One of Wired's blogs has a strong condemnation of those Craig's List "social experiments" I linked the other day.

The commenters say all these guys deserve having the public e-lynching because:

1. they naively sent personal information via email
2. a couple of them indicated they were married
3. a couple used their work accounts to reply, and/or
4. only losers look for sex online.

These are thin justifications for a clear violation of these men's right to privacy.

Here's a quick thought game.

What if it the Craig’s List posting was about:

• A 25 year-old woman looking for a sugar daddy?
• A depressed woman looking for a fellow depressed guy?
• A dom woman looking for submissive men to humiliate?
• A gay man looking for 'straight' guys?
• A 'straight' woman looking for a butch lesbian?
• A butch lesbian looking for a 'straight' woman?
• A lesbian looking for a lesbian?
• A closeted gay man looking for another closeted, discreet man?
• An overweight, not attractive straight guy looking for a date?
• A 21-year-old hipster looking for another hipster into?
• A goth woman looking for a goth guy into leather and trenchcoats?
• A couple looking for a third person to watch them have sex?
• A Christian woman looking for a Christian man?
• A furry looking for another furry?
• A Cos-Player looking for someone to dress up with them?
• A middle aged woman who doesn't know she has terrible taste in poetry looking for a man who will buy her flowers, take her for walks on beaches and compose saccharine poems that rhyme?

Which of these do you feel superior enough to that you would want to see their private notes and photos displayed illegally on the internet?

For example, the funny and personable Adele Givens does a routine making liberal use of a colorful obscenity that was a mainstay of the series in its 1990’s heyday...[w]hat distinguishes Ms. Givens’s bit is that it doesn’t just use the word; it is actually about the word. Specifically, it is about a clergyman who chastises her for using the word onstage, and whose self-righteousness leads to a hilarious comeuppance. It’s dirty, it’s clever and it has something to say. What a concept.

A young comedian named Vince Morris provides an even bigger departure from the “Def Comedy Jam” norm. Bespectacled and soft-spoken, he neither looks nor sounds like the stereotypical black comic, and that in a way is the point of his very smart act.

An Old Show Returns, With Just a Little News About Race and Sex
By PETER KEEPNEWS

...A lot has changed since “Def Comedy Jam” was last on the air, but you wouldn’t know it from the first two shows of its new incarnation. There is the occasional topical reference: three of the six performers have jokes about the high price of gas. But otherwise, the subject matter, the humor and the attitude are essentially the same as they were back in the day: usually irreverent, often vulgar and, as the euphemism has it, urban.

And yet amid the punch lines about sodomy and sagging breasts, amid the ritual repetition of “bitch” and even ruder words, there are a few self-referential moments that suggest that something new is in the air.

(having chosen the two more polite-sounding possibilities over options such as "whore"...)

It is a carefully calibrated strategy that will continue in coming days, first with an appearance Sunday morning by Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the vehicle he used to advantage at key moments after Sept. 11 and then Mr. Bush’s appearance that night at ground zero in New York and a prayer service at St. Paul’s Chapel.

Before Speeches, a Bush Strategy to Regain Edge
By DAVID E. SANGER and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — When President Bush and his top aides gathered in July to sketch out a strategy for the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, it was clear to all that they had to try to reset the clock — back to a time, before Iraq, when portraying Mr. Bush as a steely commander in chief was a far simpler task, and before Hurricane Katrina, when questions about the administration’s competence did not weigh so heavily.

Scholastic's press release says

“After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues,” said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic. “At the same time, we believe that developing critical thinking and media literacy skills is crucial for students in today’s society in order to participate fully in our democracy and that a program such as ‘The Path to 9/11’ provides a very ‘teachable moment’ for developing these skills at the high school level. We encourage teachers not to shy away from the controversy surrounding the program, but rather to engage their students in meaningful, in-depth discussion.”

The new guide clearly states that Scholastic had no involvement with developing the ABC docudrama, and that the company is not promoting the program, but that the program can provide a springboard to discussion about the issues leading up to 9/11, terrorism and the Middle East. The guide will focus on three issues:

1. Media Literacy - what is a docudrama; how does it differ from a documentary; what are the differences between factual reporting and a dramatization?

2. Background to 9/11 - what are some of the causes of unrest in the Middle East and other parts of the world that give rise to attacks on the U.S. and other countries?

