(POL) Dem's turn in the Censorship Barrell - Pressuring ABC to dump "Path to 9/11"

[SirFozzie]

Three years ago, the Repubs took a beating because they threatened CBS with everything, up to and including the kitchen sink of pulling CBS's License, because CBS was going to air a Documentary called The Reagans, and they were outraged that the creators were having Ronald say something that there was real doubt he really said. I thought it was rediculous, but hey, if they wanted to blow holes in their own boat, go for it.

Fast forward to 2006, and the Democrats are really, REALLY, REALLY pissed off with "The Path to 9/11". And truth be told, I can understand why some folks are pissed off.. they now call it a Docu-Drama instead of a Documentary, because they admit they fictionalized scenes, and put words in people's mouths.

And now it's the Dems turn to rant rave and cry, and yes, apparently it's been made clear that should this "Docu-Drama" be aired, that if/when the Dems have power, ABC's license would be looked at..

So, if you thought the Republicans were stupid for going too far with the Reagans, you probably should feel the same way about this.

If you want to arrange a boycott? Fine Less people watching TV is always a good thing. Put pressure on the advertisers? Hey, probably won't do much, but you can always vote with your wallet.

However, when you threaten a broadcaster's LICENSE for something, you better have REAL concerns and not partisan issues, because that goes right to free speech and governmental censorship.

Interesting to see a bunch of Conservatives like Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Bennett are saying that the offending fictionalized sections SHOULD be cut out of the show, because it is having them say and do things which just did not happen, and you can't hide behind making it a "Docu-Drama"

[Greyroofoo]

Personally the people affected should just sue for character defamation and be done with it. All of the show's revenues should just about do it.

Does a mini-series 9-11 really need fictional drama added to it to make watchable?

[sachmo71]

I can't wait to see the fictionalized scenes.

[amdaily]

Funny how the Dems loved how Michael Moore manipulated scenes and interviews to create his own version of the truth in F911, but when everything gets reversed they start whining. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Funny how the Dems loved how Michael Moore manipulated scenes and interviews to create his own version of the truth in F911, but when everything gets reversed they start whining. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

As I said.. Both sides, the Repubs (the Reagans) and the Dems (Path to 9/11) went way too far. When you start talking about pulling licenses, that's prima facie censorship.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll probably give this more thought when/if I stop laughing hysterically at the suggestion of the DNC that ABC is airing some sort of "right-wing" propoganda piece.

That's about as likely as FNC doing a 3 hour special titled
"Sainted Woman: The Misunderstood Hillary Clinton"

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll probably give this more thought when/if I stop laughing hysterically at the suggestion of the DNC that ABC is airing some sort of "right-wing" propoganda piece.

That's about as likely as FNC doing a 3 hour special titled
"Sainted Woman: The Misunderstood Hillary Clinton"

Considering they had partnered with Scholastic to teach it as fact in schools, Jon.. that's exactly what it its... either that, or they got taken for the ride of a lifetime by the conservative who wrote this. (a friend of Rush Limbaugh's.. that's how Rush was able to get an advance copy)

Oh: and let's not forget just about every right wing blogger/activist got to see an advanced copy, but when anybody who wasn't firmly Repub wanted to see it, got told no.

[st.cronin]

I would have zero problem with the FCC withdrawing all the licenses it's issued and setting something up like the BBC. That's probably a different argument, though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Considering they had partnered with Scholastic to teach it as fact in schools, Jon.. that's exactly what it its... either that, or they got taken for the ride of a lifetime by the conservative who wrote this. (a friend of Rush Limbaugh's.. that's how Rush was able to get an advance copy)

The question I'd have is how many of these "disputed facts" are true, but simply aren't flattering to the usually glorified.

Those crying most foul aren't exactly what I consider the most trustworthy, capable, or believable characters in the world. And some of them would force me to the window if they said the sky was blue.

Frankly Fozzie, there ain't a big enough bus to put a lot of these people under AFAIC, not in the whole wide world.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The question I'd have is how many of these "disputed facts" are true, but simply aren't flattering to the usually glorified.

