Did Senate Democratic Leadership Just Threaten ABC?

[Velociryx]

the movie is not portraying itself as an accurate portrayal.

I'm getting this impression.

My next question is...what, precisely, do they plan to "teach" with it? Propaganda 101? True Lies? I'm not sure I get it...fiction to teach...what? Fact? Most confusing. Again, I'm curious to know more.

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

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.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I agree....but early on in the discussion (and the letter) there was a comment that the program was meant to be used as a type of teaching tool.

My question is...if it is being labelled fiction...what exactly is it to be used to teach?

-=Vel=-

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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...

[MrFun]

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.

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?

[MrFun]

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

[mactbone]

CAJONES

Where exactly is the "official threat?"

Does this mean that nobody in the governement can express displeasure because it's an official threat of censure? Meaning, words speak louder than actions? Are there any motions about this, praising, denigrating or otherwise? I just don't see what the big deal is. Some democrats are pissed off at this and want it shut down. I don't see any actual threat in thins. Even if the dems said "Cancel this or we'll revoke your license," it's an empty threat since they have no power.

[MrFun]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dis
the movie is not portraying itself as an accurate portrayal.

http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/about.html

ABC will present "The Path to 9/11," a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.

Sounds like it basically is, or, at the very least, enough so that people who watch it will think it is an accurate portrayal unless they decide to actually dig deeper.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/about.html

ABC will present "The Path to 9/11," a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.

Sounds like it basically is, or, at the very least, enough so that people who watch it will think it is an accurate portrayal unless they decide to actually dig deeper.

So let it air and those parts that are found to be innacurate by Clinton admin members be cited so that ABC can produce either Commission report or their 'other sources'. Far better than governmental censorship.


You know kinna like CBS and the Bush national guard memos. Seriously, far better for this stuff to be aired and then seriously scrutinized then never talked about.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by mactbone
CAJONES

Where exactly is the "official threat?"

Does this mean that nobody in the governement can express displeasure because it's an official threat of censure? Meaning, words speak louder than actions? Are there any motions about this, praising, denigrating or otherwise? I just don't see what the big deal is. Some democrats are pissed off at this and want it shut down. I don't see any actual threat in thins. Even if the dems said "Cancel this or we'll revoke your license," it's an empty threat since they have no power.

Of course they have no power and its meaningless prattle ......... for NOW.

The point being is they feel pretty damn full of themselves that won't be the case inthe future.

[Velociryx]

So let it air and those parts that are found to be innacurate by Clinton admin members be cited so that ABC can produce either Commission report or their 'other sources'. Far better than governmental censorship.

I like this idea. The only thing I would be leery of is this:

Let us say, for the moment, that there ARE glaring inaccuracies in the work, and that when it's aired, it is billed as a docudrama....some fiction, but mostly fact, right?

With no particular accounting of which parts are which.

Now it's gonna be widely watched, true? I mean, me and you weren't even interested until today, and now we're both prolly gonna tune in...so big ratings thing, no doubt.

But of the viewing public that watches...what percentage will bother to go check around to see which parts of what they just saw were true, and which parts are being refuted?

1%?

2%?

Meanwhile, all the glaring errors are out there in the social consciousness, being accepted as gospel.

I'd not want that to happen no matter which party was in power....that's just bad news.

I'd be much more inclined to think nothing of it if the show was announced as a work of fiction first and foremost, but as I understand it, that's not what they're doing.

-=Vel=-
(or...is my understaning wrong?--and it may well be!)

[Kuciwalker]

Vel, MrFun, are you pissed off about The Da Vinci Code?

[Kuciwalker]

What about Michael Moore's stuff?