Disney's Dubious Path to 9/11

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Sub la Goon

Moore's agenda is right out there in plain sight and doesn't have the reek of state-sponsored propaganda.

So if some unpaid republican political operative sponsored this you would be OK with it? It's just because it's going on ABC? What's the difference between the guy who's producing it and Michael Moore?

I will, however, agree that that the angle of getting schools into it is wrong.

[scaeagles]

Moonliner, while I can respect that, are you suggesting that should Republican leaders have put intense pressure on anyone involved with Fahrenheit 911 to pull it that you would be OK with it?

Opinions by political leaders are certainly fine. Do you suppose it might influence their policy? I ask that only because whenever a poitical leader has strong religious convictions, often times just having them is said to influence their decision making.

Maybe you would be fine with that. Without talking about bias or facts, I would suggest, however, that if republican leadership in government had been so vocally adament about their opposition to Fahrenheit 911 they would be accused of attempts at censorship, using their political influence to have the movie eliminated from various venues, and/or attempting to hide something.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Moonliner, while I can respect that, are you suggesting that should Republican leaders have put intense pressure on anyone involved with Fahrenheit 911 to pull it that you would be OK with it?

Opinions by political leaders are certainly fine. Do you suppose it might influence their policy? I ask that only because whenever a poitical leader has strong religious convictions, often times just having them is said to influence their decision making.

Maybe you would be fine with that. Without talking about bias or facts, I would suggest, however, that if republican leadership in government had been so vocally adament about their opposition to Fahrenheit 911 they would be accused of attempts at censorship, using their political influence to have the movie eliminated from various venues, and/or attempting to hide something.

It's gray. If the ABC film was about Monica and the Democratic power brokers leaned on broadcasters that would be one thing but since the subject matter is 9/11 I feel differently. This is a subject that calls for the highest respect and historical accuracy. So in this case I say, yes bring all the pressure you can. In other cases? I say keep your dirty fingers off artistic integrity. It's gray.

[scaeagles]

Well, you're honest Moonliner. You are willing to accept government influence and pressure on broadcast companies when you think the subject matter calls for it. Who defines what the subject matter is that the government should be allowed to censor?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, you're honest Moonliner. You are willing to accept government influence and pressure on broadcast companies when you think the subject matter calls for it. Who defines what the subject matter is that the government should be allowed to censor?

I still don't see what has happened in this case (unless I'm missing something) that counts as government influence. There was a lot of the same type of "influence" used against fahrenheit 911 and it was ignored. Can you be more specific about what happened in this case that you feel constitutes undue influence? Was the FCC involved? Did the FBI raid ABC? What am I missing? All I see is ABC being guilted into doing the right thing.

[mousepod]

Here's where I see the difference between this movie and Michael Moore's flicks: Moore's movies debuted in theaters - this movie debuts on broadcast television. Broadcast television is still theoretically the domain of the people - that's why the FCC can do stupid things like fine broadcasters for saying "dirty" things.

I have three basic problems with the current situation:
- It's on broadcast television.
- It's being presented by "ABC News" - implying that the "docu" part of docudrama is more legit than it apparently is.
- The timing is incredibly suspect.

Scaeagles, how did you feel about the Reagan movie that was pulled from broadcast on CBS due to conservative pressure?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Scaeagles, how did you feel about the Reagan movie that was pulled from broadcast on CBS due to conservative pressure?

Originally Posted by Scaeagles

Most posters here are quite intelligent (though I would also claim many are misguided ). Sorry to say, but i don't think the general population is. The problem with making up stories about real people that actually existed is that the less than brilliant will think it is true. I would be willing to bet that all 25% mentioned in the poll would believe that Reagan actually said "they that live in sin shall die in sin" or whatever the exact movie quote is, as well as the other offensive and unfactual references and comments are in the miniseries.

Protests happen all the time. Rush Limbaugh was the spokesman for Florida OJ for a bit, but NOW protested so vocally, even though they were small in numbers, and applied pressure to have him removed.

Let's say a miniseries is created about Clinton. In that miniseries he is portrayed as not having a relationship with Monica L, but applying the power of his office to pressure her into doing what she doesn't want to do or maybe actually raping her. Though I am not a Clinton fan by ANY means, I would find that offensive because it is simply historical revisionism, not artistic license, and should not be broadcast, for the same reason that a story about that shouldn't be printed in a local newspaper.

Artistic license does not entitle the artist in question to make up stories about the subject because they could imagine it happening.

Personally, I think CBS pulled it because of liability issues. I believe Showtime will not run it for the same reason. The Reagan family and his loyal former staff and cabinet members would surely not allow this slander to go unchallanged. I may not understand all of the legal issues involved in slander, but as I understand it, if you print something about someone you know is not true you are liable for damages. I don't think the National Enquirer knows certain stories they have been sued for are not true, but they haved been sued successfully when they have had no evidence to back up their stories.

CBS felt the public pressure, too, sure. But that is OK. You can say what you want to in this country, but must be prepared to pay the price. CBS apparently did not want to pay it. It is not censorship

Note: I added the bolding. Link

[wendybeth]

Moonliner!!!!!!
(Sorry, Scaeagles- we love ya, but even you have to admit this is good).

[Scrooge McSam]

IOKIYAR

[sleepyjeff]

I can't dispute that.