Says Sandy Berger, who should know about yanking. He's a yanker of historic proportions.
I wonder what brainstorming went into the choice of the word "yank," which seems to be roundly favored by those who want to pressure ABC to withdraw its docu-drama "Path to 9/11." You know how the Democrats are obsessed with framing.
Yank! It'll make censorship seem positively patriotic -- the Yanks are coming! -- and kinda sportsmanlike -- how about those Yanks?
९ सप्टेंबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४३ टिप्पण्या:
Ann,
while your WaPo Berger Documents story was accurate at the time, this post plea article in the WaPo has more facts and shows that Berger and crowd were lying in the first article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html
In the previous post thread I said that there were 500 prescreening DVD's out there. I was wrong, Hugh Hewitt, says that he has 1 of 900 copies. How can the Clinton's expect to put the genie back into the bottle?
I'm glad to see you've dropped any pretensions to being anything but a right-wing shill.
We always knew it, but at least you've stopped pretending.
Dave, and are you glad you let us all see that you think opposition to censorship is a right wing thing?
You know the docu-drama slams Bush and Condi too, don't you?
Drill Sgt:
I think the Clintons' goal at this point is not to put the genie back in the bottle but to delegitimize the series as a whole. Media savvy as they are, I think they know they don't have much chance of wiping the whole thing out so they are trying to influence the perception of the series so that it comes to be regarded as a partisan job.
It sounds to me like the problem they have with the series is not with a scene or two but with the larger picture that emerges of the Clinton White House as careless and indifferent when it came to the growing terror threat. Of course that dramatizes the Dems' biggest weakness--the perception that they aren't serious enough on national defense to be trusted in the post-9/11 era.
I think the current Clinton PR offensive is less about altering the content of the series or trying to get it taken off than it is about marginalizing it. If the public perceives the series as a piece of partisan propaganda, the Clinton-Berger crowd will have acheived what they set out to do.
The hypocrisy being displayed today -- eg, Freder here -- is pretty funny. It's too easy to name other documentaries and docu-dramas that you didn't yell about. Please, stop embarrassing yourselves. Or, okay, embarrass the hell out of yourselves. Wander about all day screaming, stumbling about with your pants down around your ankles. But don't expect me not to point and laugh.
Zap that bug!
I just love hearing Frederson and the left get all moralistic about slander. You've been slandering the President, the military and the country, to one degree or other, for the last 6 years. Talk about Fahrenheit 9/11! Call the firemen, Sandy and Bill have a pile of tapes and documents to burn.
Look, I've been critical in the past when people have complained about censorship when all that was happening was criticism, that is, more speech. But this is promoting censorship, trying to prevent the other speaker from speaking.
back to Ann's 2 posting points:
1. Why use Berger as the point person? Albright would seem like a much better candidate. as SecState, she was supposed to be the talker, not the doer, so her role in everything is much more circumspect. Similarly, Berger's theft of very sensitive documents intended to coverup Clinton shortcomings on terrorism, makes him the worst person to front the Yank effort.
As for Yank, I have a show biz image of the bad performer who gets yanked off the stage. "Get the hook!" doesn't ring well here.
yank
pull
censor
withdraw
postpone
cancel
I bet they used a focus group :)
Geoduck: So you're promoting a narrow definition of censorship, limited to when the government directly prevents the speech? Not when a powerful group pressures the speaker to shut up? Even when they allude to the Communications Act and try to imply that there will be consequences? Are you going to stick to that definition when the tables are turned? If not, you hypocrit! If so, you're turning your back on liberal values. Pathetic!
"a bunch of citizens calling up ABC"
What a ridiculously disingenuous characterization of what's going on!
Bill Clinton, just another citizen. The Democratic Party, a bunch of citizens.
Again, you're pants are down around your ankles. You might want to yank them up.
Geoducks2 and monkeyboy said...
Didn't Harry Reid make not so subtle threats about ABCs broadcast licence?
yes
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&
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. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
The Senate Democratic Leadership
geoduck2 said..."As for a slander suit. Hey - hard to prove. But bringing a complaint to court is a civil right. The judge can always throw it out if it's determined to have no merit."
Read Rule 11 some time. I don't know if you're a lawyer, but we do have a little thing called professional ethics. Hard to believe, I know. But true.
SippicanCottage said...
Sandy Berger- Fawn Hall with man-boobs.
That comparison is a bit unfair to Fawn.
Yes, she did shred documents, but she was a secretary and her boss asked/directed her to do it. Unless you think Bill told Sandy to sanitize the files.
well at least we're an American Blog audience rather than Brit or Aussie. Ann would have had to make Berger the Wanker reference instead of Yank.
Look, I've been critical in the past when people have complained about censorship when all that was happening was criticism, that is, more speech. But this is promoting censorship, trying to prevent the other speaker from speaking.
Now, that's incisive. A juvenile perspective might also be considered. The problem with a 'focus group' is that sometimes, demurely, you don't include all the variables. What they didn't include was that the critics of the program have been yanking on it so hard they've worn the son-of-a-bitch out.
geoduck2,
before Ann performs a legal put-down, let me intercede in non-lawyer speak
1. Bringing a slander suit is a civil right. Hard to prove but it's still any citizen's right to make their case.
very hard for a "public person" like all these Clintonites are, to win slander when it must be proved that ABC knew the statement was false, that they went forward recklessly, with malice and that they weren't contributing to topics of public discourse.
2. But bringing a complaint to court is a civil right.
The judge can always throw it out if it's determined to have no merit.
Rule 11, subjects the lawyer to penalties for knowingly bringing a case without merit or presenting representations that the lawyer knew was false.
Four Democratic Congressional leaders stated darkly that this show was possibly in violation of an FCC license.
I invite all lefties here to honestly consider the reaction had 4 Republican leaders done the same thing in a reverse situaion.
what would our advertising expert hdhouse say?
SippicanCottage said...
I've decided I love this thing. it drives the right people right up the wall.
no press is bad press?
I expect if ABC guts this out, their ratings will be through the roof. I expect they realize it as well.
I wonder if the fact that they fear the threats from Dem's in Congress to hold aggressive oversight hearings on all sorts of topics, will chill them too much.
and Sandy is feckless. I hope he realizes that in the future he could have his old job back under a Dem POTUS, but he'll never be SecState or any other job requiring confirmation.
I can't see even all the Dem Senattor's confirming somebody that steals Top Secret Code word material to keep it from the 9/11 commission.
Geoduck: Something tells me these folks would have lawyers, but in any case, unrepresented folks are bound by the rule too. It's worth reading if you think you can just file claims in court any reason:
Rule 11. ...Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. ....
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
There are sanctions for violating this rule.
So rethink what you have a right to do. And while your at it, pay some attention to those speech rights you Democrats sometimes act like you care about.
So, Freder, dramatizing a historical event with imagined scenes that offend the powerful individuals portrayed is not protected by the First Amendment; it's on the level with using speech to create a clear and present danger (eg shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a riot)? Wow, you Democrats really don't believe in rights very much. You like to preen about how much you do, but, man, you really don't.
Your pants are down around your ankles and now you're tripping face forward onto the pavement, Freder.
Hey, Michael Moore has a new film!
On a lighter note, one of my favorite movies is "Absence of Malice"
Paul Newman, Sally Fields and too little of Wilford Brimley
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081974/
Libel,
mis-use of leaks
freedom of the press
Absence of Malice of course
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna sit right here and talk about it. Now if you get tired of talking here, Mr. Marshal Elving Patrick there will hand you one of them subpoenas he's got stuck down in his pocket and we'll go downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury... Elliot? Jim?... Fine. All right, Elving, hand whichever one of these fellas you like a subpoena and we'll go on downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury.
District Attorney James A. Quinn: Gallagher's a government witness.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Wonderful thing, a subpoena.
-----------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.
----------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.
-----------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: What'd you figure you'd do after government service, Elliott?
Elliott Rosen: I'm not quitting.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You ain't no Presidential appointee, Elliott. One that hired you is me. You got thirty days.
-------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: We can't have people go around leaking stuff for their own reasons. It ain't legal. And worse than that, by God it ain't right.
I love the way Geoduck showed up, made a lot of sharp points, and then when I called her on it, just said she couldn't answer. Had work to do. Questions too hard. Well, but you showed up and presented your questions, which I took the trouble to write about. What bullshit!
And then she drops one last turd of a question: "Maybe there's a little bit of projection going on?" Ridiculous. That's not a legitimate way to participate in the comments. You come to my blog, and I specifically engage with you individually, and you run away? Leaving one completely unsupported, insulting question? Should we waste our time engaging with that one too. This is a textbook example of bad comment behavior!
How about Freder? Maybe he has no time left all of a sudden too.
Ann,
Geoduck2 isn't the biggest problem around here. :)
I tried to save you the trouble of doing a Professor Kingsfield on her. LOL
Paper Chase: Another flick I like. Along with the Verdict.
I don't have much use for lawyers beyond my wife and Ann. Why is it I like lawyer flicks?
Geoduck: "Of course. I am assuming that a case can be made for slander, in the case. Why would you assume that I wouldn't think this?"
Go back and read your own comments. You were saying people had a right to bring lawsuits without limitation.
Freder: Answer my question as I wrote it. If you can't see what a narrow view of free speech you are taking, how shockingly you would shackle filmmakers, you are a fool. You like to keep making personal comments about me -- as if saying I'm an idiot might make it so -- but you are blind to your own foolishness. That is the basis of the pants-down metaphor, which is very common and well understood. Would that you could understand how down yours are on this one. Absolutely, flat out pathetic.
Come on! What's wrong with you people! Why am I abusing the exclamation points?!
Oh, yeah.
55 comments in, and no one has made a comment along the lines (unless I skipped it)
. . . If President Clinton had yanked IT more, maybe he wouldn't have been so distracted by interns.
(and yes, this joke would depend on what your definition if IT is)
(and this joke is apropriate given that the biggest bone of contention (heh heh, he said, "bone") was whether or not the Lewinsky scandal was a distraction during Pres. Clinton's final term that kept him from pursuing terrorists with the same vigor he displayed in protecting his own hide)
. . . on the other hand, may spelling of the word appropriate, isn't appropriate, and should be considered corrected with this post.
If anyone suggests that my spelling of the word in the previous post was characteristic of my abilities as a speller, I'll SUE them for SLANDER.
It's my right and responsibility as a citizen, afterall.
just a few random things -
- Rule 11 is post 19th century
- Censorship isn't automatically government censorship
- reading this thread was worth it just to see Ann post "pants down around your ankles"
- there was an instance during the Clinton administration where they had a chance to toss a missile at Bin Laden, but by the time they made a decision, he had already left the area. I have no idea if this involved Sandy Berger; but they took their time and they missed the guy. Berger has a right to complain here, but there was a backstory to this-it's not something they came up with out of nowhere.
I think that there is outrage from the left about the docudrama on 3 different levels.
1. personal. The mis-attribution of actions to key Dem Celebs and storyline compression that blends multiple incidents into a dramatic scene. ignore this part for a sec. there is some level of justifiable criticism here.
2. blame for 9/11. previous 8 years versus 8 months stuff. ignore that for a bit. I think this part is fair or at least open to interpretation
3. what I don't think gets enough visibility by the public is that the show directly attacks the entire democratic strategy for fighting terrorism in the future.
As Kerry put it:
When . . . Kerry [was asked] what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
fundamentally Dems think that OBL and terrorists are a criminal justice matter and the GOP thinks its a war.
or Howard Dean:
"There's no question that Rove was the one that leaked the information about the CIA agent's name," Dean told MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell on Friday.
