Posted on 10/25/2012 12:09:35 PM PDT by bronxville
Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story about a new movie, scheduled to air on the National Geographic channel two days before the election, which focuses on the death of Bin Laden. The film chronicles Obama's brave decision to make the only choice he could, and authorize the killing despite the wishes of Vice President Joe Biden.
It's called "SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden." The film's rights are held by Harvey Weinstein, one of Obama's most ardent supporters, and it features the President prominently.
Most of the article is spent discussing how airing the film so close to the election is just a coincidence. The producers want to assure you that this is not propaganda, the subject is handled fairly, and there's no political motivation behind the timing. According to NatGeo chief exec Howard T. Owens, the date was simply selected “to take advantage of our fall schedule. Other than being commercially opportunistic, we weren’t considering the election,”
Of course they weren't.
More interesting is that the NYT piece carries an indication that the paper is not finished burying its head in the sand over the Benghazi situation. Buried near the bottom of the column is the following paragraph.
"Beyond the political issues, the film may carry the risk of associating Mr. Obama with any backlash in a Muslim world already inflamed by the YouTube trailer for an insulting film portrayal of its prophet. In September riots erupted in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere as Muslim crowds reacted violently to what they perceived as the unforgivable insults of a scratch production, “The Innocence of Muslims,” some of which was posted on YouTube.
Nothing in “SEAL Team Six” recalls the anti-Muslim tones of that film. But the new film’s portrayals of the jeopardy to Muslim children during the assault on Bin Laden’s compound, and its graphic references to — but not portrayals of — torture in the war on terror may step toward the risk zone."
Oh no! portraying the Bin Laden raid "may step toward the risk zone!" Heaven forbid.
Perhaps this is a good time to remind the crack reporters at The New York Times that we've since learned there was no riot in Libya, as the streets were completely calm that night. Also, we now know that the attack on our consulate was an act of planned terrorism which had nothing to do with any YouTube video.
You'd think the "Old Grey Lady" would get tired of embarrassing herself. You'd be wrong. Thank goodness she's here to sound the alarm, warning those who would see us dead that a new movie may hurt their feelings.
November surprise?
Their loyalty to their master is noteworthy. Too bad he doesn’t even give them a second thought.
NYT still trying to impeach Nixon posthumously....
it;s amazing how many papers say they’re not biased
Carlos Slim, the billionaire monopolist from Mexico recently loaned the NYT corp 250 million. Maybe he can call the note.
LOL
no wonder their stock was plummeting today....
AND...
New York Times Still 'going out of business!'
>Obama’s brave decision
The only brave decision barry ever made was to go anywhere near the loins of the Wookie he married.
This 'out of touch with reality' stuff might contain a hint about why advertisers are leaving the Times in droves - along with everyday citizens. I subscribed to the print version of the New York Times some time back - wouldn't accept it if it was free today...
if, according to the article, this was the only decision he could make it cannot be brave or cowardly because there is no other choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.