News-Record.com

You are right, Bush's people were portrayed as part of the security problem as well.It seems clear to me the Democrats and liberals (Clinton's people excluded) objected to the portrayal of the enemy. If the enemy is exactly as Bush has portrayed them- the movie validated this- then Bush's military and covert operations are justified.

Clinton and Berger's motivation was to protect their own reputation.

I agree with you, Doug. I thought the calls not to air the Reagan movie on CBS (which succeeded) were silly. I thought the same of the efforts towards ABC's movie. Free speech, baby. Let the purveyors take their lumps in the market place.

Hadn't Sandy Berger's reputation already been in doubt as a result of him bergling various sensitive documents related to the 9/11 commission review on terror?

I believe he was convicted of a misdemeanor because of his actions.

Doug,

I think any reader who follows your link to Mediamatters.org will find that it does not "routinely call for censorship."

What it does is point out the constant barrage of false statements made by the dominant media, including Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, CNN, etc. I see repeated efforts by Mediamatters to get those outlets to correct false statements, but I can't recall many instances where they're calling on the government to "censor" information.

On the other hand, the right-wing media outlets did succeed in getting a major network to pull The Reagans before it was ever aired.

So, EW, the excuse for this ham-handed attempt at censorship by left-wingers is that right-wingers do it, too? I guess if they both get their way, the media will have to stick to moderate messages only.

You are correct that Mediamatters was not calling for government censorship. Letters to newspapers were, calling for intervention by various government agencies, including the IRS and FEC. I don't know which organization was generating those letters.

I believe he was convicted of a misdemeanor because of his actions.* Jon

Yep! The security guard at the center notice Sandy was stuffing something in his socks while at the research table with the files. When the security guard approach Sandy and inquire into the matter. Sandy reply that he had a unknown itch from a old war wound that the doctors could not cure. When Sandy decided to leave the center, the guard follow him to the check out counter and ask him if could he look at his briefcase. The guard look and found some government papers that said " Top Secret for your eyes only Bill". Sandy told the guard he thought a dog had put the top secret papers in briefcase, while he was rubbing his itch at the research table.

Sandy was thrown to floor and a full stripe search was occured by the guards on poor Sandy.

The federal DA of the DC distict indicted Sandy on 3 felon charges.

1. Stealing government papers by hiding them between his toes

2.Lying to a federal agent that a dog had planted the papers

3. Intent to RECO porn on a Government property with personal notes between President Clinton and a unknown intern which was black out as a national security secret.

A plea was worked out by Sandy lawyers and the Government lawyers in which the felon charges were drop and reduce to a misdemeanor charge. The Judge fine Sandy 100 thousand dollars and gave him 3 years of probation to do community service at a local homeless center by reading bedtime stories to the residences along with not reading any Playboy or Hustler Mazs to the residences.

Doug, it's only censorship if the *government* does it. For everyone else, for better or worse, it's just editing.

In a narrow sense, you're probably right, although that would render meaningless a term we sometimes use in our business: self-censorship.

In a broader sense, I think the word accurately describes efforts to pressure or bully a media outlet into withdrawing or editing material.

What would be a better word in this case: suppress?

Yeah, I think that'd work.

Just a point of clarification-- I had seen at least a couple of reports on the web that scenes had been altered or deleted in response to the complaints and veiled threats ABC received.

A conservative professor friend today made a point concerning censorship: he said there is NO censorship in the US. Censorship, as he understands it, means the utter and complete banning of material, including but not limited to the seizure and often destruction of such material. In a capitalist consumer-driven country, if people want some product, they can usually find it somewhere, as long as there's profit to be made. While he allowed for the legal restriction of materials deemed "unsuitable" (if not "immoral") in the public arean, he did not think, for example, libraries refusing to stock certain books was "censorship". Merely "choosing what we will include at this location according to our standards"...but not wiping it out of society altogether.

By this criteria, one would think the free market of ideas should allow Democrats or Republicans to rally support to convince distributors of media products to not show certain programs, to thus choose their content for a particular time period or outlet.
Since the film exists in some electronic form, it could arguably still be viewed by those who want to see it somewhere else, sometime else.

To the winners of each political fight go the programming schedules. It is noteworthy that ABC is owned by hyper-Republican donors.

While it seems that the Clintonites had a right to demand that conversations and scenes correctly reflect history, they didn't have a right to have the movie pulled completely. As I understand it, the movie was based upon the 9/11 Commission Report and the movie is consistent with the report. My understanding is that some of the dialogue was fine-tuned, but the final product was accurate. I sense that Clinton and others worked hard to get it pulled as it sullied their legacy. They would have liked for us to believe that they worked tirelessly to fight the rise of Islamic terrorism, when they were really hiding behind legalisms to justify doing nothing and not making hard decisions, Mr. Clinton in particular.

Some will find this quote interesting on reflection in this matter by a true leftist.

"The Republicans, who deify President Reagan, cannot stand the fact that some of the more unpleasant truths about his character and presidency might be depicted in the movie," wrote singer and Democratic activist Barbra Streisand in a public statement on her Web site yesterday. Her husband, James Brolin, plays Mr. Reagan in the series. "This is what the Right Wing does when they are faced with a truth that is not 100 percent positive for their side — they spread vicious lies and attacks and scream and yell until they get their way," Miss Streisand wrote.

Couldn't the same be said about Clinton and the left fighting to stop unpleasant truths about Mr. Clinton's character and presidency that were depicted in this movie?

Connie Mack, Jr., you simply have to stop drinking heavily before you make posts on this blog. Your posts make no sense whatsoever to a sober mind.