Blue Crab Boulevard

Have You Noticed?

I think this is both interesting and revealing. Back when Fahrenheit 911 was the talk of the blogosphere, all the criticism I read was about its accuracy. There were quite a lot of bloggers that were tearing it apart for its twisting of fact. A lot of bloggers wanted to set the record straight, but to my knowledge not one of those people I was reading at that time before I started blogging myself was calling for it to be silenced. They only wanted the record straight.

Now we have a new "docudrama" about 9/11 coming out. And the left side of the blogosphere and mainstream Democratic politicians are calling for it to be radically changed or silenced. Some are gloating that they think they have silenced some voices.

Have you noticed the difference here?

One group decries the accuracy, the other decries the existence. Who is in favor of silencing the opposition again? Who is in favor of curtailing the free speech of others?

Have you noticed?

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll links with the news that ABC appears to have folded and will edit the scene that has been giving the Clintonistas fits. Welcome to the memory hole. (Many thanks to all the folks who have linked this post).

Observations, Politics | Gaius September 6, 2006

By Roland Hesz, September 7, 2006 @ 3:32 am

Uhm…
Bit of a twisting of a story. Never mind, don’t care.

But, what The Carpetbagger Report wrote is a bit strange.

btw. have not seen the “outrage” you are talking about.
Call for fair-play, and accuracy, yes. Wishes to ban or silence it, no.

Sure, there must be people who said it should be banned.
Like republicans was crying loud, that Michael Moore is a traitor, and should be shot and that piece of crap burnt.

You always ask people to not confuse “extremist morons” with the right wing.
Please, walk the talk. You know: Preaching water, drinking wine, is a bit strange habit.
By Gaius, September 7, 2006 @ 5:33 am

Roland – did you read the link? About “winning one” by forcing Scholastic to pull information?
By Sticky Notes, September 7, 2006 @ 7:47 am

Two thoughts – I noticed a letter came out from the Dems and it included…”while we have not yet seen the movie, we understand that…” (paraphrased). That slayed me right there.

Many local stations are pulling the broadcast due to language. Some may be doing it for that reason (however if comedies can use some of the foul language that they do, certainly a terrorist attack warrants some serious expletives!), I wonder if some will pull it for political reasons.
By Gaius, September 7, 2006 @ 8:03 am

Yeah, that was pretty stupid sounding, wasn’t it?
By Roland Hesz, September 7, 2006 @ 8:18 am

Yup, I read it.
Wondering what was on Scholastic.
I mean, after that “we only twisted things a bit, nobody will notice it” letter, I am a bit sceptic about the truthes and the message.

But still, I was scouring over the net, and has not seen anyone else calling for the “silence them” stuff.

You are clever, you found one. Maybe you will find one which is a republican and cries loud for killing every single non-white guy.
Then the republicans are all racists?

One example is no example, even in engineering.
By Roland Hesz, September 7, 2006 @ 8:20 am

“To avoid that occurrence, we urge you to review this film and correct these and other inaccuracies. We appreciate your prompt attention and reply to this time sensitive matter.”

Your link.
So, what are the democrats calling for? My, they are calling for accuracy.
What a weird thing to do.

Uhm.. The republicans did that too. What a weird thing to do.
By Gaius, September 7, 2006 @ 10:12 am

< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Hey, Roland, does it change your opinion when Bill Clinton is demand that the program either be changed or pulled off the air?

Link

Just wondering. And who exactly called for Moore's film not to be shown?
By Watford, September 7, 2006 @ 10:36 am

What about if the DNC does it?

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911/
By cfaller96, September 7, 2006 @ 11:39 am

According to Blue Crab, I guess if a movie purports to claim the sky is green, I need to see the film before I pass judgment. Watch the movie and boost the ratings BEFORE I determine that it’s a piece of s–t. Whatever…

A few points to note:

1. Disney (the parent of ABC) DID attempt to silence “Fahrenheit 9/11,” by refusing to distribute the film. They almost succeeded.

2. Liberal bloggers, Democrats et all, are calling for the inaccuracies to be fixed OR the movie to be pulled. That’s not the same as decrying the existence of the film.

3. Conservatives DID call for the silencing of the miniseries “The Reagans” in 2003, claiming the same type of distortions and outright fabrications that liberals are claiming now.