But when it came to the Al Qaida terror chief, Dean insisted that bin Laden was innocent until proven guilty.
That is what the Dem's don't want on display in the show. their feckless approach to our safety, past, present and future.
It's one thing if Horward Dean or the DNC were to come out and complain about ABC. However, having the Senate leaders issue a veiled threat to ABC on something involving political speech is very troubling. In my opinion a great percentage of the news broadcast by the networks is completely false and is political propaganda. I don't recall Bush or the Congress threatening Michael Moore or the networks for their constant slanders - I don't even recall such threats after memogate when it was clear CBS news was trying to present false facts as NEWS and not even as a docudrama.
IF ABC does well in the ratings, prepare for more "docudramas" criticisng liberals. Hollywood may have found a new market.
Maybe folks would be more comfortable if the phrase, "jerk it off the air" were used instead?
(sorry, male, one-track mind)
But please, go ahead Democrats, keep on attacking Disney and Wal Mart during election season.
As someone who I can't find the link for pointed out. . .
Who's next, kittens, moms and apple pie?
(If ABC cancels completely, expect a torrent of bittorrents to fill the internet, or if they're smart, they'll offer it up on their own website as a free download)
dklittl said...
My guess is that they view this series as some sort of "right wing" conspiracy or machination. And if there's even a hint of conservatism in a project, they'll be against it.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy but there is more than enough evidence that its a right wing machination. You have a film that was screened almost exclusively for right wing activists. And even when the request was put out, they refuse to screen it for the Democrats who are actually being potrayed in the film.
It was screened at the National Press Club with 9/11 commission members from both parties in the audience. It was screened and reviewed by the NYT that thought it was pretty good.
Richard Clarke, that well known Bush fan was a technical advisor. More right wing bias?
Yuck! So nasty and defensive in this thread!
Wow! I am so honored!
I would just like to say how honored I am that Ann is using pants around your ankles, obviously in honor of me being first in using the phrase in my smackdown of Freder in yesterday's post:
"This is it: crunch time for getting the slanderous ABC television docudrama 'The Path to 9/11' yanked off the air."
Now, as an evil conservative, if only I can figure a way to control who gets to use the phrase . . .
*Note to Freder: sorry if I'm playing too rough with you man.
relax Geo.
I still love you even if you are a Duck.
I am going to want some pointers to Willamette wineries however.
Geoduck said: "Can I leave now?"
Ann will respond "Don't you dare"
I love this blog but got to get ready for the ND-Penn State game and The Phillies after that. Life is good.
Freder apparently is acting as if he were the guardian of "the Truth".
What his comments fail to appreciate is the incontrovertable fact that historical recreations are often inaccurate in detail. Their very creation relies on the all too fallible memories, perceptions, and interpretations of human beings.
Like an historian, a movie director must make selections from the varied versions of events caused by this fallibility.
Having done this he and several other commenters suggest that the attempts to get ABC to yank the show are purely private and therefore not censorship as it is commonly defined.
But that ignores implied threats to also "yank" the broadcast licenses of ABC affiliates if it does not yank the offending program. An example of this is the letter by Senator Reid and three Democrat senatorial colleagues to Disney's president.
The letter is at this link:
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&
If Michael Moore's rendering of the war on terror in Farenheit 9/11 is legitimate docudrama or documentary film making, why isn't this documentary?
SippicanCottage said...
Hi signore drill sargeant-
I can recite the Verdict from memory.
so do you identify with the:
- angry big collar husband, helpless at the courtroom rail, or
- angry old lawyer friend, when Frankie passes up the $210k settlement?
blue collar
Paul Zimrek said:
"Remember the apocryphal words of Thomas Jefferson: "Fair, non-dramatized dissent not involving corporations or using the public airwaves is the highest form of patriotism.""
I say it is very doubtful Thomas Jefferson ever used the word "airwaves".
I will be watching on Sunday. In fact I am going to call all of my independent friends and tell them to watch. If a liberal network is slamming democrats, it must be true! What a nightmare for dems.
Geoduck: You didn't just say a slander suit was hard to prove, you said "The judge can always throw it out if it's determined to have no merit."
That implies that it isn't the responsibility of the plaintiff to avoid filing a baseless suit. You could just file something frivolous and the judge "can always throw it out." But that isn't so. That was my point.
Hey, speaking of the 19th century, do you know why Oscar Wilde went to prison?
Paul Zrimsek: LOL.
XWL: Thanks. People are so worked up about this they can't even think of masturbation.
Brent: That's funny. I didn't remember reading that, but I must have seen it... that you wrote it. Or maybe that Freder's pants really are down around his ankles. Or maybe something about talking about Berger makes us think "pants."
Other questions I can answer?
Do I talk about my law students' pants? No, but Kingsfield in "Paper Chase" insults a student who gives a bad answer by asking him if he feels the wind blowing on his backside or something like that. So it would be traditional to say something like that. I don't do it myself. The students don't normally just call me an idiot to my face either, by the way, though I'd be surprised if they didn't sometimes when they're off on their own.
Am I a Democrat? I was registered as a Democrat when I voted in states where you have to register, but I've been reminded that we don't register for a party in Wisconsin, so I'm not, officially. I consider myself an independent these days. I don't like either party enough to call myself a member. And the reason I'm saying "Democrats" in this post is to avoid saying "liberals." I do consider myself a liberal.
The right loves censorship too. Look at how they yanked a PBS show, because it happened to have lesbians in it. Or look at how they forced a CBS show about a minister off the air, because the minister had a gay son.
I'm tired of the right-wing hypocrites saying that they oppose censorship. What complete bullshit.
It's only in the middle that you'll find people who are consistently against censorship.
