No, they’re not. The buzzwords “Based on” have always meant that they would be playing fast and loose with some of the facts. Never has there been a 100% authentic movie with the byline “based on the events of… whatever”. Everybody knows this.
Take the movie Gettysburg, or Glory, or even Malcolm X. Even if everything portrayed in those movies were 100% accurate (which, of course, they aren’t) they still have a very limited amount of time to present something so a good bit is omitted, some of it surely relevant. Other stuff is altered for dramatic purposes. Still others are just plain made up. Yet nobody questions the right of people to make those movies, do they? People realize that moviemakers are not making histories, they’re making movies.
The Communications Act of 1934 gives the federal government to regulate public airwaves however the hell it wants to. They don’t need specific statutes. the FCC can do whatever the hell it wants.
Anyway, the Dems aren’t so much concerned about the broadcast itself as they are about plans to try to get the mini-series into schools as an “educational tool.” How would you feel about Michael Moore’s movies being shown in classrooms as “educational?”
What, you don’t think that that already happens? The Academy gave Michael Moore all the cred he needs by calling his productions “documentaries”, which are by definition educational films. Of course, most people who see Michael Moore’s films become educated very quickly as to what kind of documentarian he is.
It’s more than just a buzzword. They’re shopping this to public high schools as an “educational tool.”
I think this is what the Dems are really concerned about, not so much the initial broadcast (as far as I can see, they’ve actually made no threats against ABC, by the way, all they’ve done is “urge” ABC not to air this thing but they haven’t said they’re going to do anything to stop it or punish them if they do).
Scholastic has backed out of those plans, which I agree were the worst part of this whole dela.
I’m not sure if prior restraint applies here. If it did, this would be even worse because the restriction is obviously content-based. But even if it did apply, I don’t think a real restriction will happen.
Scholastic provides Michael Moore movies to public high schools (at tax payer expense) as “educational” material complete with faked up “resource sheets?”
This is a dumb move from the dems. It’s not being billed as a documentary. TV movies take license like this all the time, even when they are depictiing the life of an actual person. The better move here would have been for them to say. Well, it appears they certainly get a lot of the facts wrong, let’s hope that it turns out to be a good enough piece of entertainment to justify them taking such license. Instead, the perception is "How dare they question The Immaculate Administration of Bill Clinton, whose only crime was being of the flesh and human, and cease the constant hammering of the evil George Bush. They blew it.
Also, I can’t recall the precise words, but doesn’t Law & Order (a docudrama on public airwaves) state something along the lines that their shows are “ripped from the headlines”, yet their shows often deviate from the facts of the actual case. Now, I think they do have some other disclaimer appear before each show, something to the effect that the people and events are not actual people and event. My question is whould that be enough to soften any “reality” implications?
Check this board very carefully, and I think you will find several places where I have expressed great disdain for the Southern Baptists, most especially for their belief that women should be subservient to men. But I have never criticized their boycott tactic. It is a legitimate tactic, I feel, whether it is being used by people whose aims I approve of, or people whose aims I disapprove of.
I say, give them public hell over the movie, let them air it, then give them more hell. Instead of commercials, ABC should be forced to allow breaks where reality-based commentators can get in there and correct what are apparently many errors of fact in the show.
In the first place, note that the complaint by the Senate Democratic leadership isn’t the same thing as “policing” by the FCC. The complainants reminded the network that it has a duty “as a trustee of the public airwaves” to “promote open and accurate discussion”, but that’s not “policing”.
And yes, the government does “get to make rules” about use of the public airwaves, as I said; that’s how come we had the former “Fairness Doctrine” as an official FCC rule up to 1987, for instance. The Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently in effect, but that doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate in principle for the government to regulate the content of broadcast media “as the public interest, convenience, or necessity requires”. (For example, section 509 of the 1934 Communications Act makes it illegal to cheat on game shows “with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public”. And the FCC “equal time” provisions forbid broadcasters to discriminate among candidates for public office.)
It’s this principle that the government gets to set the terms for use of the public airwaves that the Democratic Senators were invoking when they told ABC that “The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest.”
Note, again, that the Senators’ complaint is not actually invoking any regulatory action by the FCC, nor does it have any power to censor the proposed broadcast. (In particular, what’s with all this talk of “prior restraint”? Prior restraint refers to legal action by a government that prevents materials from being published. AFAICT, no such action is being taken or threatened here.) It’s simply pointing out that the government has the right to regulate the public airwaves, that the recipients of free broadcasting licenses have an obligation to serve the public interest, and that a broadcaster therefore has a responsibility not to misinform the public.