4. There are FACTUAL inaccuracies that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report, the same report that this movie claims to be based upon.

Do conservatives only care about accuracy and honesty when it helps them, and only in non-election years? Where are those same conservatives now?

Either you value historical accuracy, or you don’t. Either you’re honest, or you’re not. Blue Crab wants to ignore the lies in this movie, and say “look, over there! Michael Moore!”

I guess it’s obvious where Blue Crab stands…
By Gaius, September 7, 2006 @ 11:53 am

Just out of curiosity, when did Disney hold elected office?
By cfaller96, September 7, 2006 @ 12:48 pm

Well, since you don’t seem to know, I don’t think Disney did hold elected office. Although they did publicly state that they were concerned about receiving tax breaks if Fahrenheit 9/11 was distributed by them. But in any case, what’s your point? That it’s ok for Disney to silence Michael Moore?

And, by not responding, are you conceding the following:

1. That liberals are not decrying the existence of the film, simply calling for a fix OR a pull?
2. That conservatives did silence the miniseries “The Reagans,” because of historical inaccuracies?
3. That the film directly contradicts some findings of the 9/11 Report, despite claiming to be based on the 9/11 Report?
By Anchoress, September 7, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

I think Ed Driscoll makes the very good point that if the Bush administration called ABC to try to keep a dramatization of their administration off the air, the left would be roaring about it (and ABC would laugh them off the phone.) I also can’t help but notice that when news of a movie wondering about assassinating Bush came out, lots of folks on the left were carrying on about free speech and artistic license and deriding folks on the right for even getting indignant about it. Funny old world, innit?
By Gaius, September 7, 2006 @ 1:09 pm

cfaller. It would be a really good idea for you to read the comment policy. I do not concede any of your points. I am not your debating buddy and I am not obligated to answer, or endorse any comment on this blog. You seem to be unable to distinguish between business decisions and attempts to stifle.

See the Anchoress’ comment immediately above. Tell me about how that wouldn’t bother you. This will be fun to watch.
By cfaller96, September 7, 2006 @ 1:22 pm

Gaius, I’m not claiming that you’re obligated to respond to these points:

1. That there was an attempt to silence “Fahrenheit 9/11,” in contradiction to the original post.
2. That the left is calling for a fix OR a pull, in contradiction to the original post.
3. That the right did silence “The Reagans” because of historical innaccuracies.
4. That the film, in its current iteration, directly contradicts some findings of the 9/11 report, despite the film’s claim that it is based on the 9/11 report.

WRT the comment by Anchoress, I have no idea what s/he’s talking about, and I’d appreciate a link. For the record, if (as conservatives claimed) “The Reagans” did have historical innaccuracies, then it definitely should have been fixed or pulled. Which, by the way, is what happened- the film was pulled off CBS and put on Showtime, followed by a panel that criticized the film for its inaccuracies.

You don’t have to respond. I think everyone will understand why. As I’m writing this, I’m wondering if this comment is going to get ‘moderated’ into the trash can. Too many inconvenient truths, I guess.
By sigmund, carl and alfred, September 7, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

Cfaller, you are a hypocrite.

“Either you value historical accuracy, or you donâ€™t. Either youâ€™re honest, or youâ€™re not. Blue Crab wants to ignore the lies in this movie, and say â€œlook, over there! Michael Moore!â€”

Where was your voice as Michael Moore spewed his delibertate deceit? Do you suppose he would have changed his ‘true story’ if asked?

ABC is presenting a docudrama- entertainment- Moore presented what he said was the ‘truth,’ knowing full well he was lying.

I guess we know where you stand.
By Gaius, September 7, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

The decision to not be the releasing company for Moore’s film was a business decision by Disney, not an attempt to stifle. The hairsplitting you want to engage in is inane. The film is more than welcome to exist provided it meets your standard. Otherwise it must not be allowed to exist. You can try to spin that, but that is exactly what you are argung.

You’re not filling the comment section with inconvenient truths, you’re trying to fill it with hairsplitting, things not even raised in the original post and distractions – it becomes tiresome.
By sigmund, carl and alfred, September 7, 2006 @ 1:46 pm

FYI, I added these remarks:

“Further, it is ironic to note that those who now so ferociously committed to accuracy and integrity, make no such demands of the vile hate, bigotry and racism that is broadcast and published daily in the Arab world.

