[Amomiamup]

yay! just what we need, ANOTHER thread for US-only political circlejerk-spinmeißtering from a wannabe-scandal!

[Ruidselisse]

MRT I agree completely re: Stern and CBS issues. Those should have never ever happened. Complete horseshit.

OTOH as people here always want to point out political speech more than any other should be the most protected of all. So what gives was there an implied threat or not?

[Unrersvar]

First I've heard of it....I am admittedly biased against the current Administration, so the first question that sprang to my mind was:

"Is there a basis of truth in the guy's claims?"

If past performance is a guide with Shrub and Company, it's not outside the realm of possibility....

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And I don't watch TV/listen to much radio...what was the deal with Stern/CBS?

[Pa33anger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
First I've heard of it....I am admittedly biased against the current Administration, so the first question that sprang to my mind was:

"Is there a basis of truth in the guy's claims?"
Maybe there is maybe there isn't but I think that is rather immaterial to whether ABC has the right to air programs even if there is 'artistic liscense'. To have pressure applied from governmental officials stinks heavily. Its not quite the same as if private citizens and/or action groups complain but to have government officials in their official capacity wieghing in requesting programs to be cancelled (and modified) seems more than a bit dicey.

[Vomekayafboke]

I don't think it was a threat. it was a reminder.

[Txaizdxx]

I think the trash that Disney wants to air on ABC this Sunday should not be aired.

This piece of Republican propaganda garbage is an insult to those who died on 9/11/01, and an insult to the surviving families.




Would it be morally permissible for a company to air similar trash, that say, would portray American World War II soldiers as barbarians?

[Smalmslobby]

Mr. Fun, if your question is...should the barbaric acts committed by our soldiers in WWII be brought to light (and I'm sure there were some), then I would say...absolutely yes! I'd support that one hundred percent.

However...I'd also say that's a somewhat different question than what we have here, and it is true that the Republicans are in power right now (and by a comfortably wide margin). It is also true that their tactics have been...shall we say, "less than gentlemanly" and in my mind, it is not out of the question that one or more Republican "mouthpiece groups" put money together to pay for what is essentially a bit of political propaganda.

Well and good. If they want to make political propaganda, I've got no problems with that, but IF that's what this is (and I don't know...primarily, I would think we would need to find out who funded the picture), then let's call it that. Let's call it that and steer clear of using it as a teaching tool.

If it's not, then let's get that out in the open too.

This Administration is overly fond of secrets...I for one, am weary of all that. So let's see who funded the picture. That should clear it up in short order, I would think. Yes?

-=Vel=-

[siflversonemunk]

Is that verifiable? Is that provable? Which lines, specifically? Do we have a script?

Again, I'm not missing the point...this is the first I've heard of it...I'm...shopping. (for info)

-=Vel=-

[Hitfaromarf]

*shrug* As I've said before, I'm a largely indifferent moderate (who happens to have a seething hatred for this Administration)...I don't care as much who's doing it as if they're right.

I mean, if we have verifiable instances of outright falsity, then one has to question the notion of using it as a teaching tool....I mean, you'd think so, right? (but hey...we're teaching Intelligent Design in school these days, so maybe not!).

And I'm most interested in learning about the funding....

Definitely wanting to withold judgement till I know more....

-=Vel=-

[videolkif]

More proof that the media is nothing but the propaganda arm of the right-wing.

Mr. Fun:

[FinanseMikky]

Oh, no doubt about it, the chosen method of handling it was...less than perfect. I agree. And if it turns out that there's nothing to their allegations...if it turns out that there's nothing verifiably false in the script, and/or that the whole piece wasn't bought and paid for by some mouthpiece group, then absolutely...let's boil some water and cook them up, instead of lobster! I'll be among the first in line!

On the other hand, if their allegations turn out to be true, then while I fault them for their methodology, I can't really find fault in the fact that they managed to bring it to light....

-=Vel=-

[nasxbrtyol]

Aside from Nixon threatening to pull some licenses from some News Bureaus back in the 70's have government officials ever threatened broadcasters over political issues.


Good company those Dems have.

[Abraham]

I agree to a point. Yes...true that they're two different things, but as I understand from reading so far, the intent was to air the thing as a "true account"...okay, so if they're airing it as a true account and there's a question about that, then yes...let's pull it (delay it) until those questions are answered. I don't think that's unreasonable.

If there's a plan to use it as a teaching tool, and there's questions about its truth and accuracy, then pulling it for those purposes also does not seem out of the question, at least until those questions can be answered.

I'm not saying let's pull it on the basis of an unsubstantiated rumor...hell no! But again, if it's gonna be aired as a true and factual account, then let's make sure it is.

-=Vel=-

[Viyzarei]

Ahhhh, so then this isn't exactly a surprise...not an "ambush" as it were, with advance copies coming out.

In that case, and given that the station is already complying with the requests to make it more true to the actual events, I'm beginning to see less of an issue here....sounds like they're w@nkers after all....

And yes...given all this stuff, I'm kinda curious to see what all the hullaballo is too!

-=Vel=-

[DebtDetox]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You miss his point. Dems are upset because the ABC movie, which is putting itself up as an accurate portrayal has added lines supposedly said by Clinton administration officials that they never actually said, making them look worse. the movie is not portraying itself as an accurate portrayal.

[Pateeffelty]

television doesn't teach (except PBS and the likes). It's there to entertain.

Simular to U-571. We all know how accurate that was.

[compiit]

Originally posted by Dis
the movie is not portraying itself as an accurate portrayal. It's portraying itself as a "docudrama", and gives no guidance as to what is docu and what is drama. That, I think, is the major problem. Using fuzzy definitions of truth and history around these events is not a good thing. Although, I suppose if it's good enough for the white house...

[downtowndude]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, MrFun's point is that the Democrats are doing it, so it's completely OK.
stupid distortions made by Kuci

[beepbeet]

Originally posted by Elok


Sure, provided you could find a network stupid enough to air it and get about a million letter-bombs and bad ratings. The difference is that there are a good number of people who want to watch rubbish about Clinton, and few people, if any, who want to watch rubbish about our least morally ambiguous war of the twentieth century. I understand they've included the lame "this is a work of fiction based on a true story nah nah nah you can't sue us" boilerplate at the beginning, so it can't be called...libel? Slander? What do you call it when the medium of defamatory communication is video? Anyway, free speech is free speech.
It's free speech that fosters political bigotry, not honest debate. And political bigotry perpetuated by liberals, conservatives, or what have you is just plain wrong.

[8jIDXQ80]

Originally posted by MrFun


You got it. I am all for honestly looking at atrocities committed by American soldiers during World War II.

What my point was, is that should we find a movie of actors that portrays all good American World War II soldiers as being barbaric when they were NOT? A) A network would never air such a piece as it would never get ratings they so desparately need and likewise would likely garner so much bad publicity to harm future ratings as well.

B) As for movies of this nature being produced and viewed in the US. All one needs do is find a local theatre playing Valley of the Wolves and youprettymuch got it. Granted this depicts all US soliders in Iraq as teh EVIL but the point remains. For good measure it likewise depicts Jews as Dr. Mengel figures. Got a twofur going for it.