As I said, whether or not we agree that exerting pressure in this way is a good idea, there’s no denying that they have the right to do it.
Also, does the Dems letter ever explicitly threaten revocation of ABC’s license or any other explicit penalty? I read the bolded part of the letter in the OP as a reminder to OP that they are supposed to operate in the public interest, and as a rebuke that they are not, but that’s still not a threat to fine them or yank their license? It seems our conservative friends are playing the old game of panty-knot-twisting in advance?
In fact, is there any call for censorship in the letter, or is it what it reads like – members of the reality-based community voicing objections to Pubbie propoganda efforts?
He is a decidely partisan documentarian. And most people who see a Michael Moore film know that before they even buy the ticket. I daresay all such persons are, by now, entirely aware of the partisan nature of his work. After all the publicity, it could hardly be otherwise.
There is a clear element of stealth in this instance. If this is not so, perhaps you can explain why copies are available to Rush Limpbaugh and Hugh Hewitt, but none are available to Bill Clinton, Madeliene Allbright,* et. al.* Doesn’t strike you as rather odd that 900 copies were made available, and yet, somehow, none were available save for those whose reaction was predictable, and dependable?
I take it you are not a lawyer. The FCC can only regulate what is spelled out in statute and only what is further spelled out in regulation. It can’t simply make up rules as it goes along. It can’t suddenly decide that “misinformation” is against the law and punish ABC for it.
KimstuYou have Diogenes on this board calling for censorship of the movie, and I was trying to find out if there was any authority for the FCC to censor it. As you pointed out, there is none.
As for the duty of broadcasters not to misinform the public over public airwaves, that’s a little nebulous. Again, it comes down to what “misinform” means. There are plenty of movies or miniseries broadcast over the public airwaves which have numerous fictional elements. Is the public misinformed by these, too? If we start restricting programs because of a duty not to “misinform,” the whole genre of “based on a true story” movies and shows would be dead.
As far as the Senate Dems’ attempts to censor this, I think it’s very clear that they are trying to scare ABC. Why else bring up the 1934 statute? Instead of simply complaining about content, they put in a veiled threat of legislative or regulatory action. That’s a chilling precedent. If we continue down this road we’ll have politicians intimidating networks whenever a news story or dramatic show portrays them or their party in a bad light. Do you really want that?
Well, that’s not what the letter quoted in the OP says. If that’s what the are “really” concerned about, perhaps they should have limitted the letter to that issue. BTW, if you go to the ABC web site, you immediately hear (empahsis added): “… the television movie event…”
The Washington Post is saying that ABC will issue this disclaimer:
This is in many ways reminiscent of the visceral reaction I had when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out. Attack, attack, attack, without any particular knowledge about what it was except through the eyes of other people. Only I learned something from that. This time the shoe is on the other foot and you guys are doing the same thing I did. That’s not a judgment or a condemnation, just an observation.
Like I said before, this movie could be crap. It could be an exploitation flick. I(t could be some oddball conspiracy theory like JFK. But without having seen it, how can people make judgments on it?
If it’s crap (which I have every reason to expect it will be) I’ll be ripping into it as well. But I’m withholding judgment until then. Perhaps you should, too.
Going back and reading your quotes, perhaps I misspoke. As I understand it, you claim the FCC has the right (and sometimes the duty) to censor television news, but you do not support doing so in this case. Is that a correct summation of your views?
The grammar of this sentence is a little ambiguous but seems to be a request to cancel the broadcast in order to prevent Disney’s plans to pimp out to schools. Washington Post is saying that ABC will issue this disclaimer:
[/QUOTE]
Who, other than you, is going to read it that way? Dramatizing things is necessary, and I understand there are plenty of scenes that dramatize the Clinton failures. I am told that there are plenty of scenes where John O’Neill (Harvey Keitel) complains about the red tape that is preventing him from effectively fighting terrorism. That’s realistic, even if the specific conversations weren’t real. We know John O’Neill felt that way. A scene that shows the Clinton White House telling agents not to kill Osama bin Laden when he’s in the crosshairs isn’t even a composite or realistic, it’s just inflammatory. The problem is not just that there’s fiction in this movie (everybody ought to expect that), it’s that the fiction seems to be inserted with a deliberately partisan purpose. ABC’s choices in promoting it raise further suspicions.
Law and Order’s cases are based on real events, but they don’t purport to depict what anybody did in reality. That’s a big difference.
What is false is your claim that I have called for any censorship of this particular broadcast. I’ve said it was a bad idea. That’s different issue, though, from whether they would have the right. They DO have the legal right, but I still think it would be abd idea.