Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scarborough, Medved, Bozell contradicted past criticism of The Reagans bio

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 09:44 PM
Original message
Scarborough, Medved, Bozell contradicted past criticism of The Reagans bio
Scarborough, Medved, Bozell contradicted past criticism of The Reagans biopic to defend The Path to 9/11

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609090004

On the September 6 and 7 editions of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough defended the upcoming ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, claiming critics of the miniseries, which is reportedly riddled with outright falsehoods and distortions, were calling for "censorship" of the film. On the September 5 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Medved disputed criticism that The Path to 9/11 "ha(d) no Democrats prominently involved with the project," pointing to "radical leftist and Democrat" actor Harvey Keitel, who appears as a lead character. But in 2003, Scarborough and Medved made arguments virtually identical to those made now by Path to 9/11 critics, in defense of conservative efforts to pressure CBS not to run The Reagans, a biopic critics felt portrayed former President Ronald Reagan and former first lady Nancy Reagan in a negative light. At that time, Scarborough claimed calls from conservatives to scuttle The Reagans were not about "Soviet censorship" but rather about "Jeffersonian democracy," while Medved complained that a Reagan administration official should have been asked to "consult on the movie" to provide "balance."

Also, as first noted on the weblog Crooks and Liars, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III excused the falsehoods in The Path to 9/11 but did not grant the same leniency to the Reagans. On the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Bozell acknowledged that "(p)erhaps two percent of (The Path to 9/11) is wrong" and "(p)erhaps two percent of it is debatable" but added "(t)hat leaves you with about 96 percent of the movie that's accurate, and that no one is disputing" and that criticism of the film is "a political hatchet job" by the "Clinton camp." But Bozell did not similarly excuse alleged misrepresentations in The Reagans; according to a November 5, 2003, CBS News article, he responded to that film by declaring: "There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people. ... I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

On September 6, Scarborough declared that "Democrats (are) demanding censorship from Disney" and are "calling on ABC president Bob Iger to censor offending parts of the miniseries"; on September 7, he similarly stated that "it looks like (defenders of the Clinton administration are) about to intimidate ABC's bosses into censoring that film." But in 2003, Scarborough praised CBS' decision not to air the "cruel parody" The Reagans, stating on the November 5, 2003, edition of Scarborough Country: "This isn't about Soviet censorship. This is about Jeffersonian democracy. ... Americans picked Ronald Reagan over Hollywood."

In his criticism of The Reagans, Medved stated, on the November 5, 2003, edition of Scarborough Country, "The whole idea of creating a movie about Ronald Reagan without consulting or involving someone like (former Reagan administration speechwriter) Peggy Noonan. ... Why not have her ... consult on the movie?" In contrast, he defended the purported balance of The Path to 9/11. On the September 5 edition (subscription required) of The Michael Medved Show, Medved dismissed a complaint by Jennifer Nix expressed in a September 5 post on the weblog Firedoglake that "no Democrats (were) prominently involved" in The Path to 9/11. Medved responded by asking if Nix was "crazy" and asserted that Keitel, who he said is a "radical leftist and Democrat," provided balance. But Medved did not respond to the more specific criticism that while 9-11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, served as a senior consultant for the film, the filmmakers did not consult with any Democratic officials.

Keitel has stated that he belatedly realized "not all the facts were correct" in the script, that the miniseries "distort(s) reality," and that "(w)here we have distorted something, we have made a mistake, and that should be corrected."

From the September 7 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: Right now in Scarborough Country, President Bill Clinton pressures ABC, ABC caves, and now a former president's angry reaction to the 9-11 film moves Disney's CEO to censor that movie. Should politicians be allowed in Hollywood editing rooms?

(. . .)

SCARBOROUGH: We've got all that and a lot more tonight. But first up: All the president's men continue their pre-emptive strikes against ABC's controversial miniseries The Path to 9/11. And tonight, it looks like they're about to intimidate ABC's bosses into censoring that film. Sources are telling me and The Los Angeles Times that ABC, quote, "toned down but did not eliminate entirely the most talked-about scenes involving Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, calling off an operation to capture (Osama) bin Laden."

