Ollie vs The Smithsonian...

Warbirdnerd · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm **Posts:** 2923

Quote:

Oliver North's Tiff With the Smithsonian
Museum Rejects TV Host's Request to Film Enola Gay

By Jacqueline Trescott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; C01

The Smithsonian Institution rejected a request from Oliver North to film a stand-up in front of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. This is the latest flap in the Smithsonian's development of programming for a cable television network.

North, who hosts a Fox News Channel series called "War Stories," returned fire, condemning the Smithsonian's decision. He said in an opinion column that the museum's action raises questions about the propriety of the contract between Showtime Networks and the Smithsonian, which limits access of film crews.

Claire Brown, a spokeswoman for the National Air and Space Museum, which displays the Enola Gay at its Northern Virginia annex, said she held a series of discussions with North's producers and thought the door was open to more talks. "We were surprised to read the column because we consider the request to be pending," Brown said. She said she received the request Jan. 22.

North's column first appeared on Fox's Web site and was reprinted by the Washington Times on Sunday. North, a retired U.S. Marine and a key figure in the Iran-contra episode during the Reagan administration, is now a highly successful commentator and author.

"In a series of written, e-mail, telephone and personal exchanges with Smithsonian officials we explained what we wanted to do, how we would do it and offered to compensate the museum for any expenses incurred," North wrote in his column. "What we didn't know was that the institution's management had concocted a secret, backroom deal with Showtime -- granting the premium cable TV channel, owned by media giant Viacom, exclusive rights to control all but 'incidental usage' of all video footage shot at the Smithsonian."

The museum did turn down the request initially, Brown said, explaining that the application was asking for "more than incidental use" of the site and the plane. The Showtime contract, which limits such use, has angered many independent filmmakers.

After North's producers appealed the first decision, Brown said she "offered the producer the alternative of shooting film at Air & Space's Udvar-Hazy Center [near Dulles Airport]. We also asked the producer to contact us in writing with any questions. We have not heard back."

In essence, the Smithsonian was telling the show they could film the plane but couldn't film a commentator talking in front of it.

"We were commencing production of a documentary on nuclear weapons tentatively titled, 'From the Manhattan Project to Tehran' and wanted to shoot a few minutes of the videotape of the Enola Gay . . . . Our requests fell into a bureaucratic black hole," North wrote.

Found it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 71_pf.html

oscardeuce · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am **Posts:** 1021

How much tax $$$ they get?

If they have such a good contract with Showtime, I want my $$$ back, and I guess we can stop funding them with tax $$$.

My $0.02

TimAPNY · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:27 am

oscardeuce wrote:

How much tax $$$ they get?

If they have such a good contract with Showtime, I want my $$$ back, and I guess we can stop funding them with tax $$$.

My $0.02

Maybe they can sell the naming rights for the museum also :idea:

So every few years it can be referred to something new.

I'm sure the truth lays (and dies) somewhere in between.

Tim

Beachy · **Joined:** Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:20 am **Posts:** 1104

Reading the title of this thread, I thought at first it was in reference to our (WIX's) Ollie!

"OMG, what's he done?" was the thought that popped into my head!

Sorry, Ollie!

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:37 am

I don't know if a stand up act is meaning comedy? If it is comedy, then I don't think the Enola Gay is the correct place for that, but neither is any other warbird. Now if they mean something else, then it would depend on what it is. The Smithsonian sure is not happy that they have the Enola Gay, as they were preasured into displaying it in one piece this time, and they didn't want to display it at all before.

JBoyle · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:44 am

A "stand up" is TV talk for the part of a story where the reporter appears...usually as a closing part or a bridge from one part of the story to another.

J.Boyle...former TV news reporter/anchor, etc...

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:55 am

Then that the Enola Gay should be used in that show, but once again it is the Smithsonian. I have to admitt that I am not a fan of the museum's politics. The collection is great, but the people that run the museum are a bit off.

k5083 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:00 am

mustangdriver wrote:

I don't know if a stand up act is meaning comedy? If it is comedy, then I don't think the Enola Gay is the correct place for that, but neither is any other warbird. Now if they mean something else, then it would depend on what it is. The Smithsonian sure is not happy that they have the Enola Gay, as they were preasured into displaying it in one piece this time, and they didn't want to display it at all before.

Any time North opens his mouth, it's comedy.

As for the Smithsonian, don't be silly. They are as proud of the Enola Gay as any other artifact, but have proceeded with caution in displaying it because of the political ramifications. Some think they displayed excessive caution, but then again, they still generated a political firestorm that cost the NASM its Director and all but destroyed its reputation as a center for scholarship. Even so, they displayed the Enola Gay as soon as they had space to do so.

The NASM is underfunded by tax dollars. Do you really think our tax dollars there are not well spent, just because they also accept corporate donations and may not let a blowhard do whatever he wants in their facility? And as for naming rights, that has already happened. Last April, Boeing donated $15M to help support the Udvar-Hazy Center, and according to the NASM press release (4/10/06), "In recognition of the donation, the central structure at the Udvar-Hazy Center will be known as the Boeing Aviation Hangar." If you want to see the magnificent work the NASM does without corporate donations and the strings that come with it, contact your legislator and try to get more of your tax money devoted to NASM, not less.

August

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:35 am

Politics should have no place in displaying a WWII aircarft. That is the problem. Does it form time to time, yes, but it is wrong. Remeber if there was not a Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima. Parts of the Enola Gay were put on display originally with displays that told stories of how horrible America was for dropping the bomb. That is when that huge S@#t storm hit the museum. They got what they deserved. The plane was then pulled back to storage, next to the Swoose(another aircraft that will never see the light of day), and then when Udvar Hazy was in the works, they had no plans to include the B-29! It was at the urging of the NMUSAF that it went on display. They were told that if the Enola Gay did not go back on display, the USAFM would take some of their aircraft back and possibly the B-29 itself. Fast forward to last year, when the NASM asked if they could have our B-17G Shoo Shoo baby once the Memphis Belle is out of restoration! They have a G and D that are in storage, and they want a third B-17! Gen. metcalfe told them to pound salt as both of our B-17's will be displayed at Wright Pat. I have seen the NASM come to our museum adn act like the were above us. Well, I just don't see it that way.

oscardeuce · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am **Posts:** 1021

They are as proud of the Enola Gay as any other artifact, but have proceeded with caution in displaying it because of the political ramifications

Since when is history Political? Only when it is being changed.

T J Johansen · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:40 am

k5083 wrote:

And as for naming rights, that has already happened. Last April, Boeing donated $15M to help support the Udvar-Hazy Center, and according to the NASM press release (4/10/06), "In recognition of the donation, the central structure at the Udvar-Hazy Center will be known as the Boeing Aviation Hangar." If you want to see the magnificent work the NASM does without corporate donations and the strings that come with it, contact your legislator and try to get more of your tax money devoted to NASM, not less.

August

Does that mean that within a decade or so, the collection's Douglas built a/c will be known as Boeing DC-3, Boeing D-558-2, Boeing VB-26B, etc...? :wink:

T J

k5083 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:57 am

mustangdriver wrote:

Politics should have no place in displaying a WWII aircarft. That is the problem. Does it form time to time, yes, but it is wrong.

Politics always has a place in everything. "No politics" is just a code for "my politics". Remember the distinction between history and the past. The past is what happened; history is what we make of the past. Celebrating and commemorating the aviation/technology/military credo is intensely political. We just don't notice it until somebody disagrees.

mustangdriver wrote:

Remeber if there was not a Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima.

And if there was not a trade embargo of Japan, there wouldn't have been a Pearl Harbor. And if Japan had not invaded China, there wouldn't have been a trade embargo. How far back do you want to go? Commodore Perry?

mustangdriver wrote:

Parts of the Enola Gay were put on display originally with displays that told stories of how horrible America was for dropping the bomb. That is when that huge S@#t storm hit the museum. They got what they deserved.

No, they told about how horrible it was in Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped. Do you deny that it was horrible? Do you think America should be absolutely free of moral qualms about it? If so that is a very political position. The storm hit because the museum hired a director who, for the first time, was not a career military officer and he tried to instill some scholarship and give some attention to alternative points of view. And now WE have what WE deserve -- a museum that presents no thought or interpretation but simply displays its artifacts mutely to reinforce whatever preexisting beliefs we walk in with -- a glorified attic.

August

Fuzzy41 · **Joined:** Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:27 pm **Posts:** 13

Maybe the Smithsonian doesn't want to help out an arms dealer who sold weapons to Iran? Seems to me the museum officials are just following our president's policies in the Middle East.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:22 am

First off, I have now doubt that it was horrific at Hiroshima, but I do not feel bad about it all. The fire raids in Tokyo cost more human life than both bombs combined. The bomb was dropped to save human life. And it did. Estimated losses were going to be several times worse on both sides if the U.S. invaded mainland japan. And they started the whole thing. We did not give them fuel because they were using the fuel to kill millions of chinese with it. Yeah we were really the bad ones there. This could get really far off topic with our own beliefs. So I will stop with that. Ollie, come on down to the NMUSAF, like usual we will let you film the aircraft in our museum.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:23 am

Fuzzy41 wrote:

Maybe the Smithsonian doesn't want to help out an arms dealer who sold weapons to Iran?

Bill CLinton is going to be there?

Warbird Information Exchange

Ollie vs The Smithsonian...

Who is online