One of the few MSM guys who still appears to have a few functioning brain cells.
NBC news gave up any pretense of objectivity way back in 2008, if not earlier. I don’t see why this would cause them any problems.
Imagine what that series would look like if they actually told the truth. OK, that was fun, back to reality now.
And he thought with Keith Olbermann, Ol’ Tingle and Ed Schulz they escaped any negative associations because the peacock didn’t appear?
Has he seen their ratings?
Oh, that’s right, at least for those the White Hut was compensating them with taxpayer dollars, just like CNN!
HF
It’s too bad Marjorie Main has passed on. Marie Dressler and Wallace Beery would have been great a Bill and Hill.
Huma could have been played by any scrawny woman with a rather large mouth. Weener could be played by one of filmdom’s homeliest. Vince Foster could be played by DeCrapio while Craig Livingstone could be played by Gov. Christy.
NBC does news? I thought they were just the propaganda organ for the regime.
Chuck...you have had your lips glued to Hillary’s considerable posterior for years.
You want to do a mini-series on Hillary...fine.
Let’s start in 1958 or so so we understand who her family was
include her time at college
her activities at the Rose Law Firm
Cattle futures
Vince Foster and the ensuing raid on the WH counsel’s office
What became of those missing documents that appeared in the WH two years after the subpena
Gennifer Flowers
Kathleen Willey
Monica Lewinski
Juanita Brodderick
your perjury,
your lousy memory for anything incriminating
right down to your what “difference does it make”.
It doesn’t need to be a total “Hit piece” but it shoudl be just as unflattering to Hillary, as it is glorifying.
Hillary’s life should be examined, cellulite and all.
Translation: “The entertainment Division is making it extremely difficult for us to disguise our subterfuge.”
Only one issue, Mr. Todd:
NBC DOES NOT CARE.
They are a State-run propaganda ministry, and if I am not mistaken, propaganda organs do not care about ratings or what people might think of them.
In fact, in this current era, I would expect NBC to simply ‘double down’.
Nonsense! NBC is NBC. Its god is liberalism and its country is journalism. They are all a bunch of traitors!
A Hitlery miniseries is just another confirmation of this. Denials are nothing more than blatant confirmation of their contempt for We The People.
Simply a show of false concern. The “newsman” Chuck Todd, has to give the appearance of being impartial to keep independents on his, and Mrs. Clinton’s side.
In reality, Chuckie will wet his pants with glee watching a program that will all be deify Mrs. Clinton. Liberal men like Todd count on strong women to show them the way.
What difference does it make? (snicker) NBC is betting on the greater than 50% braindead voting public not caring a whit.
And ya know what Chucky, they’re right!
Defeat NBC !!! Red states need a state surcharge on all TV Commercials.
Red states could raise some easy money this way, and defeat the liberal media at the same time.
Giant firewall?? I’t hidden by Gore’s Lock Box.
C’mon- this case was brought as the q was if this movie was part of campaigning. NBC CNN are getting around this?:
Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary Clinton movie
[dang-they don’t have the date-bonrad]
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7166013&page=1
The Supreme Court appeared open to vigorous arguments Tuesday that federal campaign-finance law wrongly limits corporate-funded messages in political elections.
Theodore Olson, representing the producers of a 90-minute movie highly critical of former Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton, told the justices that the First Amendment freedom to participate in the political process “is being smothered by one of the most complicated, expensive and incomprehensible regulatory regimes ever invented.”
Olson specifically protested a provision of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that kept Citizens United, a conservative group that produced the film, from distributing Hillary: The Movie through a video-on-demand program in early 2008.
More significantly, Olson asked the court to reverse long-standing cases allowing government to restrict campaign spending by corporations and unions because of the potentially corruptive aspect of big-money interests.
The justices’ comments, along with their recent pattern of increasingly scrutinizing laws that limit corporate-funded political speech, suggested that Citizens United would prevail. Yet it was not clear how broadly the justices might rule and affect money in elections.
Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether, if the majority finds corporate campaign limits do not cover the feature-length movie, “then the whole statute (barring corporate-funded broadcasts) should fall.”
There was no obvious consensus among a majority of the nine justices on the potential loosening of limits on corporate money.
The law at issue bars TV or radio ads financed with corporate or labor union money that refer to a candidate for federal office 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
Olson contended the movie, produced partly with corporate contributions, differs from the usual 60-second ads that Congress targeted. He characterized it as a documentary about Clinton, now secretary of State.
Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart countered that “the film repeatedly criticizes Hillary Clinton’s character and integrity” and said Congress aimed to curb electioneering regardless of a message’s length.
He noted that the law applies to any “broadcast, cable or satellite communication” before an election.
Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical of Stewart’s argument. “So if Wal-Mart airs an advertisement that says, ‘We have candidate action figures for sale, come buy them,’ that counts as an electioneering communication?”
Stewart said it could. He also said Congress might be able to bar corporate spending to publish and publicize a campaign book before an election.
The four liberal justices, including David Souter, seemed ready to view the movie as a prohibited campaign ad.
“Doesn’t this one fall into campaign advocacy?” Souter said, referring to a quotation in the movie that says, “ ‘She will lie about anything. She is deceitful. She is ruthless, cunning, dishonest. …’ This sounds to me like campaign advocacy.”
