The WaPo TV column answered my (rhetorical) question:

Last week’s presidential election also played into Citadel’s decision to scrap tonight’s unedited broadcast of “Saving Private Ryan” and replace it with the TV movie “Return to Mayberry.”
“We’re just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress,” Cole told the Associated Press.

Posted by: b | Nov 11 2004 22:58 utc | 4

Well darn. Try: http://www.mykeru.com/assets/media/flash/bush_finger.htm

Posted by: beq | Nov 11 2004 23:42 utc | 6

@Cat: Thanks for that link to the Dexter Filkins story. If you can find it, “The Cat From Hue” by John Laurence is an excellent read for all of us now following the Falluja battle, and the Iraq war. It’s a memoir by a CBS reporter in Viet Nam, back when war reporters were not “embedded” and much more free-wheeling. Yet, as with all things Viet Nam (American War period), it is incredibly fresh and haunting in light of the current war.

Posted by: maxcrat | Nov 12 2004 1:51 utc | 8

But I heard on “Marketplace” tonight that the real explanation was less sinister and more commercial. I agree it makes sense to us liberals that they don’t want to show war as it really is; however, I don’t think TV execs think so philosophically. They have been pandering to the Right for quite a while now – I have been noticing the cultural memes of the Right being reinforced and snuck in surreptitiously by mainstream entertainment more often than not. Look what a big star Jerry Bruckheimer is; listen occasionally to dialogue in current shows, which uses Right-sanctioned phraseology. I had the same reaction as Bernhard initially, but fascism will be more subtle as well as more powerful when it happens here. The other thing the movie could have done is glorify the military and military adventures, which is very much approved now – I don’t remember there being such a focus on “Veterans’ Day entertainment” in previous years. I keep remembering hearing a certain talk show hostess some time ago (a woman known as a liberal media figure) saying “we’re all Republicans now” – maybe after 9/11 – and it had an ominous ring to me then. We could all use a little more historical reference, and not just of the Vietnam War … in my Red state I’m more worried about the state-sanctioned religion part.

Posted by: francoise | Nov 12 2004 2:28 utc | 10

Thanks DeAnander. 🙂
francoise, I didn;t hear Marketplace, so I am curious what their explanatin was. I just assumed that the ‘powers that be’ suggested to the network that they shouldn’t show SPR. I agree that it glorifies and sentimentalizes war, but you can’t deny that the graphic scenes are also very disturbing and frightening, perhaps even for the most die-hard fan of war. I think it’s way too close to home given what’s going on in Fallujah as we speak, for the Republicans to want it aired today.
I guess the bottom line is, I just don’t buy the FCC explanation, so I’m constructing an alternate theory.

Posted by: semper ubi | Nov 12 2004 2:44 utc | 12

Off topic, but obviously not when the current American reaction to issues of the day are no doubt fueled by the attempt to find a solution to current ideological issues…
Interesting perspective in an interview with Gilles Kepel
An interesting new development here is the way Islamists are hijacking the political agenda of the anti–globalisation left, which lacks any political compass of its own. Tariq Ramadan has attended the last two European Social Forums in Paris and London, and has formed an alliance with the far left, in hope of becoming the public voice not only of French Muslim communities but of a “universalist” political agenda. For him, Islam is the destination not the starting–point, and the vehicle is created by a fusion of radical “pro–hijab” elements within the European Social Forum with the more deluded anti–globalisation activists.
This “entryist” approach is evident in several social coalitions in France, for example a project in the Lyon suburbs (Diverscités) organised by leftists and communists which later included Islamists as representatives of the “exploited Muslim masses”. The founders trained the newcomers in public speaking and debate (the same way I was taught as a young Trotskyist thirty years ago); but when the organisation launched a campaign in defence of prisoners in Guantanamo who came from the Lyon area, the Islamists hijacked the organisation, and the leftists were sidelined.
In the face of such attempt to seize the anti–globalisation movement or its offshoots and local initiatives, greens and ex–leftists look at Islamists the way European fellow–travellers of the Soviet Union viewed the communist parties in France, Italy, Spain or Britain during the cold war. As they once believed the communists to be true representatives of the suffering proletariat, they now see Islamists as spokespersons for the suffering of Muslims, on the bottom rung of European society.
So, what do you in Europe who are here on the Moon think about this interview?

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 12 2004 4:47 utc | 14

Sorry to be off-topic, but …
Some potentially VERY good news:
Green & Libertarian Presidential Candidates to Demand Ohio Recount
David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the 2004 presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, today announced their intentions to file a formal demand for a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio.
“Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio presidential vote. Voting is the heart of the democratic process in which we as a nation put our faith. When people stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote, they need to know that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately. We must protect the rights of the people of Ohio, as well as all Americans, and stand up for the right to vote and the right for people’s votes to be counted. The integrity of the democratic process is at stake,” the two candidates said in a joint statement.
The candidates also demanded that Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who chaired the Ohio Bush campaign, recuse himself from the recount process. …
[See full article for background and links, and — if you can — contribute!]

Posted by: JMF | Nov 12 2004 5:34 utc | 16

Th Iraqi government has not yet learned the fine art of censorship. They take a more direct approach.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – The Iraqi government warned news organizations Thursday to distinguish between insurgents and ordinary civilians in coverage of the fighting in Fallujah and to promote the leadership’s position or face unspecified action.
The warning came in a statement sent to news organizations by Iraq’s Media High Commission, which cited the 60-day state of emergency declared Sunday on the eve of the offensive in Fallujah.
“You must be precise and objective in handling news and information,” the statement said.
It stressed the necessity of differentiating between “innocent citizens of Fallujah who are not targeted by the military operations and between the terrorist groups who infiltrated the city and took its people hostage under the pretext of resistance and jihad.”
It also told news organizations to tell their correspondents “to be credible and precise” and not to “add patriotic descriptions to groups of killers and criminals.”
Finally, the commission told news organizations to provide space to explain “the government position, expressing the ambition of most of the Iraqi people” and underscore that “these military operations did not come about until all peaceful means were attempted” to avoid violence.

Iraqi Gov’t Warns Media About Coverage
It said that failure to follow the instructions will require authorities to “take all necessary measures to safeguard the supreme interest of the homeland.” The statement did not provide further details.

Posted by: b | Nov 12 2004 14:56 utc | 18

Softie lefties, credulous and agressive and endlessly preoccupied with side issues, such as the number of guards in schools -more are required-; clueless greens (ready to demonstrate about plastic bags or kids who pocket stones -such sacrilege!-) and dopey conservatives (wilfull litter, the poor using too much hot water, don’t forget the eidelweiss, decimated by Canadian tourists who should be arrrested right NOW – and yikes! The car tax, way too high!) swear by the likes of a Tariq Ramadan!
–viewed, locally, from CH–
Tariq knows exactly how to play the togertheness harp, and how to pick minor issues (the eidelwess, lord help us..) that everyone can agree on. Measured attacks on globalisation (reponsible for intolerance, the death of birds, insecurity in the buses…) are applauded wildly.
Islam is a great religion, as good as any other (which is true, of course), as it also condemns .. well … a lot of things.. but tolerance is all! We must agree on that!
Tariq is, first and foremost, a bright ‘philosopher.’ Really. An excellent public speaker. An intuitive, charismatic man. He taught in high school here before being hired by Notre Dame, Indiana, and then being forbidden entry to the US by the Dpmt.of Homeland Security. He was possibly the most popular teacher in the Canton – half a million people – if your kid was in Tariq’s class you had it made..
Opinions about him are divided: Some see a wily opportunist, exploiting EU tolerance and naiveté, sneakily using, abusing; tirelessly working the fundamentalist agenda (a new book in this direction, de-constructing his speeches, has just come out) – a modern ideological warrior, masquerading as a lamb…he wears white shirts like the infamous and rather disgusting Bernard Henri-Levy. In short, a neo-fundametalist!
Debré forbade Tariq to enter France in 1995, it was a big scandal, and added to his – Tariq’s – reputation. (Ban was hastily rescinded.)
Others see him as a moderate, conciliatory, reasonable, sensible Muslim leader, all for integration, harmony, peace on earth, understanding. Above all, tolerance.
..That is amongst non-Muslims.
Moderate Muslims look up to him (afaik..) as a real or potential leader, of the conventional variety, in the main. The anti-Binny crowd sings his praises. He is particularly popular in France, where there are no ‘leaders’ and where the young Muslim community is large.
Others, perhaps more radical, or older and more traditional, are very suspicious – they suspect complicity with the ‘West’; a reach for personal enrichment, glory; a perfidious push towards decadent democracy; the reign of impiety, the death of true values, and so on.
His brother, Hani, was also a very respected and well liked high-school teacher. Hani published an article in Le Monde, Tribune Libre.. endorsing stoning of adulterous women and stating that AIDS was punishment for…fill it in. This lost him his job, although he is still being paid, as the matter is winding its way through the Swiss courts.
They are both grandsons of Hassan El Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (in Egypt, 1930, about – killed 1949). Hassan’s son Said fled – or was invited – to Switzerland, where he set up an Islamic center, in 1958 (about). Tariq was born in Geneva in 1962.
Scutllebutt has it that Said was very closely tied to Saudi royals, and that the Swiss tolerated him for that reason. Several times, expulsion papers were drawn up, but they were always squashed, by who knows.

Posted by: Blackie | Nov 12 2004 22:33 utc | 20

Blackie- I read about the refusal to allow Tariq to enter the U.S. and teach…he was hired to teach in Religious Studies.
In an interview, as part of an article in the NYTimes, he said that part of the problem is that he is not trusted because of his brother, Hani.
I thought the article was interesting because of a parallel in the U.S. when people were protesting the (then) planned invasion of Iraq. ANSWER was the organization that put together protests, but many many who wanted to and did participate in marches against the war but did not support ANSWER had no one else who seemingly had the organization in place to do so.
So people showed up and, frankly, did not share the beliefs of ANSWER, but waited through their speeches in order to be able to “speak” to Washington via marches, when the media and everyone else ignored those voices.
I was one of those people, along with young families with kids in strollers…people who would not consider themselves radical, but who no doubt are worthy of contempt to the current American powers. There were young men who rose up on concrete planters along the road and exhorted us to throw off our chains, or some such, and they were ignored as much as those who tell us to throw off the chains of secularism.
This is a problem for people who do not hold fast to ideological “truths” from one extreme or the other, but who, in times of crisis, need to make themselves heard as a sense of responsibility for the actions of their govts.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 13 2004 16:32 utc | 22