren Cunningham, <a href="http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=250&src=hp200609">according</a> to the evangelical film site, ChristianCinema.com.

On its Web site, YWAM describes itself as "an international movement of Christians" performing "evangelism, training and mercy ministry" in 149 countries.

Cunningham's ties to the evangelical organizations were discovered and reported by <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115741601128096709">Digby</a>, readers and bloggers on <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/8/133335/7036">DailyKos</a>, <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/EarlG/75">Democratic Underground</a>, and elsewhere.

If a muslim fundamentalist was a director of ABC's docudrama, it would certainly be something to note, and object to, wouldn't it? Why is it any easier to accept the fundamentalist religious influenced politicization of this ABC docudrama if the religious fundamentalists are christian political partisans?

Just throwing out, here....what I've found unusual.....we'll know much more, after this "program" actually airs.....

The reason that we cannot have an actual discussion on this, or any other TFP politics thread, is because, for one "side", it goes against "the culture" to discuss the actual "issues"...by providing details intended to sway an actual debate on the "merits", as I struggle to do here, with such feeble results:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal
Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 10, 2006; Page A01

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.

"When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said.

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy -- combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation -- proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.....

The links from CNSnews.com and newsbusters.org that are posted on these threads, never contain the references to "main stream" news sources that the articles authored by competitor mediamatters.org , always contain.

For at least 15 years, L. Brent Bozell, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and the Sarah Scaife foundation, has dominated, along with folks like David Horowitz, virtually all of what filters through to the folks here....and in America, who could honestly argue the "nuts and bolts" of their political "positions", but sadly.....and obviously, the Scaife funding bought Bozell the ability to influence some folks to be more concerned about the "BJ" that Clinton received, than about healthcare for their own families, or about accountability in spending by the federal government, or whether it was necessary to go to war in Iraq. Scaife and Bozell, and the RNC....will make sure, over the next sixty days, that the focus shifts to "dirt", as in the example of Clinton's sex life, instead of why our troops are still fighting in Iraq, and whether it was ever necessary for them to be there, and to stay there,, in present numbers, much longer.........

Quote:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/2/flag-scherer.asp
IN REVIEW
Framing the Flag

BY MICHAEL SCHERER

One month after the first U.S. bombing of Kabul, Fox News correspondent Brit Hume delivered a short but stinging report on his nightly broadcast. "Over at ABC News, where the wearing of American flag lapel pins is banned," said Hume, his own pin firmly in place, "Peter Jennings and his team have devoted far more time to the coverage of civilian casualties in Afghanistan than either of their broadcast network competitors."

Citing a new study, Hume said that ABC spent exactly fifteen minutes, forty-four seconds covering these casualties over the previous several weeks, nearly twice the time spent at NBC and about four times as much as CBS. The implication was clear: war coverage on ABC, free of patriotic accoutrements, was quite possibly drifting from the national interest.

For the Media Research Center, the conservative watchdog that authored the report, Hume's dispatch represented yet another success in its campaign to hew reporters to open support for the war. Already the nation's most vocal critic of the media's perceived liberal bias, the center took on a "new and vital mission" in the months following the attacks on Washington and New York, according to its founder, L. Brent Bozell III. "We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush," he wrote in a recent fundraising letter.

In terms of mainstream media exposure, the center has enjoyed significant success in its new role, often framing the discussions of journalistic objectivity. Between September 11 and December 31, MRC reports and staff members were quoted eighty separate times by major news outlets in the Nexis database. This included eleven interviews and citations on Fox News, CNN, and CNNfn. Bozell even made it onto Imus in the Morning in February.

"The fact that we have been received reasonably well during this period is good for us," says Rich Noyes, the center's director of media research. "I think you can tell when we are raising good questions."

Those questions often concerned the patriotic credentials of top broadcast news reporters, producers, and executives. The center praised Rather, Brokaw, and Russert for editorializing their support of the war; it chastised journalists who kept a greater editorial distance. "What we were looking for was home-team sports reporting," Noyes explains.

In practice, the center defined the home team as the Bush administration and its policies. Journalists and pundits who challenged them were tarred with the epithet "political activist," or in the case of the cartoonist Aaron McGruder, "America-hater." In one report, the center took Peter Jennings to task for suggesting on a talk show that Americans respect different views of patriotism. The center's editorial response: "Unlike Jennings, who is still a Canadian citizen, we are Americans."

