FCC Threats Clinton's Final Folly - A Prediction

While irrelevant to my point, the ever in search of a legacy president's failed history as Commander-In-Chief is well documented. You can catch up on that at Texas Rainmaker and view a round up via Mary Katherine Ham. The Democrats have gone so far as to threaten ABC's broadcast license. h/t Ace.

However, the ramifications of the current move by Dems to pressure ABC is going to have consequences far beyond a docu-drama. Americans don't like people, especially politicians, messing with their TV. And the other big issue facing Republicans in the run up to the coming elections besides Iraq was firing up their base. I say was because the Dems have just saved the Republicans from having to go to the trouble.

The Democrats shameless maneuvering now going on on behalf of Clinton brings back, not only the animus Republicans have always felt for Clinton, while drawing attention to their general weakness in foreign affairs, it also reminds everyone of the scandal ridden side show that was Democrat Clinton's presidency.

And all this at the same time David Broder is calling for the media to apologize to Karl Rove and President Bush is making speech after speech on the GWOT. The elections will still be close and the Republicans will likely suffer losses, perhaps even serious ones. But I predict that in the end, going in the tank for Clinton one last time will help in a big way to do in Democrat dreams of taking back Congress.

Comments

[elbogz]

To bad we can't convert righteous indignation into energy. It wouldn't smell as good as burning french fry grease, but you could make it from here to work and back on one filling of the nightly democratic outrage.

[Terry Gain]

Given all the garbage I've heard for the last 3 years about protecting the constitutional rights of terrorists I take it there's nothing unconstitutional about threatening someone with economic ruin if they don't do as you say.

Nothing will be shut down without a Judges order? Oh, I feel better already.

[Sticky Notes]

I agree that bringing up all these unsavory Clinton feelings and memories will serve as a boost and a reminder why those folks don't belong back in office.

But it also made me wonder how many disenchanted Republicans are even aware of this outrageous Dem reaction and their tantrum? (Free speech for all, indeed.) All the millions that are not on the Internet all day and get home after the news (that's not worth watching) and don't have a clue the Dems are even threatening ABC's FCC license. ARRRGGGHHH.

[xxx]

What is the difference between the Dem's unhappiness with Clinton's portrayal in this TV movie and the Rep's unhappiness with Reagan's portrayal a few years ago?

[Larry]

xxx, a better comparison would be to Fahrenheit 9/11. cf http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/09/notice-difference.html

As for the Regan minseries; cf http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/

Quote:

While CBS said it was not bowing to political pressure, critics said that was exactly the case, and worried about the effects of such pre-emptive strikes on future work.

CBS believed it had ordered a love story about Ronald and Nancy Reagan with politics as a backdrop, but instead got a film that crossed the line into advocacy, said a network executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The film had been scheduled to air November 16 and 18, in the heart of the November ratings sweeps. CBS attempted to edit the film to remove offending passages, but gave up.

"We believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement Tuesday.

Neal Gabler, author of "Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality," said CBS' decision was unhealthy for democracy.

"CBS, in pulling this film, did incredible harm, much more harm than they could ever have done in making the film," Gabler said. "What they've told us now is that a very small group of people have censorship power over the broadcast networks."

end Quote:

By comparison, ABC ordered a docudrama about the events leading up to 9/11, and that's what they got.

Hugh Hewitt has transcripts up of his interview with the show's producer. cf http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=dee50320-ee9f-47d2-8308-4d4aa4af0d6d

[seybernetx]

Well, xxx, for a start, I don't remember anyone threatening to pull CBS(or whoever it was?) broadcast license. That is one obvious difference.

Cheer...

[rwilymz]

"What is the difference between the ..."

Not a thing. Both are self-serving, "can't afford to have my image look bad" preening in the media.

I've been saying for years now, we've collectively got the political maturity of any group of kindergarteners arguing over the blue crayon. Ain't anyone can admit that "the other side" has a valid point, let alone that they're right about anything. 'You can't be right, because then we'd look bad for not being right first...'

Those who claim that Clinton, golly, didn't do all he could to get bin Laden have a point. Not as much of one as they believe they have, but it's still a point. Wanna conflate it and film it? Creative license.

Those who claimed that Reagan was a napping giant have a point. Again, not as much of one as they'd like to believe, but still. Wanna exaggerate it and film it? More creative license.

Wanna film a conspiracy theory about presidential assassination? Great. Get Costner.

Wanna exaggerate presidential power-mongering? Marvelous. Get Hopkins.

Edward Herrmann has made a living portraying FDR for all your political hackworks on that subject... and there are many [more] worth making. Benign self-righteousness; pre-limousine liberalism; and heck, there's the whole War Plan Orange x-filings to work to. No shortage of potential material.

Lincoln is ripe for grudge-making as well. Got the civil liberties grasp; got the backhanded emancipation; even got a crowd now claiming he was really gay. Hack away, folks.

Washington? a military doofus, but dang was he popular. Right up until he sent the army to kill Pennsylvania whiskey-makers for not paying taxes.

Adams had his whole imperial hissy-fitting 'you can't criticize me!!!'

Jefferson was profligate in more ways than one, spending money nobody had on land nobody wanted and wars nobody knew about, and boinking everyone he could find, littering the [newly expanded] land with more heirs than you could shake a stick at.

There is no shortage of ways we have to trivialize, diminish and ridicule ourselves for self-serving political reasons. We're only just scratching the surface here. If we're serious about this, we need to quit pussy-footing around and put on our adult incontinence undergarments, get down on the ground, and wail like the babies we are becoming.

[xxx]

The real problem is docudrama...when you are just making a movie about a historical person, event, it is generally understood that its a MOVIE..that some poetic license will be taken.

When you make up a new category the docudrama becuase you want to be able to promote your movie as something more than a movie, as something that is, well, kind of like a documentary, only with some fake drama thrown in then you get in trouble. The TV guys want to be able to say that this is MORE THAN A MOVIE but they don't want to have to abide by the rules of the documentary...and yes I know that a documentary also has a point of view and they edit facts but they are not allowed to make up their own facts or talk about events that did not happen.

It is also of course much more risky to make a docudrama or a drama about an event when the people being portrayed are still alive to complain about perceived inaccuracies.

[rwilymz]

"much more risky to make a docudrama or a drama about an event when the people being portrayed are still alive to complain about perceived inaccuracies."

Why, I think that's got it.

You can't make a movie -- documentary or otherwise -- about a real event with all the individuals involved because the audience would get lost. Too much to keep track of, too many faces, too many names, what's his relationship to the plot, who's that, exactly how many people do we have to have to get this point across...

Fact: the US called Pakistan to tell them we were sending cruise missiles over their airspace into A'stan. Was it Albright? no. It was a General in the Pentagon.

Fact follow-on: Albright is having a hissy fit because she's the one depicted doing what somebody else did.

Fact: the US failed to act on tip on how to nail bin Laden before the tip got to the White House. Was it Berger who dismissed the tip? No. It was Tenet.

Fact follow-on: Berger is having a hissy fit because he's the one depicted as doing what was done.

Plot-easing and cast-trimming is always done; crucial points are hit while specific details are glossed. That's Hollywood. If you wanted real life then get out from in front of the fucking television set.

It is not "defamatory" to acknowledge that we didn't do what we could have done, and we need to grow up.

[gay medical fetish]

Impossible, how GOOD your work is. I am realy surprised. http://doctorhorny.ifrance.com