It is even more astonishing how readily these idiots- hypocrites, all- will accept the hate, bigotry, racist and every outrageous charge at face value.”
By cfaller96, September 7, 2006 @ 3:22 pm

Gaius, in your original post you claimed that conservatives were only concerned with correcting the inaccuracy of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” while liberals are only concerned with silencing “The Path to 9/11.” That’s not true.

I dispute your claim that critics “only wanted the record straight” with Fahrenheit 9/11. Disney attempted to do more than that. You may call that a business decision, but on what justification was that based?

Disney attempted to block distribution of a documentary that was critical of an Administration they hoped would give them tax breaks. I suppose that’s a business decision in one sense, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a political decision in another. After all, politics drove the business justification in the first place. Perhaps that’s where we disagree. But I digress.

I dispute your original claim that liberals “decry the existence” of the “Path to 9/11.” Liberals are looking for this film to be fixed, OR pulled off the air. To me there’s a big difference between demanding a more accurate portrayal, and blocking the film from ever airing. I guess you think that’s hairsplitting, and I guess that’s where we disagree.

I take issue with the implication that conservatives only engage in fact-checking, while liberals want voices silenced. Conservative criticism of “The Reagans” proves that conservatives will engage in the same behavior. By the way, that was a docudrama for entertainment purposes as well. Accurately portraying Reagan is something to get worked up about, but not accurately portraying Clinton’s activities WRT Osama Bin Laden?

As I said before, if there were historical inaccuracies in “The Reagans,” that should have been fixed or pulled (which is what happened.) I don’t see any hypocrisy here. Both docudramas should value historical accuracy, and should work to fix problems.

You’ll note that I’ve concerned myself with claims you made in your original post, with the exception of conservative treatment of “The Reagans.” But I think conservatives’ behavior during the leadup to “The Reagans” provides a lot of context for this debate, which is why I brought it up. Maybe you disagree, but just because you didn’t mention it doesn’t make it “inane” or “tiresome.”

(Sigmund, my “voice” was, essentially, not on the Net when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, although I did see it. Regarding the inaccuracies of it, I’d appreciate a link. Was THAT what Anchoress was referring to?)
By Gaius, September 7, 2006 @ 3:34 pm

Your comment indicates the problem. You see Disney as blocking the distribution. They did no such thing. (Nor were they under pressure from former presidents to do so, were they?) They refused to be the distributer after they made a business decision that they did not want to be involved in the movie. Another distributer stepped in at once when Disney did not pick up the option. That is not trying to silence the movie. Peddle that line elsewhere.

If you want accuracy the movie would have to show the reported four failures to get bin Laden on the part of the Clinton administration, right?

You keep bringing Reagan up – I have not done so. I do not appreciate extraneous points being thrown at me demanding I address them. I was not blogging then, have no opinion on it and damn sure am not going to research it just to make you happy? ‘K?
By cfaller96, September 7, 2006 @ 5:08 pm

Gaius said:
You see Disney as blocking the distribution.

Well, no, I didn’t say Disney blocked it. I said they attempted, and almost succeeded in blocking it. See the difference? You and I clearly disagree about whether there were political motivations involved in that decision, and whether that constitutes an attempt to “silence” a movie.

Gaius said:
the other decries the existence [of a movie].”

I still don’t understand how you can claim that liberals “decry the existence” of this movie. All of us would like to see a more accurate portrayal of events leading up to 9/11. Failing that, we would like to see a more balanced “dramatization” of events. Failing that, we would like to see some serious airtime dedicated to a critique of the inaccuracies. Failing that, we would like to see the movie put off until after the midterm elections. Failing that, we would like to see this film put onto a cable network. Failing that, we would like to see this film not aired. You think that represents decrying the existence of a movie. I don’t, because there are five actions ABC could take before we would want it completely yanked.

If you see anyone unconditionally calling for the pulling of this movie, no matter what ABC does to fix it, then I would greatly appreciate a link.

Gaius said:
If you want accuracy the movie would have to show the reported four failures to get bin Laden on the part of the Clinton administration, right?

