LAT: ABC Stands by 9/11 Story: After minor edits, will air as scheduled

[DeepModem Mom]

ABC Stands By Its 9/11 Story — Almost
After minor edits in response to Democratic critics, the miniseries will air as scheduled. It's already set off a bitter election-year dispute.
By Scott Collins and Tina Daunt, Times Staff Writers

Walt Disney Co.'s ABC is forging ahead with plans to air a miniseries starting Sunday despite controversy over its efforts to dramatize — and some say unfairly politicize — the events leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Producers said late Friday that they had finished making minor edits to "The Path to 9/11" amid a firestorm of protests from leading Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who warned that telecasting "right-wing political propaganda" might violate the terms of ABC's government-mandated broadcast license.

Critics say that, among other things, the film fabricates scenes and unfairly blames the Clinton administration for failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The network, for its part, has urged critics to withhold judgment until the final version airs....

***

By the middle of this week, Democratic protests clustered around two main areas. The film, they said, falsely claims that former national security advisor Berger and former Secretary of State Albright blocked CIA and military efforts to kill Bin Laden in the late 1990s.

Moreover, critics say, "Path to 9/11" is wrong to suggest that Clinton was too preoccupied with the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal to focus on combating terrorism.

Because ABC has apparently made many edits to the film in recent weeks, it's impossible to say how much if any of this material will survive in the version that is to air Sunday and Monday....

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-path9sep09,0,2124244.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[zonkers]

1. The bottom line is.... if it is a cheesy stinker (like we all know it is)

no one is going to pay attention to it anyway.

[murielm99]

4. Good. Let them be sued.

Let the lawsuits be long and costly and messy. Let them be loud and juicy enough that even the whore media has to report on them. Let them draw attention to what really happened on 9/11 and why. Even if the lawsuits are inconclusive, or they do not turn out in Democrats' favor, let the country see the truth.

[eccles12]

54. That's it folks! THE COUP IS COMPLETE! nt

[Copperred]

68. I THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA

SUE ABC...and eveutally get the NETWORK shut down....for gross facism.

[wordpix2]

132. call Disney CEO to protest: Here's his number

Bob Iger, Disney CEO
[phone]

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. You're A Bit Naive....

Haven't you forgotten something? The MORON Factor perhaps?

There's plenty of MORONS in this country that WILL BELIEVE this BS. You can take that to the bank.

If you underestimate the STUPIDITY of the average American IDIOT, then I've got a bridge to sell ya. Perhaps you and I can see through it, but I guarantee you the point will be made to those susceptible to influence and of course, the MORONS.

[LynneSin]

9. Joe Conason did a piece for Salon that described theses people

It's a movie for people who don't read books.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

55. I never said that's the make-up of who is watching it

I'm just saying that's who the movie was geared towards. So Soonabend - stop making assumptions. Joe Conason was dead straight on with that comment.

And I'd rather just watch what CBS is showing because it's not fiction but facts. A documentary filmed in NYC on the day of the attacks by a french film-makers who happened to be there and interviewed people while it was happening. I'd rather see that reality than having it dramatized for me.

I've put ABC and it's affliate stations on block. I wouldn't give them the satisifaction of watching their made-up dramatazation

[Sonnabend]

63. I've seen that special-brilliant

and heartrending. I come from a family of cops and have served as an emergency services officer..so I know the risks the first responders faced.

And I disagree with Joe Conason.

[Evergreen Emerald]

78. The neo-cons are so powerful...

The proganda piece is running world-wide, without the "edits." It is being sent to the children through IPOD and Scholastic. They want to re-write history to cover-up their complete ineptness when it comes to leading our country. They are good at campaigning and lying and fascism.

ABC's neo-cons had no intention of dropping the show. Had they any intention of being historically accurate, they would have asked Clinton and Berger and Albright to assist in the making--rather than a right-wing fanatic.

The neo-cons are ratcheting up the rhetoric. They are using the language of fascism and references to Nazi is to minimize the effect of comparisons between their tactics and Nazi tactics (which are scary and accurate.)

