Notice, by the way, that unlike what I have done, Barry will not engage with my arguments in the interests of furthering understanding of the issue. Barry prefers the hit-and-run approach, which relieves him of any need to do any thinking to justify his perspective.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > If you don't see dramatic distinctions between this > > situation and the F9/11 one, I suspect you're either a > > Republican shill, or bending ovr backwards to appear > > fair simply because Judy (and to a lesser extent, I) > > are expressing doubts about it. > > I'm merely pointing out that some people (Judy more > than you) tend to be total hypocrites with regard > to the Republicans you hate. There seems to be *no > question* that this miniseries was an intentional > hatchet job. But Judy and others were advocating a > form of censorship (try to keep the film from being > seen) that was obviously based on their *own* > (Democratic) poliitcal goals. However, that was not advocating censorship. Censorship is *forcing* material to be withdrawn or changed. I do not have that power. The only entity that has that power is ABC itself. > Judy's original suggestion was that the film not > be shown until after the upcoming mid-term elections. > There can be NO conceivable reason for her making > that suggestion unless what she was *really* wanting > to achieve was to keep potential voters from seeing > something that might make them less likely to vote > Democratic. My reasons were more complex than that, of course. It wasn't just the pre-election scheduling; it was the scheduling on the anniversary of 9/11, when people's emotions are likely to be raw and on the surface, and they are therefore more suggestible. It would have been *less* bad to show it a month later, even though that would be closer to the election, because its partisanship would then have been more obvious. It would have been a lot more difficult to pretend the film was some kind of public service, a respectful historical reenactment of a national tragedy based on authoritative documents. > It was *purely* a suggestion that was > based on censoring what the public could see No, it was not a suggestion based on censoring, as I've already pointed out. , with > the idea of influencing an upcoming election. With the idea of *preventing* the *dishonest* influencing of a coming election. There > is no other *conceivable* reason for suggesting that > delay of the broadcast date. As noted below, it's *inherently* inappropriate for a historically inaccurate program pushing a partisan perspective to be shown on the public airwaves without giving equal time to the opposing perspective, regardless of the timing. > And *then* she further stipulated that when the > miniseries *was* finally shown, it should be shown > on pay TV and not free broadcast TV. She can claim > all day that this was to make it seem more "like > entertainment," but I think that every thinking > person in the FFL audience knows what she really > had in mind. Fewer people watch pay TV than broadcast > TV. Duh...Judy wanted the film *seen* by fewer people. No, that isn't what I really had in mind, sorry. My first thought was, as you say, that it would be more obviously entertainment if it were on pay-TV. My second thought was more on target: partisan programs are unsuitable for the public airwaves, *unless* they're balanced by the opposite point of view. Hence my suggestion of showing the film as scheduled, followed by a rebuttal of the historical inaccuracies. > I'm checking in on this tempest in a pisspot because > ONCE AGAIN Judy has shown her willingness to do the > *same* things herself that she decries in others. > When it's *her* political goals that she wants advanced, > she's willing to do the *same* things that she admon- > ishes the Republicans for doing. It would be fully appropriate for Republicans to advocate that a partisan, historical inaccurate film that reflects badly on their party not be broadcast on national television, especially not before an election, and *especially* not on a day of national remembrance of a great tragedy when nobody is thinking about politics. So I would not "admonish" them for doing such a thing, to the contrary. They'd be quite correct to do so. Sorry, wrong again. > As Shemp has pointed out often, her supposed "outrage" > over lying and immorality doesn't seem to apply as > strictly to Democrats as it does to Republicans. Shemp > thinks this failing is because she's a Democrat; I > think it's because she's a hypocrite, that's all. In fact, it *does* apply as strictly to Democrats as to Republicans. Sorry, wrong *again*. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