What four failures to get Bin Laden are you talking about? I’d appreciate a link backing up your claim.

Gaius said:
I do not appreciate extraneous points being thrown at me demanding I address them

I didn’t “demand” that you address “The Reagans,” I merely brought it up as context to the debate. I feel it’s relevant, and you obviously disagree.

But just because you don’t believe it’s relevant doesn’t mean that it can’t or shouldn’t be discussed. I speculate there are other readers here that might be interested, but maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell.
By Chris, September 7, 2006 @ 5:58 pm

Sheesh.

Everyone!

1) Allow them their bloody freedom of speech and let the movie come out.
2) Then once it’s out, using your own freedom of speech, prove to everyone why piece of crap.

You all look like your respective american political stereotypes arguing over this sort of thing.
By Roland Hesz, September 8, 2006 @ 12:11 am

“And who exactly called for Moore’s film not to be shown?”

Gaius, I think if you dig on the net, you can find one website.
Maybe two.

Actaully my republican US friends – yes, I got republican friends – was going loud that the movie should be abolished, and burnt.

Now that is at least two I know of. Plus mother in law of one guy said that Moore should be hanged for treason.
Now, that is three.

Don’t try to tell me, that republicans are angels, without sin and all.

“Hey, Roland, does it change your opinion when Bill Clinton is demand that the program either be changed or pulled off the air?

“The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,”

Well, I see your point.
The man dares to be furious about a movie that gets aired on the biggest TV network in the US, that tells – according to him – lies about him.

I dunno. I will air a documentary that shows your fault in a terrible accident resulting in the death of a couple hundred people, cause you were busy with your secretary, and deny the opportunity to see the movie before I release it.

Would you complain?
No, I don’t think you would. Why would you?

(Of course as we all know it is only a hypothetical thing, you can quite safely say: No, I would not go that far. But as far as I know you through your page, you would be quite livid. Not that I really know you, just based on your blog, and that’s a quite limited thing)

But yes, I concede, Bill Clinton thinks that he should be portrayed fairly or none at all. It is horrible.

One more thing about this “but the Moore movie…” line.

In your link, just look at this line:
“and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves”

The Moore movie was not aired on a public TV network.
I think if ABC has aired that, the Republicans would have gone nuts, crying treason louder and all.

If you can’t see the difference between a limited medion – namely movie theaters – and a public, national broadcast – ABC TV Network -, then I don’t know.

And one final, last word:
I did agree with the republicans complaining about the Moore movie.
I do agree with the democrats complaining about the 9/11 movie.

I think everyone has the right to complain.

But actually, I would like to see it through.

The second tv show of Bush propagand.
I wait for the democrat ones

I hope they included the bit, where the Republican party voted against the Anti-Terrorist Measures the Clinton office brought up.
By BobC, September 8, 2006 @ 1:09 am

cfaller96: “1. Disney (the parent of ABC) DID attempt to silence â€œFahrenheit 9/11,â€ by refusing to distribute the film. They almost succeeded.”

Disney paid for the film to be made, and when they saw it they decided not to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more (at least) to distribute it. This was their right, according to the contract that Moore signed with them.

So by your definition, this is “attempting to silence” the film?

Well then, where were you? Why didn’t you spend $100,000s to distribute it yourself? Were you also atempting to silence it? There was nothing stopping you. If you don’t spend your own money promoting a point of view, are you trying to censor it? That’s completely inane. (It’s also what the Dixie Chicks seem to believe, but their inanity is well established.)

In fact, Moore shopped the film around and easily found other distributors as was also allowed by his contract with Disney.
By Roland Hesz, September 8, 2006 @ 2:23 am

Now, I found it..
Yup, it’s hystericall, you are right.
By Kate, September 8, 2006 @ 5:23 am

Have your forgotten the Reagan miniseries? The right objected and got its way – the series was relegated to cable. Grow up – neither party should get a pass. I wouldn’t watch a propaganda film from the left OR the right. This one is from the right.
By Lee, September 9, 2006 @ 11:30 am

Kate: ” I wouldnâ€™t watch a propaganda film…This one is from the right.”

So even though you have not seen the film – you know it is a propaganda film. So your “handlers” tell you to parrot a line and you do as you are told. Don’t you feel silly?