Hypocrisy of the highest order

[marrael]

Edit: This miniseries is fucking 5 hours long???

May 7, 2004: On the television network that his company owns, Disney CEO Michael Eisner dismissed the idea that forbidding Disney subsidiary Miramax to distribute a controversial new documentary by Michael Moore was a form of censorship. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all

Comments

[cpxbrex]

I thought about this for a long time, and I can't support any call to, well, censor anything.

Do I think Disney-ABC is being hypocritical? Yes, absolutely. To say no to the distribution of Farenheit 911 but yes to this does appear quite hypocritical.

So, while I think it was wrong of them to decline distribution of Farenheit 911, I think it is equally wrong for people to call on them to reject The Path to 911. I almost certainly will think, given what is being said about the film, that it is terribly misleading and, indeed, an attempt to shift blame from Bush to Clinton. (Unlike some, here, I think that enough of the facts about Bush's behavior are already known to dramatically suggest that blame for this must be laid at Bush's feet; I do not say this as a supporter of Clinton but fer cryin' out loud! He was told that al-Qaida was planning an attack and did nothing! Not to mention the general pattern of Bush's incompetence.)

However, if one loves freedom of speech, I think one must accept and even to a large extent embrace

[cpxbrex]

ABC is within rights to show what they want, but we are also free to pressure them into avoiding gross misrepresentation and propaganda. :) In other words, making them change their minds.

[marrael]

That was me. Before logging in.

[cpxbrex]

Y'know, that's what a lot of people said about Farenheit 911. One person's true and factual account is another person's gross misrepresentation and propaganda. And, of course, there's also no way for you to say it is full of lies and propaganda 'cause you ain't seen it. Which is, in my mind, also a concern here -- that this is being condemned before it is being shown. That people are quick to condemn something that, y'know, might be intelligent and insightful.

I, myself, do not think that the cause of free speech is well served by creating an atmosphere of intimidation and trickery. I think it is far better served not by trying to prevent this or that message from getting out there, but letting it get out there and discussing it openly and honestly.

[marrael]

Er... granted ABC has said it's being edited and the program in question has not been screened yet. Yet, previews were forwarded to various right-wing blogs and media outlets for them to write reviews. Two people on the 9/11 Committee and 2 FBI have read the script and were shocked at the lies being presented as fact.Scholastic had school material tie-ins for this docudrama miniseries. You may or may not know all this, I suspect that you may not, from what you've just said. I'm surprised to hear you mention "discussing it openly and honestly" when ABC kept the "previews" away from Clinton, Albright, and anyone not on their right-wing invite list. The "Path to 9/11" blog originally set up by ABC was pulled, because people were posting protests there. What open discussion?

Let's face this fact, not every one who turns on the idiot box to watch this program is going to participating in discussions.

Lastly, the comparison to Fahrenheit 9/11 has gotta end somewhere. This is a program being presented on a nation-wide TV network with no

[cpxbrex]

Actually, I did know all of that. But what I don't know are the various agendas of the 911 Committee members or those FBI agents -- Washington is an extremely politicized environment