Unfortunately I was banned many years ago for "battleground behavior" for pointing out strategies (gish gallop and paradoxical source standards requirements) used to prevent relevant information being posted on politically charged articles, in the relevant talk pages of biased users or else I would contribute some edits myself. Some of these strategies have been exposed but the defenses have just evolved.

more from that PDF (in the movie "In the line of fire")

Overall, the project has been a great success. The Secret Service wa able to work closely with the producers to make certain that our portrayal on the big creen was a positive one. There have been several films that depicted the Service or it employees as side i sue to the tory's actual plot. However, as Snow a erts, "It's a story told through the eyes of an agent, his problem , and his experiences." All things considered, it promi e to be a film that just may promote a greater intere t in the Service. "In addition to possibly being nominated for an academy award, I believe this movie will be good for our recruitment effort. It just may do for u what "Top Gun" did for the Navy," ays ASAIC Meyer. According to Snow, "From a recruitment tandpoint, this film will be excellent. This is an exceptional movie that wa re earched well and portrays the Service in a po itive light. If a film had to be made depicting the Service, isn't that the way it's supposed to be done?"

>can someone explain? I don't get it :(

>yes, the cited: "For these reasons, it is critical that the Secret Service maintain open lines of communication with the entertainment industry. The consequences of our inaction could be detrimental" is a bit shocking.

Why are you talking to yourself?

There is nothing "shocking" about the statement. I advise others to read both articles; neither is long, and both are interesting (but nothing in any way salacious/controversial/etc.)