Clinton is campaigning. His response is classic Carville "War Room" stuff. Sure it's heavy handed, but that's the way he plays the game, as do most of the big time pols. Shame on ABC if they cave.
Lest we forget, on Sept. 11, 2001 there was a smoking crater in lower Manhattan, a huge black hole in the Pentagon, and another airlier augured in a field in western Pennsylvania--all testament to the damn fine job we did protecting ourselves.
I love how djfeckless xeroxes off the Democratic party talking points then signs off with a weak-kneed celebration of nonpartisanship. Labels are so, like, plastic, man! The American people are so cool and moderate... that is until the poll numbers start to go the other way on our pet issues or they vote for (another) Republican for president. Then the deejay can go badmouth Americans as intolerant, stupid sheeple once again.
Anyway, you've played that DNC record one too many times- I smell a payola scandal!
One more answerable question, from Geoduck: "1) why in the world do you sound angry?"
Your use of the phrase "in the world" implies that it's really weird that I'm passionate on this topic. This is free speech, folks. This is where you are showing you don't care about it when it doesn't favor you. My question is why aren't YOU passionate? Here you are puzzled by why there is even a reason to care. You should be ashamed. I'm quite serious. So quit with the oh my, yucky, everyone's angry crap. Look at yourselves and wake up.
"I suppose conservatives would be angry and engage in the same process if Jay ROckefeller was the only member of the BiPartisan Commision to be consulted on docudrama that was to be aired on national television"
No, because Rockefeller is merely a pushover for Senator Roberts and the bipartisan commission is merely a rubber stamp for the Republican Party.
I have been informed of this fact previously and now plan to spread the word like the Ancient Mariner. All misguided souls must see the light.
Hugh Hewitt makes an interesting point about this whole debate. He thinks that the whole motivation of dems is not about the few scenes with Sandy Berger et al, but to get the whole thing cancelled. Hugh says most of the story is about Ramsey Youseff and Khlid Sheik Muhammad, two bad goes currently in custody. Hugh argues that Democrats want Americans to know as little as possible about these two guys.
Sloanasaurus, my guess is that the primary motivation is the potential impact on the midterm elections.
"The right loves censorship too. Look at how they yanked a PBS show, because it happened to have lesbians in it. Or look at how they forced a CBS show about a minister off the air, because the minister had a gay son."
I knew there had to be a way work that pet issue into it!
I'm afraid the "oh yeah, well they do it too!" is NOT an adequate or admirable position on censorship.
PBS could show anything that they want, if they didn't rely on Mom and Dad taxpayer's credit cards to pay the bills. Set yourself up as an arm of the State, and you have to play by the State's rules. It's not an analogous situation.
Palladian - You really can't follow a logical thought, can you?
I did NOT endorse censorship. I'm just calling the right-wingers hypocrites. The right-wingers, after all, were the same ones who demanded that the Reagan mini-series be pulled off the air.
Can't we just recognize this for what it is? Partisan shrills (on the right and left) are going to be partisan shrills.
Shocker.
Palmtree,
We allow lies and slander to be broadcast all the time. Hell, half of network news and almost all of the pundit shoutfests are pure BS.
In defense of free speech, my old man used say "never wonder if a man's an idiot. Make him talk and prove it one way or the other."
"Was it okay for the Reagan miniseries from 2003 to be yanked under political pressure? If so, how is that different from Democrats trying to protect the Clinton legacy?"
It's different because, as linked in this thread, the Democrats have darkly hinted that there could be consequences regarding ABCs broadcast license.
The decision to pull the Reagan miniseries was entirely up to the network. They chose to bow to pressure from consumers and activists, but they didn't have to. The current situation is different- that the actual people portrayed in this show seem so upset about it gives the distinct impression that they're trying to hide something.
We'll see how the newly censorius Democrats react to the movie about President Bush being assasinated in 2007 when it comes out.
DJWreckless:
What do you think of the use of the Clinton Foundation as the vehicle to protest this movie?
Here's the link to its letter:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/09/in_new_letter_clintons_lawyer_demands_abc_yank_film
BTW, I agree with you that the bluenoses on the right who try to do this stuff with programs are equally mistaken.
I also agree with the commenters who suggest that many of us in the middle will have to watch to see what all of the heat was about.
Federer, the historian in you is perfectly happy with the unflattering rendition of Secretary Rice because it is, in your mind, "true".
I suspect there are those in the country, including Secretary Rice, who do not share your view. Are you again showing your butt (another expression for having your pants around your ankles) with that observation or was that your attempt at very subtle and gentle satire?
On voting for Feingold: I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but I think he's a good man, and I like having him in the Senate. He deserved reelection, and he was better than the other guy. Frankly, in Wisconsin, the Republicans don't seem to come up with good candidates. I've only voted for a Republican here once (for Tommy Thompson, once).
And all of those who are calling for 9/11 conspiracy professors to be fired from universities - isn't that "censorship" too? As much censorship as this is.
Seems more like people advocating their beliefs very strongly. ABC has the right to broadcast whatever they want. Broadcasters cave into political pressure all the time. ABC is a private corporation.
This is not censorship in the true sense of the word. The government is not forcing anything off the air.
Sip,
Never ask a question...
Concannon: How do you know that you wrote a 1?
Nurse: I kept a copy. I have it right here
Concannon: Objection....
What made you think to keep an insignificant record and hold it for 4 years?
----------
I liked the Cardinal and the in-house lawyer near the end:
Suit: Legally its over Cocannon was brilliant.
Cardinal: Do you believe her?
Suit: It doesm't matter, all her testimony was excluded.
Cardinal: yes, but Do you believe her?
"Palladian - You really can't follow a logical thought, can you?"
Not being a clairvoyant, I do admit to having problems following other's thoughts. I can, however, follow logical writing as you will see if and when you ever present us with some.
