Politicians Seek to Censure Media That Portray Them Critically in the WoT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myself, right before Tribesman posted

Dems are rather vile and foolish regarding this, and I sense more foolishness over this soon.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Boy, did I call that one.:laugh4: :laugh4:

I think its hilarious that can never bring yourself to apologize for ad hominems, and your last post just went off on some crazy tangent.:inquisitive: :laugh4:

Even more hilarious is that you ignored most of my post explaining just what a strawman was and why I had not made one, and just bring up your tired and disproven accusation of me creating a strawman. Most hilariously, you pump out another strawman, saying I said the "liberal media bias that doesn't report things". I'll be understanding of your 'grasp' of English and assume you meant the "liberal media", as a bias cannot report things, the only problem being that I never said they hadn't reported it.
:oops: :idea2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Thrashing your...um...well we can't call them arguments, really, so why not rants? Anyway, thrashing your rants is rather unsatisfying, though, as it's about the same intellectual challenge as debating a third grader (though they would probably stop using strawman arguments after a bit). :laugh4:

You can always tell yourself that you're awfully good at arguing against absurd positions that you make up for people, though. :2thumbsup:

To contributing members of this thread; how far should politicians reasonably object to this? I think its fair to say 'that's not how we see it, and we'd prefer they didn't show it like that.' But its going a bit far, I thnk, to demand they pull it and threaten the company.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How far should politicians reasonably object to this? I think its fair to say 'that's not how we see it, and we'd prefer they didn't show it like that.' But its going a bit far, I thnk, to demand they pull it and threaten the company.

---

Honestly, I think any attempt to squelch a film/book/article is misguided. You can issue a corrective statement, but doing more is counter-productive.

Two exceptions: (1) If you can pressure behind-the-scenes, then I suppose it's not completely stupid to twist some arms. Happens all the time, and this is more or less how I expect things to run. (2) If the film/book/article becomes a major hit, then you're going to have to respond in some way, preferably indirectly. I think the oil-company-sponsored "amateur" YouTube responses to Gore's film were much cleverer than this ham-handed blustering by the minority party.

Really, the way the Democrats are behaving, you would think they had invested in Disney stock.

Best example of what I'm talking about -- when the film "Sid & Nancy" came out, Johnny Rotten was portrayed inaccurately, to an extent that he could have sued, and probably won. He chose to do nothing, reasoning that any lawsuit would just create hype and publicity, so he let it slide. Now nobody really pays much attention to the film, unless it's on cable at 4 a.m.

That is the correct way to handle this sort of thing.

Sorry for the double post, but this is a separate thing, so I took the liberty.

That (repeat after me) known bastion of liberal tree-hugging defeatist elitist east-coast ivory tower journalism, the New York Post, has put out an op-ed piece by Podhoretz, who has at least seen the miniseries, which is more than most of the commentators can say:

Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's anger is unquestionably justified. The version that I saw has her self-righteously owning up to actions that effectively tipped off Osama bin Laden to a strike against his Afghan training camp. "We had to inform the Pakistanis," the movie's Albright insists.

The real Albright says she neither did nor said such a thing and that the meeting we see in the movie never took place. The 9/11 Commission report, on which the film is partly based, says it was a senior military official who told the Pakistanis.

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn't deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden.

Lemur, you don't have to call them ivory tower if you already called them elitist.

Also, I do recall that before one attempt to get bin Laden, Clinton's administration tipped off the Pakistanis, who tipped off bin Laden, who escaped, though I don't know who Albright fits into that.

I also recall that the movie's makers have admitted to streamlining some scenes and events.

You're right about the ham-handedness of the dems, though it looks like it might work. Remember, they aren't just complaining about it, but trying to intimidate ABC & Disney.

Crazed Rabbit
PS-do you have any links to the youtube oil company thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Two exceptions: (1) If you can pressure behind-the-scenes, then I suppose it's not completely stupid to twist some arms. Happens all the time, and this is more or less how I expect things to run. (2) If the film/book/article becomes a major hit, then you're going to have to respond in some way, preferably indirectly. I think the oil-company-sponsored "amateur" YouTube responses to Gore's film were much cleverer than this ham-handed blustering by the minority party.

