Washington, DC — Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney’s subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.


The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.

Democrat's Letter on Senate.Gov

Questions for debate:

1) Censorship?

Well, I think the title of this thread is a little misleading. I don't see anything in this letter which "threatens to yank ABC's licensing." Even if such a veiled threat is intended by this letter, it's a toothless one. I don't think it's even possible to revoke the license of a network, although it's possible to do so to an individual station which violates the regulations of the FCC.

I see this letter as more of a protest -- and a pretty useless one -- against something which seems to be designed to paint the Democratic Party (and the Clinton administration in particular) in a bad light. The whole thing reminds me of the miniseries The Reagans from some years ago.

Link

What goes around comes around. If a public outcry against The Path to 9/11 leads to a boycott against ABC and/or Disney that results in the miniseries being cancelled (not very likely), then that will be an example of successful public action rather than censorship. If not, the series should go through as planned. (Surely it won't be the only inaccurate docudrama ever broadcast on American television.)

Personally, I don't participate in boycotts against the broadcasting of things I don't like. However, there is no reason why people aren't free to do that.

Only if Congress does something to punish ABC and/or Disney for this miniseries (extremely unlikely; this is a Republican-dominated government, remember) would I call this censorship. If such a thing were to happen, I would be absolutely against it.

So overall the more appealing question to me is does the government have to right to call people on products that they produce that are to describe history accurately and be used as tools for such? To say its censorship to do such I think would only qualify if some form of blacklisting were to occur, that in under no grounds could the product be shown to the public at large regardless if it were true of false. The letter is basically only calling ABC and Disney on the grounds that the movie is being used or portrayed as a historically accurate accounting of 9-11, and furthermore plans are in action to sell it as truth in Americas public school system. Its also drawing from legal structure that basically calls on an entity like ABC that uses public airwaves, and that to portray something as historically accurate while many experts of such say its not is a breech of such legal framework. They are not calling for it to be blacklisted, they are however contending that such is not accurate historically and should not be sold to the public at large as such.

I will never cease to be amazed at how low politicians will stoop, albeit on the left side of the house this time, to further their cause.

Frankly, from the article posted, what I can see is that they disagree with the series and have posted statements from NYT ARTICLES as their proof. We all know how objective the NYT is.... hmph...

My personal opinion on all of this would be to have a Farenheit 9/11 and Farenhype 9/11 type broadcast. If the DNC can prove that these statements are inaccurate or misleading... produce something for the masses that disproves it. Statements like:


I can't say that these provide and objectivity, and seem to be taken from context. I'd like to see statements like...
The miniseries is inaccurate because________(insert reason) and _________(insert other truth), etc.

Rhetoric, off-handed remarks, and other mis-representations only malign good Democrats and make them out to be kooks and weirdos.

I applaud any series that shows how the intelligence community and inaction of the Clinton administration lead to 9/11. We all know about all of the times we could've killed Bin Laden, the times we were attacked pre-9/11, etc. It's just plain true.

Does it have to be partisan? For some anything anti-Clinton is partisan... as if they're related to them. I suppose some people feel that way about GW too... but it doesn't seem as prevalent.

Of course it’s censorship. And it’s to be expected that the folks from the Clinton Administration would love the piece to show that Bill and his though about little else but “terrorism” during the 90s but the facts say it is not the case.

I just read that Albright is saying that an order to abort a hit on Bin laden never happened. Gee I guess then that the History Channel documentary with CIA people saying EXACTLY that is wrong?

Certainly there will be some “dramatization” but I will bet the piece if anything downplays the numerous errors that allowed Bin Laden to live and 9/11 to happen.

1) Censorship?

This does smack of censorship. It is thinly veiled, but still present.



So the Senators (lawmakers) refer to the law that enables ABC to broadcast. Then it asks for the network to cancel this program.

I do love the hyperbole in this letter:


Countless? Well, it then goes on to count them.

These Senators fear that this is going to be used as a political tool. The reviews I've heard of this program indicate that it assigns blame to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, pointing out failures before the attacks that could have been pursued. It does have some dramatic spots, which may be inaccurate.

The show is not a documentary, however, it is a dramatization. However, although I have not seen the drama, it does not seem to be so far from the truth that it is actually damaging to the understanding of the average citizen. Did Sandy Berger really nix a plan to nab bin Laden in Afghanistan? Maybe not, but he didn't do everything in his power to nab him either.

