Senate Dems To Disney CEO: Cancel 9/11 Docudrama (or else?)

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
That’s a stretch. When you bill something as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report” and then market it to schools as “educational”, then you’re not exactly promoting it as a work of fiction.
[/QUOTE]

I agree it is a stretch, and that it is factually challenged, the real issue is whether or not you want the government as a censor.

There is a ton of crap on television, news and entertainment. People have to make their own decisions, i’m uncomfortable with any part of the government deciding what I’ll be allowed to watch.

42

[QUOTE=Icemann]
I agree it is a stretch, and that it is factually challenged, the real issue is whether or not you want the government as a censor.
[/quote]

When it comes to public airwaves, the federal government has the legal right (and responsibility in some cases) to regulate content.

It’s not a question of what’s being said, it’s a question of using publicly owned frequencies to broadcast it.

43

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
When it comes to public airwaves, the federal government has the legal right (and responsibility in some cases) to regulate content.

It’s not a question of what’s being said, it’s a question of using publicly owned frequencies to broadcast it.
[/QUOTE]

The you can feel perfectly comfortable with the senate deciding what’s on tv.

Is that a general policy, or just good this one time when you seem not to like the content.

Maybe some future senate campaigns will turn on which candidate favors survivor over big brother…which way to vote

44

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If they lie about stuff that is provably false and present it as “news” over public airwaves, then they’d be justified.
[/QUOTE]
When it isn’t justified, who’s going to stop them? We don’t need the first amendment if the government could be relied on to only take appropriate action when restricting speech. I don’t see republicans claiming this “docudrama” is provably false, so there must be some uncertainty there. Or is just blatant partisanship, one side says it’s false, the other says it’s true, do we just let the side that’s in power flex it’s muscles over what get’s broadcast?

Not for nothing, but the government doesn’t “own” the airwaves by any right other than being able to imprison people who broadcast without their permission. The government doesn’t own the towers, or pay the electric bill, they declare ownership of a particular spectrum of light wavelengths, and imprison people who create light of those wavelengths without permission.

45

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Prolly the best thing for the politicos to do is to back a move to boycott Disney and Disney products.
[/QUOTE]
Nifty idea. It’ll show solidarity with the Southern Baptists.

Empty threats against ABC only look silly. What would impress me is if the Dems genuinely were interested in countering all the GOP moves to gut public control of the airwaves and limit the power of supercorporate broadcast entities. Apparently they only wave their little fists in the air when there’s some political ax to grind.

46

[QUOTE=Icemann]
The you can feel perfectly comfortable with the senate deciding what’s on tv.
[/quote]

It’s not a question of whether I feel comfortable, I’m just telling you what the law is.

Also you need to distinguish between “television” and “public airwaves.” The federal government only has the power to regulate publicly owned frequencies (i.e. the free networks). They have no power over cable.

It’s the law. How I feel about it is irrelevant. There is no expectation of free speech on public airwaves and no inherent right to lie about news on them. If you want to lie about the news, you have to buy your own frequency (like Fox News). If you want to do it over publicly owned airwaves, then the FCC gets to tell you what to do. That’s just the way it goes.

47

[QUOTE=Renob]
Sorry, but this has no basis in fact. Go to www.opensecrets.org and look up which candidates received money from people employed by Disney. There are vastly more Democrats than Republicans on that list.
[/QUOTE]

But everyone knows that Republican money is simply worth more…

Or something. I’m sure Der has an angle on this you just aren’t seeing. :stuck_out_tongue:

As for the OP, I think its pretty stupid for the Dems to be making this much of a fuss. A quiet refutation of the ‘facts’ as they see them once the movie was out (IIRC most of the Dems are bitching about what they THINK is in the movie, or scenes that have been described to them. Could be wrong, maybe they hav been given an advanced screning). All this running around and hair pulling is bad enough…but threats? That just plain stupid, regardless of if this is the biggest pack of lies (or subtle distortions) since F-911.

