Text 8292, 125 rader
Skriven 2006-09-12 22:20:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8789.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.C12C297100E44BE5F0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY:
<C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net><0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net><7tudnfh8DPEidp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@com

>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:13:45 -0400, Brian Stinson wrote
(in article <tJoNg.91$Ij.65@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):

>>> "Amy Guskin"  wrote
> 
>> Yeah, I had a feeling, as I was writing that, that you'd jump on it.  I
>> thought though that it was clear that I meant that he wasn't trying to
>> defraud anyone in the sense that no one is surprised that his material is
>> slanted.  However, watching ABC, you don't expect to -- and shouldn't --  
>> find
>> that kind of slant.
>> 
>> Would you be surprised to hear that I wouldn't want ABC to produce and air
>> something like Fahrenheit 9/11, either?  It's not their _business_ to be
>> partisan.
>> 
>> Of COURSE these things have been coming from the left for years, AND from 
>> the
>> right.  It's when you air it on free, national television, and subtly (or 
>> not
>> so subtly) imply that it's a "true story" based on factual documents and 
>> the
>> historical record -- in short, when you air propaganda to the masses 
>> without
>> clearly labeling it as such -- that I take great exception.
>> 
>> Amy
> 
> Thank you.  That's all I was looking for.  I'd still debate that Michael 
> Moore wasn't defrauding anyone, but I can tell you're getting tired of this 
> conversation, so I'll drop it. <<

Indeed.  And, let's be clear: I wasn't doing it _for_ you.  :-)

>> If it makes you feel any better (not sure if you're watching it), so far 
> tonight GWB isn't faring any better than the Clinton Administration.  Condi 
> Rice wasn't portrayed nicely at all.  <<

Well, I _did_ glance at last night's broadcast, because I wanted to see if 
the next administration would fare any better at the hands of these "Youth 
with a Mission" vigilantes.

While I'll agree with you that there was a degree of making _everyone_ look 
bad, I couldn't help but notice the unsubtle message on the end title card 
about how if we don't implement these measures (the ones suggested by the 
9/11 commisison), the next time there's an attack, there will be nobody to 
blame but ourselves.  Which to me was a heavy-handed piece of propaganda if 
there ever was one: it was a film meant to scare people all over again, and 
to remind them why it's _good_ to allow the government to chip away at our 
civil liberties, tap our phones, read our e-mails, arbitrarily search little 
old ladies and small boys at airports, etc. etc.  So, while they made an 
attempt to _look_ even-handed last night, I do think that making the current 
administration look like their hands were tied and there were things they 
just couldn't do (and in fact didn't) ultimately served their greater 
purpose.

Further, my understanding is that Bush _chose that time_ to speak.  
Specifically.  He wanted to speak before the last hour of the miniseries 
aired.  Talk about people being able to distinguish fact from fiction all you 
want; there's no disputing that the President making a speech during a 
program that _looks_ a lot like a true story, is going to lend further 
legitimacy to it.

>> the point I came away with is that these were legitimate 
> concerns, and in a pre 9/11 world, (which this was) I may have agreed with 
> them.  In that 20/20 hindsight, doesn't look so good.<<

In many cases, this is exactly what it seemed they were hammering home, 
leading up to the scary warning of the end title card.  It was very neatly 
done, as much propaganda is.

>>> I think it's mostly about how we were all lulled to sleep in the years 
> between the two WTC attacks.  We were a little too cocky after catching the 
> perpetrators of the first attack, and we seriously underestimated UBL.  We 
> paid a steep price for it.  For a very short period of time afterwards we 
> were mostly united in purpose.  It didn't last.  We are back to 
> finger-pointing and back-biting and ass-covering.  Note that I keep using 
> the word "we", not "they".  It was not a Democratic failure.  It was not a 
> Republican failure.  It was a failure for all of us  <<

I do think there are enough failures to hand around, but there's no disputing 
that the Bush White House was markedly less interested in making terrorism a 
priority, because it was near-top of the Clinton White House's agenda.  
Better writers than I have pointed this out in book after book, article after 
article.

>> Another thing to consider, and maybe this credits all the critics of the 
> movie.  I never had any desire to read the 9/11 commission report.  I can't 
> imagine reading a report written by a congressional committee to be an 
> enjoyable endeavor.  But after watching this, I may just wade through it. <<

Well, that's what I'd _hope_ to hear people say -- for all of its flaws in 
creation, it still has a lot of information that people really need to know 
-- but I doubt that most people are going to go out and buy (or download) 
that document and spend the next several months wading through it.  Maybe 
they'll buy the comic book version...  :-p

>> Last year, HBO aired a series called Rome.  In case you're not familiar with


> it, it is a drama roughly based in history, but it is largely fiction.  I 
> never had any interest in Roman history until I watched this work of mostly 
> fiction.  Since watching it, I have been reading a little bit of  Roman 
> history.  I am not by any stretch of the imagination a scholar of Roman 
> history, but I know more now than I did.  Had it been a dry lesson from a 
> professor, I doubt it would have sparked my interest.  <<

And that _is_ a good point, and one of the things historical fiction is 
extremely good at.  Getting people interested in the _real_ story.  The 
problem is when people start confusing historical fiction with the real 
story.  And, IMHO, something this recent really doesn't qualify for the 
historical fiction treatment.

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