On Sunday 9/10, ABC will broadcast a "docudrama" about the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Already it has been proven beyond a doubt that this is nothing more than right wing lies and propaganda disguised as news and fact.
Why would anyone need to do a "docudrama" about the most covered news story in history?
'
So then we'll just limit the rights of free speach and or try to censor this film?? Utter Democratic Leadership hypocracy! You can rent Farenheit 911 for $3.95 at Blockbuster (propaganda) but god forbid the opposing side wants to present their views? Screw the left and their Fascist COntrol Mindset.
HOW UN^&@%^&#AMERICAN!
DON'T TELL ME WHAT I MAY OR MAY NOT WATCH, SEE, READ OR LISTEN TOO!
Don't want to watch this movie ....
try another channel.
Want to limit free speach...
KISS MY ASS!
Activity + Opportunity = Success
There is no "right" to put words in someones mouth. That is called slander and libel.
Seems the right wing was all for censorship when there were bad things to be said about Reagan.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609090004
From the September 6 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: Right now in Scarborough Country: Blame Clinton. The ABC 9-11 docudrama that has Democrats demanding censorship from Disney. Does this movie rewrite history, like an NBC terror analyst says it does? And why won't they let the Clinton cabinet get a sneak peek of this movie?
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: But first, more fallout from ABC's upcoming miniseries, The Path to 9/11. Now, Democrats are blasting this docudrama, calling it biased and inaccurate for suggesting that Bill Clinton passed up chances to take out Osama bin Laden. Today, House Democrats defended the former president, calling on ABC president Bob Iger to censor offending parts of the miniseries, saying in a letter that, "September 11 is a day of mourning. We do not believe it is appropriate for it to be tainted by false assertions or blame or partisan spin." ABC accused of partisan spin? The shock!
From the November 5, 2003, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: Liberals from Manhattan to Hollywood have been bashing CBS for axing their hit piece of the Reagans, but they're angriest attacks have been reserved for commentators, such as myself, who believe this cruel parody of Ronald Reagan was simply not ready for prime time. Hollywood's leading liberal, Barbara Streisand, today called CBS's decision a sad day for free speech.
And The New York Times was apparently so angry at the turn of events yesterday that they compared conservatives to Soviet Communists, spewing forth this vitriol in their editorial, quote: "The former president is certainly a suitable subject for public debate. His supporters credit him with forcing down the Iron Curtain, so it is odd that some of them have helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we as a nation will not allow critical portrayals of one of our recent leaders."
Soviet-style chill? This isn't about Soviet censorship. This is about Jeffersonian democracy.
The Reagan miniseries script, the casting, and the CBS movie have been debated freely and openly in what Thomas Jefferson called the free marketplace of ideas, and Americans picked Ronald Reagan over Hollywood. It's that plain. It's that simple.
From the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
E.D. HILL (co-host): When you take a look at this final version, do you think that it comes out fairly accurately, if not the specific, you know, details -- all them factually correct. Do you get the basic idea?
BOZELL: Yeah. I mean, here's my analysis of it. Perhaps two percent of it was wrong. Perhaps two percent of it is debatable. Look, the 9-11 Commission report is not biblical truth. People from the Bush administration and the Clinton administration have taken exception to some of the findings of the commission. So that will be debated no matter how the movie comes out. But what does that leave you with? That leaves you with about 96 percent of the movie that's accurate, and that no one is disputing. It is sobering. It is frightening, and I think it's disgraceful that people are playing politics with this in the Clinton camp. Look, this movie goes after George Bush too, and you don't see the Bush people whining.
From a November 5, 2003, CBS News article:
Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech. "There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."
Well, the elections, you know...we've all seen where a totally Republican Washington gets us--huge deficits, war, loss of credibility by the world, but they're still most afraid they'll lose the power.
Strange how it's free speech for them but not for the other guy.
Huh.Originally Posted by speaker
Which side are you arguing?
Bush administration officials did not write letters to try and stop the production and showing of Faranheit 451.
But Democratic fascists have done this to ABC.
Time to crank this up.
Truth springs from argument among friends.
Exactly which part of my post did you construe as an address to Fahrenheit 451?
Which side do you think I'm on--?
FYO--I'm on the side of truth and justice.
