Macarthur said:
The problem is any link to a mainstream media article is going to illicit a 'fake news' response. You're going to have it both ways.
A link was posted to the Mark Wahlberg article a few days ago and when someone pointed out (a conservative i believe) it was unverified BS it was immediately deleted by the poster. It was dumb to post it and it just muddies the water of this discussion. It is OK to call out your own side, you don't have to believe 100% of what a conservative or liberal says to consider yourself a conservative or liberal (or Aggie, or American, or any other group). A group is a collection of individuals, who are allowed to have individual thoughts. Just because "X media group" posts it shouldn't make it gospel or fake news in anyone's opinion. We are all capable of rational and critical thinking.
I understand that everyone from the left is pointing to all of these items trying to discredit Ballard and Caviezel. I understand it reinforces their world view of evil conspiratorial Republicans. You probably know a couple of Conservatives in real life. Have a conversation with that someone you know isn't a warped conspiratorial individual and ask them their opinion, and truly listen to them.
I don't think anyone who doesn't like this film is a pedophilic trafficker. I don't think anyone who liked this film is a conspiratorial Q worshipper. But if there is an argument that is even adjacent to human trafficking, I know which side I am going to be on.
I will reiterate a post from last week. I think it boils down to influence. If you remove the pedophilic trafficking from the equation, Hollywood sees a viable opportunity for an independent studio, and actors who are conservative leaning to gain a foothold in the industry. Currently the messaging is dominated by liberals in Hollywood and I believe they want to ensure any film or project that might be conservative adjacent is portrayed as such (ie the NYT article "film championed by the right"). If all the social influence is of one persuasion, then it is much more persuasive. If there is no counter argument, then there is no argument/discussion.
Caviezel is a good actor. The director did a solid job. The story is very compelling. The budget was stretched to make an film that appears 3-4X the actual budget. It is fighting against trafficking and slavery. It is a "passion project" (normally celebrated by Hollywood). How this is anything but positive is beyond me.