Those crying most foul aren't exactly what I consider the most trustworthy, capable, or believable characters in the world. And some of them would force me to the window if they said the sky was blue.

Frankly Fozzie, there ain't a big enough bus to put a lot of these people under AFAIC, not in the whole wide world.

Jon, even the conservative side are saying that the things in the movie are Fictionalized= IE NOT TRUE.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06]

Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:

Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]

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.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Funny how the Dems loved how Michael Moore manipulated scenes and interviews to create his own version of the truth in F911, but when everything gets reversed they start whining. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Not defending Moore per se, but that is not comparable at all. Moore's films didn't put words into people's mouths that they didn't say -- taken out of context, certainly. But Limbaugh, Olbermann and O'Reilly do the same thing, and those are all two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned.

A more apt comparison is Fozzie's example of The Reagans -- both are "docu-dramas" with scenes fictionalized that may not have happened.

I think the mistake critics of both programs made is going public with their beefs before the fact. I had no idea ABC was doing a miniseries on 9/11 until I heard this story. Now a whole bunch of people will tune into watch who otherwise would not have, and another group of people will accept fictionalized accounts as the truth because they saw or heard about. I still won't watch because it sounds stupid to me, but I'm clearly not the average bear.

Let the thing run in oblivion, sue ABC and the producer's asses off, and this thing won't happen much anymore. Let the market take care of it.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Those crying most foul aren't exactly what I consider the most trustworthy, capable, or believable characters in the world. And some of them would force me to the window if they said the sky was blue.

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:
Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

Wow, for once, in a POL thread, JIMGA and I agree.

[King of New York]

"Docu-drama," whether used by a left-wing or right-wing filmmaker, is just code for "I'm gonna show things the way I wished they had happened, and I think that lots of stupid people will accept what I show as the way that things really did happen."


In other words, docu-drama = propaganda. So I don't watch docu-dramas.

[Fonzie]

Putting aside for the moment the issues of character defamation, I find the timing of a releasing a docu-drama that is especially unforgiving of Democrats in the midst of a run-up to elections to be curious, at best.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Putting aside for the moment the issues of character defamation, I find the timing of a releasing a docu-drama that is especially unforgiving of Democrats in the midst of a run-up to elections to be curious, at best.

And I think this right here is the main difference between this and the Reagan mini-series. The September 11th show is dealing with current events and can alter people's perspectives, especially if it throws the facts to the wind for the sake of "artistic license", while what damage could the Reagan film really do? The Reagan film could have shown Ronnie masturbating while watching gay snuff films, but would that hurt the Republicans in elections? Whereas this film (according to rumors) has a fictional scene where a CIA agent has the opportunity to kill bin Laden, but the Clinton administration tells him no. How do you think that will play with voters?

And don't give me any crap about how the American people are smart enough to know that this is a "docu-drama" because we all know how much bull that is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Whereas this film (according to rumors) has a fictional scene where a CIA agent has the opportunity to kill bin Laden, but the Clinton administration tells him no. How do you think that will play with voters?

The scene and its dilologue itself would of course be fictional, but this particular incident has been widely reported, correct? At the very least, it's fair discussion.

I can't imagine anyone would be OK with the idea of political pressure shutting down political speech, dramatized or not.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think what made ABC deserve the outcry is that it orginally marketed it as an historical account based off of the 9/11 Commission Report, when in fact it goes exactly against the report numerous times.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll probably give this more thought when/if I stop laughing hysterically at the suggestion of the DNC that ABC is airing some sort of "right-wing" propoganda piece.

That's about as likely as FNC doing a 3 hour special titled
"Sainted Woman: The Misunderstood Hillary Clinton"

The screenplay was written by a GOP activist. The 9/11 Commission Report member that oversaw the film is the head GOP member of the commission. The producer of the film is an Evangelical activist who belongs to a groups whose mission is to "transform Hollywood from the inside". ABC sent advance screening copies to tens or hundreds of conservative outlets and bloggers, even tiny ones, yet failed to give them to any liberal outlets or even the former President of the United States and his foreign policy staff at the time. that requested copies. The film optioned two right-wing books to base the screenplay off of. Every single thing that has deemed to be wrong in the miniseries, from liberal and conservative critics like, is wrong in a way that makes the Clinton administration look worse.