Really, the way the Democrats are behaving, you would think they had invested in Disney stock.

---

After actually reading the content of the letter its really pretty well crafted:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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. [...]

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. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

I disagree with the behind the scenes manuevring. While I expect that happens all the time. All the time, all the time. I'd prefer that they were more transparent in their dealings. Although I'm sure this was just the public face of the "assualt" on ABC.

I think this is about as far as currently employed government officials should go. The rest should be done by PAC's and other party groups.

I think its hilarious that can never bring yourself to apologize for ad hominems, and your last post just went off on some crazy tangent
Silly boy rabbit ..... you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .

Even more hilarious is that you ignored most of my post explaining just what a strawman was and why I had not made one, and just bring up your tired and disproven accusation of me creating a strawman.
See even after you post a definition you don't understand do you .
Do you suffer from some sort of mental malfunction ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

PS-do you have any links to the youtube oil company thing?

---

Sure, a tiny bit of digging turned it up. As I said, if you want to respond to a film/book/article that you don't like, I think this is a fairly clever way of doing it. Tip of the hat to the flack who put this op together.

Here's the video, as posted to YouTube. And here is a write-up (WSJ) from after the cover was blown:

In an email exchange with The Wall Street Journal, Toutsmith didn't answer when asked who he was or why he made the video, which has just over 59,000 views on YouTube. However, computer routing information contained in an email sent from Toutsmith's Yahoo account indicate it didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

Instead, the email originated from a computer registered to DCI Group, a Washington, D.C., public relations and lobbying firm whose clients include oil company Exxon Mobil Corp.

A DCI Group spokesman declines to say whether or not DCI made the anti-Gore penguin video, or to explain why Toutsmith appeared to be sending email from DCI's computers. "DCI Group does not disclose the names of its clients, nor do we discuss the work that we do on our clients' behalf," says Matt Triaca, who heads DCI's media relations shop.

Dave Gardner, an Exxon spokesman, confirms that Exxon is a client of DCI. But he says Exxon had no role in creating the "Inconvenient Truth" spoof. "We, like everyone else on the planet, have seen it, but did not fund it, did not approve it, and did not know what its source was," Mr. Gardner says.

There's even a layer of semi-plausible deniability. Now that's a slick operation -- nothing like the blustering, bullying tactics being used by the Dems over the 9/11 film. They should sit down and take notes.

Tribesy, I feel sorry for you.

You crawl resolutely onward in the face of facts and actual logic.

Quote:

---

Silly boy rabbit ..... you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .

---

No, as I've shown, and you conveniently ignore, I did not. I find it funny that as you get more desperate you keep accusing me of more logical fallacies.

Quote:

---

See even after you post a definition you don't understand do you .
Do you suffer from some sort of mental malfunction ?

---

Another ad hominem. Oh, I am so very surprised. The truth is, I understand, yet you obviously do not, as you used a strawman while saying that I had used one. Your entire argument consists of basically yelling 'you used a strawman' after I demonstrated how you had.

Let's review your posts:
1)

Quote:

---

Well who hasn't heard of it ? you managed to find plenty of links , which must have been really hard as it clearly is absent from both the mainstream media and all the little independants and certainly isn't being covered worldwide .

So I take it you mean why havn't the secret sect of monks from Bhutan who have taken a vow never to view any form of media heard of it ?
Well I hate to disappoint you Rabbit , but their vow also covers the internet so they will not be able to answer you .

---

Whoops, strawman! I never said it was absent from the media.

2)

Quote:

---

Rabbit you muppet , you made the strawman with your opening post.

---

An incorrect charge and an ad hominem. Boy, am I surprised.

