--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, if ABC had decided to air Farenheit 9/11 this weekend instead would > > you all agree or disagree that such an action would be a "bald-faced > > attempt to slander Republicans and revise history right before Americans > > vote in a major election?" > > I think I would disagree. That movie wasn't presented as a > dramatization of history, so it is a rather different kettle of fish. > At the same time, I don't particularly think it belongs on the public > airwaves.
I have to say, that I think that you are really twisting yourself in knots in trying to distinguish between "a documentary" as being something that was not attempting political sander or to revise history, but a "dramatization" as being something that was. In fact, I'll come out and say it - I find your distinction to be totally hypocritcal. "Farenheit 9/11" pushes the envelope of consensus in a direction that you are inclined to believe is "possible" and which damages your political opponents. "The Path to 9/11" pushes the envelope of consensus in a direction you are not inclined to believe is possible, and which damages the political side you support. > > Additionally, would you agree or disagree the federal regulators should > > engage in political censorship of content on American airwaves, either > > all the time, or near the time of an election? > > I would disagree, but that in no way affects my belief that they were > wrong to air it. There are many things that I believe are wrong that > the government does not neet to try to fix. You, among others, have tried to argue that that ABC should be treated specially because it is broadcast over the public airwaves. I think this is a hopelessly outdated idea, from a day in which there were only 3 or 4 television networks. Today, 99% of households have access to cable television, and 60% of households subscribe to cable television. Another 8% subscribe to satellite TV. In other words, the idea that broadcast TV is a monopoly in a day and age of 530 television channels, movie theatres, and the Internet is simply outdate. Moreover, I think the attitude take by the Democrats here has a chilling effect on political speech - the most important form of free speech that there is. I personally think that it would be good for the TV networks to take on controversial atttudes. Apparently the Democrats here think that the networks should stick to tripe like "Yes, Dear" instead... JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
