News-Record.com

It is really so silly I'm embarrased for the Democrats. I blogged about the same thing- how could it possibly damage Clinton or Sandy Berger's reputation worse?...

Thanks, Chip. Good post on your blog.

The Dems are mad that they can't run everything. The American public voted them OUT 6 years ago, but in their elitist snobbery they still think they're in charge! The government, the press, the movies...Dems just don't seem to understand that everyone in the country does NOT have to do what the Dems want them to do. They get mad when President Bush doesn't do things the way the want them. They get mad when religious leaders don't say what they want them to. They get mad when Republican senators don't run the committees the way they want them to. And they get mad when their revered icon, King Willie Clinton, might have his "legacy" tarnished with the truth.
I've had one consistent position since 9/11, and I'll repeat it here: 8 years of Clinton inaction on terror issues emboldened the terrorists and led us to the 9/11 attacks. The blood of evey person who died that day is on Clinton's hands.

Just another example of the over-reaching, one-sided, Democrat promoting, damn liberal media. (tongue deeply in cheek)

I agree, Doug. Every TV set I have ever owned has a channel changing device and an on/off switch. I hadn't planned on watching either, but now, with this effort at censorship, I'll make the time.

As a former broadcaster, I've got a slightly different take.

Federal law grants broadcasters like ABC the right to use the public's airwaves at no charge, to serve the public interest as a public trustee. The fact that such a deal is incredibly lucrative for ABC and most other license holders is just a happy side effect. Now, the requirements for "serving the public interest" have been watered down to just about nil over the years, which is fine given the explosion of other media. But the FCC still has an affirmative duty not to allow the public's airwaves to be used to commit fraud. (In fact, it was FCC attention that finally prompted televangelist Jim Bakker's PTL to develop a satellite network, such networks being outside the FCC's purview, although the unintended consequence was to give Bakker a much larger flock of sheep to be fleeced). And presenting entertainment as journalism or history on the public's airwaves constitutes fraud, plain and simple.

Moreover, ABC's ill-fated partnership with Scholastic Inc. suggests that it was willfully and intentionally trying to fob inaccurate history off on America's school kids ... for what reason other than financial and/or political gain, I can't begin to imagine.

As far as I'm concerned, ABC can air anything it pleases as long as it doesn't try to pass fiction off as something else. When the project's chief writer and producer says that one of the key scenes wasn't even in his script but was improvised during shooting, well, that's fiction. If it wants to use the public's airwaves, it has two choices: Edit the work or label it as fiction.

If the network isn't willing to take one of those steps and wants to distribute the work as is, it has other means at its disposal to do so:

-- Air it on one of its cable networks (outside FCC purview) or on a satellite network (ditto).

-- Show it in movie theaters. I hear parent corporation Disney has a pretty good movie-distribution arm.

-- Distribute it on DVD.

-- Stream it on the Internet and/or make it available for download.

I think Disney's mistake here was trying to imply that this was anything more than fiction. If it had simply marketed the miniseries as what it is, I'm sure it would have drawn a large audience. It still may, but at what cost remains to be seen.

Lex, does that mean the FCC should monitor network news programs for accuracy?

Or how about network broadcasts of the political conventions? Better yet, a presidential debate. That would be fun.

Seriously, I'm hoping there must be a loophole in FCC regs for political content.

I was unaware it had been marketed as anything other than fiction. If so then I agree somewhat. However, it is a movie, a mini-series. I dont think I would have considered it a documentary. All movies ever made are "fake" to some extent or another. How else can you shrink months and years into 5 hours? Just out of curiosity where were all on "The Reagans"?

I still wont watch. Foo-Baw is on.

Mick

Right, this is ABC's replacement for MNF. What are the Dems worried about? Everyone will be watching ESPN.

Lex, does that mean the FCC should monitor network news programs for accuracy?

BZZZT. Sorry; straw-man responses are not acceptable, Doug, but thanks for playing.

Mick, when ABC/Disney was cutting a deal to distribute educational materials through Scholastic to students that were to be based on the miniseries, and was planning to air it without commercial interruption, I think the company's intent was pretty clear.

Interestingly, Scholastic, which has a vested interest in not being, and not being seen as, political, has now said it will distribute a different set of materials, including one aimed at helping young kids tell the difference between fact and fiction. I personally think that's their way of flipping Disney/ABC the bird for dragging them into this mess, but I might be reading too much into it.

To all: The political aspects of this interest me not at all. I was just as opposed to the TV movie about the Reagans' taking liberties with fact. The difference here is that that movie was never presented as anything BUT entertainment. No commercial-free broadcast as a "public service," no supplemental school materials, etc. And it ended up airing on a Viacom-owned cable network, not on CBS (also owned by Viacom), so the FCC had no jurisdiction.

Lex, thanks for playing ... dodgeball!

Good points and grudgingly agreed. It is hard to say the protestors do not have a case when ABC is in a hell bent edit at this point.

But I still see it all as silliness.

The political side of me wants to say. "How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot, Dems?" But I won't.

Just air it with a "based on fact" discalimer and we are good to go right? Yeah right. We'll see. Nothing short of pulling this M-O-V-I-E will satisfy them now. Maybe Sandy Berger can visit the editing room with some really big socks on!

Mick

Mick

Hey, Bill Bennett agrees with me on this. Probably the only other thing we agree on is that poker can be fun.

Accordingly, I would suggest we all prepare for the end of the world.

Doug,

Did you call the Republicans pathetic when they succeeded in getting "The Reagans" drama pulled from CBS back in 2003?

Norskar .... Did you?

To be honest, I'd forgotten all about the Reagans movie and never saw it. If the Republicans acted then like the Democrats are acting now, they were pathetic.