From the September 6 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: Right now in Scarborough Country: Blame Clinton. The ABC 9-11 docudrama that has Democrats demanding censorship from Disney. Does this movie rewrite history, like an NBC terror analyst says it does? And why won't they let the Clinton cabinet get a sneak peek of this movie?

(...)

SCARBOROUGH: But first, more fallout from ABC's upcoming miniseries, The Path to 9/11. Now, Democrats are blasting this docudrama, calling it biased and inaccurate for suggesting that Bill Clinton passed up chances to take out Osama bin Laden. Today, House Democrats defended the former president, calling on ABC president Bob Iger to censor offending parts of the miniseries, saying in a letter that, "September 11 is a day of mourning. We do not believe it is appropriate for it to be tainted by false assertions or blame or partisan spin." ABC accused of partisan spin? The shock!

From the November 5, 2003, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: Liberals from Manhattan to Hollywood have been bashing CBS for axing their hit piece of the Reagans, but they're angriest attacks have been reserved for commentators, such as myself, who believe this cruel parody of Ronald Reagan was simply not ready for prime time. Hollywood's leading liberal, Barbara Streisand, today called CBS's decision a sad day for free speech.

And The New York Times was apparently so angry at the turn of events yesterday that they compared conservatives to Soviet Communists, spewing forth this vitriol in their editorial, quote: "The former president is certainly a suitable subject for public debate. His supporters credit him with forcing down the Iron Curtain, so it is odd that some of them have helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we as a nation will not allow critical portrayals of one of our recent leaders."

Soviet-style chill? This isn't about Soviet censorship. This is about Jeffersonian democracy.

The Reagan miniseries script, the casting, and the CBS movie have been debated freely and openly in what Thomas Jefferson called the free marketplace of ideas, and Americans picked Ronald Reagan over Hollywood. It's that plain. It's that simple.

(...)

MEDVED: The whole idea of creating a movie about Ronald Reagan without consulting or involving someone like Peggy Noonan. Peggy Noonan was even brought into The West Wing to try to give that a little bit of balance. Why not have her -- she was a speechwriter for President Reagan -- consult on the movie?

And you could have avoided some of these problems. If you are only going to have one Reagan biography on TV, and they only have had one, then for goodness sake, you do have a responsibility to make it a little bit balanced and not a smear job.

From the September 5 edition of The Michael Medved Show:

MEDVED Now speaking of attacks to which people are subjected, this piece by Jenifer Nix at the Daily Kos (actually cross-posted from Firedoglake) -- the prime left-wing website -- attacks the makers of The Path to 9/11 as some kinds of conservative extremists. For instance she says, "McPherson and others" -- (Stephen) McPherson is the president of ABC Entertainment -- "who have been cloaking this documentary 'wolf' in nonpartisan sheep's clothing, despite having no Democrats prominently involved with the project." Is she crazy? Has she looked at the name of people -- names of people who are prominently involved in the project? Harvey Keitel, who stars in the project, for instance, is a radical leftist and Democrat, as are a number of the other people involved in different stages.

From the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

E.D. HILL (co-host): When you take a look at this final version, do you think that it comes out fairly accurately, if not the specific, you know, details -- all them factually correct. Do you get the basic idea?

BOZELL: Yeah. I mean, here's my analysis of it. Perhaps two percent of it was wrong. Perhaps two percent of it is debatable. Look, the 9-11 Commission report is not biblical truth. People from the Bush administration and the Clinton administration have taken exception to some of the findings of the commission. So that will be debated no matter how the movie comes out. But what does that leave you with? That leaves you with about 96 percent of the movie that's accurate, and that no one is disputing. It is sobering. It is frightening, and I think it's disgraceful that people are playing politics with this in the Clinton camp. Look, this movie goes after George Bush too, and you don't see the Bush people whining.

From a November 5, 2003, CBS News article:

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech. "There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

Contact:
Joe Scarborough joe@msnbc.com
Contact:
L. Brent Bozell L. Brent Bozell
Contact:
Michael Medved
Contact:
MSNBC viewerservices@msnbc.com
MSNBC TV
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, N.J. 07094
MSNBC contacts
Contact:
Michael Medved Show
Contact:
Scarborough Country joe@msnbc.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. K & R!
Joe "Dead Intern" Scarborough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks for posting this helderheid....
I just fired off a couple of emails. Thanks again. The hyprocrisy from the rightwing echo chamber is sickening, but not at all unexpected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's a mistake to look for consistency in politics.
What's good for the goose is rarely good for the gander. What we condemn in our enemies we support in our friends. It's a bizarre way to do things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Height of Hypocrisy
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VP505 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. Done,
Emails sent, we really need to get behind speaking out like this. The Democrat rank and file have relied on the spineless leadership for too long and that's part of the reason the Repukes can and have defined us as weak, and without any plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wretched Refuse Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. The long and winding Path to 9/11
Well, could not we go further back in our time machine and ask:
What the hell did George Bush I do to stop Osama? I mean why not do that? He had the whole middle east in his grubby little hands back in 1991, so why not take Osama out right then either?

Now HERE is a concept for y'all,

It has struck me that this "non-issue" (really if you think about all the treason this admin is doing, this is a non-issue) is REALLY the DLC re-asserting itself as the controller of ALL things Democrat.
I mean it is all a Clinton (+administration) face saving thing that now supposedly ALL god Dems come to the aid of their "fearless leader." Well, it really is sapping our "momentum" on other more important issues, and the corporate controlled DLC KNOWS THAT.

So, I have stayed outside the blogosphere on this one, except for the few phone calls to ABC radio to gnash my teeth on the air, with the likes of Levin (the Zionist) and the new idiot (Jerry) last night taking over Laura Ingram's 8-10 slot in the NY ABC market.

Screw Disney and ABC, they were the next to fall to the nazis after Fox anyway, everyone knew that. I believe that ABC is also stirring the pot to get all good Dems back into the DLC fold, as Hilary was starting to get REALLY antsy at the calls to debate Tasini and with Lamont, and the Screw the DLC push happening as of late, I feel this is the motive for the over-hype of this non-issue.

This all just another Corporate-control of our sense of "what is important."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. How 'bout a mini-series about the aid found dead in Joe's office..
Maybe someone could shed a little light on that horrible event. Seems there wasn't much of an investigation, since Joe is a fucking repuke, and we all know that repukes are above any laws.

How about it Joe, you fucking mealy-mouthed little chimp-licking scumbag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tekla West Donating Member (270 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. With those three it might as well be Larry, Curly and Moe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. That argument cuts both ways
When The Reagans was pulled, we complained about censorship. It looks just as hypocritcal to call for censorship now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoBear Donating Member (781 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Sorry, that dog won't hunt!
The Reagan piece was not a hatchet job. This is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. yep, no real difference...
the claims were the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. whose "we?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grizmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
30. It's the complete opposite
With the Reagan film the repugs were calling for it to be pulled for telling the truth. With The Path to 9/11 people were calling for it to be pulled for telling lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDDEM06 Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. I hope everybody
sees the hypocrisy in all this and remembers it next time the shoe is on the other foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. right
How dare we point out slander, liable and their attempt to push off blatant lies on our school children as history.

Oh, the hypocrisy!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'm not sure what you mean here...
are you ok with fabrication as long as it makes the other side look bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. First of all the Reagans was not a docudrama
But rather a drama, that sets them apart. The Reagans was never billed as historically correct, or even as the true story of the Reagans.

Second, there was never at any point in time distribution of The Reagans to schools. Where it was to be viewed as a historically accurate piece complete with study guide.

There was never a legal basis for slander nor liable due to the Reagans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Let's talk hypocrisy Rangersmith
Edited on Sat Sep-09-06 05:42 PM by Evergreen Emerald
Clinton fought against terrorism while the republicans fought to keep Monica in the spotlight and said he was "wagging the dog." The republicans fought for terrorists.

When Bush got into office he ignored Clinton and his administration who warned Bush about Bin Laden and terrorism.

When Bush got a memo that outlined the 9/11 terrorist plot, he stayed on vacation--and ignored it.

The difference between the Reagan piece and the Path to 9/11 is the intent: Bush and his neo-cons intend to retain the Power of the US through lies and propaganda. They intend to brainwash the world's children and rewrite history through the use of Scholastic and IPOD. The world wide ads for this propaganda piece tout "what actually happened." Conversely, The Reagan piece was a movie.

I do not understand the people who support Bush and his use of propaganda and lies. Are Republicans saying that it is ok to lie and cheat as long as their side wins?
And in answering that question I think you should define "win." Because, Bush and the neo-cons in power care nothing of those lemmings who are allowing him to destroy our country. Those who support Bush are not safer, they are poorer, less secure. They are used by Bush who cuts their paychecks (and pockets the difference) who cuts their jobs and sends them overseas. Bush gives speeches making sure they stay afraid while he ensures insecurity in our borders.

What, Rangersmith causes people to condone the behavior of Bush and his neo-cons?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. The reagan piece clearly
had a fabricated section in it that even his enemies said they never heard him say.

My point is this....

FUCK bush..

but you tell me how it isn't 100% hypocrisy to back the airing of the Reagans because in this case you happen to like the fabrication?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Again: the difference is the power
And the use of the movie--and the dire consequences for America if that revision of history is used as fact.

The path to 9/11: airing the anniversary of the worst disaster in history / touted world-wide as "what actually happened" / ignoring the facts of the Bush administrations fundamental flaws (who continue to run our country) / the power of the neo-cons who are using our airwaves for propaganda to retain power / lying about the Clinton administration / lying to the American people / attempting to brainwash the children of the world. This is fascism.

The Reagans: a movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. you are no different than them... /nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Nice. I guess if the truth doesn't help your argument--attack
A microcosm of what is happening in America today. You learned the neo-con lessons well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. No, actually, I'm all about the truth regardless of
whose ox is being gored and clearly, what matters to you, is who gains from the lies.

If you see it's potentially you, you're onboard with the lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Clearly
You would rather attack me that address the issues I presented. Oh, and you are clearly wrong. In fact, my point earlier (which you clearly did not address), is that those who favor Bush are clearly OK with limiting our civil rights (as long as their guy is in power), fill the airwaves with propaganda (as long as their propaganda is the message).

Who gains from the lies? Those who favor Bush will do and agree with anything to win. And the reality is that they don't win. Everyone but Bush and his neo-con powerful friends loose. The Constitution, democracy, the security of our nation all at risk because of Bush.

Clearly, I am done with you until you can argue the facts rather than just attack me personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. what are "your" facts??
that this thing is lies?

Who the hell is arguing THAT?

Please...

Your just spinning around in circles trying to say why it's OK to fabricate if it's not your issue or cause or organization being hurt.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
civildisoBDence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Here's a crazy idea
Why not watch the docu-whaterverthehellitis before judging and attacking?

Newsprism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
23. In the words of his people
Medved is a shmuck and a half.

Actually, make that putz. Shmuck is too polite for him. I have not seen a reasonable word from him since the golden turkey awards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Medved
Jerk off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
29. The Right Wing can say or do ANYTHING.
It's a proven fact at this point.

9/11 happend on THIER watch, for fuck's sake...

Why didn't the democratic party run their campaign in 2004 based on that FACT?

If 9/11 happened when Dems were in office, that would be the republican party platform for DECADES.

It's time to throw this shit in their faces, and stop bringing nerf bats to knife fights...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC