What do you think about mixing fiction and fact with politics?

Question

I was referring to the British documentary [Bush assassination] and the ABC 911 movie that is under the current spotlight. I don't like it because they are confusing people. I think that it is very dangerous to take world events and fiction and then mix them together on national television. If people want to put them together as just a documentary for sale it is a different story but missleading the masses is a big mistake. There has been way too much over kill with regard to 911. The investigation should be directed toward finding out the truth and if history repeats itself we will be waiting for the answer for another fifty years.

Answer 1

Politicians do it every day.

Answer 2

You mean like "JFK", "Nixon", "Fahrenheit 911", and "The Day After Tomorrow?" I certainly don't recall any demands that those films be pulled from theaters...

Still, I do agree that producers need to be very careful. When trying to portray history, even recent history, writers are always faced with the dilemma of how to fill in missing facts, and how to make their film interesting enough that people will actually watch it. Docu-dramas about the Civil War or WWII are full of made up dialog, but we accept that as representative of the period.

With the ABC mini-series, many of the people are still around, and they are objecting to anything that is not word-for-word correct with what they remember. In dramatizing the events however, and without a transcript of actual conversations, the writer must fill in a few blanks, with dialog that is not inconsistent with known facts. Much of the controversy with this film has to do with a scene where Sandy Burgler will not give the go-ahead to a CIA team ready to capture Bin Laden. The writer didn't know for a fact that it was SB, but he does know that SOMEONE in the administration killed the operation, because the CIA agent in charge of the operation (code named Mike) has told us so.

As for the film about the fictional Bush assassination, I just think it's in poor taste. It's a "documentary from the future" that looks BACK at the assassination and the events that followed as a retrospective. As such it is clearly pure fiction that expresses a political opinion. To my knowledge, it does not misrepresent actual events.

Answer 3

I think that the propaganda piece, "Path to 9/11" should be shown in it's entirety AFTER the November elections. It is obvious that this cheesy manipulated pile of crap was created and funded by the the right-wing to sway the electorate (not all that sophisticated to begin with) to vote for candidates who support the Bush regime's rape of America. That ABC would participate in such a sham seems to indicate that they have either been intimidated or infiltrated by the fascist elements trying to totally control America for their own benefit.

Answer 4

Lying is wrong. Misrepresentation is lying. Fiction is not lying as long as it claims to be fiction. Truth seems to be scarse in politics, but good people hopefully will stand up and speak the truth in politics. I will support them when I see them.

Answer 5

Can you say "Agenda"?