I don't think there is any question that it is a conservative piece.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by molson

The scene and its dilologue itself would of course be fictional, but this particular incident has been widely reported, correct? At the very least, it's fair discussion.

From what I understand, the scene has CIA agents literally surrounding a house with Osama bin Laden in it and talking to Sandy Berger, who tells them not to kill Osama.

In the actual incident, the CIA had an informant that said that Osama would be in a building at a certain time, but we had no visual confirmation and the CIA director, Tenet, called it off the missile strike because the information was not deemed reliable and he felt that the risk to kill a Middle Eastern dignitary was too high (this is going off memory, I may be off on a few details, but that is the general gist).

I think there are obvious differences between the scene in the miniseries and the actual event that make Clinton look worse.

[Cap Ologist]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think there are obvious differences between the scene in the miniseries and the actual event that make Clinton look worse.

Is that really possible?

[Dutch]

I think the West Wing would be banned by Democrats if the show's star was portraying a Republican.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

As I said.. Both sides, the Repubs (the Reagans) and the Dems (Path to 9/11) went way too far. When you start talking about pulling licenses, that's prima facie censorship.

Censorship...perhaps. However, doesn't anyone in the media have a responsibility to report...wait a minute....THE TRUTH. I'm a huge Republican so I can't believe I'm defending this but I'm sick and tired of people in media outlets not reporting facts and instead just twisting things. We have a public where people believe 9/11 was an inside job. This movie simply plays into those kinds of people. When our biggest news stories continue to be Tom Cruise's baby and stories where we twist the truth about anything the report wants, (both sides) how can we have a true democracy?

The media, especially with the advent of the internet, has become extremely powerful in this country. I would agrue perhaps even more powerful than either political party if they want to use it.

[Dutch]

I agree with Jon Stewart when he says the problem with the media is the "He Said, She Said" crap that the news has become. It's no longer informing the reader/viewer with the facts neccessary to make up your own mind. It's all just a reporter/journalist pushing his point of view on the consumer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

However, doesn't anyone in the media have a responsibility to report...wait a minute....THE TRUTH.

As long as they're within the confines of other law (slander, libel, etc) the answer to that one would be "No".

A media company, just like any other company, is primarily responsible for making money for their stockholders.

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I agree with Jon Stewart when he says the problem with the media is the "He Said, She Said" crap that the news has become. It's no longer informing the reader/viewer with the facts neccessary to make up your own mind. It's all just a reporter/journalist pushing his point of view on the consumer.

followed by countless talking head spinning said incident to thier liking

[Ryche]

The Reagan movie was a ridiculous idea and this movie is a ridiculous idea and both were created with an agenda. You can't gloss over slandering people by calling it 'dramatization'.

Network TV keeps spitting out crap like this and then wonders why it's dying.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ryche

The Reagan movie was a ridiculous idea and this movie is a ridiculous idea and both were created with an agenda. You can't gloss over slandering people by calling it 'dramatization'.

Network TV keeps spitting out crap like this and then wonders why it's dying.

While I wholly agree both this and the Reagan move were ridiculous crap, I would argue that Network TV is not dying. If anything, Network TV is having a bit of a renaissance at the moment. It's slowly emerging from the depths of the horrid reality TV "is that your final answer" era.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think the West Wing would be banned by Democrats if the show's star was portraying a Republican.

Alan Alda's Emmy for playing a Republican presidential candidate who ended up in a Democratic president's cabinet would seem to suggest otherwise.

[GrantDawg]

I guess I'm just stupid, so someone please explain this to me. How is this any different than any other movie portraying historical events? Doesn't anyone who makes a history piece have to create conversations and sistuations that may not have happened basically because of storytelling and the fact that personal conversation are not exactly recorded? Every history-based drama I've ever seen has characters that might not exists, situations based on romours to basically move the story along, and conversatoins in one setting that were condense from what had to have been many conversations over a long period of time. I can't see any other way to do them. So, are we basically saying we can't do any true event dramas?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I agree with Jon Stewart when he says the problem with the media is the "He Said, She Said" crap that the news has become. It's no longer informing the reader/viewer with the facts neccessary to make up your own mind. It's all just a reporter/journalist pushing his point of view on the consumer.

I agree with the point, but Stewart's as guilty of this as anybody, but very cleverly hides behind the guise of "comedy". (I wonder how many young people get their news exclusively from the Daily Show and SNL)

[molson]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I guess I'm just stupid, so someone please explain this to me. How is this any different than any other movie portraying historical events? Doesn't anyone who makes a history piece have to create conversations and sistuations that may not have happened basically because of storytelling and the fact that personal conversation are not exactly recorded? Every history-based drama I've ever seen has characters that might not exists, situations based on romours to basically move the story along, and conversatoins in one setting that were condense from what had to have been many conversations over a long period of time. I can't see any other way to do them. So, are we basically saying we can't do any true event dramas?

The line seems to be simply how many people you piss off. Dramatiziations only become controversial when an entire (or most of a) political party doesn't like the content. So I think you're right, complaining about this on the grounds of "fictional dramatization" seems pretty ridiculous.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree with the point, but Stewart's as guilty of this as anybody, but very cleverly hides behind the guise of "comedy". (I wonder how many young people get their news exclusively from the Daily Show and SNL)

The Daily Show is as reliable, if not more so, than anything else out there. It's not perfect, but at least it calls people out on their B.S.

I'd much rather, 1,000 times over, prefer someone get their news exclusively from the Daily Show than Fox News. That's a complete no-brainer. I would probably say the same about CNN and MSNBC. They're all crapola.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Ryche

The Reagan movie was a ridiculous idea and this movie is a ridiculous idea and both were created with an agenda. You can't gloss over slandering people by calling it 'dramatization'.

I completely agree with contention that both were created with an agenda, but not the agenda you think. We hear so much about the alleged liberal bias of the media, but that completely ignores the fact that any bias in the media has nothing to do with politics -- it has to do with money.

I love that many conservatives proclaim bias in the media, then overlook AM radio, Fox, conservative newspapers and the thousands of other allegedly conservative biased media. I don't believe any of these media are politically biased -- they are biased toward ratings and whatever will get them ratings.

Rush Limbaugh is the No. 1 radio talk show host by a far stretch, and most of the others behind him are conservatives as well. Why does the alleged liberal media allow Limbaugh to thrive while Al Franken is broadcasting out his parent's basement? Simple.

So CBS cooked The Reagans miniseries to add spice and get ratings. ABC apparently did the same thing there. It's deplorable and shouldn't happen, but anybody assigning political bias as the motive is naive. It's always been about money and always will be that way, until people stop falling for it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I guess I'm just stupid, so someone please explain this to me. How is this any different than any other movie portraying historical events? Doesn't anyone who makes a history piece have to create conversations and sistuations that may not have happened basically because of storytelling and the fact that personal conversation are not exactly recorded? Every history-based drama I've ever seen has characters that might not exists, situations based on romours to basically move the story along, and conversatoins in one setting that were condense from what had to have been many conversations over a long period of time. I can't see any other way to do them. So, are we basically saying we can't do any true event dramas?

That's whay I've been thinking all along as well. I've historical-based movies (TV and theatre) and mini-series and every single one takes liberties with historical events. Some call it artistic license, editing or ratings grab. Why would this be any different? If 9/11-type movies do well in the ratings, why not come up something about what led up to it in addition to the events themselves? If you want a documentary, go to the History Channel. If you want dramatization and ratings, stick it on the networks.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

The line seems to be simply how many people you piss off. Dramatiziations only become controversial when an entire (or most of a) political party doesn't like the content. So I think you're right, complaining about this on the grounds of "fictional dramatization" seems pretty ridiculous.

Not really. People are stupid enough to actually believe this shit. Hell, people still think that Iraq had WMDs, Sadam had links to al-quadea, and Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Do not underestimate people's stupidity.

As mentioned earlier, this is different than other fictional dramatizations of things (like the Reagans or WW II or such), because this stuff still matters in politics today. It's the here and now and quite salient. Given the cloud of lies and deciet that has hung over the administration for years, it's completely appropriate to complain about this.

