Originally Posted By DAR So I saw this film for the first time(fantastic by the way)and even though it made it 1976 they could have easily made it today. It really covers how the news and especially the news channels work.
Originally Posted By jonvn What you are saying then is that nothing has changed in 30 years, and that people's complaints about the media today, vis a vis how it used to be better, are pointless?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^^ ding ding ding-- I believe that is exactly what it was...a sampling of what was starting to go wrong and has continued to do so, regardless of the slant of the news on any particular channel
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's right. He was seeing the trends in modern telecommunications (especially the news) and was following them to their absurd extremes. What's so sad is how many of those once-absurd extremes have come to pass.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon The one thing we're better off with today is diversity which enables people to get information from outlets like Fox News Channel or talk radio or the blogosphere that would have been denied us thanks to the elitist policies of the old Big Three networks. Under 1968 standards, the fraudulent story that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes put forth in 2004 to try and directly influence an election, would have gone unchallenged because we would not have had the ability to instantly expose the hoax for what it was with no Internet and the ability of more trained eyes to spot the fraud that CBS purposefully ignored for the sake of partisan journalism. So on that one level, things are better than they used to be. Where things are worse is that the shrillness of the establishment media outlets has grown more and more apparent as they seek to preserve unjust power shares for themselves with no standards of accountability to be applied to them ever.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>no standards of accountability to be applied to them ever<< And yet, you say elsewhere that ABC's 9/11 movie was 'spot on' in spite of fabricating scenes, because it fits your own political viewpoint. You don't care about 'accountability' there. I think you are confusing 'standards' with 'partisanship'.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon What ABC did was merely dramatize an essential truth of what actual Clinton policy was in tried and true tradition of dramatizations that in the past, no one objected to (least of all the American Left and the free pass it gave Oliver Stone on "JFK" which used made up scenes to tell blatant untruths). And when it comes to your regard on "accountability" wake me when you have something nasty to say about Michael Moore and his "documentaries" that earn him a seat at the Democratic Convention.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And when it comes to your regard on "accountability" wake me when you have something nasty to say about Michael Moore and his "documentaries" that earn him a seat at the Democratic Convention.<< You may have slept through them, but I not only posted plenty about Michael Moore's phony documentary, but the CBS memo scandal as well. So, your attempt to lump me in with the 'other' side and dismiss me as someone blindly partisan is misguided.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon More power to you if you did comment on them. But in my case, I only see a standard where if conservatives had taken the tactics Clinton's supporters did regarding something that was not false in the context of the drama, there would have been a vastly different standard applied. And conservatives I would note, do not make demands of the end product being changed, they usually prefer (as I do) that if there is a dramatization to object to for questionable reasons of accuracy, you should not watch it and then boycott the advertisters who sponsor it (but when conservatives resort to that technique of protest, they amusingly get branded as evil Nazis pushing censorship). If Clinton wanted to encourage his supporters to boycott ABC programming as a statement of protest, that would have been fine by me in the consistent standards I prefer to operate by. What I object to is Clinton and his supporters resorting to tactics that no one on my side would ever resort to in an instant since they know what kind of backlash would come from the outlets who give Clinton a pass for the same.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>More power to you if you did comment on them.<< I did. A lot. So did a majority of posters here. >> What I object to is Clinton and his supporters resorting to tactics that no one on my side would ever resort to<< What tactics would those be? Because if you're still saying they 'threatened to pull ABC's broadcast license", then there's no evidence of that. -- other than the charge being barfed out there by umpteen conservative blogs.