My response to the above:

Quote:

---

And you need to read the link for a strawman argument:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Did I misrepresent the actions or positions of those democrat Senators or Clinton and his gang? No, I did not. Of course, had you read the links, you would have seen that. But what time is there for learning when there are personal attacks to be launched? Perhaps next time you'll get a clue and bring some actual arguments instead of the same, tired logical fallacies. I worry for you when you seem to so fervently believe that you're actually debating.

---

3) The 'relevant' part of your third post,

Quote:

---

ahhhhh of course the good old liberal media bias that doesn't report things ...but it is reported isn't it So you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .

---

Another strawman. I never said the liberal media (or the bias of the liberal media :laugh4: ) hadn't reported it. Unsurprisingly, you offer nothing to back up any charges of me using a strawman, and ignore my proof that I have not used a strawman.

In summary, your whole argument consists of clamping on one out-of-context remark, erecting a strawman around it, then nonsensically crying that I had made a strawman when you get called on it. You have been the very definition of a strawman; you ignore the actual position and subsitute some distorted version and then hack away at that. I do so hope you don't actually think you're doing real debating.

EDIT: Thanks for the link, Lemur. I always wonder why publicity companies use their own emails for stuff like that. I mean, why not just go to the library? Anyways, it seems the curse of the dems to get real heavy handed whenever they see something they don't like. A quick look at dailykos turned up images of a sinister looking mickey mouse with karl rove. Some of them, the activists and polticos mainly, just can't stand people not agreeing with them publicly, it seems.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now that's a slick operation -- nothing like the blustering, bullying tactics being used by the Dems over the 9/11 film. They should sit down and take notes.

---

Yup, also take note on how instead of demanding "An Inconvenient Truth" be banned, they just come up with a bunch of their own silly graphs, charts, and slideshow (crappy though they be).

You crawl resolutely onward in the face of facts and actual logic.

Oh thats rich Rabbit .
No, as I've shown, and you conveniently ignore, I did not. I find it funny that as you get more desperate you keep accusing me of more logical fallacies.
You have shown nothing of the sort , and the fact that you don't even realise it leads to .....See even after you post a definition you don't understand do you .
Do you suffer from some sort of mental malfunction ?
.....Another ad hominem
nope , a serious question , is there something wrong with your brain functions ?
Whoops, strawman! I never said it was absent from the media.

oh I see , in rabbits world saying something hasn't been heard by people doesn't mean it hasn't been heard by people from the media ......errrr ....where do people hear news rabbit , is it from the media ? So this news that people havn't heard about , where is it absent from according to your strange mind . .....strawman
Then you follow with .....Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation.
Ahhh an explanation why the existing news coverage doesn't exist . Ummmmmmm.....but it does exist doesn't it ........ strawman .
Now....It is not Bush, his administration, or Republicans, but democrats seeking to pressure an independent media company into altering their show.
Oh look , a rabbit rational on why the coverage that exists doesn't exist , its because of anti-Bush bias ....not only strawman but an ad-hominem on both the media and the democtrats .
Such a pity , you take a potentially good story and make a complete balls of it .
Try sticking to gun control stories instead , oh but perhaps you might want to learn some gun laws first so you don't make a complete fool of yourself over that subject again and again . Because ....Thrashing your...um...well we can't call them arguments, really, so why not rants? Anyway, thrashing your rants is rather unsatisfying, though, as it's about the same intellectual challenge as debating a third grader :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
though of course its not only gun laws where your knowledge is of a very bad level is it ., would you like a vey long list of topics where You crawl resolutely onward in the face of facts and actual logic.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

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.

Now that's an interesting piece from the letter Whydie , it would seem that with the fictionaliation and time compression of certain aspects and events from this docu-drama , there is more to this issue than just the democrats worrying about some of their failings being shown to a gullible TV audience .

Disney w/ political bias in its media is awful.

:no:

More of the same from tribesy.

I've already dealt with it all before, so I'll just write what I believe to be the cause of his innane behavior.

