LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707869/

Isn't this just the prequel to Fahrenheit 911?

They loved that "documentary". At least ABC admits that this is a dramatization.

After all, ABC had to fill in the blanks for the information that Sandy Berger stuffed down his pants.

I've been searching for words on this and peterwho came through in my time of need.

This seems similar to the Regan Mini Series that was pulled recently?

The blurring of the distinction between entertainment, news, and propaganda is going to be quite a challenge for the very near future.

The blurring of the distinction between entertainment, news, and propaganda is going to be quite a challenge for the very near future.

This movie blurs the line a lot I hear.....that's the problem in this case. The naive masses will watch it and take it for the gospel. Clinton's office requested a copy of the script recently and were denied. From what I understand it is very uncommon not to provide a script at this stage. It's not like the movie is in production it's getting ready to air.

Was the Regan movie a docu-drama? I remember the movie as a topic, and the stink to get it pulled, but I don't remember the context of the movie.

Seems awfully hypocritical for the Left to complain about this. I thought the Democrats stood for First Amendment rights. Guess free speech only applies if you agree with the thought? Maybe not:
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/re ... id=262624&

It appears that ABC caved into pressure and modified the movie:
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-ch ... v-features

I think they are considering it libel rather than free speech:

libel definition 2: Anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

I would say that their claims, if true, would mean that the movie damagingly misrepresented certain aides.

P.S. - To all you language scholars, would that be libel or slander? It would be spoken word, but in a printed form.

OAKS wrote:I think they are considering it libel rather than free speech:

If it is libel, let the people "damaged" bring lawsuits in court afterwards and let the court system do their thing (& make that determination).

Seems to me like the Democratic Senators were issuing a threat to ABC from their govt. position to pull their FCC license which directly conflicts with the First Amendment.

I don't particularly care one way or the other as I try not to get my news from docu-dramas, but I think it's wise for them to react pre-emptively if it is something that's incorrect, as the media tends to sensationalize and pre-judge things before anything gets to courts (see Duke Lax). Even if it is 'fictionalized', there are plenty of people who wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It's just a smart PR move to cover their backsides, and I'm sure any political figure, regardless of party affiliation would do the same to keep from looking soft on terror or from screwing the pooch on 9/11.

OAKS wrote:IEven if it is 'fictionalized', there are plenty of people who wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

or that would bother to take the time to check the facts. Its like getting all your news from Alex Jones.

Any account of the events preceding 9/11 that doesn't make both administrations look like a bunch of buffoons misses the mark in my book. On the other hand, should we really be surprised that operatives on the ground (composite character or not) feel restrained by bureaucracy at higher levels of command? Or that errors in planning might lead to mistakes in battle?

Hey Sonny,

Apparently you forgot the Conservative reaction to the Reagan Mini Series.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/0 ... eagans.ap/

Adam Gamradt wrote:Hey Sonny,

Apparently you forgot the Conservative reaction to the Reagan Mini Series.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/0 ... eagans.ap/

I missed the part where GOP senators issued vieled threats to CBS over their broadcast license. The first amendment doesn't apply to private individuals.

Political pressue is political pressure, while tasteless, the battle for political dominance includes the media.

Personally, I think profiting, politically, economically, or otherwise, from 9/11 is fairly sad.

Showtime and CBS are both owned by Viacom, which is anxiously awaiting federal action on rules to restrict ownership of local TV stations. Failure to enact such changes could cost Viacom millions of dollars, said Jeff Chester, head of the Center for Digital Democracy, a communications lobbying group.

Viacom needs help from Republicans in the White House and Congress who might not like seeing Reagan portrayed negatively, Chester said.

"They made a business decision," he said. "In doing so, they clearly caved in to the political pressure."

Sonny wrote:

Adam Gamradt wrote:Hey Sonny,

Apparently you forgot the Conservative reaction to the Reagan Mini Series.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/0 ... eagans.ap/

I missed the part where GOP senators issued vieled threats to CBS over their broadcast license.

The GOP set the precedent, it only gets worse from there.

The first amendment doesn't apply to private individuals.

I dont understand this.

Sonny is saying that this film maker is a private individual, and could put anything he wanted in his film.

Of course, he'd argue the exact opposite in the case of the Reagan Mini Series, because it's politically expedient.