Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

9/11 Docs, FCC Free Speech Chilling Effect

Five years after 9/11, television is offering a mass of documentaries and remembrances of the terrorist attack on New York and Washington, DC.
Watching them, it’s striking to notice what’s been excised from the news footage–not just the worst and most unbearable of memories (people jumping from the World Trade Center), but the exclamations of shock and horror of eyewitnesses.
Among the first and best TV documentaries was “9/11,” by Jules and Gedeon Naudet, the French brothers who happened to be following a downtown firefighter’s first year on the job. Their cameras caught the first plane hitting WTC1–and the reactions of all who saw it happen. “9/11” won an Emmy and a Peabody Award. CBS broadcast the documentary unedited on the six month and one-year anniversary of Sept. 11, but now censorship groups are poised to complain about the gutter language spoken by firefighters and eyewitnesses — as if that were the real obscenity that occurred on 9/11. To avoid any possible fines from the FCC, Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns some CBS affiliates, plans to show the documentary late at night rather than in prime time.

“This isn’t an issue of censorship. It’s an issue of responsibility to the public,” said Randy Sharp, director of special projects for the American Family Association which describes itself as a 29-year-old organization that promotes the biblical ethic of decency.

If this organization gets its way, will 9/11 will be remembered as the day that 4,000 died, and everybody minded their P’s and Q’s?

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Responses to “9/11 Docs, FCC Free Speech Chilling Effect”

  1. Carolyn Townsend says:

    I guess it’s okay for fake GIs covered in Fullers earth (Saving Private Ryan) to talk dirty on the TV, but not real people covered with toxic ash.

  2. Mark says:

    Yes, the biggest threat to the children of America is hearing the word fuck on television. Obviously hearing the word fuck causes crime, abortion and homosexuality.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon