Ask Yourself An Honest Question
It appears that the ABC network will bow to pressure from former Clinton administration officials and edit the scene that gave them fits. I posted an earlier observation on the difference to the reaction to Fahrenheit 911 by the right and the almost hysterical attacks by the left on The Path to 9/11. My comment section on that post illustrated the thinking perfectly. On that first post I wrote:
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?
In comments I was informed by one of the people attacking ABC that this was not the case. The left wanted it corrected or pulled off the air. Which is all nuanced and all, but I suspect that saying 'it is alright for the film to air provided it says what we want it to, otherwise it must not be shown' is a distinction without a difference. In fact it is actually worse.
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred also point of the utter falseness of the basic arguments coming from the left.
Here’s the deal. ABC’s production of the ‘Path To 9/11′ is a docudrama. It is entertainment, based on a true story. Michael Moore presented his deliberate deceit as ‘fact’ and indeed, even claimed himself to be a journalist in an interview on Canadian television.
Are there any Americans that are stupid enough to believe that Michael Moore would have ‘corrected’ the lies he told in his ‘journalistic effort,’ if asked?
So, ask yourself an honest question. If the White House had demanded changes who would be howling right now? If ABC had caved in and made the changes who would would be in absolute hysterics right now?
I think we know the answer.
By Neo, Thursday, 7 September , 2006 @ 3:42 pm
This is merely another Rovian plot.
The key is to put in one glaringly wrong piece of information or scene. This is the real bait. The critics jump on it, the writer/director/producer apologies. Meanwhile, all that remains goes unchallenged.
The Democrats seem to have bitten.
By cfaller96, Thursday, 7 September , 2006 @ 6:00 pm
There is this concept of empirical truth. Basically, that there are some things that are true and some things that are false, regardless of who is saying those things. Some call it reality.
Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, et all did not “pass” on an opportunity to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, as depicted in the film. The 9/11 Report, what this movie is allegedly based on, completely and utterly refuted this. Even the filmmakers acknowledge the fabrication. Further, the Clinton Administration did not create an intelligence “wall” between the FBI and the CIA. Again, the 9/11 report, what this movie is allegedly based on, refuted this.
These are empirically false, regardless of whether Bill Clinton, Karl Rove, or Chuckles the Clown makes these claims. So complaining to ABC to edit an empirically false scene is not getting ABC to “say what we want them to,” it’s getting ABC to tell the truth. The empirical truth.
To answer your question, it depends on what the White House wanted to change. If, for example, there was a scene that depicted President Bush literally peeing his pants when informed that “America is under attack,” well I’d completely agree with the White House. That didn’t happen, it was fabricated, and it made President Bush look worse than he empirically was.
If, on the other hand, there was a scene that depicted President Bush reading a children’s book for 7 minutes when informed that “America is under attack,” well, then I’d completely disagree with the White House. That did happen, and excluding it would make President Bush look better than he empirically was.
Do you see how reality and empirical truth guide me and many other people in the reality-based world? A lot of times, that’s where nuance springs from- reality. It seems you don’t value nuance, and thus probably dismiss my above answer, but the world, the real world, is far more interesting than black and white. Even I, in a certain hypothetical situation, would join the White House in condemning a film’s depiction of President Bush.
By Gaius, Thursday, 7 September , 2006 @ 6:13 pm
Oops, looks like empirical reality just got thrown out:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democratic-leadership-threatens.html
This is a naked threat to go after ABC’s license unless it pulls the show. Period - no corrections, no alterations. cancel the show. Or we’re coming for you. This is what is known as a police-state tactic.
Americans will NOT like this, pal.
Cannot wait to see your spin on this, reality-based-wise.
By Blackhawk, Thursday, 7 September , 2006 @ 6:51 pm
What if Disney changed their minds and released it in theaters? Would it go before the Oscars as a ‘documentary’ like Farenheit 911?
By sigmund, carl and alfred, Thursday, 7 September , 2006 @ 8:32 pm
“If, on the other hand, there was a scene that depicted President Bush reading a children’s book for 7 minutes when informed that “America is under attack,†well, then I’d completely disagree with the White House. That did happen, and excluding it would make President Bush look better than he empirically was.”
And you wouldn’t be distracted if your wife or G/F was blowing the football squad- because that wasn’t sexual relations and you wouldn’t be the least bit distracted if you had lied under oath- not to mention the deliberate attemt to subvert justice by attempting to quash the rights of a citizen to bring a criminal case against a sitting president.
Cfaller, you are a stunning monument to mediocre and pedestrian thought.
Find a better source for your talking points, or, send in someone smarter, because clearly, you aren’t making headway.
By Gaius, Thursday, 7 September , 2006 @ 8:49 pm
Let’s see, it would have been empirically better if what? He jumped to his feet and rushed from the room? Leaving the children confused and upset? And jumped up to rush where? Empirically speaking the people who were in charge of protecting him had to figure out a plan of action. Because it is absolutely certain that the scenario of some people hijacking planes and crashing them into the WTC had never even crossed the minds of rational people.
And of course there is the empirical question what exactly would have been one iota different if Bush had upset the children and rushed from the room. Would he have single-handedly captured Osama right then and there? Would he have rained retribution down on the heads of the wrong-doers?
As Sigmund, Carl and Alfred say, you really need much better talking points. You are so shallow that you appear to be all surface.
By Roland Hesz, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 2:41 am
“Because it is absolutely certain that the scenario of some people hijacking planes and crashing them into the WTC had never even crossed the minds of rational people.”
There was even plans for that event, or to a similar two years prior to the attack, involving a plane and the Eiffel tower.
“‘it is alright for the film to air provided it says what we want it to, otherwise it must not be shown’”
Uhm… That’s not what it means. But whatever.
“will bow to pressure from former Clinton administration officials and edit the scene that gave them fits.”
You mean, they tone down an outright lie, making it less offending? That’s quite a bow.
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred:
“And you wouldn’t be distracted if your wife or G/F was blowing the football squad- because that wasn’t sexual relations and you wouldn’t be the least bit distracted if you had lied under oath- not to mention the deliberate attemt to subvert justice by attempting to quash the rights of a citizen to bring a criminal case against a sitting president.”
What the heck has it do with cfaller’s comment?
You brought up something totally unconnected, out of context stuff, and you call it an argument.
Both the 9/11 and Fahreinhet is a piece of trash, political propagand.
People are whining, complaining - they are politician, that’s they job - or at least they think.
Of course, right-wing people - like you Gaius - will find the worst in the left-wing’s reactions, and left-wing pepole will find the worst in the right-wing’s actions.
No problem there. It’s only a futile and stupid thing, and hurts the country more.
But no problem there either.
By cfaller96, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Gaius said:
Let’s see, it would have been empirically better if what? He jumped to his feet and rushed from the room? Leaving the children confused and upset? And jumped up to rush where? Empirically speaking the people who were in charge of protecting him had to figure out a plan of action.
Gaius, I don’t think you understand the concept of empirical truth. Regardless of whether it was good or bad for the President to sit for 7 minutes when informed that America is under attack, there is no disputing that he did, in fact, sit reading a children’s book for 7 minutes. There is also no disputing that he did NOT, in fact, literally pee his pants when informed that America is under attack.
Thus, to reiterate my answer from before, I would join the Bush Administration in condemning a film that depicts him as peeing his pants. Generally, I would join the Bush Administration in condemning a film that did not make an effort at historical accuracy and fabricated scenes that embarrassed President Bush. By the same token, however, I would criticize the Bush Administration for trying to remove factually correct scenes from a film that embarrass President Bush.
We can debate the propriety of sitting in a classroom for 7 minutes while America is under attack later, but for now I’ve answered the question you posed in your post. Was it the answer you “knew” was coming? Do you find me hypocritical for wanting historical accuracy for everyone?
I am honestly baffled that I have to defend the concept of historical accuracy, as if it’s some sort of controversial or politically biased idea. Making films about historical events should be as accurate as possible, regardless of whether the film is about a Republican President or a terrorist attack. Why do you have a problem with that?
By cfaller96, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Honestly ask yourself these questions:
1. Do you think it’s wrong to tell lies in a film that deals with September 11th?
2. Do you think it’s wrong to pressure a network to correct lies in a film that deals with September 11th?
By Gaius, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 1:02 pm
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
By Roland Hesz, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Gaius.
One thing.
Has anyone been defending the Fahrenheit movie?
That you drag it out, saying “They lied too” reminds me to the time, when being 8 I defended my bad score on a test saying “but Stevie got an E too”..
You can guess what my father said.
Yes, it was full of lies.
That means this movie can stay if it is full of lies?
If someone is a thief, I can be a thief too?
Or trying to say, that just like in Fahrenheiut911, the lies are unacceptable in the ‘The path to 9/11′, too?
By Gaius, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Read above. Yes it is being defended.