SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP URGES DISNEY CEO TO CANCEL MISLEADING 9/11 MINISERIES
(emphasis added)
Legitimate political hardball, or implied threat of official retaliation?
What, threatening to throw the full weight of their power against them?
Though I think its a mistake to attempt to pre-empt it. I say let 'er rip. By the time it airs, anyone with the faintest curiosity will know which scenes are fabricated, and be in a position to judge what, precisely, was the intent of that fabrication.
It is always legitimate to demand full and open disclosure of the facts. It is almost never legitimate to demand someone be silent in advance of thier speaking.
However, since the Dems don’t have much in the way of official status, I interpret that bolded section as intended to be a reminder of public duty and civic responsibility. About the only thing the Dems have to threaten with is that at some point in the near future, they may be in a position to investigate.
Nah, it’s political hardball. If the Democrats actually tried to pull ABC’s license - even if we assume that they’ll control the House after November, giving them the numbers to possibly do something - they’d just invite future reprisals.
elucidator/ I think you are much to optimistic that people will know what is factually wrong or not. I really can’t imagine the democrats really coming down hard on the entertainment industry though so I think it is an empty threat.
I imagine fines would be more likely then actually pulling ABC’s licence.
That’s more likely. Still, like I say, I don’t think it’s happening. The Fairness Doctrine went away a long time ago, and it’d be a very hard sell to prove that ABC acted against the public interest by airing a movie they admitted had a lot of dramatization in it.
Why? Do they include the scene where Bush says “Fuck Saddam! I’m taking him out!”
That would cost them, I guess.
I think that in the end, ABC can probably cover itself by running a disclaimer that the “facts” represented in their little “docudrama” may or may not actually have any relationship with reality. If they present it as “speculation” or “fiction” rather than try to pass it off as accurate journalism, then Congress can’t really do anything to them.
It’s still kind of a stupid powerplay for the Dems, all it does it feed perceptions that the Dems don’t want the facts out, want to squelch the 1st Amendment, etc. What they should do is buy advertising time during the show to point out all the bullshit.
I’ve read that they may do that.
I think they’re doing the right thing (aside from the government threat, which is just ham-handed): they’re getting the message out that this thing might not be on the level. :rolleyes: There’s something very John Kerry-ish about the idea of buying ad time to argue against a work of fiction. It wouldn’t play right. Also, the movie is airing commercial-free, so they couldn’t buy ads during the show.
No such time to buy, to be aired without commerical interruptions. Which brings up the other question: what motivates ABC and Disney to piss away at least 30 megabucks? What do they expect in return, beyond the thanks of a grateful nation? Since when did Disney and ABC become non-profit entitys devoted to the public good?
Republican politics, of course. You can be pretty sure that the leadership of both companies are 100% Republican, or close to it.
It’s Republican propaganda, trying to blame Clinton and the Dems and divert blame for 9-11 from Bush and the Republicans. Why else would they be pushing it in schools ( sending letters to 100,00 HS teachers telling them that it’s educational, and kids should watch it ), or offering it free over the internet.
Link Those aren’t the acts of people who care at all about profit; those are the acts of propagandists.
Prolly the best thing for the politicos to do is to back a move to boycott Disney and Disney products. That’ll scare the living fuck out of them, if it gets massive. And hey, if Disney is gonna turn into a Pubbie booster org, they need to be boycotted.
As for ABC, don’t watch it anyway. Who are they a subsidiary of, I wonder?
George Michell and Steve Jobs?
Disney.
A little note to Disney along the following lines would be nice:
“You know that copyright extension we passed for you a while back? It can
always be rescinded. How would you like Mickey cartoons to be in the public domain?”
That would be fun - also good for the country.
Nice little entertainment empire you’ve got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
Yeah… fings break, dun’t they, Luigi?
How many cartoonists you got here, Colonel? Be a shame if someone were to set fire to them.
A side question: am I correct to that Clinton can’t sue Disney for slander/libel, whichever is appropriate here, since he is a public figure?
ABC is trying to have it both ways- marketing it as an educational tool and claiming to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report, but then hiding behind the fig leaf of “it’s a drama, not a documentary” when pressed on the utter lack of accuracy in the film. When you compound that with the fact that they hired only one Republican member of the Commission as a consultant and then released the film only to conservative bloggers and media types, then one can and should question their motivations.
The Senate is right (to my Senator, Debbie Stabenow: You ROCK) to call them on this. ABC has been given a public resource and is expected to act in the public interest. This clearly is not what their fakeumentary is accomplishing.