Did Senate Democratic Leadership Just Threaten ABC?

[Velociryx]

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=-

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, MrFun's point is that the Democrats are doing it, so it's completely OK.

[Velociryx]

*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=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If it can be proven that it has been funded via some party mouthpiece group and that the so called distortions are not in fact supported by other evidence to the contrary then yes by all means the allegation that his is some partisan piece holds water. I still think however governmental requests for censure even in these cases are over the top.

One can't even invoke McCain Feingold legislation here as no one in this miniseries is running for office. This describes the legacy of Clinton and sitting President Bush not current prospective Senators and Congressman.

[Odin]

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

Mr. Fun:

[Elok]

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

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.

[Velociryx]

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=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx


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=-

Bringing to light is one thing and to that and the quotes and sources they put into the letter, fine. Making an official request to have it pulled is a completley different kettle of lobsters.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Nixon

[Velociryx]

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=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Whats missing in this equation is that copies were prereleased to hollywood crowd and found offensive by Clinton, Berger and others. They (ABC) were requested to edit some innaccuracies which they supposedly are already doing. Those in particular are what Imran references namely some dramatic license comments.

What will eventually comeout is that the end product will differ in some form from the prereleased copies (assuming ABC has the cahoneys to air the program and with the controversy they are pretty much ensured of ratings so very likely they will). Expect controversy from the nature of the edits but the actual events themselves are supposedly backed with either Comission report evidence or additional witness evidence.

The minseries is supposedly not friendly to either Clinton or Bush. Which if true probably fits me just fine as I am no big fan of either. At this point my interest is piqued and I want to see it for myself.

[Velociryx]

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=-

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun
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?

american soldiers were barbarians. It's part of being a soldier.

[Dis]

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.