OK - so I'll admit I would be characterized as someone with a liberal bias - not sure what that means and that's the problem. Does the new ABC docu-drama which is reportedly loosely based on the report of the 911 Commission enhanced with star appeal a good example of freedom of speech? My immediate reaction based on reports that it was a slam on Clinton with no blame on Bush was to be opposed to it. After watching some discussion by people on both sides of the issue, I started thinking maybe this is good thing. If we used these types of things to listen, discuss and draw our own conclusions - whatever the producers' bias - then we would learn and take appropriate action. My fear is that we have come to accept sound bytes as facts and are easily swayed. I would really like to hear sound thoughtful comments - not just justification for "left" or "right" politics - notwithstanding Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken.
2006-09-07 07:06:11 · 4 answers · asked by Siri 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree with you. I would describe myself as mainly conservative. The problem , I think, is that today with all the available media people tend to seek out those outlets that mirror their own beliefs and in so doing reinforce what they already believe without ever having to have their beliefs tested. Then what we have are people who really don't know what the other side believes, but instead are told what the other side believes without ever finding out themselves.
We no longer have a dialog but a shouting match mainly from ignorance. We have come to a sad place in my view because we have already assumed that I'm right and the other person is wrong. How are we going to fix the problems we are facing unless we can communicate with each other. Whether we like it or not we need each other because neither side can find the solutions without the other. We may think we can but In reality I would suspect that the solutions are not right or left but somewhere in the middle. But as long as we are unwilling to listen to other points of view, we may be in more trouble than we think.
2006-09-07 07:27:36 · answer #1 · answered by mrjwm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is.
Amazing how Clinton became so riled over this issue. He seems very protective of the persona and legacy that they created (as opposed to what really goes on behind the scenes). The fact that he told ABC not to air the show is a testament to the size of his ego which he needs to keep in check. His administration was in power from for 1993 (first bombing)
There is reality, and then there is politics and propaganda. Politicians, and especially the Clinton administration, live(d) on sound bytes. The only people biting on them are the most uninformed among us and the usual sheep.
Michael Moore had no problem with outright distortions. This show seems to hit a little to close to the truth for some exhibiting a little too much sensitivity. There is no slam, only over-reaction.
2006-09-07 14:32:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that this is a good example of freedom of speech. I know it is trendy to be anti-Bush these days and he has taken a great deal of heat for what is going on in the world and with American policy. The truth is that there is enough blame to go around on both parties. Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and Bush all have contributed to our Middle East problems and 911. Bush seems to take a great deal of blame from the media for it and from movies like Farenheit 911; so I do not see a problem with the media showing the other side by placing some of the heat on Clinton.
2006-09-07 14:18:05 · answer #3 · answered by don1joker 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Either way, it's too soon. Have we become so desensitized that we can watch a movie or a miniseries about a tragedy that happened a mere 5 years ago?
Sorry, I know I didn't answer your question, but I'm really irritated.
2006-09-07 14:09:51 · answer #4 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