After CNN submitted six questions to an alleged representative of Osama bin Laden, the Los Angeles Times quoted Bozell calling the questions a "slap in the face of the American people." The Boston Globe and The Christian Science Monitor reported on the center's criticism of Reuters and the BBC for swearing off the term "terrorist." The center also spread the word about ABC News president David Westin's equivocation over whether the Pentagon had been a "legitimate military target," eliciting a prompt apology from the network chief and a flurry of embarrassing press coverage. "They put stuff out there and either it speaks for itself or it doesn't," said Hume, who worked at ABC News for twenty-three years before joining Fox. "The value of these people is their research."

Some media watchers agree. "Senior network executives tend to dismiss the center a bit too reflexively," said Howard Kurtz, media reporter for CNN and The Washington Post. "This is clearly because the organization has such a conservative agenda, but that doesn't mean their barbs aren't hitting the mark sometimes."

In many ways, Bozell's group has continued the mission begun in 1969 by Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media, which helped found MRC in 1987 by sharing its mailing list. But Bozell, a syndicated columnist who served as finance director in Patrick Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign, has developed a much larger organization. Funded by such conservative groups as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, his center boasted an income of $15 million in 2000, more than eighteen times as much as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the largest liberal media watchdog.

From September 11 until Christmas, a staff of eight full-time researchers recorded and reviewed all the broadcasts on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, said Noyes. Any possible evidence of "liberal bias" or wavering support of the military mission was flagged for distribution through the group's Web page, e-mail list, and "Notable Quotables," a biweekly newsletter delivered free to many of the nation's newsrooms.

While the center's direct impact on those newsrooms is difficult to measure, television coverage has been far more supportive of the Bush administration's policies than have newspaper reports. In November, for instance, a new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 54 percent of broadcast segments "entirely" supported official U.S. viewpoints, compared with 23 percent of applicable newspaper coverage.

At CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC, reporters and producers said that while they are aware of the center's criticisms, they keep partisan assaults from influencing their news judgment. Still, says Tom Nagorski, the foreign news editor at ABC, "I suppose in a subtle way it's in the back of your mind." For supporters of the Media Research Center, that may be all they can ask.

Quote:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/rec..._id=1002652454
CBS Stations: Indecency Complaints Invalid

Todd Shields

JUNE 13, 2006 -

Virtually none of those who complained to the Federal Communications Commission about the teen drama Without A Trace actually saw the episode in question, CBS affiliates said as they asked the agency to rescind its proposed record indecency fine of $3.3 million.

All of the 4,211 e-mailed complaints came from Web sites operated by the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association, the stations said in a filing on Monday.

In only two of the emails did those complaining say they had watched the program, and those two apparently refer to a “brief, out-of-context segment” of the episode that was posted on the Parents Television Council’s Web site, the affiliates’ filing said.

“There were no true complainants from actual viewers,” the stations said. To be valid, complaints must come from an actual viewer in the service area of the station at issue, the filing said.

“The e-mails were submitted … because advocacy groups hoping to influence television content generally exhorted them to contact the commission,” the CBS stations said.

L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, said that “everything the PTC has said is accurate..........

...........About 8.2 million people saw the Dec. 31, 2004 broadcast, which was a repeat of an earlier airing of the same episode that drew no indecency complaints. E-mails about the episode began arriving at the FCC on Jan. 12, the same day the PTC sent an alert to its members, the CBS stations said.

The FCC in proposing the fines of $32,500 upon each of 103 CBS stations said they had “broadcast material graphically depicting teenage boys and girls participating in a sexual orgy.”.....

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Heritage Lecture #380

January 21, 1992

..........And what was "newsworthy?" According to Leslie Midgley, Walter Cronkite's long-time producer at CBS, "In the print media, news is what the editor says it is... In television, news is what the producer says it is."

There was no conservative network to challenge the liberal press, no magazine powerful enough to compete with the increasingly liberal tilt of Time and Newsweek. Conservatives had their periodicals like National Review and Human Events, the combined circulation of which might compete with one edition of The New York Times, assuming a natural disaster launched most of that paper's fleet of trucks into the East River............

........Media Bias Exposed.......

........ Rather than admit their biases, reporters retreated to their final line of defense: OK, the media may be biased, but I'm not. With that in mind, the Media Research Center was launched to restore political balance in the media by exposing and neutralizing the liberal agenda within the so-called objective press.

The cornerstone of the MRC is its research capabilities. Today the MRC has the most sophisticated research operation ever assembled, more advanced than any university or media organization. Researchers tape, analyze and input into a computerized database summaries of every single network news show, including virtually all ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and PBS news broadcasts, weekly news shows, political talk shows, and special reports.

The MRC research capabilities are virtually boundless.....

......More often than not you won't see the MRC name on much that appears on the subject of media bias. The recent Washington Post Magazine cover story devoted to the rising political power of Hollywood made no reference to us, but the author of the piece used our research for her article. The late Warren Brookes never cited us, yet we provided him with much of his research on the media (and it goes without saying that he provided us with research on virtually everything else). David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, who wrote the masterful series on the media's promotion of the pro-choice movement, spent considerable time at our offices conducting research for his piece. Indeed, I will go so far as to warrant that 90 percent of the stories in both the electronic and print media which deal with the political bias in the industry have their origins in the Media Research Center........

..............Do not believe for a moment that conservatives have won the day in the battle to restore political balance within the national press. Far from it. The left still controls the press and continues to wield their power relentlessly in order to shape the political conversation. But the tide may have begun to shift against them. If that is so, it is critically important that conservatives understand the reasons behind it and rededicate themselves to the effort like never before.

Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."

The news and entertainment media will continue to effect the cultural health of America. If we succeed in our mission to restore political balance to this institution, future generations win benefit and thank us. It's worth fighting for, now.

L. Brent Bozell, III is Chairman of the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Virginia.

He spoke on January 21, 1992 at The Heritage Foundation in the Resource Bank series of lectures featuring leaders of conservative education and public policy organizations.

My question for those among us who read and post links from CNSnews.com and newsbusters.org and from Farah's worldnetdaily.com or from David Horowitz's site.....for those who shy away from MSM news reports, because they know that those sites are infected with "liberal bias".....

are you willing to run the risk that you are relegated to a closed loop of information that is the result of the influence that Scaife and Bozell have had over your POV? Have you wondered what

Quote:

....Researchers tape, analyze and input into a computerized database summaries of every single network news show........

.....the "summaries" that Bozell's researchers "input", look like? Who selects the content of the "summaries"? Are the summaries biased by those who compiled them? Has Bozell pulled the same "Op" on you that he pulled after the second airing of that CBS TV show, to influence the FCC. What if your attitude about MSM news liberal bias", is more a direct result of Bozell's '90's info saturation campaign;
....he admitted that 90 percent of what you read about liberal media bias, as of 1992....came from his MRC organization ?
I'm asking because my observation is that you show no indication of combing conventional news reporting to check your own compilation of what is most probably closest to an accurate account of any news/political event that we attempt to discuss here. I don't see that those who believe that the MS news media is "biased", even attempt to seriously discuss anything here....with a vigorous, documented argument.

Just a courtesy to let you in on the documentation that L. Brent Bozell "owns" the accusation and the "proof" that the MSM has a liberal bias, and that, if I were you, I wouldn't let Bozell's employee, newsbuster.org "executive editor", <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/7482">Michael Sheffield</a>, filter what you "know" about any current event.

pan6467 · 09-10-2006, 07:07 AM

Shakran is very right. Don't like it turn the channel. Noone is forcing you to watch it. But yet you keep drawing more and more interest to it.

So let me ask the Dems (of which I am proudly very much one) on this board.... (of course you'll get your knickers in a bunch but....) WHY are you personally so scared of this movie that you need to fuel interest into it?

ABC/Disney has worked this beautifully. And no ABC/Disney is not heavily slanted to the right, they are a media company out to get as much of the entertainment dollar they can, that plain and simple.

As I showed above and other than Elphaba, my fellow Dems. ignored it and played the game of advancing the interest. WHY?

I know they aren't making money, but WHY are they so scared?

Do they believe that the people are so stupid that this will influence the vote? That's pretty shallow, to believe that you can see what is going on but the vast majority will be duped into believing the movie and it will hurt the Dems come election time.

And if that is the case, WHY are you making such a big deal of it based only on press clippings and the great reviews (Limbaugh, Drudge, O'Reilly, etc) and words, or the anger (Michael Moore) given to it by PEOPLE WHO FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM ITS SUCCESS?

Do any of you honestly believe that by yelling and crying and pouting and whatever, over a movie the general public HAS NOT EVEN SEEN YET, is going to turn people away from it? Hell, fucking no!!!!! The more you cry, complain and make a do over it the more attention this movie gets, the more people want to watch to see what it has to say.

The more you cry foul and bitch and moan, the more people watching outside party lines will wonder how much IS true.

Like everyone else, YOU hadn't seen it, but you bitched about what you were told was going to be in it. How do you know..... oh yeah press clippings and talking heads (and again, most of those talking heads both Left and Right have financial ties to ......... what media company??????? Oh yeah Disney and Disney owns ABC and again, I reiterate.... the more interest sparked, the more people watch the more money made, and all those people who CREATED the controversy make a little more and see their media company strike big bucks.)

In the end, it just amazes me...... some of these Dems are acting like the Religious Right and crying over dramatic creativity. CENSORSHIP IN ANY FORM IS STILL FUCKING CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't like what it said AFTER it airs fine, debate it, prove it wrong, etc.

But you sit there drawing more and more interest to it, by demanding "partisan equal time" or "ABC better make sure they tell everyone it is based on truth but there were parts that were just GOP wet dreams added" whatever...... you are drawing the attention to it like a moth to a flame and when it airs...... and none of the stuff you cried over is in it (or very little of it is) the people are going to wonder even more about what was sooooo scary for the Dems and may start believing where there is smoke there is fire.

In conclusion..... YOU are creating the controversy, YOU are driving people to watch and YOU are going to make the movie bigger than it needed to be.

WHY?????? Because you fell into the perfected media trap of crying foul, bitching, moaning, coming out with rebuttals, and so on..... to a movie that hasn't aired yet and probably without controversy wouldn't have gotten any damned ratings.

It's like dropping a 10lb bag of sugar on top of an ant hill.......... instead of just picking up the still unopened bag, you have to knife it open and pour sugar all over..... then bitch because the ants are in the sugar.

(I just made that analogy up.... I like it).

dc_dux · 09-10-2006, 08:31 AM

As one of those Dems, I will just make a couple points.

First, my jockeys arent in a knot over this ..I just thought the hypocrisy of the OP and the subsequent follow-upp was amusing.

Second, "Do I believe that the people are so stupid that this will influence the vote?" Nope, but I do believe that some people are easily influenced by infotainment and manipulation of facts. Many get their "news" from "sources" like Rush Limbaugh or believe everything coming out of the White House because they want to believe in Bush. One only need to look at the the polls that show anywhere from 35% to 45% of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Third, I am as opposed to government censorship as anyone. However, raising concern about the validity and accuracy of a purported docu-drama on an issue that deeply touches every American is NOT censorship. If nothing else, the debate that has taken place here, on blogs and around the office, may give people pause as they consider the program's relationship to reality. Will it affect the outcome of the upcoming elections? Probably not any more so than the negative and misleading ads we will see on both sides in the coming weeks.

And lastly, I will be watching Manning v Manning tonight and going to the Redskin game tomorrow night. To those who watch it, enjoy and take it for whatever you want.

roachboy · 09-10-2006, 08:36 AM

sometimes i wonder if there is a strange loop generator in conservativeland:

here you get a discussion about a film no-one has seen

out there you get a proposal that military tribunals get constituted that can sentence defendants to death without allowing them or their council to see the evidence against them.

here and out there you get ideology that is conflated with information that is information.

viral procedures are doubled in viral marketing.

this "controversy" is an example of viral marketing.

lather rinse repeat.

host · 09-10-2006, 11:14 AM

Well....our senate majority leader wants us all to "simmer down", and that's good enough for me.....who's gonna make the pop corn and bring over the beer, tomorrow night?

Quote:

With all the information available about all the hateful efforts of the terrorists to strike America since the late 1980s -- easily available by one click on the Internet -- let's simmer down on the censorship calls and honor the memory of 9/11 by letting people see ABC's The Path to 9/11 and draw their own conclusions about the Islamofascist war against America.

Written by Bill Frist, M.D.
Permalink : http://www.volpac.org/index.cfm?Fuse...ew&Blog_id=453

Marvelous Marv · 09-10-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its deja vu all over again.

Think back to November 2003 and a CBS mini-series on the Reagans.

Since you are unlikely to get jumped on the way I do upon mentioning Clinton or Teddy Kennedy, I'll fill in the blanks here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Nice point, but we need to be fair about this. I beat Ustwo up pretty badly every time he answers an attack on Bush with a "well yeah but CLINTON did. . . " comment.

No, that's me.

Specifically,

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

No, I don't. What I question is why you and others keep bringing Clinton up when someone points out wrongdoing by the current administration. I don't care if Clinton was a serial killer while in office - that wouldn't excuse the current candidate from responsibility for his actions. The fact that you guys keep bringing Clinton up shows me that you KNOW there's no defense for what the Bush administration has done, and you're trying to misdirect people so that they can't SEE that there's no excuse.

Quote:

I don't give a damn what happened yesterday or who did it. Whatever it was doesn't make what someone is doing today any more or less right. So while the republicans were assholes about the Reagan movie, it just doesn't matter in the context of the current discussion.

You get points for consistency, even though I hugely disagree with not paying attention to past abuses. Even superbelt chimed in with some good stuff.

Quote:

Now here's where it gets annoying - - -none of us has seen the documentary, so we don't really KNOW if stuff is made up or not. Sure some Democrat congresscritters are saying stuff is false but 1) can we trust them (they are, after all, politicians hunting for votes) and 2) even if it were false, who cares? It's a movie. Documentaries are not held to the same standards as regular journalism is. If you don't believe me, go watch a Michael Moore video some time. The man makes a few good points, but it's not exactly balanced coverage.

It's terrifying to agree with you so much. Especially when you at least hinted that Michael Moore's "documentary" wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

First, my jockeys arent in a knot over this ..I just thought the hypocrisy of the OP and the subsequent follow-upp was amusing.

Then this should be a laugh riot:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba, 10/01/2005

The argument that "my guy isn't/wasn't as bad as your guy" solves nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy, 10/2/05

It seems to me that the sole function of these recurrent "yeah but what about clinton..." threads are indices of the extent to which conservatives who continue to support the administration--a dwindling number, btw--seem to be doing so because they cannot deal with the dissonance that thinking critically about what george w bush has done would entail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467, 11/13/2005

2 wrongs do not make it right. Yet, I assume that the way the keep using Clinton and Gore and others it justifies Bush's lieing and thus justifies the war with the never ending changing of reasons for going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'd LOVE to see some actual argumentation around here. But as long as certain factions keep themselves safely on the "Oh yeah, well you!" card, there's zero chance of that.

Ch'i · 09-10-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

let's simmer down on the censorship calls and honor the memory of 9/11 by letting people see ABC's The Path to 9/11 and draw their own conclusions about the Islamofascist war against America.

That's the best thing I've heard all day, but maybe not in the right context. People should be able to draw their own conclusions by reviewing all the information available instead of having the media, and administration do it for them.

Paradise Lost · 09-10-2006, 11:46 AM

Unfortunately, many people feel that the docudrama is very inaccurate at many points and by showing them the movie in its 'as-is' format, what are people really learning? Can they even be able to form their own opinion based on something untrue? It seems unlikely. Those who are already very well informed probably won't watch the damn thing anyway, it's the people who aren't well informed that this will have the most dramatic effect upon, since there will be almost no reason for them to think about it otherwise.

And point two, where else do people get their information about current events other than from the media? People are arguing that the media should do their damn jobs and fix a blatantly false representation if they want to hold and credibility for their actions. When the 9/11 commission is saying that it runs astray from the truth on more than just a few occasions, something's wrong, especially since, for all intensive purposes, it's suppose to be a retelling of the events - but if the events are imaginary, what are we really accomplishing?

Also, I find it shameful that people are getting their information from a movie anyway... which is essentially what this is. It's not a documentary, it's a piece of cinema for people to watch. I feel it lost its credibility before people ever saw it.

shakran · 09-10-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

No, that's me.

Don't worry Marv, I didn't forget you

But Ustwo was the one being nailed here so I kept it simple

Quote:

You get points for consistency, even though I hugely disagree with not paying attention to past abuses. Even superbelt chimed in with some good stuff.

Oh, I never said you should pay no attention to the past abuses. I said the past abuses of one person does not excuse the current abuses of another. I cannot kill you and then claim that I should get away with it because, gee, Jeff Dahmer killed AND ate his victims so what I did wasn't really all that bad now was it.

Of course we should pay attention to what happened in the past. For example we should pay attention to what happened in Vietnam so that we never again get ourselves into a situation where soldiers are dying for noth. . . oh. . .wait a minute. . .

Quote:

It's terrifying to agree with you so much. Especially when you at least hinted that Michael Moore's "documentary" wasn't.

It was, but that's only because the term "documentary" is as meaningless as "therapist." I can hang out a shingle right now and call myself a therapist and charge people to get "therapy" from me, and I'll be in absolutely no legal trouble as long as I don't tell them I'm a shrink or a psychologist. Because of that the term "therapist" means absolutely nothing.

By the same token I can throw anything into a script and call it a documentary, and I won't have broken some Law of Film.

So yeah, Moore's films are documentaries. They're not balanced coverage and while I think his heart is (for the most part anyway) in the right place, he really didn't need to use some of the tactics he did in order to get his results. Just one example would be the "I can go into any house in Canada and the doors will be unlocked because they're not afraid of stuff" scene that, it turns out, he had to do a jillion takes of before he finally found a house where the doors were actually unlocked.

I think his premise there was valid - Americans are scared of everything and the higher-ups encourage that fear in order to maintain control - we really do have a culture of fear - but I think he could have been much less lazy, and much more truthful, in making that point.

09-08-2006, 06:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	About censorship Since everyone seems to be a google master here, and very much in touch, I find it sort of interesting that no one decided to comment on the ABC 'issue' right now or of the thre US senators making threats to a corporation if they happen to run a docudrama 'as is' without bowing to their political will. Am I the only one who has heard of this in tfp? Where are the cries of government censorship of free speech? I'm very confused __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-08-2006, 11:36 PM	#11 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I find it weird, the only people I see saying Clinton doesn't want this movie seen and is complaining about it is...... the GOP and people with ties to Disney/ABC or the subsidiaries. I have yet to see or read Clinton or any of the advisors in his office talk about the movie (unless they have connections with ABC or other Disney subsidiaries)..... but maybe I am not up to date on it. I also find it odd, that the distributing company for Limbaugh and Drudge is ........ ABC. Couldn't be Limbaugh and Drudge are just trying to plug the company line.... they are always a free thinkers and never need to be told what to say, and would not plug a movie that could make millions in DVD sales, right? Or let's see the 700 Club is on ABC Family Channel, ABC has HUGE stakes in Hannity's radio show, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Larry Elder to mention just a few more who would never go out and say "Clinton is crying about this movie, you really need to see it." They'd never, ever say anything like that to get ABC some decent ratings, they are legitimate newspeople who broadcast non biased, true hard core news that is never slanted nor have a hidden agenda........ right? And if ABC were to cut out the "controversial" segments due to "pressure" but release them on DVD the sales of that DVD wouldn't go up any, would they? Hmmmmm. And with the GOP governor in Fla. who can make life tough on DisneyWorld and Disney under fire by the Religious Right (who happen to control the GOP)for having "Gay Pride days", trying to show they can do a hatchet job on Clinton wouldn't help them in any way..... right? So in the end, it's all about the money that can be made, screw any truth..... Right on! Oh yeah and Michael Moore getting a new multi-million dollar deal with Disney's Miramax, doesn't have any interest whatsoever in how well this film does...... Right? I mean really no one I mentioned would profit from ABC/Disney making a fortune on this movie, through ratings and the DVD release "with extras that couldn't be shown on television because of political pressure"....... why that would just be too conspiratorial to think of such things...... right? By the way, because Drudge, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, the 700 club and so on complained and really tried to trash F/911 and make it sound so mean and nasty that "they felt it shouldn't be seen"...... how much did all that free press add to the movie's box office and sales...... but Disney/ABC and these people would not even think that telling people how controversial, partisan and what a hatchet job a movie would increase interest and box office.... right? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 09-08-2006 at 11:58 PM..

09-09-2006, 02:56 AM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It's interesting how this isn't even a fly spec on the news here. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-09-2006, 01:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I honestly don't see it hurting the Dems (maybe Hilary). I think the vast majority have already made up their minds who gets their vote and will see this for what it is. Short of serious scandal... I don't see anything changing. And again, it is all rumor, innuendo and hype as to what the movie will contain. I don't know a single person F/911 influenced to vote against Bush..... but I do know a couple who changed their vote to Bush because of the movie. We'll see if it lives up to the hype or if it's just smoke, mirrors and open for interpretation innuendo. I have no interest and will not be watching it sooooooo. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-09-2006, 01:57 PM	#21 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	WorldnetDaily? May as well have been an article from Weekly World News. By the way: I don't like censorship. But if they are gonna run with this, they need to give equal time to another partisan telling of the events. Will ABC show F 9/11 on primetime weekends just like they want to with this new one? Part of their broadcast agreements is to be net-neutral on politics. And yes that is a subjective designation. Last edited by Superbelt; 09-09-2006 at 02:27 PM..

09-08-2006, 07:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	It is so well covered everywhere else, why bother? Feel free to answer your own question, u2.

09-08-2006, 07:50 PM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	These two shows have lots in common. Lots was made up about 'The Reagans' and it was rightfully pulled. Lots of scenes and 'information' was made up for this pseudo-documentary but it has yet to be pulled. Noone tried to build a lesson plan for school children around 'The Reagans'. ABC, this trash's producers, and Scholastic intended to use it for educational material. Not fictional entertainment as it really is. Considering we spent millions and years studying the whole 9/11 issue. And even released a comprehensive report about it. That the writer/producer couldn't even stick to that. That they roundly blame Clinton but don't even show Bush sit in a chair like a corpse for minutes after being told about the attack. It's less than two months until the mid term elections. And whatever perception about Clinton the public may garner from this will translate to national office democrats across the board. It's not censorship. It's preventing unfair campaign practices. I think if they do air it, the Democrats should go after their broadcast license. And no, I am not a fan of Clinton whatsoever. Mistakes were made across the board. BushII made plenty himself. But for some reason they are absent from this hack job. It's an attempt to lay everything at Clinton's feet. Fault reaches back decades to Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon at the least. Why were right wing bloggers and Rush Limbaugh allowed to pre-screen the movie, but Clinton and Richard Clarke not? That alone shows the agenda behind it. Why don't we just let ABC greenlight a docudrama written by Sean Hannity about the various democratic senate candidates currently polling ahead of Republican incumbents. A shot of Casey snorting coke. Tester fondling a 6 year old child. Lamont beating his wife. Sherrod Brown lovingly caressing his lifesized doll of Adolph Hitler and Mrs. McCaskill cheating on her husband. Why censor it?

09-08-2006, 07:59 PM	#9 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Superbelt, well said and thank you.

09-09-2006, 06:18 AM	#14 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't see how we can be for freedom of speech and also want to censure speech that we do not agree with. In the case of this fictional series, some want to censure it before it is even broadcast. Do we really want our polititians to threaten the license of broadcasters who air things critical of the government? Republicans and Democrats will rarely agree on which shows should be censured. It is scary to imagine our polititians requiring a seal of approval before TV shows are shown to the public.

09-09-2006, 09:05 AM	#16 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	To me the only problem is if it is factually innaccurate and is release this close to the elections without proper time for a rebuttle it is unfair campaigning and is equivelant in my eyes as libal.

09-09-2006, 01:14 PM	#18 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	oops...... posting under her name..... sorry dear forgot to log you out

09-09-2006, 06:23 PM	#25 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	if it can be argued that this documentary is factually as accurate as f911 then there is still 1 more difference between the films I see. f911 was shown in theators causing people to go out of their way and spend money to see it. In addition many theators (especially in red states) didn't even carry the film making it impossible for many people to see it. This documentary is going to be shown during prime time on a major network (free and accessable by almost anyone).

09-09-2006, 07:09 PM	#27 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Shakran, it seems unlike you to compare tv drama's such as McGyver or Star Trek with something that claims to be a "documentary" based upon the 911 Commission Report. Not even ABC is willing to give the status of "documentary" to this film, but rather "entertainment" and "docudrama." I have always given credence to your experience in the news 'business' and placed weight on your opinion. What am I missing in your post?

09-10-2006, 07:07 AM	#30 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Shakran is very right. Don't like it turn the channel. Noone is forcing you to watch it. But yet you keep drawing more and more interest to it. So let me ask the Dems (of which I am proudly very much one) on this board.... (of course you'll get your knickers in a bunch but....) WHY are you personally so scared of this movie that you need to fuel interest into it? ABC/Disney has worked this beautifully. And no ABC/Disney is not heavily slanted to the right, they are a media company out to get as much of the entertainment dollar they can, that plain and simple. As I showed above and other than Elphaba, my fellow Dems. ignored it and played the game of advancing the interest. WHY? I know they aren't making money, but WHY are they so scared? Do they believe that the people are so stupid that this will influence the vote? That's pretty shallow, to believe that you can see what is going on but the vast majority will be duped into believing the movie and it will hurt the Dems come election time. And if that is the case, WHY are you making such a big deal of it based only on press clippings and the great reviews (Limbaugh, Drudge, O'Reilly, etc) and words, or the anger (Michael Moore) given to it by PEOPLE WHO FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM ITS SUCCESS? Do any of you honestly believe that by yelling and crying and pouting and whatever, over a movie the general public HAS NOT EVEN SEEN YET, is going to turn people away from it? Hell, fucking no!!!!! The more you cry, complain and make a do over it the more attention this movie gets, the more people want to watch to see what it has to say. The more you cry foul and bitch and moan, the more people watching outside party lines will wonder how much IS true. Like everyone else, YOU hadn't seen it, but you bitched about what you were told was going to be in it. How do you know..... oh yeah press clippings and talking heads (and again, most of those talking heads both Left and Right have financial ties to ......... what media company??????? Oh yeah Disney and Disney owns ABC and again, I reiterate.... the more interest sparked, the more people watch the more money made, and all those people who CREATED the controversy make a little more and see their media company strike big bucks.) In the end, it just amazes me...... some of these Dems are acting like the Religious Right and crying over dramatic creativity. CENSORSHIP IN ANY FORM IS STILL FUCKING CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't like what it said AFTER it airs fine, debate it, prove it wrong, etc. But you sit there drawing more and more interest to it, by demanding "partisan equal time" or "ABC better make sure they tell everyone it is based on truth but there were parts that were just GOP wet dreams added" whatever...... you are drawing the attention to it like a moth to a flame and when it airs...... and none of the stuff you cried over is in it (or very little of it is) the people are going to wonder even more about what was sooooo scary for the Dems and may start believing where there is smoke there is fire. In conclusion..... YOU are creating the controversy, YOU are driving people to watch and YOU are going to make the movie bigger than it needed to be. WHY?????? Because you fell into the perfected media trap of crying foul, bitching, moaning, coming out with rebuttals, and so on..... to a movie that hasn't aired yet and probably without controversy wouldn't have gotten any damned ratings. It's like dropping a 10lb bag of sugar on top of an ant hill.......... instead of just picking up the still unopened bag, you have to knife it open and pour sugar all over..... then bitch because the ants are in the sugar. (I just made that analogy up.... I like it). __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 09-10-2006 at 07:18 AM..

09-10-2006, 08:31 AM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	As one of those Dems, I will just make a couple points. First, my jockeys arent in a knot over this ..I just thought the hypocrisy of the OP and the subsequent follow-upp was amusing. Second, "Do I believe that the people are so stupid that this will influence the vote?" Nope, but I do believe that some people are easily influenced by infotainment and manipulation of facts. Many get their "news" from "sources" like Rush Limbaugh or believe everything coming out of the White House because they want to believe in Bush. One only need to look at the the polls that show anywhere from 35% to 45% of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Third, I am as opposed to government censorship as anyone. However, raising concern about the validity and accuracy of a purported docu-drama on an issue that deeply touches every American is NOT censorship. If nothing else, the debate that has taken place here, on blogs and around the office, may give people pause as they consider the program's relationship to reality. Will it affect the outcome of the upcoming elections? Probably not any more so than the negative and misleading ads we will see on both sides in the coming weeks. And lastly, I will be watching Manning v Manning tonight and going to the Redskin game tomorrow night. To those who watch it, enjoy and take it for whatever you want. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-10-2006, 08:36 AM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sometimes i wonder if there is a strange loop generator in conservativeland: here you get a discussion about a film no-one has seen out there you get a proposal that military tribunals get constituted that can sentence defendants to death without allowing them or their council to see the evidence against them. here and out there you get ideology that is conflated with information that is information. viral procedures are doubled in viral marketing. this "controversy" is an example of viral marketing. lather rinse repeat. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-10-2006, 11:46 AM	#36 (permalink)
Paradise Lost "Afternoon everybody." "NORM!" Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.	Unfortunately, many people feel that the docudrama is very inaccurate at many points and by showing them the movie in its 'as-is' format, what are people really learning? Can they even be able to form their own opinion based on something untrue? It seems unlikely. Those who are already very well informed probably won't watch the damn thing anyway, it's the people who aren't well informed that this will have the most dramatic effect upon, since there will be almost no reason for them to think about it otherwise. And point two, where else do people get their information about current events other than from the media? People are arguing that the media should do their damn jobs and fix a blatantly false representation if they want to hold and credibility for their actions. When the 9/11 commission is saying that it runs astray from the truth on more than just a few occasions, something's wrong, especially since, for all intensive purposes, it's suppose to be a retelling of the events - but if the events are imaginary, what are we really accomplishing? Also, I find it shameful that people are getting their information from a movie anyway... which is essentially what this is. It's not a documentary, it's a piece of cinema for people to watch. I feel it lost its credibility before people ever saw it. __________________ "Marino could do it."