Tribesy, you are fundamentally ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of American media. At the heart of your ignorance is your assumption, apparently reached after you saw "So why haven't you heard about it?", that any story, no matter how small, is instantly heard by the great majority of people around the nation. You seem to think that the average person not hearing of it means that no media has written about it - the heart of your strawman.

In typical style, you ignore everything else from my post and show up in another attempt to cause a pain out of yourself without actually presenting any argument.

I'll let you search around a while and try to learn about the American media. I don't think its too different from other countries, but you need to learn that a single printed story does not extensive coverage make. Here's a hint; read about the NYT's coverage on Abu Ghairib, and compare that with this.

Quote:

---

oh I see , in rabbits world saying something hasn't been heard by people doesn't mean it hasn't been heard by people from the media ......errrr ....where do people hear news rabbit , is it from the media ? So this news that people havn't heard about , where is it absent from according to your strange mind . .....strawman

---

No, its not a strawman, as you would understand if you weren't so ignorant of American media. For a cure, see above.

Quote:

---

Ahhh an explanation why the existing news coverage doesn't exist . Ummmmmmm.....but it does exist doesn't it ........ strawman .

---

I never said media coverage doesn't exist. Oops, another mark against tribesy.

Quote:

---

Oh look , a rabbit rational on why the coverage that exists doesn't exist , its because of anti-Bush bias ....not only strawman but an ad-hominem on both the media and the democtrats .

---

I never said media coverage doesn't exist. And you display your ignorance of ad hominems, too;
From the Logical fallacy website:
# Person A (dems) makes claim X (are they making a claim in my post?).
# Person B (cr, supposedly) makes an attack on person A (um...what attack?).
# Therefore A's claim is false (again, what claim?).
I have done nothing of the sort. Nor am I falsely representing the actions of either most of the media or democrats.

Quote:

---

Now that's an interesting piece from the letter Whydie , it would seem that with the fictionaliation and time compression of certain aspects and events from this docu-drama , there is more to this issue than just the democrats worrying about some of their failings being shown to a gullible TV audience .

---

No, not really, as the dems just are desperate for a better excuse than 'it shows what a buffoon clinton's admin was'.

Crazed Rabbit

More of the same from tribesy.

So it doesn't stop you from making a ***** of yourself , keep digging rabbit , your problems in cognative function are all too apparent .:juggle2:


In typical style, you ignore everything else from my post and show up in another attempt to cause a pain out of yourself without actually presenting any argument.

Errrrrrrr....nope Such a pity , you take a potentially good story and make a complete **** of it .


I'll let you search around a while and try to learn about the American media.
hmmmmmmm....Bubba

No, its not a strawman, as you would understand if you weren't so ignorant of American media. For a cure, see above.

Oh look , more Bubba .

face it rabbit , you took a potentially interesting and far ranging topic and made a balls of it . :juggle2:


No, not really, as the dems just are desperate for a better excuse than 'it shows what a buffoon clinton's admin was'.
Ah I see now , Clintons administrtion was full of buffoons , completely unlike the current administration that is bursting at the seams with buffoons .
Its all so clear now .:inquisitive:

Mithrandir:edited for language

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's the video,

---

Damn, that's bad !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

blah blah blah blah blah

face it rabbit , you took a potentially interesting and far ranging topic and made a balls of it . :juggle2:

---

What the? You come here and do your best to prattle on like some **** about basically nothing and then you say I'm the one who's screwing up the topic?

Quote:

---

Errrrrrrr....nope

---

Yes. You've presented no argument. You just do your best to be obnoxious while ignoring everything that contradicts you.

Quote:

---

hmmmmmmm....Bubba

---

I guess you've taken the cover off your true intellectual depth.

Crazed Rabbit

Mithrandir : edited for language

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's the video,


Damn, that's bad !

---

Damn, thats funny.:laugh4:

I was able to watch some of part 1 tonight and thought it was decent and relatively realistic. Lots of people all worried about covering their a$$’s rather than doing anything meaningful. Definitely showed the Clinton administration in the poor light they shined on themselves.