Which brings up the point that the evil 'Pubs didn’t make threats against the Dem poster child M. Moore when he released any of HIS gems. Though to be sure there was plenty of hair pulling and running around. Now, I know that some of you (maybe most of you) think that F-911 is an example of flawless journalism, an unflinching documentary, 100% (110%? 105%?) correct in its facts, blah blah blah. The POINT though is that, whether it is or not, the 'Pubs didn’t try this heavy handed shit when it came out. Oh, they protested, boycotted, ect ect…but no statements from government officials of a vaguely threatening manner.

And the 'Pubs are supposed to be the forces of evil and darkness, while the Dem’s are supposed to be the forces of goodness and light. Least, that seems to be the general meme here on the SD. Yet its seems to be the Dems who are trying to suppress this thing. Even if its 100% lies, it should be shown, as is…and then refuted if its so incorrect. If its too horrible to be seen by the faithful, by all means boycott the thing…and the affiliates. And their mothers. Whatever. But by playing this the way they are, its like if a big fuss is made about a movie thats going to have something controversial in it…or like that flash of J. Jacksons tits on public TV. Its only going to make folks curious and encourage them to watch what they might have blown off, 'cept for all the fuss.

Anyway, YMMV. Thats just how I sees it, FWIW.

-XT

48

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
The government doesn’t own the towers, or pay the electric bill, they declare ownership of a particular spectrum of light wavelengths, and imprison people who create light of those wavelengths without permission.
[/QUOTE]

I think I’ve said as much as I can about the main point of contention here. What I find interesting is the use of the term “light” here. I always thought that visible light and radio waves and microwaves and infrared, etc., were all particular types of electromagnetic radiation. I guess I’ve never heard radio/TV waves as being a type of light wave. Did I remember my physics incorrectly?

49

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
When it isn’t justified, who’s going to stop them? We don’t need the first amendment if the government could be relied on to only take appropriate action when restricting speech. I don’t see republicans claiming this “docudrama” is provably false, so there must be some uncertainty there. Or is just blatant partisanship, one side says it’s false, the other says it’s true, do we just let the side that’s in power flex it’s muscles over what get’s broadcast?

Not for nothing, but the government doesn’t “own” the airwaves by any right other than being able to imprison people who broadcast without their permission. The government doesn’t own the towers, or pay the electric bill, they declare ownership of a particular spectrum of light wavelengths, and imprison people who create light of those wavelengths without permission.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but a certain part of the broadcast spectrum is publicly owned and regulated by the FCC. You don’t have to like it but that’s the law. The First Amendment doesn’t enter into it. If you want to lie about the news you need to buy your own airwaves.

50

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Did I remember my physics incorrectly?
[/QUOTE]
The only difference between them is the wavelength. This wikipedia article has a chart on the lower right showing the progression from Gamma Rays to Radio and beyond.

51

This case shows that light and darkness propagate at precisely the same speed.

52

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If you want to lie about the news you need to buy your own airwaves.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t seem to recall Democrats (or Republicans) reacting this way when Dan Rather blatantly lied about the Bush National Guard documents. If Democrats were so concerned about the truth, then why didn’t they write a similar letter to CBS threatening that network?

And it’s not a matter of “lying can’t be broadcast over public airwaves.” As far as I know, there is no FCC regulation saying that networks must only broadcast 100% factually accurate news and entertainment. I remember the brouhaha in the late 80’s (or early 90’s) over the ABC movie “The Final Days,” about the final days of the Nixon Administration. There were many things in that movie that were completely untrue, and yet the network ran it with no problem. There are numerous other examples of the networks broadcasting shows that meld fact and fiction. It simply isn’t against the law.

I find it quite funny that Democrats want to call in the power of the state to squelch a program that may or may not contain inaccuracies (they don’t really know what it contains, after all). It’s dangerous to have government officials start threatening networks in this way. It’s like the title of the Nat Hentoff book, “Free Speech for Me but not for Thee.”

53

For the record, I still stand by what I said in my first post that I think it’s dumb for the Dems to attempt this and that all it does it feed into delusions of persecution on the part of conservatives. That still doesn’t mean they don’t have a legal right to do it, though. The First Amendment is kind of a red herring here. It’s about the frequencies being broadcast on, not the content per se. Janet Jackson could have popped out both titties on ESPN but not on a network which broadcasts on public airwaves.

54

[QUOTE=Renob]
I don’t seem to recall Democrats (or Republicans) reacting this way when Dan Rather blatantly lied about the Bush National Guard documents. If Democrats were so concerned about the truth, then why didn’t they write a similar letter to CBS threatening that network?
[/quote]

Dan Rather didn’t lie.

55

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Dan Rather didn’t lie.
[/QUOTE]

That’s debatable and there is good evidence that he did. Regardless, if you had your way there should have been an FCC hearing about this to sort out the truth of the matter and if he did lie then CBS should have been penalized.

As someone who thinks Rather lied, I don’t think this would have been a good idea. The matter was sorted out in the sphere of public opinion, just as the ABC 9/11 show is being sorted out. This is the proper way to debate these issues. We do not need the government trying to squelch speech that one party or another labels as “false.”

Also, folks here are asserting that the government has a duty to prevent false speech from going out over the public airwaves. I’ve looked at the FCC site and can’t find anything relating to this. So I’m going to ask someone who says the Democrats have the right to do this to actually produce some sort of statute or FCC regulation that outlaws false speech over public airwaves. I simply don’t think this is within the FCC’s jurisdiction.

56

[QUOTE=Renob]
I don’t seem to recall Democrats (or Republicans) reacting this way when Dan Rather blatantly lied about the Bush National Guard documents. If Democrats were so concerned about the truth, then why didn’t they write a similar letter to CBS threatening that network?
[/QUOTE]

Dan Rather presented a document that he believed to be authentic. Although the authenticity of the document itself cannot be verified, its contents are true. CBS did the right thing by having an independent investigation of the incident and taking what actions it could to restore full journalistic integrity. Did CBS make a two day commercial free miniseries about it and let only liberal interests screen it?

57

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Dan Rather presented a document that he believed to be authentic. Although the authenticity of the document itself cannot be verified, its contents are true. CBS did the right thing by having an independent investigation of the incident and taking what actions it could to restore full journalistic integrity. Did CBS make a two day commercial free miniseries about it and let only liberal interests screen it?
[/QUOTE]

and if they did would you support the Senate attempting to keep such a show off the airwaves?

That seems to be the real issue and shouldn’t be clouded by whether or not we agree or disagree with the contents of any program.

58

[QUOTE=Renob]
Also, folks here are asserting that the government has a duty to prevent false speech from going out over the public airwaves. I’ve looked at the FCC site and can’t find anything relating to this. So I’m going to ask someone who says the Democrats have the right to do this to actually produce some sort of statute or FCC regulation that outlaws false speech over public airwaves. I simply don’t think this is within the FCC’s jurisdiction.
[/QUOTE]

No one has said there is such a statute. What has been said is that the FCC has a right to regulate content. It can also intervene in whatever it considers to be a “misuse” of public airwaves. “Misuse” is whatever the FCC says it is.

59

[QUOTE=Icemann]
and if they did would you support the Senate attempting to keep such a show off the airwaves?

That seems to be the real issue and shouldn’t be clouded by whether or not we agree or disagree with the contents of any program.
[/QUOTE]

If CBS had let only liberal interests screen a miniseries, had only liberals on the production team, and promoted it as educational, AND knew that the material presented was patently false, then yes, I’d support Republican Senators in wanting it off the air.

60

[QUOTE=Icemann]
and if they did would you support the Senate attempting to keep such a show off the airwaves?

That seems to be the real issue and shouldn’t be clouded by whether or not we agree or disagree with the contents of any program.
[/QUOTE]

If you don’t like the laws, write your congressman. The federal government has this power whether you like it or not.