Fox News calls ABC documentary "slanderous"...fox news!

Thorgrim · 09-08-2006, 05:19 PM

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Fox...allace-ABC.wmv

this calls for a special thread, everyone has got to see this

When Fox News calls a conservative piece like this "slanderous" you know its the truth

The argument is over

Scrum · 09-08-2006, 05:20 PM

Ardentfrost · 09-08-2006, 05:24 PM

Chris is PISSED!

He's right though.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-08-2006, 05:29 PM

Brian Kilmead (?) is an idiot trying to compare a docudrama purporting to be based on reality to a work of pure fiction that has nothing to do with reality (Bush being shot).

And Chris is right. The idea of a docudrama is stupid. It allows film makers to exploit the fact it's based on reality, and then once people are intrigued because it's reality, they absolve themselves of responsibility for making it accurately reflect reality by adding the suffix "drama."

Thorgrim · 09-08-2006, 06:06 PM

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CNN-Bennett-ABC.wmv

bill bennet comes out against it

Stylerod · 09-08-2006, 06:09 PM

Wait, now this movie is conservative? Because it has one bad thing about Sandy Berger in it? BTW, isn't Sandy Berger the one that shoved classified documents down his pants so people couldn't find them in their 9/11 research?

Stylerod · 09-08-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wait, now this movie is conservative? Because it has one bad thing about Sandy Berger in it? BTW, isn't Sandy Berger the one that shoved classified documents down his pants so people couldn't find them in their 9/11 research?

Yup! That was him!!!

They need to add that to the movie and see what he says!!!!

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

garbagemanlb · 09-08-2006, 06:10 PM

PERFECT comparison to the Reagan movie.

Stylerod · 09-08-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

PERFECT comparison to the Reagan movie.

I remember that. Of course, Reagan couldn't defend himself on that one.

Thorgrim · 09-08-2006, 06:14 PM

its not just Sandy Berger...its others too which they clearly name

and about berger:
government sources have said that no original material was taken

jesus christ man

Stylerod · 09-08-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

its not just Sandy Berger...its others too which they clearly name

and about berger:
government sources have said that no original material was taken

jesus christ man

He pleaded guilty to removing classified documents. He SHOVED THEM DOWN HIS PANTS!

Thorgrim · 09-08-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He pleaded guilty to removing classified documents. He SHOVED THEM DOWN HIS PANTS!

so lets cancel the calls for pulling the documentary?

way to go super off topic

post reported

Stylerod · 09-08-2006, 06:26 PM

The main story that was posted (yesterday?) said that they went after Bush in the movie as well. Just becuase it went after Berger that means this is a conservative movie?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-08-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The main story that was posted (yesterday?) said that they went after Bush in the movie as well. Just becuase it went after Berger that means this is a conservative movie?

It's a conseravtive movie because, from what I've heard, it leaves the viewer with the general impression that the Clinton administration fucked up handling terrorism.

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

PERFECT comparison to the Reagan movie.

except nobody cared this much. and they still showed it.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

PERFECT comparison to the Reagan movie.

Welcome aboard

Scrum · 09-08-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

except nobody cared this much. and they still showed it.

Not on network TV they didn't and people certainly did care. The conservatives got CBS to not show it.

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

The conservatives got CBS to not show it.

ooooh, that's EXACTLY the same as changing the whole show!!

Scrum · 09-08-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

ooooh, that's EXACTLY the same as changing the whole show!!

By cutting out a scene....

motivez · 09-08-2006, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

PERFECT comparison to the Reagan movie.

Yeah? Speaking of the Reagan movie:

Bush supporters condemn fictionalized political mini-series -- in 2003

When CBS announced in November, 2003 that it would broadcast a mini-series it produced about Ronald and Nancy Reagan called "The Reagans," Matt Drudge obtained excerpts from the script and published them. That led to right-wing bloggers, organizations and pundits, along with the RNC itself, demanding that CBS cancel the broadcast, which it did (moving it instead to Showtime, with a panel discussion afterwards filled with critics of the film).

Those who wanted the mini-series cancelled back then were making arguments which are highly relevant -- for reasons that are self-evident -- to ABC's plans to broadcast an indisputably fictionalized mini-series about 9/11, a film which includes exactly the fabricated dialogues and historical events which served as the ostensible basis for outrage over The Reagans:

Ed Gillespe, RNC Chairman -- Scarborough Country, 11/6/2003 (via Lexis)

GILLESPIE: And I think it was important that it be historically accurate. And if they didn't intend to make it historically accurate to make sure
that viewers understood that it was not intended to be historically accurate but a fictional portrayal. So we made two requests: One is having historians review it for accuracy if you're going to broadcast it. And if you're unwilling to do that, inform the viewers that it's not historically accurate. That's not censorship, that's common sense. . .

I've sent a similar letter to the head of Showtime making the same point: "If you're not willing to have it reviewed for historical accuracy, make sure your viewers understand that it's a fictional portrayal. You know, in this society that we live in and with the media culture that we have, there's infotainment and docudrama and reality TV, and the lines between fact and fiction blur. That's fine when it's entertainment, but when you're talking about the formative phase of the Reagan legacy formation, I think that it's important that we get things right. . . .

I think that same standard should apply to the late president John F. Kennedy or to Jimmy Carter or any president. If you're going to portray a presidency and a president, I think you should do all you can to make sure it's accurate. . . .

Hmm ! How convienent they seem to forget this argument!

Brent Bozell, November 5, 2003

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech. "There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

Republican National Committee, November 5, 2003

Some conservatives were unhappy that the program would be aired at all. "I don’t know the misinforming fewer viewers on Showtime solves the problem," said Jim Dyke Republican National Committee.

Ed Morrow, National Review, October 23, 2003

Judging from the accounts that have been creeping into the press and the promotional bits played by Matt Drudge as a fill-in host on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the miniseries is a vicious smear of Reagan and his wife Nancy. . . .

The substitution of propaganda for fact is dangerous. It's not by accident that tyrants create "history" to justify their schemes. Hitler couldn't have taken control of Germany without the many anti-Semitic myths that had been allowed to fester and go unchallenged. Stalin and Mao couldn't have kept a heel on the neck of their countries without self-glorifying myths that demonized anyone who stood in their way.

In this case, simple justice demands that the lies about Ronald and Nancy Reagan must not go unchallenged but, in a larger sense, truth itself must be defended. Attempts to distort our history must be resisted. Historical truth is simply too valuable to be made a plaything for biased filmmakers rewriting it to fit their politics.[/b]

How fucking ironic, amirite?

Seth Leibsohn, National Review, November 6, 2003

Show the man in all his glory and all his defeat, we are not ashamed of history. We should all be ashamed of bad history, though — of dressing up fiction as fact. What offended us was a portrayal of Reagan that put words in his mouth he never uttered and attributed positions to him he never held. . . .

Perhaps if the CBS miniseries attempted accur