- Good to see you G of O.

The other night (it finishes tonight) there was programme which Ibelive is the one you refer to. I felt quite angry at the apathy and plain stupidity of the U.S government in concern to the welfar of its own citizens, like the fact that the U.S were going to launch a rocket at Osama in Afghanistan, but an hour before it hit the U.S secratary of state phoned the Pakistani secret service (who had close connections with the Taliban) and told them of the attack. The result being the desruction of the Northern Alliance and Al-Quiada
declaring war on America and Isreal. I just sat there in stunned amazement.
S

And sadly, that's pretty much how it happened. And it is why the dems wanted to take this out so badly. Security issues aren't going away before the midterms, after all.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And sadly, that's pretty much how it happened.

---

Um, I'm not going to dispute the overall accuracey of the film, for two reasons: (1) I'm not going to watch it, and (2) the Clintons certainly deserve a heapin' helpin' of blame for ignoring the rise of Al Qaeda. However, the event Bopa was describing (Albright phoning the Pakis, saying "hey, we've got a missile on the way") is the one thing I'm aware of that has been discredited.

I'm not sure how it portrayed Albright in that situation, but I do know that Clinton's admin did tell the pakis (some military officer), and Albright might have known of it, and approved. In that case, it would not have portrayed her totally out of line with her beliefs. It's a mark against the film, but not a major flaw.

Crazed Rabbit

Only because our local newspaper had something about this story at the same time as the story in this thread.
AFA complains to FCC about swearing done by firefighters in the 9/11 documentary on CBS.

Comments?

I guess you've taken the cover off your true intellectual depth.


Nope , it is a comment on your state of mind rabbit and intellectual ability . and an accurate one at that bubba .

Look .....I've already dealt with it all before, no you havn't . You cannot even see the fault so how the hell have you dealt with it ?




I felt quite angry at the apathy and plain stupidity of the U.S government in concern to the welfar of its own citizens, like the fact that the U.S were going to launch a rocket at Osama in Afghanistan, but an hour before it hit the U.S secratary of state phoned the Pakistani secret service
Now thats interesting , would it be prudent to launch a strike that would be crossing a "friends" territory without telling them ?
If it is not prudent then is it accurate to portray it in a negative light ?
Like with the strike against those involved in the USS Cole attack , the administration had to inform the Yemeni authorities and give them assurances that the agreed arrangements about US personel not operating over Yemens territory would be followed , they also had to inform the authorities in Djibouti and the French whose base they were using about the strike .
However it does raise the issue of who your "friends" are and the wisdom of having those "friends"(though in reality there is little choice in having to deal with Pakistan unless you want to try another regime change) . Clintons administration had no real choice about telling thePakistanis , just as Bush has had no real choice , and on those occasions when they did choose not to inform them they have created even worse problems for themselves .
Now you can argue about the wisdom of having to deal with a "friend" who is also somewhat "friendly" with the opposition . But wouldn't that make the current administrations actions even worse than the previous ones when you consider the two peace deals the Pakistanis have made with the militants since the war with the Taliban really started .
Now to the major issue with this , from the letter ....
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.
......does anyone have an issue with flawed and factually inaccurate information being taught in schools or should students be recipients of innacurate propoganda passed off as a factual documentary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Only because our local newspaper had something about this story at the same time as the story in this thread.
AFA complains to FCC about swearing done by firefighters in the 9/11 documentary on CBS.

Comments?

---

I think it's safe to say that the American Family Association is out of their collective minds. Frankly, it's wise to be suspicious of any group that has "Family" in its name. For whatever reason, they tend to be whack jobs.

Deleted, per request of Mithrandir.

Here's a link with some of the cut scenes:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc2.html

I can see why Clinton & co. don't like them.

Crazed Rabbit

So were those the actual scenes that were cut or were they left in? Cuz, I dont see what all the grousing was about based on those.

Wow the BBC showed the programme , with a disclaimer ......this is not a factual account of events :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: