Wait a minute; hold on now... (ABC drama related)

[Craig3410]

Now, how pissed do we get when the AFA goes and writes a massive letterwriting campaign and screams "BOYCOTT!" to get something they don't like off the air?

And, unless I'm seeing wrong, aren't we writing a massive letterwriting campaign and screaming "BOYCOTT!" to get something we don't like off the air?

Look; I know it's bullshit; and I'm pretty sure a lot of people will figure it out too. Republicans aren't too good at this "subtle" thing; I'll be surprised if they're subtle enough to not show Clinton himself hijacking a damn plane.

So I'm saying that we can go ahead with this, but we officially lose all right to bitch about the AFA's response to another "nipplegate", should one occur.

[longship]

1. That's why I haven't signed the petitions.

Censorship is censorship.

However, I have written to ABC asking them to offer alternative voices to correct the misinformation to the patently partisan viewpoint of their mini-series.

There's no way ABC pulls the series, or corrects its lies.

Our only course is to get into a dialog on the facts and see if we can get some coverage about the very controversial claims in the mini-series.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. That's Not Censorship!

Censorship is telling people what they can or can't write, say, or which movie they can't make.

A boycott is just an economic tool to give the consumer a voice with those who have the means of distribution.

The maker can still make his little film. But, he's NOT entitled to, nor does he have an inherent right to make money with his film.

That's not censorship.
The Professor

[ClassWarrior]

2. All I see is calls for an accurate portrayal.

:shrug:

Of course, one can spin that any way one wants, depending on one's agenda.

NGU.

[onenote]

3. and you know that ABC is loving every minute of it

Controversy = free publicity = increased viewership (usually).

[never cry wolf]

4. There is a big difference, truthiness

They didn't like "The Reagans" because it was an honest account that showed the warts they want to believe their saint ronn ie didn't possess whereas "The Path to 9/11" is a dishonest, misleading account.

[blogslut]

5. Write independant emails and letters

Don't use the form. That way ABC knows these responses are coming from individual viewers.

[IdaBriggs]

6. I hate lies from either side of the fence.

Republicans have a tendency to want "facts" ignored, and want "fantasy" publicized as "fact."

Its not a case of different OPINIONS (with a Left Wing Version of "The Real 9-11 featuring Condi & Junior vacationing in Texas in August") -- its a case of MAKING SHIT UP.

Now, if you want to give Michael Moore's movie EQUAL TIME, I'm all for it.

[StefanX]

7. Let ABC go ahead and air it -- but let's also get the FACTS out

I put up a thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2052891

basically saying that if a few thousand DUers were to print out Will Pitt's "data dump" on Clinton's anti-terrorism work:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

then ABC would basically just be spending $40 million to hang themselves.

I understand how it might look like censorship for us to try to get ABC to pull their crappy film.

So let them air it. But rebut them too.

Print out Will Pitt's "data dump" on Clinton - and drop a few copies around town - in laundromats, beauty salons, office lounges, diners, bus stops, etc. Anyone who reads that data dump will see that ABC is just a bunch of traitors.

The corporate media sucks, but with all these great writers on DU, and all this networking and computing power, and laser printers and CD/DVD burners, we can BE THE MEDIA now.

[SoCalDem]

8. There's a huge difference between the two..

The rightwingers have a strangle-hold on media these days, and the left is nowhere near as organized anyway, so a "campaign" by oour side is not that effective..

remember, "our side" has been tagged as the "bad guys", and the right is all sweetness & light..stuffed with family values, with a creamy center of patriotic fervor..:sarcasm:

They have think tanks and organizations whose ONLY reason to exist, is to rally to their causes, and write & call to complain about anything and everything that is even slightly irritating to them..

Lefties, by nature are analytical and will watch tripe like this, if only to point out the flaws..but to whom? is anyone even listening to us?? Not the media (we're called spoil-sports, contrarian, traitorous...you name it), when we complain, but when a rightwing group complains about anything, they are righteous, and only thinking about the "childrennnnnnn" or they are trying to "save american family values"...:puke:

[seabeyond]

9. i agree and i havent written to abc. scholastic is another story,

using it to educate our children. that is a NO NO

[sinkingfeeling]

10. I requested ABC immediately follow it with stories on how the GOP

prevented Clinton from pursuing terrorism in the late 1990's and run rebuttals by Richard Clarke.

[EstimatedProphet]

11. No, there is a difference here

We're boycotting because this is being presented as factual, wneh it is a partisan hit piece on Clinton. The AFA boycotts because of an opinion they don't agree with.

[VolcanoJen]

12. And another difference... this movie essentially kicks off Election Season

Don't think this wasn't planned to play into Republicans' favor heading into the next two months.

This is absolutely different, and we should be loud and clear that this movie is not factual and should not be labeled as such.

[truebrit71]

13. It's not a question of not liking something, lies are being presented....

...as FACT....

Big difference IMHO....

[enid602]

14. Bush did it

The nice thing about airing this allegedely pro-Republican film is that maybe the television industry will also allow a docudrama to delve into what really happened on 9/11.

[bryant69]

15. Good point

While boycotts and threatening boycotts are of course completely legal, they do go against the spirit of the first amendment, in my opinion.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ProfessorGAC]

17. How?

The first ammendment is an instruction to the GOVERNMENT as to those things they are prohibited from doing. Boycotts aren't conducted by the gov't, so the 1st ammendment seems unrelated to such an action. The 1st ammendment does not tell the citizens what they can and can't do.

And, the spirit of the ammendment is explicit with regards to government so it can't be in violation of the spirit either.

It would seem to me that boycotting is nearly the opposite of what the 1st ammendment is about. The people are free to complain about anything the powers that be say or do, that the citizens don't like.

No?
The Professor

[bryant69]

19. They are allowed to complain

It's when they move to silence that I think it becomes problemattic. the move to boycott is an attempt to silence someone who is saying something the boycotter does't want said. It's his legal right and not in violition of the constitution, per se.

On the other hand in my opinion the first amendment points to the value of a free debate in a democratic society. A boycott is an attempt to narrow the bounds of that debate (as are other techniques).

I could be wrong. Two questions do keep bothering me.

What is the value in allowing Ann Coulter to speak?

What is the difference between saying "You're wrong" and "You should shut up"?

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Answers

First, i see no value in letting Ann Coulter speak. Of course, i don't think there is any value in what she has to say! LOL!

But, people boycotting shows that have her is a reasonable solution, since we can't decide who gets booked and doesn't.

And, given the way people are and the way they react, the difference between "you're wrong" and "you should shut up" is tenuously thin. Some people would hear "You're wrong!" as "shut up". And some people would hear "shut up" as something other than "you're wrong", and perhaps more like "i don't want to hear it".

So that latter question is a tricky one in that it appears to be in the ear of the listener, regardless of what was in the mind of the "sayer".

And while i understand your point about "narrowing the debate", i don't agree. The debate isn't what is being narrowed in a boycott. What's being narrowed is the opportunity to make money from the airing of one side of the debate. Now, remember, nobody is telling ABC they CAN'T air it. Not the gov't, not me, not you; nobody. But, ABC now has to measure the risk of airing it against their costs. If they make less money, or even lose money, but they feel it needs to be aired, nobody is stopping them.

Boycotting is a simple economic tool at the disposal of those who don't have the power to make the decisions as to how public services are employed. The "deciders" have to measure the risk of the wrath of the public against their economic interests. In any case, ABC isn't being prohibited from doing a thing.

And if they air this piece of garbage, and they lose money because of it, that's tough.
The Professor

[bryant69]

21. But in a capitalist society

imposing a price on expressing an opinion is a form of silencing that opinion. After all the goal of the boycott is that ABC decides to skuttle this movie - that these people, who are admittadly saying some pretty stupid and repulsive things, be silenced.

The value in letting Ann Coulter express her opinion is that, in theory, it allows more progressive voices to exist. Once you create the mechanism for silencing Ann Coulter, or this movie, you can't be sure that the mechanism wouldn't be used against more worthy speakers.

After all one of the biggest boycott efforts in recent years was against Farenheit 9/11.

Bryant

[left is right]

18. I will not be watching and this will be my only comment

Actively boycotting it gives it legitimacy and importance that it does not deserve. I won't be apart of creating a reason to watch it.