Posted on 09/09/2006 12:03:37 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
bttt
Good thing Pierre Jennings is no longer with us. He would have demanded the bigwigs at ABC pull the film
just like he threw his weight around re: a certain Toby Keith song :)
>>Toby Keith says the producer of an ABC 4th of July TV special rescinded an offer to have the country singer perform his current hit after the show's host, World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings, heard the song and vetoed it. The single, Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American), is an outpouring of grief, anger and frustration Keith wrote in the wake of Sept. 11 and the earlier death of his father. The controversial, patriotic song tells of a veteran who lost his eye in a combat training mission and also features a number of confrontational verses.
(For the record, Mr. Keith is a lifelong Democrat)
Watchin' 'em flip out over a TV show is hilarious.
The more they freak, the more attention it draws.
What fools in so many ways.
I don't think that you can be anymore blinded than you already are blinded by the war on terror.
If Clinton, Burgler, and Halfbright had gone after OBL as hard as they are ABC, they might have gotten OBL.
The 9-11 commission report...as we have discovered since its release...hasn't exactly been 100 percent fact. So we are all left with a story that will never be truthfully told. Its like the Kennedy episode...in fact....like both Kennedy episodes.
Dean: "It's deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation's history."
Dean followed up: "In fact, the scene where Berger was supposedly thwarting the efforts of field CIA staff, are not true. At the time Berger was busy stuffing TS docs in his pants and socks to coverup the Clinton Administrations failings during one of the most important events in our nation's history."
make that *all* the Kennedy "episodes"...
the infowarrior
DId you notice that DNC has kindly provided a way for you to send your personal message to Robert Iger? I decided to take advantage of it:
Dear Mr Iger:
When I clicked on the Path to 9/11 website, I was miraculously redirected to the Democratic Party site and given an opportunity to write directly to you about this film.
I am astounded and shocked by what I have heard the past couple of days. No, not about the film. About the attempt of current and former government officials from the Democratic Party bullying, cajoling and threatening ABC unless the film is made more palatable to them. Now, that's going to take some work to meet the deadline so Sen. Reid, I guess, just decided to make it easy for you --simply don't show the film at all, he says. Voila! Problem solved for everyone!
Stand firm, Mr. Iger. Run that film -- uncut. This was still America the last time I checked. But it won't be much longer if the gangsters who are putting the screws on you have their way.
Personal note to the Democratic Party, who kindly made this forum available:
Go to hell, brownshirts!
Love,
SCR
I'm aware of that. I'm saying the Democrats gushed over the 9/11 Commission Report. I'm fully aware that it's not 100% factual. That's been my point ever since it was released.
Dean:
If you really believed this - you'd scream it!
No smear left unturned?
First of all, this sounds like a threat. After all, privileges can be revoked.
Second, it's interesting to see the Dems frame their objections in populist terms. The reality is that the energy against the film is coming from a handfull of elites worried about their public image. This is very much a top-down phenomenon. But the Dems are doing everything they can to make it look bottom-up, as conservative disgust with the Reagan film was. Their quickly assembled 200,000 person petition is a case in point. As a tactical matter, it's clear the Dems are making a deliberate effort to keep their anti-film activities from having the appearance of being spurred by the narcissistic self-interest of an elite few. Instead, it's all in the interest of "the people".
How can you say something that you haven't even seen and hasn't even aired is proven inaccurate?
Great message you sent!
I think they should play the entire movie and when the parts come on that Senator Clinton, her husband and the democrats want banned, ABC should put a big red banner across the screen as a disclaimer "CENSURED:Material Not Approved By Democratic Leadership"
That's what I can't figure out either. I'm with the director of the film, let the film air, then debate the movie based on what it contains.
"First of all, this sounds like a threat. After all, privileges can be revoked."
Heck, we ought to support the Dem's on this. If they want to shut down ABC because it says something they don't like after smearing us 98% of the time. Than, we should view it as an oppurtunity to get rid of ABC. It really does not make any difference what stick you use to beat a dog. This way we have a precedent to go after CBS.
I would of donated to it if I could.
Hey Dean,
Post my name if you want, you POS!
I agree, and the louder they yell, the deeper their predicament becomes, IMHO. They're shooting themselves in the foot, politically. Here's why:
It would be more effective to just say it's not factual (and let the viewer go in thinking it's not factual...that is if you believe BJC, but evidently lots of people do otherwise they wouldn't have elected him twice.) So the folks just think, oh, it's just a docudrama like so much on TV, and not a documentary. We saw how much impact Fahrenheit 9/11 had. (Bush is still President.)
By repeatedly yelling for censorship (and if they get it), the viewer now, even if they're prone to believe BJC, will wonder "What got cut out?" and know what they're seeing was a subject of huge controversy. By screaming for censorship, they're bringing more attention to the movie than it would have ordinarily had.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.