Last week on Information Salad, Vinny and I discussed a new docudrama which depicts President Bush being assassinated.

There was some outrage from conservatives, but very little else was said, or done. In fact, other than the initial “outrage” I have not read much in the way of protests, boycotts, or demands to have the movie “altered” or even withdrawn completely because it portrays our government and President Bush in a bad light. I don’t read many liberal blogs, so I cannot say if any of them were outraged, but I am pretty sure they were not.

Personally, I think the UK documentary is distasteful and completely uncalled for. I believe that depicting the assassination of a sitting U.S. President goes beyond the limits of decency, but that’s just my opinion. No matter how much I disagree with the content of the documentary, whether or not it was produced outside the United States, I would never insist that the writers make changes to their work. That is not my place, nor is it anyone elses. I would just choose not to watch it.

Now, just a week later, we learn of another television production. The difference though, is this one depicts former U.S. President Bill Clinton in a bad light… Apparently, Mr. Clinton sent a letter to ABC demanding the network pull the program if they did not make the changes he insisted on. He claims the production grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

ABC admits that some key scenes are dramatizations, and that the miniseries is based on information from several sources, including the 9/11 commission’s report. Unlike the UK “docudrama” this miniseries production claims that parts are “dramatized” to hold the interest of the viewer, so it’s really not quite a documentary then is it? Yet, every mainstream media outlet is covering the “outrage” from the left. Every single one of them. Every prominent Democrat is calling for the “altering” or complete withdrawal of this production. And it’s working…

ABC is buckling under the pressure from prominent Democratic leaders, and has made changes to the film.

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton’s national security advisor, Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.

It’s one thing if a television network buckles under pressure when viewers call or write in, but when they buckle because of pressure from government officials, things just get nasty. The U.S. Constitution guarantees our right to freedom of the press and freedom of speech,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

and granted, no law has been passed that requires ABC to alter or withdraw the program, but what do we call it when several prominent Democratic Senators issue a veiled threat to Disney, the parent company of ABC?

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

…

We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

If that isn’t a threat to Disney’s broadcast license I don’t know what is. The above quoted letter makes it obviously clear that the Democrats want that program pulled completely, and they will stop at nothing to get what they want.

The question is, why are we letting them get away with it?

Everytime a police officer stops a tourist from taking a photo of a famous landmark, they say it’s a violation of their rights. Everytime a protest gets broken up by police, people say it’s a violation of their rights. Everytime the FCC enforces decency standards, people say it’s a violation of their rights. Why are those same people silent now? This is a very clear example of government officials (former and current) attempting to coerce ABC to pull a program off the air completely by threatening their broadcast license. They want it censored, or withdrawn, period. Why aren’t people calling them on it?

Over the years, television networks have aired programs that were “dramatized”, “fictional”, and “loosely based on true events”, but never before have they threatened to tarnish the Clinton legacy. Oh sure, there was media hype about a blue dress with his DNA stuck to it, but the truth isIt depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is., liberals are scared that people might actually see the light before Hillary gets her chance at the Oval Office, and they just cannot stand for that.

The truth is, liberals in general only agree with the freedom of speech, and respecting it, when they agree with what people say, whether it involves DNA on a dress or portraying the assassination of a President.

[Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs]

Technorati Tags: ABC, miniseries, Path To 9/11, Democrats, Harry Reid, Dick Turbin Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, Byron Dorgan, threat, license, freedom of press, freedom of speech, Bill Clinton

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.