Friday, September 08, 2006
# Posted 7:33 PM by Patrick Belton
Subject: Stop BBC 2 from Showing the 9/11 Propaganda FilmThe second, from two summers ago.
Private Screening of Fahrenheit 911 - SECOND SCREENING July 09, 2004 --So, the UK arm of the Democrats not only charmingly want to mislead the BBC into believing itself besieged by complaints from British citizens about one of its shows, but think Michael Moore a more accurate, neutral purveyor of political comment than Disney. Genial lot, them. (8) opinions -- Add your opinion
as you'll recall from May 2004, Disney, the parent company of Miramax, refused to distribute Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Their argument was essentially that they didn't want to associate the Disney brand with such an overtly political movie. Eventually, they sold the movie and Miramax.
Now I think you'll agree that Path to 9/11 is also an overtly political movie:
1) it is fictionalized (with lawyerly disclaimers)
2) the actual participants including Richard Clarke have denounced it as a fabrication
3) it is being broadcast uninterrupted on 9/10 and 9/11
4) Bush is giving a primetime speech during the broadcast on 9/11
5) there's a midterm election in two months
Even Right Wingers such as Bill Bennett and Chris Wallace are aghast. Even now, the movie is being re-edited. Even now, Disney has pulled advertising for it. Even now Scholastic dropped its plan to distribute learning guides to schools in conjunction with the movie.
This isn't going to end well.
Anon, do you imagine that late re-editing in response to Democratic threats is evidence that the movie had been overtly political beforehand? Can you point to a movie that does not have lawerly disclaimers on it?
How would the story be told without being fictionalized? Perhaps like '24', we could follow all the participants in real time. Except to cover a 10-year timespan, they'd have to call it '87,600', and at 30 episodes per year it would run for three millennia.
And call me naive, but I suspect the White House scheduled a national address for the 5th anniversary of 9/11/01 without consulting ABC programming.
Amazing how so many Clinton fans can be so sure of what's in a movie they haven't seen .....
For my part, I wished the writers hadn't exercised any dramatic license; all they did was give the Clintonistas an opportunity to change the subject.
Of course, they'd object if it was told absolutely straight, too - because their boy didn't do his job (and they couldn't stand by and accept that).
do you imagine that late re-editing in response to Democratic threats is evidence that the movie had been overtly political beforehand? Yes.
Can you point to a movie that does not have lawerly disclaimers on it? Fahrenheit 9/11.
How would the story be told without being fictionalized?
All right, when you hang with me, you have to ONE level, my cousin and his wife, before you're ACTUALLY AT GROUND ZERO. And you have to go two levels before FRIENDS ARE DEAD.
I don't need a story to be told. The truth will do.
And call me naive ...
They already aired another fictionalized 9/11 movie on 9/7/03 called DC 9/11: Time of Crisis. It has a cowboy Bush bellowing, "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me! I'll be at home! Waiting for the bastard!"
Anon, were you driven insane by the events of Sept 11, or do you have a longer history of mental problems?
...but think Michael Moore a more accurate, neutral purveyor of political comment than Disney.
That's written as if "Disney" were the name of a notoriously respectable purveyor of factual information, as opposed to being a famous entertainment company specializing in fantasy. It would have been stronger if you'd said "ABC", since they have a sub-organization called "ABC News", which is completely uninvolved in this, but is respectable-sounding.
Anyway, the point is not the "neutrality" but the "accuracy", with respect to specific incidents that have been identified. Throwing around the names of the broadcasters/authors is no substitute for answering the question, "is is true?"
DonBoy, your comment was written as if "Michael Moore" were the name of a notoriously respectable purveyor of factual information, as opposed to being a famous entertainment figure specializing in fantasy.Post a Comment
You are right that it is more important to know whether the movie is accurate than to know who wrote it. Maybe Clinton's NSC advisor, who's been vocal in his opposition to the film, could paste together some of the classified documents relating to that period which he stole and destroyed, so that we could learn what really happened. Or maybe we could reach a conclusion based on his theft. Call anon a misguided fool, but that's what I'm doing.