OK, Now we've got them: ABC has committed Wire Fraud via FALSE ADVERTISING

[berni_mccoy]

According to http://justice.gov/osg/briefs/2003/0responses/2003-1326.resp.html,...

The federal wire statute establishes criminal penalties for any person who, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice.

Here's how we get there:

1. ABC has advertised "The Path to 9/11" as a docudrama. This is false (see: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/73)

2. ABC will undoubtably make money off this. They are a media corporation and the more news and controversy they generate, the more interest they will receive. The more interest they receive, the more money they make (from advertising, even if it is indirect and not during the movie).

3. The movie would not be controversial if it was called a Propaganda Film, which is what it is. If ABC were to accurately advertise this movie for what it is (let's not forget False Advertising laws), then this would be a non-story and only republicans would watch.

By the definition of federal statute, this is wire fraud. Any lawyers out there want to comment/review? More importantly, do any lawyers want to bring charges up against them?!?!

[stillcool]

1. man this is snowballing big time...no?

it seems so spontaneous...gives me goose bumps. Could it be?

[Sammy Pepys]

2. That's a big reach.....n/t

....

[berni_mccoy]

6. Probably, but if you don't try...

At a minimum, it is false advertising. At most, it's wire fraud. I'd like some lawyers to chime in.

[Canuckistanian]

3. And which prosecutor is going to touch this?

Whoever it is will get "promoted" very quickly.

[EVDebs]

4. Greatest page vote. Crank it UP !

[EVDebs]

5. How was this movie financed ?

If 'psy-ops' in the newsroom, along with CIA in the Media dollars are being spent to prop up the chimp's ratings in order to keep control of Congress, then I'd put NOTHING beyond them.

Don't tell me the CIA, or Bush 'cowboys' within the agency, can't plant stories and fund B.S. This must have left a financial paper trail...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2815981

[glitch]

7. The usual suspects. This post offers some interesting investigation

and speculation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2071734

[EVDebs]

10. Drug money ? Politics of Heroin continues.

I've heard that heroin money even makes its way into funding congressional campaigns. Compromised pols make good friends to intell committees funding needs via CIA's overall 'account'. Violates Constitution any other way, but when did that deter them ?

[glitch]

11. I picked up on the link to deep pockets of Christian Reconstructionists

That was my red flag.

[nosillies]

8. The problem lies within your AHD definition of docudrama

Many other "textbook" definitions do a better job of stressing the fictionalized nature of a docudrama (see links below). Docudramas are by nature able to play fast and loose with the facts to a degree -- otherwise they would be documentaries. They are simply stories (the "drama" part) derived from facts (the "docu" part). If this were advertised as a documentary or wholly factual work, it would be a different story.

True, the general public might not know enough about the difference between a docudrama and a documentary to understand that a large part of it could be a made up load of crap. Therein lies the issue with ABC accurately labeling this what it is in layman's terms.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/docudrama
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=docudrama&x=37&y=8

[berni_mccoy]

12. Your second definition is same as the AHD

And besides, all of them say the story is based on fact but with dramatic interpretation. Check out wiki's dealing with it:

"Docudramas tend to follow a set of following guidelines...

* A strict focus on the facts of the event being treated, as they are known
* A tendency to avoid overt commentary or authorial editorializing
* The use of literary and narrative techniques to flesh out or render story-like the bare facts of an event in history.
* A tendency to eschew such literary techniques as regards the overt assertion of the creator's own point of view or beliefs.

Docu-fiction, then, is distinct both from the main line of historical fiction, in which the historical setting is a mere backdrop for a plot that could be set in many periods, and from straight documentary or journalistic writing in its creation of a coherent narrative out of the materials of history."

By ABC's standards, the 1997 movie "Titanic" could be considered a docudrama.

[nosillies]

13. Uhhh, Titanic surely wasn't fact. Wasn't completely made up, either.

So therefore, it could very validly be argued that it is a type of docudrama.

Your second definition is same as the AHD

AHD definition: A television or movie dramatization of events based on fact

My second definition: a fictionalized drama based primarily on actual events

The same? One contains the word fictionalized, one doesn't. My point was many other "textbook" definitions do a better job of stressing the fictionalized nature of a docudrama, so thanks for helping me prove my point.

And unless 9/11 never happened, and the Twin Towers are still standing, and all those people are alive, I think the ABC program is also based on facts. It is, most likely, highly dramatized and fictionalized (I say most likely, as I have not seen it, and, therefore, will not claim factual conclusions regarding its content). More fictionalized than any of us care for, but still based on facts. I have yet to see a definition that states a docudrama is X% facts versus X% fiction -- maybe after this incident, that will be discussed in film classes. As a writer and someone who works within the film industry, I believe I have a strong grasp on what a docudrama is and is not, and how it differs from a documentary.

[Marie26]

9. Nah. nt

[GeorgeGist]

14. It's also a gift in kind...

to propagate Republicans.