Shouldn't you be complaining that this Disney production is being put on TV for free instead of being rented for $3.95 a pop at Blockbuster.
Anyone out there know why Blockbuster is not being allowed to rent this movie, and why someone is forcing Disney to put it on free TV instead?
Doesn't seem right that Fahrenheit 911 has an advantage the Disney 911 story doesn't. Damn Democratic censors!!!!!
Yeah, the unbiased Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 story was a piece of outstanding Journalism, fair and balanced too.
I saw today that Clinton got the docu-drama edited for inaccuracy and there is a question now of whether ABC is going to show it or not. I wonder if the Bush administration could have done the same with some of the stuff that is out there that is far left.
I agree if you are going to do a docu-drama, it should be accurate and truthful, but we all know that Hollywood takes "liberal interpretation" with the facts to make a good story, no matter what the subject material is.
But one thing to remember, Al-Qaida plans and carefully organizes their operations after much reconnaissance and intelligence gathering. The attack on the WTC was in the works for far longer than the 9 months that Bush had been in the White House. Osama had stated in a number of speeches that the US would respond as they did during the Clinton administration and that would be to fire a few missiles and call it even. I guess he didn't expect to be living in a cave for the next few years.
There is enough blame to go around and IF you really read the 9/11 Commission Report, you would know that is the case. So if there is to be a docu-drama, it should be accurate, based on facts and let the chips fall where they may.
There is nothing in farenheit 911 that didn't happen, there are no words attributed to any person that cannot be verified thru independent means. The interpetation of WHY the Bu****es did what they did is just that, an interpetation. Bush sat a read My Pet Goat for 8 minutes while the nation was under attack. Why? Was he waiting for security to get lined up for his escape under possible fire? Did he want to maintain a venier of calm during a crises? Was it because he was not surprised because they planned the entire thing? Is he just a moron? These are all possible interpetations.
The Path to 911 put words and actions into living historical figures mouths that never happened. That is NOT interpetation, it is libel and slander.
Just like a leftie Dem to leave off "...and the American way."
Truth springs from argument among friends.
A docu-drama can invent scenes in order to tell a true story or to lie.
Consider two scenes which could be in a docu-drama, both completely contrived.
In the first President Bush is shown mangling the English language in some innocuous political speech. While the speech might be invented, truth and history would not be distorted.
Suppose in another scene that we see Bush and Rummy giddy with delight that the Twin Towers had just been hit, just like intelligence said they would be, and telling each other how the neo-con cabal controlling our foreign policy would be able to manipulate public opinion and get approval to invade Iraq, just like they had wanted to from the beginning. Chaney sits quietly to one side with an evil grin.
That second scene could be invented to move the narrative forward just like the first one, but that scene would be a manipulative distortion of our history and a slander of those who were being portrayed. It would be an unobvious lie meant to affect the political decisions of the audience
Or would it be? Well, that’s another question.
Why, indeed?
Why would we need to educate the American citizenry about the events that made such an outrageous act possible?
Why would anyone need to know about the numerous previous attacks on Americans that went without retribution.
That the lack of retribution portrayed America as weak and susceptible to increasingly more violent attacks.
That those charged with protecting America in the nineties were more concerned with America's image in the eyes of even weaker European allies and the overpaid, third-world civil servants who populate the United Nations.
Why would we need a docu-drama that the proves the addage of one Democratic President that "aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed."?
But the real question is, why didn't ABC release this during the last week in October?
Truth springs from argument among friends.
Answer me this. Did Michael Moore's film appear on national commerical television? Namely, ABC, CNN, NBC, FOX, UPN, WBS, TNT, etc?
And if it didn't, who do you think kept it off?
The mere concept of a docudrama is unimaginative bull****.
Both, Democrats and Republicans, cry foul when stories are fictionalized to make them look bad.
So, at the end of the day,, it has NOTHING to do w/ liberal, conservatives, democrats, or republicans.
Let's suppose I decided to start filming a docudrama about Bucky Philips. I'd use 90% fact, but I'd also have him volunteering at an orphanage while he's on the lam, portraying him to be a great guy. Would NYS Troopers be outraged? Of course, they would. As would most sensible, law-abiding people.
Should that mean that my film can't be shown? No.
The point is, stop feeding into the media frenzy that labels this as a policitically divisive issue. You people are all much too gullible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote