The Reality-Based Community's War On Freedom
The Disney Corporation and ABC has a decision to make today, on whether the American people get to decide what they will watch on television, or if they will defer that decision to operatives of the Democratic Party.
The Path to 9/11, a mini-series based in part upon individual interviews and the 9/11 Commission Report, is being fought tooth-and-nail by grassroots liberal activists and top Democratic Party politicians in an effort to stifle free speech. The Democratic Party has gone so far as to threaten to attempt to challenge ABC's broadcasting license in a clear challenge to this nation's First Amendment. If ABC allows the Democratic Party to set a precedent of censorship through intimidation, then all Americans will have lost a part of their freedom. Some elements of this mini-series are expected to be critical of the Bush and Clinton Administrations, and it does reputedly dramaticize some minor elements in the interests of accurately portraying the overall truth. That said, the overall treatment of the failings of the American government leading up to the horrific terrorist of September 11, 2001, must be shown. We must learn from our past mistakes to keep from repeating them in the future, and any attempt to prevent The Path to 9/11 from airing is an affront to the 2,973 people who died in lower Manhattan, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. as a result of Islamic terrorism. I strongly urge you to contact ABC, let them know that you support their right to provide the programming of their choice to the American people. For 230 years we have been a nation of free men and women with the right to debate, dissent, and disagree. We should not forfeit that right to the whims of any political party. Debate the merits and accuracy of The Path to 9/11 after the American people have had a chance to view it and form their own opinions about its content. That is the American way. Censorship dictated by political operatives is not.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM
Comments
1
I think the Democrats had a point about how the miniseries may be a bad idea, but as soon as they started threatening ABC with the force of the government, they totally went off the rails on this one.
Posted by: Frank J. at September 08, 2006 11:58 AM (QQcEJ)
2
I wonder if they will have professional help available after the viewing to help those folks who can't handle a TV movie ?
Posted by: Neo at September 08, 2006 04:20 PM (Yozw9)
3
There's a shrink down in Boca Raton FL who has offering special psychiatric services to the BDS afflicted.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 08, 2006 04:34 PM (WxRQS)
4
Since McCain/Feingold has literally criminalized citizens' heretofore unassailable right to hear and be heard on matters of public policy --aka "politics"-- eight weeks prior to national elections (that is, "no law" means anything Humpty Dumpty thinks will insulate incumbents), why the hoorah over Disney? Just declare "Path" an unauthorized political statement [that's right: Unauthorized. Free speech now needs a license, or you die] and prosecute these horrible, nasty, producers for not keeping their mouths shut.
Recall after Big Bill's "finger-wagging good" declamations concerning predatory attacks on White House interns (you really think Monica was the only one?), how MzBill ("Miss Cattle Futures", "Files under the Bed", "Count the teaspoons") praised Larry Flynt of Hustler Magazine for offering a $1-million reward to anyone successfully blackmailing a Republican in Lewinsky mode? When is that Shining Circle gathered in the White House Rose Garden while Madelaine Albright embraced her rubicund employer (dangerous!) and Hillary slopped over before raking Hubby with her claws (National Enquirer's frontpage carried pictures in supermarkets for a week) ever going to receive its dramatic due? In all American history, literally never has such a coterie disgraced itself so utterly. You think "Path" reflects adversely on these vulgar little twerps? Because they're so intensely self-centered yet pathetic, they are funny. Perfect dramatic material! Billary is already a bad joke. Properly constructed, a sequel to "The Producers" would do well.
Recall after Big Bill's "finger-wagging good" declamations concerning predatory attacks on White House interns (you really think Monica was the only one?), how MzBill ("Miss Cattle Futures", "Files under the Bed", "Count the teaspoons") praised Larry Flynt of Hustler Magazine for offering a $1-million reward to anyone successfully blackmailing a Republican in Lewinsky mode? When is that Shining Circle gathered in the White House Rose Garden while Madelaine Albright embraced her rubicund employer (dangerous!) and Hillary slopped over before raking Hubby with her claws (National Enquirer's frontpage carried pictures in supermarkets for a week) ever going to receive its dramatic due? In all American history, literally never has such a coterie disgraced itself so utterly. You think "Path" reflects adversely on these vulgar little twerps? Because they're so intensely self-centered yet pathetic, they are funny. Perfect dramatic material! Billary is already a bad joke. Properly constructed, a sequel to "The Producers" would do well.
Posted by: John Blake at September 08, 2006 05:11 PM (oOqJF)
5
I linked to this story, Bob, as well as contacted ABC national and called ABC local in Raleigh.
I have ended up on the lists of many of the kook dems mail lists, and sent some scathing stuff back.
I have ended up on the lists of many of the kook dems mail lists, and sent some scathing stuff back.
Posted by: William Teach at September 08, 2006 06:04 PM (ZjY6I)
6
When I came across this interview my jaw nearly dropped to the ground.
Q: I mean, isn’t it the case that this film actually does show Sandy Berger hanging up the phone in the middle of a conference call, when there are U.S. personnel whose lives are at risk on the ground, and they have bin Laden in their sights, and that really nothing like that ever happened?
KEAN: Well, the question, Shaun, is whether — whether it was Sandy Berger, or whether it was the head of the CIA? Whether the call was hung up on or whether it was totally — whether it was disrupted by a failure in communications? I mean, these are all historically, I think, open questions. But again, this is a, you know, this is a miniseries, not a documentary.
It's not like the scene that has been so upsetting never happened, but rather the detail of how the phone call ended is in dispute.
Q: I mean, isn’t it the case that this film actually does show Sandy Berger hanging up the phone in the middle of a conference call, when there are U.S. personnel whose lives are at risk on the ground, and they have bin Laden in their sights, and that really nothing like that ever happened?
KEAN: Well, the question, Shaun, is whether — whether it was Sandy Berger, or whether it was the head of the CIA? Whether the call was hung up on or whether it was totally — whether it was disrupted by a failure in communications? I mean, these are all historically, I think, open questions. But again, this is a, you know, this is a miniseries, not a documentary.
It's not like the scene that has been so upsetting never happened, but rather the detail of how the phone call ended is in dispute.
Posted by: Neo at September 08, 2006 08:44 PM (Yozw9)
7
So, is this a partisan issue? I remember the republicans do the very same thing
CBS Won't Air 'Reagans' Miniseries
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
VIDEO
FREE FOX News Video:•Reagan Miniseries Stirs ControversySTORIES
•Fact or Fiction?
NEW YORK — The ruckus over a TV movie few have actually seen got even louder Tuesday when CBS decided to dump "The Reagans" miniseries and hand it off to the cable movie channel Showtime (search).
The program was to air on CBS Nov. 16 and 18, smack in the middle of November ratings sweeps. The network said it would license the completed project to Showtime, a pay-cable channel owned by CBS parent Viacom (search).
"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," CBS said in a statement.
A broadcast network has different standards than a pay-cable network, CBS said.
Based on video clips and snippets of the script that had leaked out in recent weeks, Republican-based political groups and Reagan supporters — including the former president's son, Michael — accused CBS of distorting Reagan's legacy.
The TV network insisted it was not bowing to political pressure over the script, details of which were revealed in The New York Times last month, but said the decision was made after viewing the finished film.
CBS Won't Air 'Reagans' Miniseries
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
VIDEO
FREE FOX News Video:•Reagan Miniseries Stirs ControversySTORIES
•Fact or Fiction?
NEW YORK — The ruckus over a TV movie few have actually seen got even louder Tuesday when CBS decided to dump "The Reagans" miniseries and hand it off to the cable movie channel Showtime (search).
The program was to air on CBS Nov. 16 and 18, smack in the middle of November ratings sweeps. The network said it would license the completed project to Showtime, a pay-cable channel owned by CBS parent Viacom (search).
"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," CBS said in a statement.
A broadcast network has different standards than a pay-cable network, CBS said.
Based on video clips and snippets of the script that had leaked out in recent weeks, Republican-based political groups and Reagan supporters — including the former president's son, Michael — accused CBS of distorting Reagan's legacy.
The TV network insisted it was not bowing to political pressure over the script, details of which were revealed in The New York Times last month, but said the decision was made after viewing the finished film.
Posted by: Dave Larson at September 09, 2006 09:59 AM (Dlu7b)
8
ABC’s Peter Jennings made it seem as if CBS’s The Reagans just wasn’t positive enough for conservatives, saying CBS cancelled it “when word got around that it may not have been as faithful to the Reagan story as some conservatives wanted it to be.” NBC’s Mike Taibbi worried not about CBS’s misdeeds with such a disrespectful movie, but about “which program and which network will be targeted next?” CBS’s Jerry Bowen, after clips from two conservatives, turned to a bunch of those upset by CBS’s decision, including Tom Daschle who accused conservatives of “intimidation” and James Brolin’s manager, who charged: “We seem to be in a very oppressive era...” Bowen argued those disturbed by the Reagan portrayal are hypocrites since they didn’t object to Showtime’s September movie about President Bush “that also used fictionalized dialogue.”
Posted by: Dave Larson at September 09, 2006 10:00 AM (Dlu7b)
9
I remember the republicans do the very same thing
But not getting the same results. The Regan thing aired unchanged.
Some animals are "more equal" than others right?
But not getting the same results. The Regan thing aired unchanged.
Some animals are "more equal" than others right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 09, 2006 12:32 PM (WxRQS)
10
Well said, Clearwaterconservative. Rewriting history to include events that didn't happen is just always a bad idea.
Posted by: OD at September 09, 2006 01:31 PM (JSrdg)
11
Rewriting history to include events that didn't happen is just always a bad idea.
Indeed...
Like Kerry's patently false claim of spending Christmas in Cambodia?
Indeed...
Like Kerry's patently false claim of spending Christmas in Cambodia?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 10, 2006 05:48 PM (WxRQS)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0071 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0043 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 13 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.