Democrats attempt to censor ABC

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Sep 10, 2006.

  1. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    And I think you only listen to Hannity or Savage.

    Anyway, has some good articles on this:

    Summary: In its miniseries The Path to 9-11, ABC retained a controversial scene that depicts Clinton administration officials declining to authorize the CIA to capture Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, despite the fact that the scene is contradicted by the 9-11 Commission report, on which the network originally claimed the film was based.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Dude, "basis of fact", just like movies that are based on many books and other events. It's a freakin' miniseries and they can add and tweak whatever they want so long as they don't claim it to be a documentary. This is also why Fox News sued to be able to not be required to tell accurate news because all the commentators are commentators giving their "opinions", yet people believe all of what those commentators say to be fact. Hannity and Colmes is no different than Larry King or David Letterman.

    People can point out so many flaws with that miniseries just like they can with the movie Black Hawk Down. Oh, but it's based off true events so it all MUST be true! I can't believe you're making that movie out to be your bible.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    - N
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    spidergoat, ROTFLMAO, the mouth peace of the Democrats, and you accuse me of sucking up propaganda.

    Neildo, you are correct about Hannity , Rush, Rusty, Larry, or Letterman, they are all entertainers and they will tell you so, now name for me any of the so called news people that don't put their opinion into their story's, There are none that report just the facts any more, they all put their spin on the story they report now days,

    The Media Elite Revisited

    In 1995, Stanley Rothman and Amy E. Black “partially replicated the earlier Rothman-Lichter” survey of the media elite described above. “The sample of journalists mirrors that from the earlier study, including reporters and editors at major national newspapers, news magazines and wire services,” the authors wrote in a Spring 2001 article for the journal Public Interest. When it came to voting habits and ideology, the authors found the media elite maintained their liberal bent, providing strong majority support for Democrats Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1992.


    More than three out of four “elite journalists,” 76 percent, reported voting for Michael Dukakis in 1988, compared to just 46 percent of the voting public.
    An even larger percentage of top journalists, 91 percent, cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992. That same year, only 43 percent of voters picked Clinton, who nevertheless won a three-way race.

    Washington Bureau Chiefs and Correspondents

    In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.


    89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
    Asked “How would you characterize your political orientation?” 61 percent said “liberal” or “liberal to moderate.” Only nine percent labeled themselves “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”
    Fifty-nine percent dismissed the Republican’s 1994 Contract with America “an election-year campaign ploy.” Just three percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”

    TV and Newspaper Journalists

    In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.


    More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
    When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
    While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
    One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.
    When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    So, attack the messenger. The fact is this show contradicted the 9/11 report, and the historical record. Clinton himself said clearly that things didn't happen that way. The show itself claimed only to be fiction, and that's what it was. I could go over every specific point, but I would only be repeating the work of others...
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Has anyone actually read the letter? There's some interesting stuff in there:

    We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. 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.

    Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility ....

    .... Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree ....

    .... Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace ....

    .... 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 ....

    Which leads me to a certain vital point:

    This is ... well, a matter of perspective at best. I found commentary by John Aravosis that answered the simplest question: What threat?

    Aravosis writes:

    This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble ....

    .... The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.

    Now, let's consider this: When the GOP was furious about a CBS miniseries on Ronald Reagan, "Gillespie said that if CBS denies the request, he will ask the network to run a note across the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the program's presentation informing viewers that the miniseries is not accurate" ( Part of the "trust" invoked in the Senators' letter involves the assertion that ABC and Disney intended to push this material onto schoolchildren as the historical truth. Should ABC have run a disclaimer similar to Gillespie's proposal about The Reagans? To call The Path to 9/11 "a work of fiction" would seriously damage any plans to market the show to schools as reflecting the historical record. Calling it a work of fiction, however, would reconcile the show to ABC's position as a trustee of the airwaves. I think conservatives with their dignity in a knot over this one are hopping on the paranoid bandwagon of the blogosphere: it's nice rhetoric, but doesn't reflect reality. To call an admittedly fictionalized work the historical truth, and with apparent intentions of promoting this fictionalized work as the historical record does not, in any way, reflect the best interests of the American people. Americans suffer such information overload that voters have a hard time keeping up with Voters' Guides, and Christians have a hard time keeping up with the Bible. The Path to 9/11 is whatever it is; I took the same path I recommend to those who complain about sex and violence on television: I watched something else. Probably Battlestar Galactica DVDs. I don't remember.

    I suppose there is a legitimate question raised by the conservative panic, however: Is there a limit to free speech when granted a public trust?

    If lying is such a minor violation of public trust, why did everyone rush to Clinton's impeachment? Then again, nobody seems to care about the secret prisons anymore. Come on, we knew Bush & Co. were lying, they finally admitted it, and is anyone getting tacked to the wall for it?

    Of course not.

    Would it have been so difficult for Disney to either make a real true story to the best of their ability, or simply call this one a work of fiction, and not bother with sinister plans to falsify history in the schools?

    I suppose "Dems threaten ABC's license" makes a better headline than "Dems remind ABC of public trust duties".

    What's really scandalous here is how fearful and panicked are the conservatives. "He'p us! He'p us! Someone's demanding integrity! O! Please, Lord, he'p us!"



    "Senate Dems: Cancel ABC 9/11 Movie"., September 7, 2006. See

    Aravosis, John. "Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions". Americablog, September 7, 2006. See

    "RNC asks to review 'The Reagans'"., October 31, 2003. See
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    When the Senate reminds you that your license to broadcast is freely granted as a public trust, it's like a mobster remarking on how certain businesses are prone to fire. Or a Nazi wondering about your larger than average nose. It's a veiled threat, nothing else. I would oppose such threats whether from the left or the right.

    I loved Ronald Reagan. The greatest modern president, in my opinion. But I wouldn't and didn't support threatening TV stations over a bad movie about him. I just didn't watch it. The Senate democrats probably did more to promote this show than anything with their carrying on about it.
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    The FCC threatens censorship all the time, and huge disproportional fines which amount to a constant threat, especially if they air something the Bush adminstration doesn't like. If you think the FCC isn't politically motivated, just look at the example of Howard Stern. They left him alone when he supported Bush, but fined him heavily when he turned against them.

    The Democrats don't control the senate, BTW, so this reminder cannot be interpreted as a threat of any kind.
  11. Destroyer Banned Banned

  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    So reminding someone of the basis upon which the complaint is allegedly justified is a threat? I would think such an allegation of justification would be a necessity. I mean, really, talk about a waste of office. But at the same time, if nobody said anything, then what would the result be? Another lie passed off to schoolchildren as real history? And for what reason? Money? Pride?

    Of course, conservatives tend to see threats everywhere. Progress is a threat; integrity is a threat. I can see how conservatives might see a threat in all that. Especially when they're determined to do so, anyway.
  13. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member


    Oh so I guess gun control wasnt enough, now they want thought control. I honestly don't think any legislation should be passed, it makes the Democrats look weak as usual. The problem with the Democratic party is they are always on the defensive, responding to stuff. The Democrats could just as easily endorse Alex Jones and let him put a show on one of the liberal channels like comedy central.

    I don't see the big deal, yes you can say that the documentary was innacurate, but so are documentaries by Michael Moore. Seriously, Democrats should leave this stuff to Jon Stewert.
  14. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    It's thought control. No one forces anyone to watch the ABC broadcast, they can broadcast is 24/7 from now until the election and it will have no influence on liberals or conservatives at this point. If you support the Iraq war and would like to stay the course, then vote Republican, if you want to cut and run and are against the war, support the Democrats. If you support civil liberties, don't vote at all.
  15. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    And if you haven't made up your mind yet, watch ABC. Then vote Republican.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Thought control? So are you proposing that testing and scoring schoolchildren according to a "history" that contradicts the actual historical record isn't thought control? Have you stopped to think about the schoolchildren who would be forced to accept the Disney/ABC version of history in order to get good grades, go to college, and have a decent life, &c.? Thought control? Hey, if ABC wants to pay for the reserved airspace from which they benefit financially, I'm fully hip to the notion that they can broadcast whatever garbage they want. But, as they are awarded a free broadcast license for fulfilling a public trust (that is the arrangement by which they broadcast and make money), then yes, they owe a certain amount of integrity in their performance. Asking them to fulfill their role in the public trust is not thought control. It is simply asking them to be responsible.

    Thought control? Oh, heavens, a public resource shouldn't be irresponsibly biased? Help us all!

    Seriously, when Michael Moore has a free license to broadcast his movies 24/7 and put them in the classrooms as the official history curriculum, then you might have a point. Until then, pull your head out and take a deep breath; clean air might help you with the p-p-p-p-paranoia.

Share This Page