This Administration won't dignify just anything

The British TV network More4 will broadcast a docudrama depicting an assassination of W. The network head has described “Death of a President” as an “extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work”:

“It’s not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama,” [network head Peter Dale] said. “I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.”

Now. I understand political violence is a sensitive subject, but (obviously) the film isn't advocating violence. Dale explains:

“It’s a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic.”

The film hasn't been aired yet, so the White House can't say too much. Plus, I understand the desire to marginalize films made by, say, Michael Moore. But this?

The White House declined to comment on the network’s announcement, saying it would not dignify the program with a response.

Somewhere in the White House, someone knows the film will make serious criticisms of this Administration's war on terror. How fitting to respond to a depiction of political violence with a refusal to engage in actual political debate.


BUT THERE'S MORE. What do the people think?

A new film depicts President Bush being assassinated. Should it be shown? * 25704 responses
50% Yes, it's a good display of free speech.
44% No, the filmmakers have gone too far.
5.1% Perhaps -- but not in the United States.

Sure, MSNBC readers might not be representative. Sure, responses to a voluntary survey are tainted. But even when primed to think of the term “free speech,” 44% of (some group of people, likely including many Americans) think a depiction of an assassination shouldn't be shown. Probably the response would've been different if more vivid language had been used (Should its airers be prosecuted? Should the government prevent the network from airing it in the US? Should airing it be illegal?), but still, WTF?