Did Senate Democratic Leadership Just Threaten ABC?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
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...

Bingo... and a lot of people will think its all true, because people are dumb.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'ld be extremely surprised at this point if ABC doesn't put out the standard boilerplate "Based upon blah blah blah some parts have been blah blah blah for dramatic effect" screen shots at the begining and end.

[Velociryx]

Kuci - Nope. Not even a little.

Then again, the Davinci Code wasn't advertised as the "truth" or even as a "docudrama"...it was and is considered FICTION, first and foremost.

What I'm leery about is that this is NOT being billed as fiction first and foremost. Docudrama is its own category...some fiction, but mostly fact.

That puts it in a distinictly different category from Dan Brown's work of fiction, does it not?

Further, to my knowledge, there are, were, and have been no plans made to use the movie "Davinci Code" as a teaching tool....I'm willing to be wrong on this point...perhaps there are? If so, I have not seen them.

Nor are any of the major players still alive today (there are claims by Christians that Jesus is "coming back" but he ain't here yet, and so, we can't ask him)....we can, however, confer with any number of primary players in THIS drama...ask them to see if it's accurate or not.

Looks like early reports are...not.

So there are questions.

Fair questions, I'd say.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What about Michael Moore's stuff?

I was gonna go there but decided that was too easy. Plus was it shown on national TV?

[Kuciwalker]

Then again, the Davinci Code wasn't advertised as the "truth" or even as a "docudrama"...it was and is considered FICTION, first and foremost.

Bull****. Brown said at the beginning that all of the "facts" in the book were true.

[Velociryx]

Regarding Michael Moore...I agree...I was P*SSED (and for the same reasons) when his film was shown as a "documentary."

And to make matters worse, he shot himself in the foot when he mysteriously refused to accept the award for "best documentary of the year."

I think that spoke VOLUMES about the film, but again, it was after the fact. How many people were still tuned in by then (who had seen the film previously). 1%? 2%? If that?



-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

What I'm leery about is that this is NOT being billed as fiction first and foremost. Docudrama is its own category...some fiction, but mostly fact.

Isn't that what we've got? Mostly fact, with a few fictional elements people are complaining about?

[Velociryx]

Bull****. Brown said at the beginning that all of the "facts" in the book were true.

Go to the local library.

Look the book up.

When you do...tell me, what category is it listed under?

Defense rests.

Fiction.

Anything that follows MUST BE taken with a grain of salt.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Isn't that what we've got? Mostly fact, with a few fictional elements people are complaining about?

No...from the opening post, I gathered that there were plans afoot to use the film as a teaching tool.

That point has been one of the major ones I've been keyed in on from the start. And the fact that we've not gotten any info (at least not on this thread) about what is being refuted. No copies of the script, no indication of what, or how much is being called into question....so no...at this point, I do not think it's safe to say that it's mostly fact with a few elements being called into question. Perhaps that will turn out to be the case, but based on the information so far...I couldn't say. Script?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
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!)

Accuracy points aside and I think most people should know that any historical recreation is by its very nature a flawed innacurate depiction of events. For example just saw United 93 last night on A&E. Great film but I'm sure its only about 80% accurate despite pains taken to be as true as possible to the facts. Even were this labeled as fiction, Kuci's point remains despite what is said people will believe what they will. Yes I know Dan Browns work was classified as fiction and yet it got a LOT of traction out there that people beleived every nuance was true. You can't do anything about that no matter how hard you disclaim the piece as long as there are inidications that the piece is based upon historical events.

All that being said my original point remains under no circumstances am I comfortable with governmental officials acting in their official capacity requesting censorship of political speech. A very few exceptions might exist in the event that doing so is in the best interests of national security to prevent harm and death to its citizenry but those need to be understood by both parties.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I agree....even when something is billed as a work of fiction, it can still be interpreted as truth.

My big beef is....given that, if you START by calling it "truth" or a "docudrama" and you know it's got lots of glaring errors in it (people quitting over its inaccuracies? If true, that would raise further serious questions), then you get an even greater impact than if you just bill it as fiction from the start.

As to the Dems handling of it so far....sleezy, to be sure...a request to delay its showing until certain questions could be answered would be one thing, but then, as you mentioned later, the station is ALREADY addressing the concerns, which would seem to render the Dem's actions unnecessary....right hand not talking to the left? Or another classic Dem blunder? I'm not sure, but in any case, it certainly wasn't the best way they could have chosen to handle it.

However, the Dems have about as much power in Congress right now as I do, so the chances that anything substantive will come of it (especially if the "docudrama" shows Repugs in a favorable light) is slim to none....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

and I never saw Flight 93, but was curious...how was it?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

What I'm leery about is that this is NOT being billed as fiction first and foremost. Docudrama is its own category...some fiction, but mostly fact.

Isn't that what we've got? Mostly fact, with a few fictional elements people are complaining about?

From what I understand yes. And whats more its from people no longer in power and people that never will be. Clinton is ex, Berger has completley disgraced and discredited himself with his grabby pants act, leaving Clarke who supposedly by and large is lionized but likewise probably will never serve in public office again.

I don't see where this is a compelling issue for the Dems that they feel the need to strongarm ABC. I say this at least hearing that Bush and his crony buffoons were likewise lambasted.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
and I never saw Flight 93, but was curious...how was it?

-=Vel=-

Moving. The terrorist guys were pretty much cookie cutter 1 dimensional guys. They did a pretty good job with the passengers.

This is one I would recommend to classrooms old enough to handle the content despite its dramatic and maybe not so accurate elements.

[Velociryx]

I heard good things about it, and that, coupled with your recommendation, puts it high on the list!

-=Vel=-