This administration has been engaging in "fictional dramatization" for years. We don't need any more of this from elsewhere.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

As mentioned earlier, this is different than other fictional dramatizations of things (like the Reagans or WW II or such), because this stuff still matters in politics today. It's the here and now and quite salient. Given the cloud of lies and deciet that has hung over the administration for years, it's completely appropriate to complain about this.

I see your concern, but I don't think there's an acceptable solution. Who gets to decide if something is politically relevant, and thus, off-limits for ficitional dramatizations - the Democrats? The Republicans? It's just dangerous territory. I'm more comfortable throwing everything out there, including the crap, and allowing our country to succeed or fail based on our principles. In America, the solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Those opposed to what they see should speak against it, but never use government power to try to suppress it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

I see your concern, but I don't think there's an acceptable solution. Who gets to decide if something is politically relevant, and thus, off-limits for ficitional dramatizations - the Democrats? The Republicans? It's just dangerous territory. I'm more comfortable throwing everything out there, including the crap, and allowing our country to succeed or fail based on our principles. In America, the solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Those opposed to what they see should speak against it, but never use government power to try to suppress it.

I agree. So long as it's made very clear up front, with disclaimers, etc., then I have no problem with it. I am not advocating censoring this thing, I was merely explaining as to why complaining about the contact was justified in this context as opposed to other "fictional dramatizations".

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I agree. So long as it's made very clear up front, with disclaimers, etc., then I have no problem with it.

I think they offered to do that, but the Dems turned it down.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I agree. So long as it's made very clear up front, with disclaimers, etc., then I have no problem with it. I am not advocating censoring this thing, I was merely explaining as to why complaining about the contact was justified in this context as opposed to other "fictional dramatizations".

But you really haven't. Every history-based fiction has a group upset by what is being protrayed. Even stuff that is not necessarily slanted upset people that do not want anything bad shown about their heroes, family, etc. This is not new or revolutionary. It is the nature of this type of film. If you disagree or question what is being protrayed, let your voice be known. But don't believe this crusade is any more justified than any other that has been done before. Heck, I doubt this docu-drama could hold a candle to the level of "fictionalized history" in any Oliver Stone film.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But you really haven't. Every history-based fiction has a group upset by what is being protrayed. Even stuff that is not necessarily slanted upset people that do not want anything bad shown about their heroes, family, etc. This is not new or revolutionary. It is the nature of this type of film. If you disagree or question what is being protrayed, let your voice be known. But don't believe this crusade is any more justified than any other that has been done before. Heck, I doubt this docu-drama could hold a candle to the level of "fictionalized history" in any Oliver Stone film.

Don't disparrage the Magic Bullet.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But you really haven't. Every history-based fiction has a group upset by what is being protrayed. Even stuff that is not necessarily slanted upset people that do not want anything bad shown about their heroes, family, etc. This is not new or revolutionary. It is the nature of this type of film. If you disagree or question what is being protrayed, let your voice be known. But don't believe this crusade is any more justified than any other that has been done before. Heck, I doubt this docu-drama could hold a candle to the level of "fictionalized history" in any Oliver Stone film.

I think I have. If you don't see it, well, so be it.

There's a big difference in, for example, a fictionalization of the recovery of the enigma device from the German sub in WW II, and a fictionalization of someone in the Clinton administration basically letting Osama Bin Laden go free without any thought.

The former may ruffle some feathers here and there about historical accuracy, but the latter could sway the way certain people vote in the up coming elections. Is that latter likely to happen? I would hope not, but it could. That's a much greater risk.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think I have. If you don't see it, well, so be it.

There's a big difference in, for example, a fictionalization of the recovery of the enigma device from the German sub in WW II, and a fictionalization of someone in the Clinton administration basically letting Osama Bin Laden go free without any thought.

The former may ruffle some feathers here and there about historical accuracy, but the latter could sway the way certain people vote in the up coming elections. Is that latter likely to happen? I would hope not, but it could. That's a much greater risk.

