Aaron Sorkin's Old Tricks... (1 Viewer)

[dsanthony]

Anyone watching Sorkin's new propaganda tool, Sunset Strip 60 or whatever it's called? The first episode was an exact mirror of the first episode of The West Wing. We have the new boss and his ex-girlfriend who is now working for him. We have a cheap shot at Christians, just to let the libs know they're watching the right channel. We have the usual blending of fact and fiction to score political points.

It took until Week 2 for him to start lying outright. Seems the main character on the show was fired 4 years earlier, for standing up for Bill Maher. For TV neophytes, Bill Maher had a "talk" show on ABC called Politically Incorrect. Shortly after the September attacks, Maher made the statement that the islamic terrorists who flew the planes into the Pentagon and WTC were braver than US soldiers. He said it took more courage to commit suicide (taking about 3000 lives in the process) than it took to push a button and fire off a missile. Americans were rightly disgusted and Maher was quickly dropped from ABC.

In Sorkin's revision of the story, Maher was fired not for saying what he actually said. Apparently he was fired for criticizing Bush. The main theme of the show was that anyone who criticizes Bush on TV is in danger of losing their job. This is, of course, a lie.

So, he uses a true-life event to set the scene, then begins building lies around it to further a political agenda. Yep, he's a liberal.

Yes, I watch the show. It's entertaining. Actually, John Kerry lifted much of his campaign strategy directly from the West Wing. I am glad that Sorkin gave up the trappings of the Oval Office, and showed how truly trivial his life (and Hollywood) really is. It puts his politics in better perspective. Like most Hwood buffoons, Sorkin likes to take cheap shots and hide behind his popularity. I promise you he won't try to enter the US with a suitcase full of drugs again... unless the Dems win back control of the White House anyway...

 

[Captain America]

Wassa matta Sparky? Gettin' TV and reality confused again?

Or is this what they call "Reality TV?"

Gimme some o' dat what you been smokin'!

 

[dsanthony]

Anyone watching Sorkin's new propaganda tool, Sunset Strip 60 or whatever it's called? The first episode was an exact mirror of the first episode of The West Wing. We have the new boss and his ex-girlfriend who is now working for him. We have a cheap shot at Christians, just to let the libs know they're watching the right channel. We have the usual blending of fact and fiction to score political points.

It took until Week 2 for him to start lying outright. Seems the main character on the show was fired 4 years earlier, for standing up for Bill Maher. For TV neophytes, Bill Maher had a "talk" show on ABC called Politically Incorrect. Shortly after the September attacks, Maher made the statement that the islamic terrorists who flew the planes into the Pentagon and WTC were braver than US soldiers. He said it took more courage to commit suicide (taking about 3000 lives in the process) than it took to push a button and fire off a missile. Americans were rightly disgusted and Maher was quickly dropped from ABC.

In Sorkin's revision of the story, Maher was fired not for saying what he actually said. Apparently he was fired for criticizing Bush. The main theme of the show was that anyone who criticizes Bush on TV is in danger of losing their job. This is, of course, a lie.

So, he uses a true-life event to set the scene, then begins building lies around it to further a political agenda. Yep, he's a liberal.

Yes, I watch the show. It's entertaining. Actually, John Kerry lifted much of his campaign strategy directly from the West Wing. I am glad that Sorkin gave up the trappings of the Oval Office, and showed how truly trivial his life (and Hollywood) really is. It puts his politics in better perspective. Like most Hwood buffoons, Sorkin likes to take cheap shots and hide behind his popularity. I promise you he won't try to enter the US with a suitcase full of drugs again... unless the Dems win back control of the White House anyway...

Did someone say something? I've put cowards who make personal, cheap attacks on ignore... so nobody worthwhile said anything.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Anyone watching Sorkin's new propaganda tool, Sunset Strip 60 or whatever it's called? The first episode was an exact mirror of the first episode of The West Wing. We have the new boss and his ex-girlfriend who is now working for him. We have a cheap shot at Christians, just to let the libs know they're watching the right channel. We have the usual blending of fact and fiction to score political points.

It took until Week 2 for him to start lying outright. Seems the main character on the show was fired 4 years earlier, for standing up for Bill Maher. For TV neophytes, Bill Maher had a "talk" show on ABC called Politically Incorrect. Shortly after the September attacks, Maher made the statement that the islamic terrorists who flew the planes into the Pentagon and WTC were braver than US soldiers. He said it took more courage to commit suicide (taking about 3000 lives in the process) than it took to push a button and fire off a missile. Americans were rightly disgusted and Maher was quickly dropped from ABC.

In Sorkin's revision of the story, Maher was fired not for saying what he actually said. Apparently he was fired for criticizing Bush. The main theme of the show was that anyone who criticizes Bush on TV is in danger of losing their job. This is, of course, a lie.

So, he uses a true-life event to set the scene, then begins building lies around it to further a political agenda. Yep, he's a liberal.

Yes, I watch the show. It's entertaining. Actually, John Kerry lifted much of his campaign strategy directly from the West Wing. I am glad that Sorkin gave up the trappings of the Oval Office, and showed how truly trivial his life (and Hollywood) really is. It puts his politics in better perspective. Like most Hwood buffoons, Sorkin likes to take cheap shots and hide behind his popularity. I promise you he won't try to enter the US with a suitcase full of drugs again... unless the Dems win back control of the White House anyway...

Studio 60 is another winner for Sorkin. Great writing - strong cast.

As for Maher, who I saw live in Pittsburgh last week, he's able to speak his mind on HBO - something not possible in the current environment of NBC, CBS or ABC.

Here's what Maher said back in 2001.

At the time, Maher disagreed with President Bush’s remarks that the 9/11 terrorists were “cowards.” Maher said, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”

Maher wasn't saying American soldiers were cowards, but rather the politicians who give the orders.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4204

The point being that the terrorists weren't cowards any more than the Japanese Kamikazee pilots were cowards in WWII.

 

[shuamort]

It took until Week 2 for him to start lying outright. Seems the main character on the show was fired 4 years earlier, for standing up for Bill Maher. For TV neophytes, Bill Maher had a "talk" show on ABC called Politically Incorrect. Shortly after the September attacks, Maher made the statement that the islamic terrorists who flew the planes into the Pentagon and WTC were braver than US soldiers. He said it took more courage to commit suicide (taking about 3000 lives in the process) than it took to push a button and fire off a missile. Americans were rightly disgusted and Maher was quickly dropped from ABC.

I'm curious where the "lying" is in a work of fiction.


FTR:
ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002 after he made a controversial on-air remark, in which he, along with guest conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza said

We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.

Maher's comment about the cowardice of terrorists followed another controversial comment he made on Politically Incorrect earlier that year where he compared dogs to retarded children:

But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all.... Dogs are like retarded children.

ABC was likely still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.


And for the forum, this is more suited to "Entertainment" instead of "Bias in the media".

 

[BWG]

Yes, I watch the show. It's entertaining.

'Nuff said. That's what it's designed to do. Entertain. Glad you enjoy the show, your continued loyalty is appreciated.

 

[jallman]

And for the forum, this is more suited to "Entertainment" instead of "Bias in the media".

Exactly...as passionate as dsanthony's assertions are being made...they still hold no water because this is FICTION as in...story-telling....not real...suspension of disbelief is a neccessary component of the show's enjoyment.

This thread is a bunch of hype and belongs somewhere other than Bias in the Media...

 

[dsanthony]

Exactly...as passionate as dsanthony's assertions are being made...they still hold no water because this is FICTION as in...story-telling....not real...suspension of disbelief is a neccessary component of the show's enjoyment.

This thread is a bunch of hype and belongs somewhere other than Bias in the Media...

As usual, you libs are liars. The lib world was in an uproar over Gibson's jesus movie, but here you say hollywood has no relevance to politics. SImply put, you're liars.

As for the rest of the sundry comments. I know very well what Maher said. Veterans of every service (I'm one of them) will tell you it is COWARDLY to strike at civilians or unarmed noncombatants. Whether it was a suicide attack or not, it was cowardly.

The point was not to bring up Maher's comments, but to highlight the (latest) lie from the left--that criticizing Bush can lead to being fired or silenced in the media. I said clearly that Maher was not fired for criticizing Bush. SOrkin, like most libs, lies when he says that they are under fire for criticizing Bush--they are under fire for providing propaganda victories for the enemy and attacking the war effort. They know the difference, and they know they're lying.

As for the smug response from one of you (honestly, I don't distinguish) I know more about art than you ever will. I am able to enjoy the vision of someone I disagree with. I'm not a rabid lapdog, like most libs...

 

[shuamort]

As usual, you libs are liars. The lib world was in an uproar over Gibson's jesus movie, but here you say hollywood has no relevance to politics. SImply put, you're liars.

First off, what the hell?

Secondly, what uproar?

Thirdly, I remember a rightwing uproar about the "Passion of the Christ", so maybe it was just quid pro quo.

Fourthly, I'm glad that you're putting together the fact that both pieces are works of fiction.

As for the rest of the sundry comments. I know very well what Maher said. Veterans of every service (I'm one of them) will tell you it is COWARDLY to strike at civilians or unarmed noncombatants. Whether it was a suicide attack or not, it was cowardly.

Great, so the civilians who are getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are then done by whom? It's a facetious point.

The point was not to bring up Maher's comments, but to highlight the (latest) lie from the left--that criticizing Bush can lead to being fired or silenced in the media. I said clearly that Maher was not fired for criticizing Bush. SOrkin, like most libs, lies when he says that they are under fire for criticizing Bush--they are under fire for providing propaganda victories for the enemy and attacking the war effort. They know the difference, and they know they're lying.

Damn, and here I thought we might be making headway with you understanding that you understood that we're talking about a work of fiction. O well.

As for the smug response from one of you (honestly, I don't distinguish) I know more about art than you ever will. I am able to enjoy the vision of someone I disagree with. I'm not a rabid lapdog, like most libs...

Considering that you are lumpin' Jall and me into a liberal camp is actually showing the true color of the dog.

Hey Jall!:2wave:

 

[jallman]

Hi shuamort...long time no see. How have things been with you, bro? :2wave:

Now on with the show...

As usual, you libs are liars. The lib world was in an uproar over Gibson's jesus movie, but here you say hollywood has no relevance to politics. SImply put, you're liars.

As usual, another rabid goose stepper has decided to falsely tout his/her alliance with conservativism. Along with that false assumption of attachment is the typical mouth foaming attack against liberals...and all over a FICTITIOUS PRIMETIME SHOW ON NBC!!! Simply put, I believe your forced relation between this FICTITIOUS SHOW comes from your already apparent detachment from reality.

As for the rest of the sundry comments. I know very well what Maher said. Veterans of every service (I'm one of them) will tell you it is COWARDLY to strike at civilians or unarmed noncombatants. Whether it was a suicide attack or not, it was cowardly.

Perfectly acceptable. But then, so is lobbing missiles at a primitive culture from 2000 miles away. Did you have a point?

The point was not to bring up Maher's comments, but to highlight the (latest) lie from the left--that criticizing Bush can lead to being fired or silenced in the media. I said clearly that Maher was not fired for criticizing Bush. SOrkin, like most libs, lies when he says that they are under fire for criticizing Bush--they are under fire for providing propaganda victories for the enemy and attacking the war effort. They know the difference, and they know they're lying.

No political party or philosophy has a monopoly on dishonesty. Anyone with half a functioning brain would recognize this. To accuse one philosophy while ignoring the blatant infractions from the other side of the fence shows only a talent for stating the obvious at best. Your biggest accomplishment so far has been to exhibit a blatant lack of depth in your thought processes.

As for the smug response from one of you (honestly, I don't distinguish)

Has there ever been more blatant proof of partisan hackmanship on this forum?

I know more about art than you ever will. I am able to enjoy the vision of someone I disagree with. I'm not a rabid lapdog, like most libs...

Yes, and you have a knack for the art of schoolyard taunts as expressed in your :nahnah: "NA NA NA NA NA NA" :nahnah: styled statement above. Your "conservative" compatriots must be so proud to have you batting for them.

:bravo: Good Job!!! No, really, keep it up. I could use a few more laughs today.

 

[Deegan]

I happen to agree with the man, this all goes back to Dan Rather, and the putz is still on radio crying about how he was let go for standing up for the truth. Truth is, he tried to put forward hear say as fact, and was left wanting, absolutely no personal responsibility taken, and all before an election. The left is running scared, they hate that Fox has now given conservatives an outlet in which to express their views, and I say to them, tough ****, grow up you childish tots!

Now they are doing the lefts work on t.v, so this topic belongs right where it is, and you guys are way out of line.

 

[dsanthony]

I happen to agree with the man, this all goes back to Dan Rather, and the putz is still on radio crying about how he was let go for standing up for the truth. Truth is, he tried to put forward hear say as fact, and was left wanting, absolutely no personal responsibility taken, and all before an election. The left is running scared, they hate that Fox has now given conservatives an outlet in which to express their views, and I say to them, tough ****, grow up you childish tots!

Now they are doing the lefts work on t.v, so this topic belongs right where it is, and you guys are way out of line.

Thanks... I don't even get involved with petty arguments about "where" my post belongs. It's just a diversion.

If Aaron Sorkin were writing a truly fictional show, their argument MIGHT be valid (not really--Murphy Brown comes to mind. Dems still won't admit that, with 70% of black children raised by single mothers, their anti-family agenda has brought anarchy to their servants (I means supporters.)) But as he blends reality and fiction together seamlessly, he can be held accountable for outright lies.

As for the poster who replied that US soldiers are no different than the September hijackers, you have my unabridged disgust.

 

[Caine]

you guys are way out of line.

Why, because they think this does not belong in "BIAS IN THE MEDIA"?

If you want to claim bias in the media for a fictional story go ahead, we could start a real shitstorm here.

Personally, im wondering what about the previous posts do you think were "out of line"

Hrm? Hrm?

 

[hipsterdufus]

As usual, you libs are liars. The lib world was in an uproar over Gibson's jesus movie, but here you say hollywood has no relevance to politics. SImply put, you're liars.

Personally, I could care less what Gibson does. If he wants to make a graphic depiction of Jesus' life - BFD.

I must admit that I'm glad that ABC cancelled Gibson's made for TV movie on the holocaust though.

 

[Caine]

If Aaron Sorkin were writing a truly fictional show, their argument MIGHT be valid.

Okay, now you need to show us where the events in the show, (not occurences that are not a vital part of the plot) are re-enactments of things that happened in real life. Go ahead.

Also, if he is such a political hack, don't you think he wouldn't have put stuff in "The West Wing" that would "appear" to be making the Democratic party look bad? I mean, he is making these shows for political gain is he not?

As for the poster who replied that US soldiers are no different than the September hijackers, you have my unabridged disgust.

Agreed. But didn't you already state the Meher statements were not what was the topic of debate here?

 

[Caine]

Personally, I could care less what Gibson does. If he wants to make a graphic depiction of Jesus' life - BFD.

I must admit that I'm glad that ABC cancelled Gibson's made for TV movie on the holocaust though.

I heard Gibson is making a movie that is very anti-Iraq war.

I bet that pisses off the GOP wackjobs out there.

 

[Deegan]

:roll:

Why, because they think this does not belong in "BIAS IN THE MEDIA"?

If you want to claim bias in the media for a fictional story go ahead, we could start a real shitstorm here.

Personally, im wondering what about the previous posts do you think were "out of line"

Hrm? Hrm?

So you don't consider that media?

Would you like me to get the Webster out for you, or are we just going to get past that slip up?
:roll:
This is certainly my opinion, but I know this is media, and I believe that the left uses this outlet to further their agenda, hey, anyone who could, would, hence Fox. The problem is, those of you on the left, you have no problem when that happens to your advantage, but don't let there be a Fox, NO SIR!

That's my point, I could not care less where this is, only that folks are aware!

 

[Caine]

:roll:

So you don't consider that media?

Would you like me to get the Webster out for you, or are we just going to get past that slip up?
:roll:
This is certainly my opinion, but I know this is media, and I believe that the left uses this outlet to further their agenda, hey, anyone who could, would, hence Fox. The problem is, those of you on the left, you have no problem when that happens to your advantage, but don't let there be a Fox, NO SIR!

That's my point, I could not care less where this is, only that folks are aware!

Its a fictional story not based upon actual events. Yes, a mention of real events may occur. But does that make it bias? Was the movie Forrest Gump biased because they had a small section on there about Nixon being a crook on a TV in the background of the main plot? Of course not!
Its ridiculous to throw a shitfit about something like a "biased" FICTIONAL TV show made solely for entertainment purposes.


BOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Deegan]

Its a fictional story not based upon actual events. Yes, a mention of real events may occur. But does that make it bias? Was the movie Forrest Gump biased because they had a small section on there about Nixon being a crook on a TV in the background of the main plot? Of course not!
Its ridiculous to throw a shitfit about something like a "biased" FICTIONAL TV show made solely for entertainment purposes.


BOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO

Hmmmm, sounds like you are describing the mini series that ABC released that caused so much chatter and condemnation!

BOO HOO indeed!:roll:

 

[Caine]

Hmmmm, sounds like you are describing the mini series that ABC released that caused so much chatter and condemnation!

BOO HOO indeed!:roll:

You mean the one about the events that led us into 9/11?

How is that fictional???????????????????????

I'd like to hear you defend that statement.. :rofl:rofl:rofl

 

[Deegan]

You mean the one about the events that led us into 9/11?

How is that fictional???????????????????????

I'd like to hear you defend that statement.. :rofl:

Did they not admit it was a fictional account, what's the difference.......

This is your argument to defend, not mine, lol.:lol:

 

[jujuman13]

Quoted by dsanthony (As usual, you libs are liars. The lib world was in an uproar over Gibson's jesus movie, but here you say hollywood has no relevance to politics. SImply put, you're liars.)

Every aspect of the electorate in the US has relevance, Hollywood has perhaps more relevance than it should have. Why people take more notice of an actor / actress is beyond my understanding.

I don’t really care if the so called lib world was in uproar or not over a mere film.

Dsanthony, YOU are wrong to call people liars simply because their beliefs are different to yours.

Also quoted by dsanthony (As for the smug response from one of you (honestly, I don't distinguish) I know more about art than you ever will. I am able to enjoy the vision of someone I disagree with. I'm not a rabid lapdog, like most libs...)


How nice to read that someone like you is capable and, oh yes, willing to extol his artistic abilities.

Nice you are able to distinguish that someone with an opposing viewpoint to yours, actually does exist.

Equally pleasant to hear that you are not rabid.

Most Lapdogs I have been fortunate enough to encounter usually have a great deal of cunning.

But as you said, YOU are not a Rabid Lapdog!

 

[akyron]

Actually I really enjoyed the West Wing.
It was a fantasy trip in what the democratic should be.
Quite entertaining.

 

[Hoot]

Someone getting that upset about a television show needs to get out more. Or, read a book...preferably fiction.

 

[akyron]

Actually I really enjoyed the West Wing.
It was a fantasy trip in what the democratic should be.
Quite entertaining.

The condecending attitude was in full swing on that show.


"You lost the Texas vote when you learned to speak Latin"---CJ


Rofl