I completely reject the notion that this letter of protest somehow qualifies as an attempt at censorship. First of all, there are no veiled threats implying that ABC will face any kind of punitive action if they didn't pull this docudrama, nor did the Democrats explicitly say that ABC can't go on with the show if they wanted to, they did just the opposite and reaffirmed ABC's right to broadcast whatever it wants. I fail to see how that's a veiled threat Amlord. Additionally, I don't quite understand the need to dramatize anything that happened on September 11th; you'd think an attack on American soil in it's unofficial capital that took the lives of 3000 people would be dramatic enough for your typical media executive, but what do I know. There is nothing that is gained by dramatizing the event, and I agree with the Democratic leaders [Jesus, I actually just said that] in that this dramatization could in fact hurt Americans' understanding of the event. Saying "just the facts, please" hardly constitute censorship, and in my opinion, is a pretty reasonable plea, especially when referring to a show that deals with an event as important as September 11th.

CP

Hey CP - Just trying to see your point of view here, so a couple of points. Given that, the chairman of Disney is former Democratic Senator George Mitchell...it's safe to say that probably more arm-twisting that we aren't reading about than this one letter.

- So, you would be against ABC showing "Loose Change" or "Fahrenheit 9/11" then? You would support Republican politicians sending them letters alluding to Broadcast law?
- Is this similar to when the Kerry campaign went after Sinclair broadcasting when they were going to show "Stolen Honor" just before the election in '04?
- Don't you think this could have a chilling effect on political speech?

I'm obviously not a Democrat, but if I were, I'd be a little embarassed that my party, 3 days before the fifth anniversary of 9/11, has a call for censorship at the top of its website but no mention of the attacks or the victims.


edit - I take back that last part, having seen the RNC homepage today. A pox on both their houses, but censorship is still wrong, especially when it's the government calling for it.

Why refer to the law involved here then? It's an obvious attempt to demonstrate that the Senators have some power over Disney/ABC. Why refer to their broadcasting license at all?

As for the content of the film, the writer did not simply pull this stuff out of his rear. However, not all of it was included in the 9/11 Report.

For example, the Democrats have objected to the notion that Sandy Berger ordered the CIA/Northern Alliance not to kill/capture bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Michael Scheuer, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit and no fan of the Bush administration, said this about the Clinton administration's efforts to get bin Laden:



Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy

Sounds to me like they are reminding the network why they are granted the license, and the obligation that comes with it. It's called playing to their sense of obligation. I don't see this as a threat at all. If I give you $100 to buy groceries for your family, and you buy beer and smokes instead, that is a misuse of trust. The letter is stating the network is doing the same thing by using their free use of public airwaves to deceive the very public it is supposed to be serving. They are trying to guilt ABC into not showing the mini series, not threaten them into submission.

I also don't agree with boycotting the mini-series or trying to get it pulled. I didn't agree with the tactic when the Republican party used it with the Reagan docudrama, and I don't think it's appropriate now. They have the legal right to protest and boycott, and stomp their feet all they want, but I think it is a waste of time and only draws more attention to the very thing they are protesting. I wouldn't have even heard of this unless such a stink was made out of it.

It's certainly not censorship for them to ask to be portrayed accurately, which they feel is not happening.

They can protest all they want, they can kick and scream and yell and write letters and go on talk shows all year long. I personally hope that the series is truthful, no matter who it offends, and that it airs. I also hope that some day during my life the Democrat vs. Republican urinating contest is ended and everyone can start working together for common good. I doubt either of these things will happen, sadly.

I would have to agree with slim for the most part until you read the last paragraph.



Sounds almost like a threat to me.

I saw this comment elsewhere and thought it was appropriate.

I don't get it. In the run-up to what might be the most important election in their party's history, the Democrats are campaigning against... Wal-Mart and Walt Disney? What's next? Kittens? Grandma?

By the way, in addition to the Chairman of the Board being a Democratic ex-Senator, the president of ABC has given quite a bit to Democrats. I hope it doesn't influence his decision, but I do suspect that he'll be answering certain phone calls personally.

The thing about this film is that it portrays the work of the day to day attempt to get bin Laden and contrasts it with the failures in leadership. The Bush administration is not immune to the criticism of this film.

According to this review:

To be honest, I have no idea what "Loose Change" is, but I would have the same thing to say if ABC was trying to play "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the Republicans sent ABC a letter asking them not to. Citing the law is nothing more than, as slim said, reminding the ABC that they have an obligation to the country as the news media not to misinform the American people. I don't see it as a threat, but a reminder of their extremely important obligation.


Not in my view, the Kerry people made an obvious attempt to silence Sinclair by actively going after it, not just sending a letter. Clearly there's a possiblity that the Dems are trying to work ABC behind the scenes, but until that becomes public, I'm not going to call them filthy communists just yet...


I don't think this is political speech, it's something dramatizing the most dramatic event in modern American history.


Don't confuse me agreeing with the Dems on this issue with me thinking that they have any shame. They are, after all politicians. Not having any mention on there website is disgraceful, as is the Republican's website taking shots at Dems, but politicians will be politicians.

CP

I'm troubled by this letter. Is this an official act of Congress or the Democratic Party? They are two different entities. I'm not sure I approve of these Democrats writing a letter in the name of the Senate as though they represent me. I think there are ethics issues here.

Censorship?

Not quite, no. And it's certainly not "official" or "state" censorship. But it is an attempt to urge ABC to exert self-censorship. In this respect, it is similar to the successful effort by the Republican leadership and the right-wing blogosphere to get CBS to dump The Reagans. And, in both cases, the filmmakers had an admitted bias.

But there the resemblance stops. The Reagans was promoted as fictionalized historical drama. The Path to 911 is being promoted as a docu-drama based on the 911 Commission Report. And it is being aired on the fifth anniversary of the attack - less than two months before a national election in which characters presented in the film are involved. And it has a clear political bias in relation to issues that will have a major impact on that election. And it is (or was) being distributed as an "educational tool" to children in public schools. And it is being produced by a right-wing Christian organization, Youth with a Mission (in violation of their 501c3 status), which has ties to the CIA. And its broadcast will be interrupted by President Bush's September 11 speech shortly before he makes his heroic appearance in the film on "The Day that the Glorious Bullhorn was First Heard from atop the Hallowed Pile of Rubble".

The question here is one of fair use of the public airwaves - and the senators voice important concerns about the political agenda of the film and its makers, as well as the timing and intent of its broadcast. ABC has every right to broadcast the program and they have every right to engage in self-censorship, just as CBS did in relation to The Reagans (and as they didn't do with the "docudrama" DC 9/11: Time of Crisis). But the American people have every right to respond to the film, be it through boycott, unstinting support, or legal action. There is no question that the film is politically biased - and, as it is being produced by a group with a political agenda that coincides with that of the current administration and is being broadcast in conjunction with a political broadcast by that administration, there seem to be serious questions regarding ABC's intent. If nothing else, there is the semblance of extreme partisanship and serious questions regarding fair use in terms of serving the public interest.

If we are looking at the path to the September 11 attack, we should start with the creation of the mujahedin under Carter or with our support of the mullahs over Bani Sadr in post-revolution Iran or with Reagan pulling troops out of Lebanon in 1983 or with the placement of military bases in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War under Bush the Elder - or with the entire history of America's involvement in Israel. We should not start with the efforts of the Clinton administration to combat terrorism in general and bin Laden in particular. The Path to 911 instead looks at eight fictionalized years of the Clinton administration. As Hugh Hewitt assured his readers the other day, "the blame on the Clinton team is in the DNA of the project and could not be eradicated without pulling the entire show".

The main problem, though, as I see it, is not with the depiction of the Clinton administration, but with the depiction of the Bush administration. Bob Kerrey observed that both the Clinton and Bush administrations had committed missteps in relation to addressing al-Qaeda and that any treatment of the events leading up to the attack could "feed people's distrust on issues of national security". It could also feed people's misplaced trust in an administration that is every bit as culpable (if not considerably more so) as its predecessor. Of itself, that is no good reason to avoid such programming, but unless one is creating a total fantasy, historical fiction is only of value when the central facts are correct. In The Path to 911, if Rush Limbaugh and Free Republic can be trusted, the central facts are not correct. And its producers are not only claiming that the film is "documentary", they are claiming that it is based on the 911 Commission report which (according to the right-wing champions who have seen the film) it directly contradicts.

I don't want to overly judge the show before it's been broadcast (if it ever is), but on the basis of all I've read about it (primarily from a crowing right-wing), it's not marginalia that they've fictionalized, it is key points of policy and key actions taken (or not taken). It is the throughline of the film - it is The Path - and they've invented it. They have lied about the record of the Clinton administration and, more pertinently, distorted and edited the record of the Bush administration - to the disadvantage of the former and to the advantage of the latter. And they have done so - admittedly - for purely political purposes.

It's not like we haven't heard the right-wing talking points about 9/11 being all Clinton's fault before. The problem is that they are simply not true. The question should be whether the public airwaves are the appropriate place to broadcast these talking points as though they were factual - and without debate (which, at least, the Showtime broadcast of The Reagans allowed) - especially on the fifth anniversary of so central an event in the political history of this country a few weeks before a national election in which the same issues are pivotal. The question for debate here might more appropriately be:

Propaganda?

I don't see anything wrong with this letter myself. No "threats" IMO, veiled or otherwise. This is precisly how I would hope my representatives would act on my behalf (if I were against this showing, I actually have no opinion either way). If the Democrats feel they are ill-served by this program they are free to try to persuade ABC not to air it (or change it)via their representatives.

A threat would be "air this program and we will boycott you" or somesuch, which is also, incidentally, a perfectly reasonable way to protest in a democratic society. If the Democrats have actually threatened to yank ABC's license as the topic states, that is overboard. I don't see evidence of that here.

Quick point to start Wertz, regarding the time frame - the director says he chose to start in '93, since that was the first WTC bombing. Makes sense to me. Of course, he could include 'the entire history of America's involvement in Israel' or whatever but that's a bit more than a miniseries!


Some thoughtful comments there. Let me put it this way regarding Clinton specifically - who cares? 9/11 was a watershed moment that changed everything, and I really don't care whose fault it was by degree. As I heard on (I think) the Hugh Hewitt show, it's like fretting over who was more to blame for Hawaiian coastal security in 1941. I'm not so much interested. The government failed to protect us.

I obviously haven't seen it either, but from what I've heard the power in the film is its depiction of our enemies, not in how it depicts either administration (neither of whom prevented 9/11 from occuring you see). The assassination of the "Lion of the North" for example, is said to show a high level of sophistication, and can't help make you think - wow, these guys are sharp, relentless and motivated, and it seems they will try to do this kind of thing to us at some point.

All of this hue and cry in that context would be another example of (now) ex-officials looking at horrific terrorism with mediocre government response and complaining "i never slammed the phone" or this detail or that detail. Reminding us, once again that it is all about them.

I bet that we are all up in arms over nothing - when Wertz says "the central facts are not correct" he is looking at the situation through a straw. The "central facts" are that terrorists bombed the WTC in 1993, and knocked them down 8 years later. Our enemies stayed motivated, conducted tests, moved in and out of our country, recruited in Europe, all those things are the central facts. Whether getting Bin Laden was a cruise missle called off, or a policy decision or a legal POV from State is all moot. That's what Americans need to know. The details will be forgotten by 90% of everyone anyway.

Except, did prominent Republicans opposed to The Reagans quote federal communications law to CBS, with the hardly subtle implication that the law was being violated and therefore Viacom could be faced with administrative action of some kind? If not, then that's a rather significant difference right there.

Let me see if I got this straight; fictionalizing a government document in a movie - excuse me - "docudrama" is OK, but a truthful, albeit not-so-flattering depiction of Ronald Reagan is somehow worse? Powerful conservatives put enough pressure on CBS to make them censor out the unsavory bits that they felt would somehow tarnish their hero in the biopic (e.g. his remarks about AIDS and Ron dancing ballet).

On Friday, CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves received a letter from RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie expressing alarm over the Reagan project.



As far as I'm concerned, it's all completely absurd. Like everything shown on TV and passed off as "documentary" is gospel truth? Granted, there's a large percentage of people in this country so gullible they'll swallow the most outlandish lies if they're repeated often enough on TV or radio, but really....

The scary thing to me is that if a powerful enough group exerts enough pressure, while it's not censorship in the true sense of the word, the effect is the same because the broadcasters know where their bread is buttered, and will censor themselves.

DaffyGrl - Do you even bother reading the posts you're replying to? Whatever opinions you have about the Reagan and 9/11 shows, it has nothing to do with the point I made. Do you know of any threat - overt, veiled, or unspoken - made by the Republicans against CBS or Viacom for the Reagan show? If not, then that would put their reaction in a markedly different category from the Demcrats' reaction to this latest ABC miniseries.

Edited per member request for assistance. -J

Blackstone, do you even bother to read the links? The RNC threatened CBS.

I did look over your links, I didn't see any threats, apart from a boycott effort launched by some obscure freelance writer. Certainly nothing remotely suggestive of any official action. What are you referring to, exactly?

Like Victoria, ConservPat, slim, and Mrs. P (I think we've about covered the political spectrum there), I see no threat of administrative action or anything else here. The salient portion of the letter would appear to be this:
ABC is being reminded of its legal responsibility as a broadcaster - and the worst that is suggested (in the letter's final paragraph) is damage to Disney's reputation as ABC's parent company. Am I missing something? Where's the charge that the law is being violated? Where's the threat of "administrative action"? And what the heck has Viacom (the parent of CBS) got to do with any of this?

What I find funny is that as this thread has progressed not a single person has come out with any care about the validity of the movie in question being portrayed as honest to the facts its trying to present. More or less it seems that every person in favor basically that its censorship basically has the tag conservative and republican in there user profile... I find that its a bit partisan to say the least, is it really censorship of politics I might add.

It would be a simple fix, if the movie is honest then its a bad finer being waved at the demos, if you can prove that the democrats are simply trying to censor the movie with no regard to the movie being honest or not as its being portrayed then its a bad finger at the demos. The letter expresses only concern with the validity of the movie as is being put forth as an honest depiction of history in relation to 9-11, not only that but such is to be used in public education for such a purpose. There are experts in the letter, some even speaking on behalf of the 9-11 committee basically stating that the movie is not honest in relation to the history of 9-11 in the events its trying to portray. So are the democrats wrong for this, or would you simply agree with being able to pass falsehood off as truth in order to further someone’s political motives, and going as far as to allow such in public school.

Nothing in the letter overtly states that the democrats will move to block the showing of the movie, or censor it from the public. they have stated there reasons for concern which basically hinges on the fact ABC and Disney is selling it as non fiction when according to experts outside the democrats that various material in the movie is false, some even went as far to think that some material was being "made up".

So to me I find more outrage in this and applause the democrats for pulling attention to such, and again where did any actual censorship occur, is the movie not going to air at this point? Again, did they say they could stop it, or would stop it from showing? I would agree with the democrats to pursue legal action in order to stop something like that from airing really, to use 9-11 for political gains is just plain disgusting in the fashion it is, and its not like such a case or the letter really is hiding from the public, or not open to the public.

Again, I understand this letter to be a reminder of responsibilities, not a threat of administrative action. It's coming from Democratic Party leaders. 5 peoples name appear at the bottom of the letter. They interpret that the use of public airwaves is granted under the assumption that the network using them has a responsibility to tell the truth in their fact-based programming, and they do not feel that is what is happening with this series. I don't see a threat anywhere in the letter. I see they are pointing out that the networks credibility would be hurt, as would the people and bodies portrayed in the series, as a result of inaccurate representation. Congress has not sent a warning, the FCC has not sent a warning, no government body has sent a warning. It's five people that have a concern over the portrayal of our government and it's leaders. They have every right to do this. I hope it airs anyway, but they have the right to voice their opinion.

I still think it's a waste of time, and they (and we) would be better served working on real solutions to real problems, but it doesn't change the fact that they have done nothing wrong.

Blackstone you are overlooking something. The Republicans suffer from an excess of power. When one party holds power in both houses and the executive branch, veiled threats tend to work. In other words, there does not have to be a direct threat for a broadcaster to feel pressure from excessive power.

The Democrats, on the other hand, hold little power - at least until November - to really do much damage.

And you don't think this "reminder" carries with it the implication that it's not living up to those responsibilities - i.e., is violating the law? Otherwise why bother mentioning it?


You were the one who brought up The Reagans.

edited to reply to BoF:


Both parties are quite well represented in the FCC. It's naive to think that the Democrats don't have any influence there.

To persuade.

The content of this program is immaterial to me. Let's imagine for a moment that the show in question portrayed George Bush foaming at the mouth, and bumbling, with scenes of the 'My Pet Goat' reading thrown in between clips of the falling World Trade Center. This would bother me...would it bother you? If so, how would you go about protesting what you believed to be a biased and counterfactual portrayal of the facts? I would likely boycott, and if I were truly annoyed I might write to my representatives.

I see nothing wrong here.

To deny the factor of Machiavellian power is equally or more naive. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," according to Lord Acton.

You did not dispute my assertion that a veiled threat from a powerful source (The RNC) is effective.

Actually, I think "false" materials should and should have been edited out of both.

Edited to add

I wasn't necessarily talking about the power of the FCC, but the pressure put on the FCC. To counter your claim of Democratic "power," Republicans cujrrently control the FCC.



http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6370...y=Breaking+News

What Mrs. P said.


My apologies. I thought you were referring to Viacom in relation to The Path to 911 (though - credit where it's due - it was Victoria Silverwolf who brought up The Reagans).

Censorshp?

Well its not censorship if the program being presented is being passed off as truth when in fact its falsehood. If however, this mini-series is a dramatization or a creative interpretation of the events with a disclaimer letting the people know that the events may not have occurred then it is censorship. Then again, its only censorship if the government forces ABC/Disney (or coerces them) to take the program off the air, not if they simply put pressure on them.

Its sort of funny how people sometimes have short term memory surrounding an issue like this. As others have mentioned about what happened with the Reagan's miniseries here is exactly what some people on the right that do have influence said at the time.

Reagans: Battle In A Culture War?



Inventing Reagan



Enough



A email sent to Glenn Greenwald from Seth Leibsohn about Glenn's post about the 9/11 movie and Seth's quote. Bush supporters condemn fictionalized political mini-series -- in 2003



I don't believe this is censorship at all because their has to be a threat of action like pulling their license or sanctions against ABC which the Democratic leaders cant do. What they are asking for is a factual representation of the behind the scenes that let up to 9/11 to be told. I am not afraid of the truth, whether it makes Bill Clinton or George W. Bush look good or bad. We all know things went wrong during both administrations and not every avenue was taken for many different reasons.

Hell their's a group called National Security Whistleblowers Coalition that sent out a press release that can be read at Larry Johnson's Webblog The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts that towards the bottom of the letter shows 13 former intelligence agencies from different intelligence organizations that say they had information for the 9/11 commission but where never allowed to appear before them to present their facts as part of the record which would have been a more representive of the whole story that wasn't being told.

Now lets get into some of the untruths about the 9/11 movie on ABC that have been leaked out by some that were either consultants on the movie that left or from people that know the facts and have seen the movie.

Roger Cressey(former Clinton & Bush counterterrorism official) was on a panel on Scarborough talking about the movie Cressey Calls the ABC 9/11 Movie “Something out of Fantasy Land” you can watch the little clip but here's a big misrepresentation in the movie according to Cressy.



Let’s Go With Fiction…



FBI Agent Who Consulted On Path to 9/11 Quit Halfway Through Because ‘They Were Making Things Up’



With all this coming out about the depiction that they are trying to represent as a documentary it does need to be corrected before airing or not represented to the public as a documentary. Even though it has already been protrayed that way to the public sometimes its to hard to correct that perception after the fact.

edited to add a new little detail that is coming out..... Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception

To persuade them of what? That they're violating the law? That's the only possible reason I can think of for bringing up the law.


It certainly wouldn't occur to me to write my representatives, unless it were government, or a government-affiliated entity like PBS, that's making this portrayal. Would you write your representatives over newspaper coverage of something that you feel is over-the-top? I don't see how this is any different.



It's an irrelevant assertion, since no evidence has been presented that the RNC made any kind of veiled threat. And as your link indicates, the Republicans only had a majority on the commission since June of this year, well after the whole controversy over The Reagans.


I said Democrats have influence ("power" is your word, not mine), and they do. Two of the 5 commissioners are Democrats. The U.S. Supreme Court is also "controlled" by Republicans, in that the Republicans have a majority. But that doesn't mean every ruling has gone their way.

That's cool Blackstone.

Instead of providing evidence of your own, you just dismiss things other people take time to corroborate. It doesn't help your credability in the least. FYI, power is the name of the game in politics.

Try finding some "evidence" that the RNC's action was not a veiled threat or at least something easily taken as such.

You mean the RNC's complaint about the show? That's all it was, a complaint. There was no suggestion at all that CBS was violating the law in any way. How would they be able to complain about it in a way that wouldn't come across as a threat in your view?

By the way, it doesn't matter how much "time" it took for someone to find the RNC's statement. If it doesn't help your argument, it doesn't help your argument.

Nor does it help your arguments to nolt to produce links on the assumption that your opinions are accepted if no one challenges them.

I have a different view. I try to provide the link in advance. You, of course, have a right to an opinion on what helps my agruments, but keep in mind you are not judge, jury and executioner when it comes to debate techniques. In the end, it's just your opinion.

I don't understand what your objection is. I was commenting on information that's already been made available on this thread. I wasn't making any factual claims beyond that.

Verrrry interesting....

Let us assume, for a moment, the implications of this letter if BoF's scenario
comes to pass...

Instead of the minority leadership, we have the majority. What capacity for retribution will they have?

Frankly, I am amazed that the chilling effect of this letter is being given a pass by so many.

Perhaps if I paraphrase the letter...

"Hi, we're from the government, in fact, we're the one's who make the laws that regulate your business. We have heard from others (no, we haven't seen it ourselves, 'tis simply heresay) that the movie you're going to broadcast is factually innacurate. Rather than dealing head on with the inaccuracies, in what is clearly identified as a dramatization, we're requesting that you not air this movie. We did mention that we're from the government, and we regulate your business, didn't we?"

Those who choose to compare this to the brouhaha over the Reagan biopic are ignoring a crucial point:
The RNC is not Congress, as in "Congress shall make no law..."

Chilling effect....

What chilling effect is that, is this movie some religious ideal, is congress making religious laws like putting in god we trust on our money? If ABC of Disney has possibly broken any laws anyone could try to take them to court for it, and I would think those people in the letter have more then what is needed to do such, really though as much as I would like to look for censorship its not there. More or less a giant guilt trip is though

Did the democrats say we will take you to court, did they say do not show it or we will take you to court, or pull some funding, or have your product boycotted? I looked far and wide for censorship and could not find it. To say the people behind the letter have no real reason or right to make such a letter though could be called censorship...

You can call it a covert threat, and really maybe it is, who knows. What I will say is that they have nothing to fear going either way. They could have easily had stated they have many people that will use there position on the matter in court against ABC and Disney about there product, but they did not, and they could have. They asked ABC and Disney to consider what they were doing, and even were so nice to include more then just that in the letter.

ABC and Disney could so easily just put the movie on as fiction, for what it really is, and the democrats could do nothing, they could even make a scene in which Clinton was training terrorists somewhere in Iraq, I mean really they could.

As I understand the movie is nothing more then a partisan political blog using 9-11, how low can you go really. I am glad the democrats wrote that letter, someone has to blow the whistle.

My next move in life though is to take the movie star wars and institute it as truth though in a documentary explaining the origin of life on earth, I hope no one gets mad, more so when I try to install such at public schools.

Reminding someone of their obligations is not a threat. Telling them how you feel about the actions they are taking, and how you feel the license granted them by this nation is being misused is not a threat. You show me where it states that if the minseries is aired that efforts will be made to pull ABC's licensing, and you have a point.

Reminding ABC of the obligations it has to the American people to be truthful in their fact-based programming because they are granted the right to televise by the American people is not a threat. It is a reminder from a segment of Americans that the airwaves belong to the public. We (the public) granted them the right to broadcast. And we feel that we are being betrayed. It's not saying that we're going to take away their airwaves. It's saying that we are losing respect in their ability to tell us the truth, and is bad for their business. It's reminding them that we expect better, and implore them to fix this before it goes any farther. What they do with that knowledge is up to them. And how the public reacts to those actions is up to the public.

Even if this were a threat to pull their licensing (and it's not), it would be hollow. I can threaten to revoke your account here on AD (and I'm not), but it doesn't mean I have the power to do so, and you have no reason to fear it. The individuals that sent this letter have no more authority or ability to take ABC off the air than you or I, and I can not find any evidence that they have threatened to attempt to do so.

The letter in question was also prepared for public consumption. Perhaps, just perhaps, the mentioning of the Communications Act of 1934 was used to re-enforce in the consuming public the idea that the airwaves belong to US, not ABC. To motivate others to get off their couches and do something about this perceived unjust use of public property. I firmly believe that this letter is more aimed at Joe Sixpack than the president of ABC. Why else would they post it so prominently and share it with anyone that will listen? It's an attempt to get support for the cause. The authors know that a letter from them will mean nothing, but 600,000 letters from across the nation might.

Artistic license or not, it sure smells like a political ploy to dramatically fictionalize the events leading to 9/11/2001 when the anniversary is so close. But I remember not too long ago when the Sinclair Group, which owns many ABC network affiliates, instructed said affiliates not to show the special Nightline program when Ted Koppel merely READ the names of slain U.S. military personnel, without political commentary, to honor their sacrifices.

So it looks pretty clear to me that objectivity is a low priority at the American Broadcasting Company. Chew on that for a while, Mickey!

I just hope that uninformed/poorly-informed kneejerk ideologues who believe this propaganda will not be motivated to show up at their voting precincts on the first Tuesday in November, especially if they still believe Bush's assertion that Saddam Hussein was in bed with al-Qaeda. Their hero himself has admitted that there is no evidence to support that bit of propaganda.

I have e-mailed ABC and told them of my displeasure at their not even letting Madeleine Albright have an advance copy of the miniseries per her request, while making it available to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

Whatever...Television's "Seal of Good Practice" can only be seen after the credits on old T.V. shows on TV LAND anymore. "Good practice" went out when profit became the be-all and end-all in this society.

1) Censorship?

Nope.

Common sense, yes. Since BD took the liberty to paraphrase the intent of the original letter, allow me to use the same liberty:

"Hi! I'm in the party that will soon take over Congress. We'll be appointing a bunch of people to very powerful places, as these positions relate to your FCC license. You know, it isn't very smart to screw with us at this time. Sure, elephants have the long-term memory, but donkies kick like the dickens. So do voters who have stopped listening to the drivel coming from the airwaves regarding who did what when and why."

"Fundamentally, and that's a term you guys should understand, your sweet deal is about to enter the history books that we will write. Think about it."

I'll go along with the subtle threat idea. I'll also go along with the fact that both sides of the isle flex their political muscles. I'll even go along with the notion that the docu-drama is inherently biased, no matter the subject or producers.

And I'll be so bold as to suggest that the American public is fed up to here with propaganda. Let's see, we've gone from fooling all the people all the time to fooling most of the people most of the time, and there's a third tier where nobody trusts anything the schmucks say.

We're there. But the mid-term elections won't be about 9/11. They are about local issues and basic government.

So ABC, you know upon which side your bread is to be buttered. Tighten up your act. This is not a threat but a suggestion Nobody really cares what you broadcast, but it would be a polite gesture if you were to reconsider your current policy.

Meanwhile, American voting public, be forewarned that more drivel is coming your way.

I think of censorship in the past as "did it work" instead of a verb meaning something done now "censoring the press"-

Censorship happened with the Reagans deal- because it DID get moved around and yanked from affiliates etc AND edited- so yes, the Republican ACTIVELY produced "censorship" - okay- so what happens with the "Clinton" deal? If it is edited due to the Dems, and pulled from timeslots etc, like the Reagans deal- then, yes, the dems are doing a censorship thing- if it is unsuccesful, and there is no goverment retribution by future dems against ABC, then, no, it is not censorship.

My understanding is that the miniseries is to be aired as scheduled, even if the time conflicts with a planned national Presidential address on Monday.

In that case, it can scarcely be called censorship.

But--since we're talking about fiction--I remember NBC pulling the curious show The Book of Daniel when many viewers contacted the network and expressed their objections about its content.

Ultimately the decision of the networks has everything to do with money. If the advertisers of any given show feel that their goods and/or services will be boycotted because of a show, the network will pull the show and possibly cite more noble reasons for doing it than what the real reasons were.

Actually that is another part of this episode that has gotten little attention. This is going to be commercial free so no advertisers will be pressured from a boycott, ABC is eating this whole enchilada so by not airing it they have alot of money to lose. The funny thing is they did lose a whole lot of money with the Farenheit 9/11 not being allowed to be produced thru Miramax alot more money then they paid for this mini series.

Here's a little clip from Fox with Mike Wallace actually saying the same things as people on the left have been saying.

Chris Wallace slams ABC on 9/11 project: “I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account



edited to add: Even William Bennett is coming out against this

Bill Bennett Says ABC Should ‘Correct Those Inaccuracies’ in Path to 9/11

I haven't seen United 93 or World Trade Center, so why would I start my 9/11 viewing with a made-for-TV, fictionialized piece of crap?

Short answer: I would not.

My feeling is that while it would be the responsible thing for ABC to hold back the airing of "The Path to 9/11" until the inaccuracies are corrected, it's not likely they will. Secondly, the observation by Oscar Wilde that even negative publicity is good publicity will probably goose the show's ratings.

Are Democrats merely concerned about the slip-shod fact-checking of this flick or nervous that it might negatively impact them in the November elections?

When Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11 it was the Republicans ticked off about the inaccuracies and distortions in the film. Remember the claims then that the movie might cost Bush the election?

It's deja vu all over again.

We're talking about legal obligations here. And you don't think that the premise of a statement like that is that they're not living up to their legal obligations - that is, that they're violating the law? What else would that kind of statement imply?

To add to what NT said, how can we ever tell if TV or the cinema gets it right?

There is an episode on Court TV's Body of Evidence. For some unknown reason, FBI trained profiler, Dayle Hinman - an FDLE employee - was investigating a rape/murder in Tyler, Texas. As usual she got her man - Kerry Max Cook. But did she? Twenty some odd years later, Cook was exonerated. Yet the show only mentions at the end that Cook spent 20 some odd years in a Texas prison. God forbid that Hinman could be wrong, hence, no mention is made of the exoneration.

http://www.courttv.com/movie/

Note: it's interesting to note that Court TV ran the movie version of the stage play, [Exonorated and the Body of Evidence case without acknowledging that the latter is wrong.

This is a bit off topic perhaps, but I think it illustrates how TV can get it wrong and keep getting it wrong and not correct errors.

I was not in interested in the Reagan movie. I am not interested in ABC's, as NT called it "a fictionalized piece of crap.” I didn't like Oliver Stone's conspiracy film on JFK and seeing the movies NT mentioned is a rather low priority. I have equally little interet in watching Bush's opportunistic prime time speech Monday. I hope it backfires on him in a big way. Bush's current speeches are also "fictionalized pieces of crap."

The tragedy is that people don't take fictionalized genre with the grain of salt it deserves.