Oh I see Palladian - Republicans couldn't put pressure on CBS in 2003, despite the fact that they controlled all three branches of government.
But Democrats are just oh so powerful in 2006, even though they don't control any branches of government.
What planet are you living on exactly?
Sippican,
LOVE "the Verdict".
Classic redemption movie.
In fact, my top 10 are almost all second-, third-, or last-chance guys make good:
Ordinary People
The Verdict
Hoosiers
Class Action
Changing Lanes
Pollyanna
The Searchers
Breakin' All the Rules - the film that Jamie Foxx SHOULD have won the Oscar for, instead of that other flick.
"What planet are you living on exactly?"
Thankfully not the same one as you seem to be living on: Uranus.
For all the talk about Rule 11 and meritless cases, it doesn't seem that any lawyers would be violating professional ethics in bringing a slander case over this movie. It portrays real people, doing and saying things they did not do, in their professional capacities, in many cases to the detriment of their professional reputations. Regardless of the outcome of the case, and assuming the complaint is well drafted, these facts would seem to get past Rule 11 without any problem, and past Rule 12 and summary judgment as well.
So, why the assumption that a civil action would be meritless? All the attacks on the would-be "censors" implicitly acknowledge that something is wrong factually here, by arguing that it just doesn't matter.
Let's see Palladian - I'll make it really simple for you.
Democrats will scream when democrats are portrayed in a bad light. And Republicans will scream censorship.
Republicans will scream when republicans are portrayed in a bad light. And Democrats will scream censorship.
You are arguing that one is justifable (when the Republicans try to get the Reagan miniseries pulled), but the other is not (the 9/11 documentary).
That makes you a hypocrite.
At least I'm being consistent in saying that they should both have aired.
And Palladian's infatuation with me continues.
"And Palladian's infatuation with me continues."
You have really fetching thighs.
Who cares about this whole story anyway. Nobody actually watches ABC anyway.
Heck - you have to have a low IQ to even watch TV for more than 30 minutes a week. Just like you have to have a low IQ to take Hugh Hewitt seriously.
To clarify my previous point, does anyone really think an attorney will be sanctioned, or indeed that a defamation case will be thrown out based on the pleadings, where the only uncertain point is the speaker's reckless disregard for the truth?
I guess this is directed at Ann.
There's plenty of basis for believing, even before discovery, that ABC knew better, but ignored the truth. They had first-hand witnesses to the events on the filmmaking team!
Wow - In Fenrisulvan's universe, the Democrats can unilaterally revoke a license despite being in the minority.
Like I said - Partisan shrills.
Palmtree - Fenrisulven believes that. And then he claims that I lack intellectual integrity for just seeing this whole incident for what it is - partisan hacks acting like partisan hacks.
downtownlad
I am a conservative.
I personally know literally hundreds of conservatives that feel exactly as I do, and I know that millions of them believe the same.
I did not protest the Reagan Film. I did not concern myself with trying to stop others from seeing it. In addition, CBS did not heavily promote it as a neutral film, but rather as a "story." I am not afraid of anyone being brainwashed by it.
I did not protest "Nixon" by Oliver Stone. I don't believe that it is accurate by a long shot in its conversations, but I admire the filmaking craft that went into it. And, Anthony Hopkins is incredible in it. I am not afraid of anyone being brainwashed by it.
I am, however, realistically concerned about the "brainwashing of our young people in America on a daily basis when they are presented with a supposedly "neutral" news source that presumes that every good and thinking person in America:
-)is pro-choice throughout a woman's entire pregnancy,
-)believes that those that are unconfortable with gay marriage only do so because they are bigoted and small-minded,
-)believes that those who support the Bush administration currently in Iraq are "stupid people who believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11".
That is the daily template that is served up in the majority "neutral" media in the way their news articles are written (negative headlines and first and last paragraphs that cast Bush and the GOP in anegative light) and particularly the front page "News Analysis".
It is plain wrong and leads to the further dumbing down of our citizenry and factionalizes our nation unnecessarily.
Hypocrite is a VERY serious term to me. I am already trying to not be one in areas of my life.
But in this area - no, I find FAR MORE hypocrisy on the left.
And that's the way it is . . .
When you don't associate with either the Republicans or the Democrats, it's hard to get excited about this whole incident.
It's partisan bloggers trying to create their own news.
The question whether the Dems have the power to revoke licenses is not the point. The point is that they have shown that they support this use of government power. And so do various commenters here. I had no interest in this movie before. I'm just dismayed at how little people care about freedom of speech. The standard being asserted for movies that take on political figures is ridiculous. It needs to be possible to set out a historical interpretation in dramatized form. It shouldn't be a risky enterprise in America.
biwah said...
For all the talk about Rule 11 and meritless cases, it doesn't seem that any lawyers would be violating professional ethics in bringing a slander case over this movie.
Ann and to some extent me talked about rule 11 in the context of this quote rather than the ABC case in specific:
But bringing a complaint to court is a civil right.
The judge can always throw it out if it's determined to have no merit.
As for the merits of this case, I think that Berger would be able to prove that what was presented was not accurate in a particular specific, but a disclaimer at the front of the show should protect them. They also have protection from the principle of Fair comment on a matter of public interest. Then there is the issue of discovery. Berger would not like civil discovery at all. Neither would Clinton. all and all, I think a slander case would be a net loss for Berger.
The chairman of the RNC is not an elected official. He's a party official, but he's not in the government. Can't you see the difference between sitting senators firing off thinly veiled threats about yanking licenses, and an unelected party official?
As for whether or not the Democratic senators could actually get those licenses yanked (heh), I don't know. I don't have a clue who's running the FCC, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that it's staffed by government lifers hostile to the current administration. I mean, the CIA and State Dept. have been that way throughout the Bush administration, why should the FCC be any different?
Brent - You say that there is hypocrisy on the left. I completely agree. And this is news? Both the right and left are hypocrites.
But people are allowed to have have different opinions and viewpoints. And the media is allowed to choose whatever side they want. That's free speech.
For example, I think you ARE a bigot if you oppose gay marriage. If that annoys you then don't be friends with me. I certainly wouldn't associate with you if you're against gay marriage.
We're both allowed to disagree with each other. And we're both allowed to think the other guy is a jerk.
Personally - that's what makes this country great.
But smgalbraith thinks it's just dandy when a government offical DEMANDS that PBS remove a show that portrayed lesbians in a postive light.
That bitch happens to be a cabinet member. And that bitch got her way. The show was banned.
But oh yes - that's somehow NOT censorship.
Hypocrites.
Fenrisulven
This is politcal posturing by the Democrats. And if you really think that people are going to be talking about this whole thing a week from now - you have no idea how the real world works.
downtownlad,
Agreed. That is what makes this country great.
But, this country is made daily LESS great by the dishonest packaging of news.
So here is the deal:
Let every "news source" proclaim it's overall loyalty up front.
-AND-
let EVERYONE stop trying to persuade everyone else - particularly our young people - that the news that they see is fair and neutral.
There is an agenda behind every article. Be upfront about it.
Now - I believe so strongly in my political positions, that I am not afraid to have an "honest agenda" America like I just described. I actually believe that more of our citizenry's eyes will be opened , and that conservative positions would even more easily win the day.
Can you say the same about your side? Or do you need to keep as many in the dark about your true agendas as possible, to protect the public opinion that you believe already goes your way?
PS. I would not dissassociate myself from you just because I believe you to are bigoted and intolerant of those who feel differently than you.
Smgalbraith,
Well I look forward to you writing to Secretary Spellings, demanding that they air this episode from Postcards for Buster.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6869976/
Well Brent - life is short, so I don't waste my time with bigots.
Which is why I haven't called my mother in a while even though she has cancer.
Are you trying to censor my smgalbraith? We all know that the essence of what I said was correct.
downtownlad,
Life is short. That's WHY you should call your mother.
"For example, I think you ARE a bigot if you oppose gay marriage. If that annoys you then don't be friends with me. I certainly wouldn't associate with you if you're against gay marriage."
Really? The only time you seem to come leave comments here is when you want to bitch about someone, or fight with someone, or call people bigots and worse when they have the temerity to disagree with you. We'd like not to be friends with you (even those among us that do support gay marriage) but you keep showing up. You're like a dog that won't quit humping our leg, and you make everything that you advocate, even the good things you advocate, seem unappealing.
No Brent - she's a bigot who said she didn't want anything to do with my personal life. So I'm happy to ignore hers as well.
Of course that upsets her, but hey - there are consequences to people's choices. She has to live with them, even if her time left is short.
The Drill SGT "As for the merits of this case, I think that Berger would be able to prove that what was presented was not accurate in a particular specific, but a disclaimer at the front of the show should protect them. They also have protection from the principle of Fair comment on a matter of public interest. Then there is the issue of discovery. Berger would not like civil discovery at all. Neither would Clinton. all and all, I think a slander case would be a net loss for Berger."
And don't forget the documents Berger destroyed! That supports all kinds of inferences against him. I would love to be the lawyer thinking up the arguments there. That would be rich! If he goes on the attack, the other side will fight back. You've got to think about that before filing suit.
Remember what was in the document he admits destroying (according to the WaPo article linked in the post (and cited in the first comment): "The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an 'after-action review' prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil."
He's got a lot of nerve complaining about how he's depicted!
And call him to the stand and grill him about why he did it and what was in it.
Come on. He can't sue.
Fenrisullivan - Yes I completely support the Democrats in having the FREE SPEECH right to argue for the yanking of ABC's license. I support 100% their right to say that.
I disagree with what they're saying. And I think they have 0% chance of actually revoking the ABC license. So I don't care. The Democrats are coming across like fools. They will cause the ratings to skyrocket, so they are shooting themselves in the foot.
But do I think the Democrats should be silenced? No - that's censorship.
"Now grow up and act like an adult, please."
Obviously you're not familiar with downtownlad's contributions here. In a word, don't hold your breath.
And Palladian's infatuation with me STILL continues.
Astounding. If he disagrees with me so much, why can't he just ignore me.
Freder Frederson: "Ah, so you see yourself as a latter day Kingsfield."
Take my quote out of context and draw a conclusion that's completely not what I said? That's how you work? Well, I usually skip your comments and think I'll go back to that policy. Yank up your pants now. I'm telling you for the last time.
downtownlad,
This sounds cliche but trust me, as you get older you will actuall find regret in that position.
Your mother may be all you say she is, and that is regrettable. But writing her off completely, especially when you will soon have the upperhand mentally, will not be something that you will wish.
At the end of life - and I'm talking about your's now, not her's - family is all that really matters.
Sippicancottage,
Tender Mercies! I forgot how good that was!
I am soon turning the Big Five-O.
Still different ages?
Freder asks:
Does slapping the "docudrama" label on it absolve ABC of any need to adhere to reality. Could they have a scene where Clinton meets OBL at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, invites him over to the White House, where they watch Ferris Bueller together, after which Clinton calls OBL the most "rightous dude I ever met, even more so than Ferris Bueller". Would such a scene still qualify as an "historical interpretation in dramatized form.
The answer is: Yes.
Ann,
Remember what was in the document he admits destroying (according to the WaPo article linked in the post (and cited in the first comment):
In case you didn't notice, my WaPo link was different than yours, and I think better. It discusses Berger's plea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html
FF, Ann didn't start the Kingsfield meme, I asked her not to grill Geoduck like kingfield.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html
A few snips from the WaPo on the incident where where Berger stole 5 copies of the same Top Secret memo on terrorism in order to keep the 9/11 commission from learning what a great job the Clinton team had done.
The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
to summarize: He stole 5 copies of the same memo that only varied in that they had margin notes by different WH staffers, or perhaps Clinton, as they were circulated. He destroyed 3 and thought that 2 versions had comments that looked good. I wonder who did the margin notes on the copies that were destroyed and what they said?
So this is the guy that thinks that he is being portrayed poorly in a fictional account of pre-9/11.
so sue!!
Freder,
Again, I apologize if I was rude to you.
Your reference to "obscure seventies movies" again piques my curiosity. As I asked on the previous thread:How old are you?
The Lefties commenting here are neglecting one fact, the Democrat Senators are using the power of the State to try to influence how something will be broadcast. It does not matter if they can or cannot follow through with the threat, the implication is: Do not harm the Clinton's or we will destroy you [Living in DC during the 90's, I heard that threat thrown to a lot of my GOP friends]. And as far as the Reagan biopic, not one Senator or House member threatened CBS -- it was local activists who got enraged. The people between the Blue States whose viewed are ignored by the networks. This is threatened censorship by the powrer of the State. INGSOC = Democrats. Big Brother = House of Clinton. Chew on that.
Freder,
Thank you!
Welcome to another "boomer".
Freder Frederson said...
Fair comment on a matter of public interest....
And you are the one who made reference to obscure seventies movies and television shows that mean something only to a few law students and professors. Law professors who refer to Kingsfield are likely to make people think they admire the character. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. But you have spent all day insulting and belittling me, rather like Kingsfield took much pleasure doing to his students in The Paper Chase.
I am not sure whether you are referring to me or Ann. I guess I should be flattered at your typical overstatement and error prone posting if it's focused at me. I've purposely ignored your rants all day, beyond the minor reference to Kingfield in the previous post. I'd just as soon not interact with you when your in full BDS mode.I don't think you are contributing much to the discussion, but WTH, we still have freedom of speech.
Desperation in Clintonville. The President that has a lackacy in history. When TV movies might have such a great impact, perhaps there is little substance in history for his Presidency. Oh how Reagan was so belittled in real time, yet history has stripped that nonsense away. Politicians are not protected by slander or liable laws. Hell, if that were the case, President Bush could shut down MSM news.
Wow what a thread. So far I count two people who support the democrats' efforts to suppress this movie, but claim to not really care: dtl and geo. Each have many, many posts. But guys, listen, you're the shills! They don't care!
geoduck: Stop being so disingenuously passive-aggressive. Show your true colors and stop batting your eyelashes and saying, "who, me"? Think: WWTD?
This whole issue is so repulsive. The party of free speech indeed.
Pull a movie because of "inaccuracies" and then praise every Michael Moore piece of propaganda that he shits out every few years. Heck, give the man and Oscar! Give him the Palm d'or!
I love Ann's metaphor of the pants around the ankles. I'll add to that: what's hiding under there is a big old diaper.
Does anybody remember during the '90's about how the Clinton Political Office held over 200 GOP FBI files? For all the Democrat talk of civil liberties, they only care about civil liberties when it applies to them. So, Feder, did the Clinton's do right by holding the GOP FBI files and threaten their political enemies with destruction? Or is it OK because they support your cause?
Here is my favorite comment from another blog's current thread discussing the same issue:
"My Mom and sister repeatedly told my 16 yr old son in the run-up to the last election that Bush would reinstate the draft if he won. They continue to tell him that today. They also had absolutely no idea who Zarqawi was and why his death was significant. Though they live in a major media center, hold college degrees, are intelligent and watch the news daily, they do not know anything other than that Bush is very, very bad. It makes for great fun when we all get together for the holidays."
I'm tellin' ya - the left still controls what most Americans see and hear for "news", deny the fact that's it them and their agenda that they promote, and are scared to death at losing ground on a major network:
Democrats: "Not ABC! We OWN ABC!"
props to Brent!
It's no secret I like Ann's blog, I'm reading and commenting here every day.
dreamingmonkey:
The legislative branch can make it very unpleasant for broadcasters. The threat is veiled, but inartfully.
Imagine you're a suit at ABC, and you've got to evaluate the risk return of running this silly "docudrama" vs. the potential of a congressional hearing, should the Dems win the House this November. It was a threat, plain and simple.
But not a promise.
Note to drill sgt: I added the link in your comment to the original post.
geoduck2,
Happy to engage:
First, what is your definition of "left"?
People keep talking about "ABC's license," but remember ABC is a network, producing shows. The licenses belong to the affiliate stations around the country. They might decide not to run the show. I'm not sure how this changes the political analysis. Arguably, they are more vulnerable to political pressure.
I'm surprised the Democrats are willing to be so overt about applying this pressure. To me, they just look like bullies, willing to abuse power. Ironically, this makes the negative portrayal they are saying is wrong more believable. They are also giving a lot of publicity to the show and to the historical view they want to suppress. And having Berger out front on this is really strange. So strange it heightens my suspicions. I feel a new antipathy toward Bill Clinton (whom I voted for twice) and have to wonder what this says about Hillary.
And of course, now I plan to watch the show, which I wouldn't have done otherwise.
I'm harping in here to point out that I too am trying to rationalize someone who is (a) passionately in favor of free speech, and (b) an eager Feingold voter. It does not make sense. Perhaps you are using the Wookie Defense.
But really, I don't think you have a leg to stand on chastising others for their less than full throated defense of the first amendment, when a man you voted for, and would presumably vote for again, ripped the heart out of it and flushed it down the toilet. Shame on you.
geoduck2
Michael Kinsley describes himself as someone on the "left" of the political spectrum. Do you remember that he at one time hosted Crossfire on CNN, introducing himself as "on the left"?
Care to try again . . .?
Note: this has been great fun. I must leave for an appointment, so, geoduck2, I will have to await your answer until late this evening.
DreamingMonkey:
I guess you did not recognize the code words in the Senatorial letter:
For example:
"Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
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. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]"
I linked the full letter in an earlier comment.
Well, it should at least be fun trying to threaten dreamingmonkey. Evidently, anything short of pulling a pistol, firing it at his feet while screaming, "Dance little sissy-boy, dance!" would go right past him.
I'm sure that if he were engaging in an activity disliked by, say, a crime boss and one of the boss' minions said, "It'd be a shame if anything bad happened to your beloved, elderly mother" he'd interpret that as a sincere desire that his beloved, elderly mother be safe from harm.
There's no explaining to those who won't understand.
dreamingmonkey... the threat is veiled. The license is predicated on their trusteeship. Reid thinks they are violating said trust -- therefore their license can be called into question.
Reid, bseides being full of hot air in general, is wrong -- ABC has no license, but KABC, in LA, does for example. How much more easily would it be to pick off little stations here and there without so much as an NYT or LA Times peep?
The person that talks the most is usually (not always)the one with something to hide -- parenting and policing 101. The Clintons have something to hide (again).
Come on Ruth Anne -- the ACLJ is a religionist (I hate Ann's use of that term -- it has a "Zionist" ring to it -- though I know you don't mean it that way AA) Christian organization that wants to set up a theocracy and force women to have babies.
Knoxgirl said :
"Michael Moore...shits .....every few years."
Hm, I wonder if that explains his weight problem.
VNJAGVET,
I also thought this cloing section had a message:
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.
"Michael Moore...shits .....every few years."
Hm, I wonder if that explains his weight problem.
It'll be coming out his ears before long.
Ruth Anne: I might simul-blog, but it would be hard to do without using the TiVo, and I can't do that and watch it on HDTV....
--
On my use of the term "religionist." I reserve it for special occasions, and I mean it to be pejorative.
The difference between a scolding and a threat, my monkeylike friend is that a scolder has nothing but the tongue with which to enforce her desires, while a threatener has some power to effect the future well-being of her subject.
In this case, four Senate "leaders" joined in the letter in question with an indication they were willing to use their (considerable) power and influence in the event their expressed desires (yanking the program) were not fulfilled.
My grandmother "scolded" and my mother "threatened". I knew the difference, even as a two year old. I suspect you know the difference now.
Your arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
Powell is gone
and a Democratic led Senate Commerce Committee after Nov could make life hell for ABC and Disney with subpoenas and hearing. I hear Brimley now:
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna sit right here and talk about it. Now if you get tired of talking here, Mr. Marshal Elving Patrick there will hand you one of them subpoenas he's got stuck down in his pocket and we'll go downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury... Elliot? Jim?... Fine. All right, Elving, hand whichever one of these fellas you like a subpoena and we'll go on downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury.
District Attorney James A. Quinn: Gallagher's a government witness.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Wonderful thing, a subpoena.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.
President Randy Weiner
National Security Advisor Absent Minedid
or:
Vote Democrat - Our principals are down around our ankles
Well, you asked me my opinion. We were often annoyed at Kinsey. And we classified him as center, not as the left.
If you're far enough out on the left-wing fringe, anyone looks like a centrist or a right-winger. That's why, for example, Noam Chomsky claims academia and the media display right-wing bias.
But there's no question that Kinsey is solidly in the left of the American political spectrum, regardless of what you and your friends think.
It's a senator writing a letter to Disney. I don't think there's any precedent whatsoever for the belief that a big network or a small station would be punished by the government for broadcasting unpopular or politically incorrect material in this country.
Um... what? Congress has been bullying the entertainment industry, from top to bottom, for the better part of a century. All of the industry's self-censorship grew out of thinly-veiled threats that, if the industry didn't start censoring itself, Congress would have to "take steps".
Most famously, Hollywood set up the "Hayes Code" of industry censorship (which forbade, among other things, ridiculing religion, disrespecting the American flag, or showing mixed-race relationships) in response to Congressional threats to pass laws restricting film production.
More recently, the comic, video game, and music industries have also been bullied into censoring themselves.
So yes, there's no end of precedent for Congressional bullying of the entertainment industry, and this latest event is an excellent example of the phenomenon.
the drill sgt
Thank you for:
Vote Democrat - Our principals are down around our ankles
I laughed so hard 2% milk came out my nose.
ABC7 is owned by the American Broadcasting Company, Inc. The Walt Disney Company owns ABC, Inc.
...that would be the New York Affiliate for the ABC Network, WABC.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=stationinfo&id=3293228
Saying they're only threatening the licenses of the ABC affiliates ignores the fact that ABC (like any of the 4 major networks) owns stations in a number of major media markets.
I don't have a whole lot else to add that hasn't been said here already (maybe that Prof. Althouse's treatment of 1L's is very little like the Paper Chase, IIRC...not that I'd recommend coming to class unprepared if any 1L's are reading this).
The funny thing is....fewer people would have watched the show if the Clinton fan club had been able to bite their tongues and let things blow over (which always seemed to be the Clinton stronger suit, puns notwithstanding).
All of your examples, especially the Hayes Code which is now the MPAA ratings system, and government meddling in the music and videogame industry, are instances where the government is attempting to impose some kind of moral restraint on those industries.
The Hayes Code focused on moral restraint, sure. But it also involved issues of "political correctness", which is what you were asking about -- e.g., the sections forbidding criticism of religion or disrespect of the flag.
That is just totally different from the accusations that you are making, which is that Reid and his cohorts (now, just "Congress") are threatening the license or future legal status of a network/affiliate based on the political content of its programming
Please re-read what I wrote and pay attention this time. Banning the showing of disrespect to the American flag is very much about political content!
In the socialist wonderland this would not be allowed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा