Filmmaker Charles Ferguson–director of the financial crisis documentary Inside Job–announced that he was no longer going to make a nonfiction film for CNN about Hillary Clinton: “After painful reflection, I decided that I couldn’t make a film of which I would be proud,” he wrote in the Huffington Post (9/30/13). “And so I’m canceling.”
The reasons why he’s pulling out of the project are interesting–and disturbing. “Neither political party wanted the film made,” he noted:
Phillipe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s media fixer…contacted various people at CNN, interrogated them, and expressed concern about alleged conflicts of interest generated because my film was a for-profit endeavor….
The chairman of the Republican National Committee announced that the Republicans would boycott CNN with regard to the Republican presidential primary debates in 2016. Shortly afterwards, the entire RNC voted to endorse this position…. Quietly and privately, prominent Democrats made it known both to CNN and to me that they weren’t delighted with the film, either….
David Brock…published an open letter on his highly partisan Democratic website Media Matters, in which he endorsed the Republican National Committee’s position, repeating Reines’ conflict of interest allegations and suggesting that my documentary would revive old, discredited Clinton scandal stories….
This bipartisan disapproval of the idea of an independent filmmaker conducting an in-depth journalistic investigation into the life of Hillary Clinton is striking. It seems that the problem is not that either side has reason to suspect that the project will be biased either for or against Clinton; rather, the objection appears to be to a high-profile examination that would not be controlled by either side. In other words, the objection seems to be to journalism itself–and a sign that politicians believe that from here on out they will be able to run campaigns without bothering to deal at all with media that haven’t been paid for.
The opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike made it impossible, Ferguson said, to make the kind of film he wanted to make:
When I approached people for interviews, I discovered that nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film. Not Democrats, not Republicans–and certainly nobody who works with the Clintons, wants access to the Clintons, or dreams of a position in a Hillary Clinton administration. Not even journalists who want access, which can easily be taken away. I even sensed potential difficulty in licensing archival footage from CBN (Pat Robertson) and from Fox. After approaching well over a hundred people, only two persons who had ever dealt with Mrs. Clinton would agree to an on-camera interview, and I suspected that even they would back out.
Now, it’s certainly possible to make a documentary on someone without the participation of their friends–or enemies. For the good of journalism, in fact, it would have been better if Ferguson had gone ahead and made his documentary, and demonstrated that refusing to be interviewed for a film doesn’t keep it from happening–it just makes it less likely to include your point of view.
” it would have been better if Ferguson had gone ahead and made his documentary, and demonstrated that refusing to be interviewed for a film doesn’t keep it from happening–it just makes it less likely to include your point of view.” <– exactly why you're wrong in saying the documentary was killed due to journalism. Plenty of good documentaries and investigations have been produced without the participation of the subject and under much greater threat.
Why do you give the film maker a pass? Answer: Because it's a Clinton and FAIR rules only apply to conservatives.
@ John: Except, they don’t give the film-maker a pass at all, but criticize him for not making the film. Your comment is self-contradictory.
@John- it’s amazing how the partisan mind works. I guess when your a hammer, all the world looks like a bunch of nails. When someone asks you if you’d like fries with your burger, to you see that as an attack on conservatives?
*you’re
The film maker Nick Broomfield makes great documentaries with little or no participation from the subjects or their supporters, and often facing outright hostility.
I don’t know why, if a filmmaker is making journalistic piece, he would care if any of the political folks in the world wanted the piece made. Would one ask the Dems and Repubs if they wanted an article published in the NYT?
Maybe Mrs. Clinton is owned by the CIA and everyone knows it, which would explain why she earned the name “Jackboots Jane” during her tenure as Secretary of State, as well as why no one wants to collaborate with Ferguson.
god… make the film ! this is now what the film is ABOUT, fercrissake…
Well, Bill didn’t call her Hilla the Hun for nothin’.
I agree with FAIR’s last paragraph. He should’ve gone ahead with it. I’m sure it was CNN that pressured him to pull out. I can’t imagine CNN would have the courage to have the GOP pull away like that.
OFF TOPIC BUT RELEVANT TO CNN:
Why is no one complaining that CNN is showing extreme bias by continually referring to the Affordable Care Act as “Obamacare”? Polls have shown much higher percentages of respondents approving the words “Affordable Care Act” than those approving the word “Obamacare”. Those who oppose the President obviously will tend to oppose anything bearing his name. CNN is guilty of showing animosity to one of the most important pieces of legislation in recent history.
E. J. Heinemann: The bigger question is, who believes that CNN is anything but a corporate propaganda platform?
Well his reason is simple .He knew he was not going to show the miles of dirt on this woman.Things like her bringing in her brother early in their careers to strong arm any girls who cried fowl over Bills ummmmm attentions shall we say.Pointing to absolute knowledge of her husbands unethical ,even illegal actions.From there to the mess that was Benghazi.See the left would of squirmed as this love letter to Hilary was used as target practice by the right side of the isle.Hilary if she does run wants to “sneak in” like Obama.Dodging the arrows as she covers her head.Depending on die hards who will never change their vote.It was a no win.The director did not want to run that gauntlet.Reminds me of Springtime for Hitler,in Germany.Just not as funny.