Ann Althouse: Still an idiot?
True but negative.
Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? Ann Althouse does. From her comments:
Ann Althouse said…
gj said…”Ann, a former Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor are outraged because the movie shows them doing very bad things that they did not do. The movie shows them saving OBL’s skin. It essentially blames them for the deaths that occured on 9/11. What does that have to do with hitting home? Wouldn’t you be outraged if someone published something that slanderous about you to an audience of tens of millions of people?”
The theory that they get really mad because it hits home is that there’s a core of truth that they feel very defensive about. They’re ostensibly complaining about having words put in Albright’s mouth or whatever, but what is really provoking them is that they know they really do bear some responsibility for not acting aggressively when they had the chance.
A good question is: what is more outraging, a lie (ie, slander) or the truth. The theory I floated is that it’s the truth that hurts. Now, when you want the show “yanked,” you can’t complain about the truth. You complain about the “lie.” You’d be a fool not to take that tack! But that’s a strategy. I’m talking about the motivation and suggesting what’s driving Clinton and others to freak out is the element of truth in it.
Anyway, it’s a docudrama, which means it has imagined dramatized scenes, and that’s the standard way dramas based on historical facts are done, from “Schindler’s List” on down. You don’t have the actual dialogue, and you have to fill in the gaps. If it’s done badly, you should just criticize it, not try to get it silenced. People who care about free speech like to say the remedy is more speech. I’m in that camp.
Whether I would like it if someone lied or said something slanted or true but negative about me … of course, I wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t try to shut them down. And this kind of thing constantly happens to me, so of course, it’s going to happen to a Secretary of State. That’s the way it is. And should be.
This is a public figure, and she should be subjected to criticism, with virtually no recourse other than more speech. If you think the answer is somewhere else, you need to think harder and more broadly across a range of possible situations.
I can’t believe that this woman is allowed near law students.