[icebraining]

it's not DoD's job to volunteer to help in situations where the movie itself would portray DoD in a negative light.

But is it the DoD's job to help in situations where the movie portrays the DoD in a positive light?

I'm not from the US, so my opinion doesn't count much, but I'd rather have our Ministry of Defence help no movies than playing favorites.

[mpyne]

Well good luck finding movie topics that don't touch positively on any government agency anywhere.

E.g. a movie where a team of Federal prosecutors and investigators bring down a megacorp CEO and Board for conspiracy, fraud, etc. while having to fight through an insider within the government who's in on the conspiracy might cause agencies as disparate as the SEC, FBI, DoJ to be looked upon favorably.

Is it your position that no one from the SEC, FBI, DoJ, etc. should be allowed to advise moviemakers on how such an investigation and prosecution would proceed in real life?

[icebraining]

My point wasn't that they shouldn't help movies that portray them under a good light, but that they should help them regardless of how the movies portray them, or they shouldn't help at all.

Essentially, if everything else is the same, a movie where the FBI saves the country should received the same help as a movie where the FBI breaks it apart.

[mpyne]

> A movie where the FBI saves the country should received the same help as a movie where the FBI breaks it apart.

I disagree. That means that the FBI would have to help every filmmaker everywhere. Which is just another way of saying that the FBI should help no one, only with more rhetoric and weasel words.

I'm tired enough of living in a world where I have to keep telling sailors "this is why we can't have nice things". The solution to bad people doing bad things can't always be to hack the legs off of everyone at the kneecaps and put everyone in a "safe" wheelchair.

A better solution is that if you see a government agency misrepresenting themselves in media... point it out. Freedom of speech and freedom of press are there for a reason.

[icebraining]

That means that the FBI would have to help every filmmaker everywhere.

Nope, it just means they'd need criteria other than what makes them look good. Which in fact I'm pretty sure they already must have, besides the PR angle.

The solution to bad people doing bad things can't always be to hack the legs off of everyone at the kneecaps and put everyone in a "safe" wheelchair.

This is an extremely broad argument to a particular situation, and those are rarely fruitful. But in any case: Bad people are rarely the real problem, they are relatively few. The real problem is culture and institutions that lead regular people to do bad things. Facilis decensus Averno. And if in a private context I believe the imposition of such rules should be avoided, I don't think the same applies to a public institution.

A better solution is that if you see a government agency misrepresenting themselves in media... point it out. Freedom of speech and freedom of press are there for a reason.

Point out what, that film makers are portraying a certain institution better than they would've had there been no help? How would I know? It's not like I'm claiming they would require outright lying or anything; it's just that it can introduce subtle but dangerous bias in the whole process.