There is no difference to those who are concerned. If you don't see that, so be it.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

...
And now it's the Dems turn to rant rave and cry, and yes, apparently it's been made clear that should this "Docu-Drama" be aired, that if/when the Dems have power, ABC's license would be looked at...

However, when you threaten a broadcaster's LICENSE for something, you better have REAL concerns and not partisan issues, because that goes right to free speech and governmental censorship.....

The only thing I found remotely interesting about this topic was your claim that democrats have threatened to pull ABC's broadcast license if they air the program. It's an inflamatory charge, but I don't see any factual support for it. Perhaps you can clarify with specifics from a reliable source (i.e., not some nutcase's blog).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The only thing I found remotely interesting about this topic was your claim that democrats have threatened to pull ABC's broadcast license if they air the program. It's an inflamatory charge, but I don't see any factual support for it. Perhaps you can clarify with specifics from a reliable source (i.e., not some nutcase's blog).

I would have zero problem with that charge, if it turns out to be true. It's way past time the Democratics grew a sack.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There is no difference to those who are concerned. If you don't see that, so be it.

I'm less concerned about hurting people's feelings and more concerned about actual political impact.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I guess I'm just stupid, so someone please explain this to me. How is this any different than any other movie portraying historical events? Doesn't anyone who makes a history piece have to create conversations and sistuations that may not have happened basically because of storytelling and the fact that personal conversation are not exactly recorded? Every history-based drama I've ever seen has characters that might not exists, situations based on romours to basically move the story along, and conversatoins in one setting that were condense from what had to have been many conversations over a long period of time. I can't see any other way to do them. So, are we basically saying we can't do any true event dramas?

The problem isn't with making up conversations. The problem is when you make up conversations and scenes that go directly against what actually happened. The main complaint I've read is that the film includes things that, according to the 9-11 commission (which this film is supposed to be based on), never happened. And when you have members of the 9-11 commission and retired F.B.I. agents calling you out, then you know it's wrong.

Of course, we won't know if any of this stuff actually made it into the final edit of the film until it airs, but the fact that members of the Clinton administration weren't allowed to see the film and that plenty of conservatives (including Rush Limbaugh) did, raises some eyebrows.

Originally Posted by yabanci

The only thing I found remotely interesting about this topic was your claim that democrats have threatened to pull ABC's broadcast license if they air the program. It's an inflamatory charge, but I don't see any factual support for it. Perhaps you can clarify with specifics from a reliable source (i.e., not some nutcase's blog).

Producers said late Friday that they had finished making minor edits to "The Path to 9/11" amid a firestorm of protests from leading Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who warned that telecasting "right-wing political propaganda" might violate the terms of ABC's government-mandated broadcast license.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et...home-headlines

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Don't disparrage the Magic Bullet.

Back, and to the left.

Back, and to the left.

Back, and to the left.




Back, and to the left.








Back, and to the left.











Back, and to the left.

[Maple Leafs]

Apparently the Dems may get their wise thanks to... President Bush.

He wants to do a primetime address to the nation on Monday which would pre-empt part two of the mini-series if ABC carries it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Back, and to the left.

Back, and to the left.

See. Now that's what I'm talking about.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

The problem isn't with making up conversations. The problem is when you make up conversations and scenes that go directly against what actually happened. The main complaint I've read is that the film includes things that, according to the 9-11 commission (which this film is supposed to be based on), never happened. And when you have members of the 9-11 commission and retired F.B.I. agents calling you out, then you know it's wrong.

And I'm not arguing that it is right. I'm saying in historic drama is going to contain some level of fiction, whether it be conversations, actions, etc. The Clinton administration actions in questioned have been long rumored, and to those who chose to believe it, they have not been completely de-bunked. The filmmakers choose to believe it did happen. Just as other film makers choose to believe the CIA killed Marilyn Monroe, or the defense contractors killed JFK.

We are treading very dangerous ground when we demand only those political views we agree with can be aired, and those we don't must be pulled. As someone else has stated, free speech should only be combated with more free speech, not threats to pull licenses and such.

[Buccaneer]

I agree with GD. How would you do a movie about the path to 9/11 that includes the intelligence failures during the 1990s?