You said they should be "held" to "a case of false advertising". That implied some sort of sanction or lawsuit. Also, some members of the Senate, as discussed, threatened ABC's broadcast license. You have previously stated that you thought that was wrong.
Therefore, if not a lawsuit,or license revocation, how do you think ABC and, presumably, Michael Moore should be held liable for false advertising?
As for CBS and the forged National Guard memo, you think that CBS didn't know. Some have argued otherwise. But even if they didn't know, a good case could be made that they were negligent in not checking their sources better.
Are you saying that negligently putting false information on THE NEWS is somehow better than intentionally putting fictionalized scenes in a SCRIPTED MOVIE?
Also, you keep putting out the theory that there were major errors in this film. You contrast those errors to errors in other historial work.
However, the ABC movie was primarily about ten or more years of failure in dealing with Bin Laden. It attacked both Bush and Clinton administrations. In that context, what makes some ficationalized scenes that, in fact, illustrate those failures, more egregious than fictionalized scenes in other history based movies?
