Text 8200, 105 rader
Skriven 2006-09-12 07:44:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8697.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C12AD1720093AC3CF0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY:
<C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net><0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net><7tudnfh8DPEidp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@com

>>On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:26:54 -0400, Brian Stinson wrote
(in article <yq%Mg.59$7I1.55@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>):

> 
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote
> 
> One of the most egregious things about this, IMHO, is the implication that 
> this is a
>  documentary.
> 
> Where is the implication ?  ABC has been screaming from the rooftops that 
> it's not a documentary.  Michael Moore, on the other hand boldly proclaims 
> that  his political smear campaigns are documentaries.  You claim it's 
> different because A. His politics are well known, and B. It was a theatrical 
> release instead of a TV movie. So what !  If you're passionate about the 
> truth, what does it matter what the size of the screen is?  What does it 
> matter what the political leanings of the director is ?  <<

Sure, after people started getting upset, they had no choice but to 
disclaimer the hell out of it.  And really, that was the point.  ABC should 
either have been doing that since the beginning (and they weren't), or they 
should have corrected the errors of fact if they were going to bill it as a 
"true story" "based on the 9/11 report."  The Australian trailer, which they 
didn't have time to change (and which you can see you YouTube) does in fact 
call it a "true story."  And there were other territories were it was 
similarly misrepresented right up to broadcast.

And I don't know what else to say, frankly: yes, they're different.  Because 
they _are different_.  If "Path to 9/11" came out as a theatrical feature 
with famous conservative Ben Stein's name attached to it, or insert some 
other name if he's not conservative enough for you -- I just picked one at 
random -- it would be a very different thing than a network television 
broadcast that comes free into every home in the country and which is being 
presented as history rather than propaganda.  See the connection with the 
text materials Scholastic was going to provide (before they backed out a 
couple of days ago) if you doubt that this was being presented as historical 
_fact_.

>> You claim it's different from JFK and Nixon because I can't prove to that 
> those have falsehoods in them, yet Oliver Stone is on the record that the 
> Donald Sutherland character that ties the whole story together is fictional, 
> inserted to make it make the story more convincing.  I can't prove that 
> there was any dialogue in Nixon that didn't happen because I was not in the 
> room.  I doubt you were in the room when these things were discussed or not 
> discussed.  <<

You've obviously been skimming the thread, or you would have seen where I 
said to Carl that I couldn't really comment on these films because I _haven't 
seen them_, that I felt they were irrelevant because they're years old, they 
were qualitatively different because they were depictions of decades old 
events, AND that notwithstanding the previous, IF they were shown to me (and 
please don't bother making a list; I'm really not interested in discussing 
old films) to contain similar errors of fact, I would equally object to the 
filmmakers' fabrication.

Of course, I doubt that any errors in either of those films erroneously 
implicate any person or persons directly in the death of thousands of people, 
so I don't think that they _could_ be proven to me to be relatively equal, 
but since I'm not interested in seeing them, I'll never know.

>> You also claim that it's different because of the recentness of the events, 
> yet the Michael Moore "documentary" was being made before they finished 
> removing the debris.  Yet there is no righteous indignation from you about 
> this. <<

Try listening to what I say: I think it was too soon to do a purported 
_history piece_ on 9/11, when we haven't even caught the perpetrators yet.  I 
obviously have no problem with _most_ 9/11 productions, because again, if 
you'd been more than skimming the thread, you'd have read that I watch _most_ 
of the 9/11 productions that come along.  "United 93" and "World Trade 
Center" didn't try to present history: they each looked back on single 
events.

Anyway, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with the soonness of it if it 
hadn't been such an obvious propaganda piece.  I'm sure I just said that -- 
and probably some other things I said-- out of momentary anger.  So sue me.

As for Michael Moore, he wasn't trying to defraud anyone with his film -- it 
was clearly editorially biased, and he didn't try to present it as an 
unbiased history piece.  Anyone going to see a Michael Moore film who doesn't 
expect a particular slant is an idiot.

>> You can keep tearing out your hair, but it certainly appears that you have 
> two sets of standards when it comes to the truth. <<

No, thanks, you can tear your own out.  And yes, I do have two sets of 
standards when it comes to the truth: one standard for _actual_ truth, and 
another for _distortions_ of truth.

Yawn.  This is getting fairly boring.  It no one has anything new to say, I'm 
out of this thread, and whoever wants the last word can have it.

Amy
                                                                               
                                  
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)