Differences

[erynthered]

There does, however, seem to be cause to blame the guy for being a political shill...or even more, a party hack, who should be subject to the same fiscal restrictions as any other party hack.

 

Tough to level the same charge against ABC...possible (I do it.  ABC Family does, after all, air Pat Robertson's nonsense).  But difficult.

766184[/snapback]

 

 

Your bags have arrived. Just thought I'd let you know.........

[UConn James]

There does, however, seem to be cause to blame the guy for being a political shill...or even more, a party hack, who should be subject to the same fiscal restrictions as any other party hack.

 

Tough to level the same charge against ABC...possible (I do it.  ABC Family does, after all, air Pat Robertson's nonsense).  But difficult.

766184[/snapback]

 

I don't see how such "fiscal restrictions" sh/w/could be implemented, for the same reason that you can't stop the NRA from telling people to support gun rights and vote for pro-gun candidates (essentially, 'Vote Republican!'). Note: not bashing the NRA. I'm a Life Member.

 

At such a macro level and w/o direct financial support under the election donation laws, how does that not infringe on the 1st? Call him a shill, fine. But what he does is no different than any other political commentator (only he does it 2 hours at a time) --- trying to sway the public to see things from his viewpoint. Should there be financial restrictions on George Will?

[/dev/null]

Anyone notice that "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" is played around Christmas time? And it happens every year!?!?   

 

Uhm, when your work is sending an inherently political message, it only makes sense. You're blaming a guy for wanting his work to have the most impact?

766175[/snapback]

No I'm blaming the guy for misrepresenting what he really is.

 

He's not a documantary filmmaker. He's a propagandist

[UConn James]

No I'm blaming the guy for misrepresenting what he really is.

 

He's not a documantary filmmaker.  He's a propagandist

766205[/snapback]

 

If you asked for a show of hands for who thinks MM is an impartial documentarist, George W Bush could count that high with his shoes on and zipper up.

 

This is like accusing BlueFire of misrepresenting that he's a UTexas fan.

[/dev/null]

If you asked for a show of hands for who thinks MM is an impartial documentarist, George W Bush could count that high with his shoes on and zipper up.

766213[/snapback]

 

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

 

i know we sometimes question each other's intelligence on PPP, but for the most part we are informed citizens. although we may resort to childish name calling sometimes, we are all adults who think for ourselves.

 

The rest of the American electorate? well i've met some assclowns who think MM is a hard nosed journalist exposing stuff others are afraid to report.

 

Then I tell them I think MM looks like Peter from Family Guy. Then they laugh and say something about the balls on his chin.

 

I almost want to offer them a HotPocket®

[The Avenger]

Can someone explain the difference to me?

 

When Michael Moore put out his movie that clearly contained half truths, intentionally misleading segments and allegations along with dubious conclusions, Republicans complained and Democrats were either silent or supportive.

 

Now ABC is planning on a movie that supposedly shows either (or both) misleading notions/false premises and the Republicans are silent while Democrats complain and have active members of the Senate making overt threats to ABC and strongly suggesting they pull the plug on the movie.

765931[/snapback]

 

I'll tell you the difference.

 

The difference is you know what you are getting with Michael Moore. If you walk into one of his movies and expect it to paint a flattering picture of Bush and the right you're just plain stupid. Regardless, Moore can make any movie he wants if he goes and gets the funding and also the distribution (something Disney did not want to distribute so he had to go with a smaller distributor in the 11th hour).

 

Now look at what ABC is doing. I believe one would reasonably expect that a major broadcast network, doing a miniseries "based on tehhe 9/11 Commission Report" would try and show some balance and would indeed research the facts (or at least make sure that they agreed with the 9/11 Commission Report). You would expect that a major television network would screen the film to both the left and the right, not just the right. You would expect that if there was any question about what happened they would make an attempt to contact those individuals portrayed in the movie (it's not like they're dead historical figures). You would expect that as a licensed FCC broadcaster who uses public airwaves they would need to strive to be unbiased (something Michael Moore doesn't have to do).

 

That's the difference - you know what you're getting with Moore, you don't with ABC and ABC owes more to the American public to be forthright and unbiased.

[Kelly the Dog]

Speaking of Moore, I saw somewhere that the assclown is coming out with 2 new "documentaries".  One about health insurance and the other about the slackers who cost john kerry the 2004 election

 

anyone notice his movies seem to come out around election time?

766017[/snapback]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in June.

[/dev/null]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in June.

766350[/snapback]

june of a presidential election year

[OGTEleven]

No kidding?  Did some minority Senators actually threaten ABC with that?  Hadn't heard it.

 

If so, it ought to be an impeachable offense.  That's as clear-cut a First Amendment violation as you'll ever see.

766162[/snapback]

Schumer (I'm sure you're shocked) and some other free speech champion. I don't have a link. Heard it on the radio.

 

Even if there was no threat, to me it seems inappropriate for a Senator to publicly state that something should be pulled/altered. I think it is fine to have political hacks spin all day long about the meaning/intent; but to have a Senator threaten action or even offer an opinion on what should/shouldn't be aired is not kosher with me.

[OGTEleven]

You would expect that as a licensed FCC broadcaster who uses public airwaves they would need to strive to be unbiased (something Michael Moore doesn't have to do).

 

That's the difference - you know what you're getting with Moore, you don't with ABC and ABC owes more to the American public to be forthright and unbiased.

766284[/snapback]

You mean like the unbiased reporting Dan Rather did with the Bush/Army story?

 

Did any Republican Senator call for strong arming Rather with the FCC?

 

Doesn't Dan Rather owe it to the American public to be forthright an unbiased?

 

The answer is no. No private entity owes it to the American public to be forthright and unbiased. In the perfect world, viewers would vote with their feet if a network or other outlet was biased. News Flash: They largely have.

 

The people that need to be forthright an unbiased, when it comes to the constitution, are elected officials. Their opinions on whether something should be allowed to air should not sway in the direction of the "bias". If this movie dramatizes Condi Rice being culpable (which it reportedly does), shouldn't Schumer be forthright and unbiased in his outrage about that too?

 

IMO, US Senators owe more to free speech than they owe to how their party is portrayed in a movie that will air while most people watch football, but hey whatever.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I think they all just engage in petty pissing contests.  Not trying to sound like a smartass, but I think that's exactly what happened.

 

And I think GW Bush and Clinton both deserve a considerable amount of blame for 9/11.

766065[/snapback]

 

 

Totally agree here... That is the point I was trying to make...

 

Of course in a race to measure the dumbasses:

 

Bubba>W

 

[/dev/null]

Totally agree here... That is the point I was trying to make...

 

Of course in a race to measure the dumbasses:

 

Bubba>W

 

 

766606[/snapback]

 

IMO both GWB and BC were/are piss poor crappy presidents. But at least the Clinton Presidency had some entertaining moments, the GW Bush Presidency has just been depressing

[ExiledInIllinois]

IMO both GWB and BC were/are piss poor crappy presidents.  But at least the Clinton Presidency had some entertaining moments, the GW Bush Presidency has just been depressing

766634[/snapback]

 

 

See, I knew you would come around!

 

[The Avenger]

You mean like the unbiased reporting Dan Rather did with the Bush/Army story? 

 

Did any Republican Senator call for strong arming Rather with the FCC?

 

Doesn't Dan Rather owe it to the American public to be forthright an unbiased?

 

The answer is no.  No private entity owes it to the American public to be forthright and unbiased.  In the perfect world, viewers would vote with their feet if a network or other outlet was biased.  News Flash: They largely have.

 

The people that need to be forthright an unbiased, when it comes to the constitution, are elected officials.  Their opinions on whether something should be allowed to air should not sway in the direction of the "bias".  If this movie dramatizes Condi Rice being culpable (which it reportedly does), shouldn't Schumer be forthright and unbiased in his outrage about that too?  

 

IMO, US Senators owe more to free speech than they owe to how their party is portrayed in a movie that will air while most people watch football, but hey whatever.

766579[/snapback]

 

It's not the place of politicians to police what a network like ABC airs or doesn't air.

 

Rather did a bad story and paid the price for it - you'll notice that he's no longer in the anchor seat and had a faily acrimonious departure from the network (they told him he's still have an office but wouldn't commit to giving him any responsibilities).

 

You may say that no private entity has the responsibility to be unbiased. The media, particularly the nationwide broadcast networks, have tremendous power to how we see the world - this is why there is some governmental oversight. Taking a strictly free market approach to the public airwaves would allow the networks to show whatever they want, whenevr they want - my guess is there would be a whole heck of a lot more sex, violence, profanity, etc. if that's what brought viewers in and jacked up ad revenues (my guess is that it would). If the media is going to be biased they do owe us disclosure about their bias - I believe that is a fundamental cost they have for using the public airwaves.

 

In any event, even in a completely unregulated system, it behooves the networks to present some balance in how they bring us the world. I'm not going to watch ABC News if I feel that they are heavily biased one way or the other, or not telling me the whole story, or worse yet - simply making up fact and not telling me.

 

The presumption that the networks want us to have is that they are, for the most part, unbiased (if you're a conservative this is where yoy start screaming about "liberal bias" in the media - I'm not even going to get into that).

 

I don't really care whether a network shows somethings that's biased or not - it's their right to air what they want. I do have a tremendous issue with a network airing something that is biased and not owning up to that bias and trying to present things that didn't happen (and demonstrably didn't happen) as fact.

 

This is not a free speech issue - this is a disclosure issue. If a network entrusted by the FCC to use public airwaves is going to say that something is "based on the 9/11 Commission report" and choose to show fiction and/or bias instead, they need to have full disclosure about it. Simply changing your statement to "based in part on the 9/11 Commission Report" isn't enough, in my mind.

[blzrul]

Can someone explain the difference to me?

 

When Michael Moore put out his movie that clearly contained half truths, intentionally misleading segments and allegations along with dubious conclusions, Republicans complained and Democrats were either silent or supportive.

 

Now ABC is planning on a movie that supposedly shows either (or both) misleading notions/false premises and the Republicans are silent while Democrats complain and have active members of the Senate making overt threats to ABC and strongly suggesting they pull the plug on the movie.

765931[/snapback]

Does "The Reagans" ring a bell? The Repigs set the precedent.

[/dev/null]

Does "The Reagans" ring a bell?  The Repigs set the precedent.

769460[/snapback]

If memory serves, "The Reagans" was more about the personal lives of Ronald and Nancy. A negative fictional story about a real person's personal life is borderline slander IMO. Could you imagine the uproar over such a movie about Clinton's personal life?

[KRC]

Does "The Reagans" ring a bell?  The Repigs set the precedent.

769460[/snapback]

 

Michael Moore was before that. Nice try, though.

[The Avenger]

If memory serves, "The Reagans" was more about the personal lives of Ronald and Nancy.  A negative fictional story about a real person's personal life is borderline slander IMO.  Could you imagine the uproar over such a movie about Clinton's personal life?

769496[/snapback]

 

Is it slander to lay blame for 9/11 at the feet of several people based on "fact" when there is demonstrable proof that such "fact" is indeed fiction? I'd say that's slander.

 

BTW - I do agree that it was slanderous to invent conversations between the Reagans, especially since you could have verified your work from living primary sources.

[GG]

... and no reviews from people who saw the first episode?

 

I though it was fairly apolitical. Part 1 starts with the first WTC bombing and ends in 1999. Obviously, Clinton officials get the brunt in part 1 for underestimating OBL. I'm guessing patr 2 will hammer Bush officials.

 

The storyline is fixed with painting the FBI & CIA foot soldiers as the heros, and nailing top administration officials for worrying more about their careers than doing what's best.

 

Overall, I thought it was gripping (but as a hindsight docudrama, it should be)

[Chilly]

Can someone explain the difference to me?

 

When Michael Moore put out his movie that clearly contained half truths, intentionally misleading segments and allegations along with dubious conclusions, Republicans complained and Democrats were either silent or supportive.

 

Now ABC is planning on a movie that supposedly shows either (or both) misleading notions/false premises and the Republicans are silent while Democrats complain and have active members of the Senate making overt threats to ABC and strongly suggesting they pull the plug on the movie.

765931[/snapback]

 

There is no difference.

 

People support what supports them, people will threaten what threatens them.