3. Geography and Culture -- there is a long history of conflict in the Middle East. How well do students understand each of the countries involved and what influences their behavior?
Scholastic has been providing free educational materials for use in the classroom in conjunction with television programs and films since the 1950’s. Classroom discussion guides have also been created in the past to support discussion of major events such as the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters, the shootings at Columbine and many others.

There is exactly one topic this propaganda movie support the study of: media literacy. And that can still be studied if they pull the damn thing. Seriously, why present false information, then explain it? Why not teach the background, geography and culture from cleaner sources?

Totally stolen from Michael Froomkin. I'm even going to steal a comment.

I think that the mouse has an even bigger problem. They are planning to show their fiction in Bermuda where the UK libel laws apply. There is no public figure defense and damages can be very significant indeed.

ABC's '9/11' Libel By Fiction Exposure

In all the ink, real and virtual, that's being spilled over ABC's fictionalization of the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, it seems to me that one aspect of ABC/Disney's position has been missed: if the public descriptions of the show are accurate, then the people who made it and those who plan to show it have some serious libel exposure.

First of all, Thomas H. Kean is STILL full of crap.

"These are people of integrity," Kean said of the filmmakers. "I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters' mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11."

What, exactly, is "the spirit of 9/11"? Grief? Terror? Pain over the death of loved ones?

When even ABC tells you their propaganda movie is a docudrama, and Kean says otherwise, I'm no longer taking him seriously.

Secondly, minor props only to Scholastic, because they already helped create the crap. It will be used, so they can't escape responsibility for some of the damage caused when people's actions are "supported" in their own minds by what they "learned" from the material Scholastic helped develop.

The network's move came as the children's publishing company Scholastic deleted from its Web site materials about "The Path to 9/11," developed in partnership with ABC, that were being offered to 25,000 high school teachers. "We determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," Chairman Dick Robinson said.

The minor props are enough for me to wait to see if they do this shit again.

Finally, Kurtz is still a tool.

ABC to Alter Show on Pre-9/11 Run-Up
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 8, 2006; A02

ABC plans to make minor changes to its docudrama on the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in response to heated complaints from former Clinton administration officials that a number of scenes are fabricated, a network executive said yesterday.

I guess that's why they're Conservative...

Crooks and Liars:

Video-WMP Video-QT (rough transcript)

Control Room: Norah–we just got statement from ABC that we have been waiting for. I’ll read it right now–"The Path to 9/11″ is not a documentary of the events leading up to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such–for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes-–composite and representative characters and dialogue–and time compression.

No one has seen the final version of the film–because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. [P6: emphasis added] The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history–and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it"–So bottom line they’ve just released a statement about it. They’re not going to change this movie at all…

While ABC tells you their propaganda movie is a docudrama, 9/11 commission ex-co-chair Tom Kean says otherwise.

I don't watch ABC anymore. Dead serious. Just as I don't watch Fox channels...and the next Yu-gi-oh! series will be on Fox this weekend (this is a monor personal loss, but a loss nonetheless). ThisWeek will be the sole exception, and if it starts to slip it's out too.

Why?

You know that massive, decamillion dollar donation ABC is making to the Republican National Committee? You know that massive, decamillion dollar donation ABC is making to the Republican National Committee? 

You know, the $30-40 million movie that lies about the lead-up to the attack on 9/11? The one that is being broadcast for six hours of the most expensive broadcast time in existence?

The one they say is a "docudrama," and is therefore free to be as inaccurate as it chooses to be?

You know that 9/11 propaganda movie ABC is broadcasting for six hours with no commercials? 

Steve Gilliard posted a list of folks to share your ire with. An original email is actually better, but there are form letters you can use to contact ABC and its local affiliates.

 

ABC sets ad-free '9/11'
'Path' is clear of commercials to varied outlets
By JOSEF ADALIAN

ABC has decided the best sponsor for its upcoming Sept. 11 mini is no sponsor at all. After originally announcing its intention to air "The Path to 9/11" with limited commercial interruption, the network now will air both parts of the $30 million Harvey Keitel starrer without any advertising.

You have to subscribe to Variety to get more than that.

I want you to keep in mind that American's religion is Capitalism. And I want you to remember that this movie cost $30 million dollars, God knows how much six hours of prime-time broadcasting nationwide cost, and they're NOT TAKING COMMERCIALS?