The "coup" has been complete for awhile now. They are just flexing their muscles more.

It will take more than letter writing to stop this shift from democracy.

[BootinUp]

81. I think you summarized why I am going insane.

good post.

[Evergreen Emerald]

73. and what is your purpose in viewing the film?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evergreen Emerald]

88. hehehe

my thoughts exactly.

[regnaD kciN]

18. True, unfortunately...

Like it or not, most people get their "history" from movies and TV, not books. Because it's experiential (you feel like you were really there, not just reading about it) it can have a potency that's hard to shake. With books, you can come up with a logical, point-by-point rebuttal, but with on-screen portrayals, any such rebuttal will come up against the sense that the viewer had been transported to that event (no matter how fraudulently it's presented), and so a rebuttal isn't just running up against the claims of the movie or mini-series, but against what the viewer him-or-herself saw and heard. A critic will have to, in essence, convince the viewer that what he or she directly experienced, and thus in which he or she is emotionally invested, was wrong. That's a lot harder than convincing them that something they read in a book is wrong.

[BootinUp]

38. Books can offer similar experiences, it just takes more

effort and time to get into them and read them. In todays world, adults look for quick fixes for news and information and entertainment.

[marshall]

41. Sometimes movies, like books, need to be banned

I'm on a committee gearing up for Banned Book Week later this month, sponsored by ALA. It's interesting how a turn of events can give one a different perspective. Sometimes material like books or movies that promote wrong ideas have to be banned by proper thinking people. We can't let people be duped.

[BootinUp]

44. I don't favor censorship. Let me explain the difference to you.

1. censorship = banned movies, books etc.

2. license to control airwaves for responsible corporations

I do not favor banning this movie, I do object to how ABC is labeling it as based on 9/11 Commission Report and showing it in a charged up political atmosphere on commercial free broadcast television 2 months before an election.

[Brian Stevens]

62. 100% right on the money, Jim4Wes

:yourock:

[newspeak]

97. I don't favor censorship, either

but, they can do what they did on Fahrenheit 9/11-they wouldn't show the documentary before an election, so it was sold on DVD. They can sell this on DVD, instead of making it accessible to the masses before an election. ABC are nothing but neo-con apologists, hypocrites!!!! At least Fahrenheit 9/11 was based on actual filming, real people and new clippings, unlike this fabricated piece of shite!!!!

[Brian Stevens]

148. But this is a docu-drama

And remember, docu dramas and bio pics are never 100% accurate as F9/11.

[Brian Stevens]

64. I have a few books for the bon fire nt

[michreject]

74. You're insane if you're serious.

You advocate censorship. Who made you the supreme judge of material that should be dispensed to the masses?

Your attitude is not progressive it's Totalitarianism.

Please say that you're joking.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

84. the ALA is against banning books, yes?

perhaps you forgot the sarcasm smiley?


“We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.”—ALA Code of Ethics

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.htm

[marshall]

124. I'm not in favor of government censorship

But personal censorship is another matter. Oprah took the author of "A Million Little Pieces" to task for labeling his book a memoir when it was made up fiction, and I'm sure his sales suffered immensely.

[rodeodance]

47. lies /runmors take a second to travel around the world: it takes decades

to make corrections (if ever). this is a parsphasing of a grand saying.

[leftchick]

24. you make a very valid point

a couple of days ago on wolfie's show he did a breakdown of the people who believe Saddam had a hand in Sept. 11. A full 59% of those who believed that BS were not even high school graduates! The higher the education the lower the percentage of believers. It was pretty interesting and I wish I could actually find the poll numbers to post.

So the folks who get their world view from the boxes in their living rooms will most certainly believe this history revision.

:grr:

[BootinUp]

37. If only

we could put on a 5 hour commercial free broadcast with a 40 million or more budget eh? Maybe we could have a chance to counter this motherf'er of a propaganda piece.

[Frank Cannon]

53. The morons that will watch this garbage have already been Borged

ABC is merely preaching to the choir, kind of like we do here.

The rest of us morons will be watching pro football (Manning vs. Manning). I know I will be.

[michreject]

122. I'm with you

And watching Minn. lose on Monday.:P

[JerseygirlCT]

60. Like the huge number of people who still believe

SH had anything to do with 9-11?

Yeah, the moron factor is big. And scary, too.

[newspeak]

99. yes, but the mock-u-rama simply

VALIDATES their illusions. How, then do you counter another intentional fabrication? They just validated the lie that's been spun by the neo-con blowhards.

[JerseygirlCT]

129. That's the very frustrating part.

Repeat the lie often enough, and a critical mass of people buy it.

Then you can claim you'd never said such a thing, and people will continue to buy it.

[RedEarth]

72. That's exactly right.......the 43% of the population that still believes

Saddam was behind 9/11.....those people will eat it up.

[reprobate]

76. The population of MORANS has dwindled. It's now down around 23%.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

40. The critic's reviews are out, and you have predicted correctly.

Smells to high heaven. I think D+ by Entertainment Weekly was the best rating it got.

[Wretched Refuse]

56. The long and winding Path to 9/11

Well, could not we go further back in our time machine and ask:
What the hell did George Bush I do to stop Osama? I mean why not do that? He had the whole middle east in his grubby little hands back in 1991, so why not take Osama out right then either?

Now HERE is a concept for y'all,

It has struck me that this "non-issue" (really if you think about all the treason this admin is doing, this is a non-issue) is REALLY the DLC re-asserting itself as the controller of ALL things Democrat.
I mean it is all a Clinton (+administration) face saving thing that now supposedly ALL good Dems come to the aid of their "fearless leader." Well, it really is sapping our "momentum" on other more important issues, and the corporate controlled DLC KNOWS THAT.

So, I have stayed outside the blogosphere on this one, except for the few phone calls to ABC radio to gnash my teeth on the air, with the likes of Levin (the Zionist) and the new idiot (Jerry) last night taking over Laura Ingram's 8-10 slot in the NY ABC market.

Screw Disney and ABC, they were the next to fall to the nazis after Fox anyway, everyone knew that. I believe that ABC is also stirring the pot to get all good Dems back into the DLC fold, as Hilary was starting to get REALLY antsy at the calls to debate Tasini and with Lamont, and the Screw the DLC push happening as of late, I feel this is the motive for the over-hype of this non-issue.

This all just another Corporate-control of our sense of "what is important."

[agio]

61. no doubt

I think this whole affair is going to demonstrate, more than anything, how little influence the Big Three have left over the American mindset.

[Joe Bacon]

95. I guess George Mitchell has sold out to the GOP

His silence is just disgusting. If he had any shed of decency and integrity remaining, he would resign as Disney President, but he won't.

[Dinger]

126. O.K., Then IT'S ON!!!

Let's roll!

[jab105]

143. Maybe not...but the reason why it is so harmful is that those who watch...

and lets say that its about 15 million or so...

Most of them will believe that what they are seeing is the truth...movie critics who have seen this just assume its the truth...

This is such a dangerous film, I'm shocked and horrified that Disney is going through with this...they would NEVER go through with it if it was the right wing complaining, I guarantee it...its a badge of honor for these assholes to be labeled "even handed" by fucking Republicans...even if it means that they are actually politicizing the most horrible event in America at a time that it COULD and very well WILL have a significant effect on people's perception of the event in history...

This is so dangerous!!

Clinton/Berger need to sue...loudly, I hope DIsney goes down because of it, and I've never had anything against the mouse before this...

[Syrinx]

2. I Just Logged Back In To Say I Thought They Would Yank It

But now I'm not so sure. Post canceled.

EDIT: Isn't Robert Iger, head of ABC, supposed to be a liberal?

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Here are his contributions from Newsmeat -- mostly to Democrats

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=Burbank&st=CA&last=Iger&first=Robert

[zanne]

31. I was watching Bill Maher's show last night.

He reminded us that he was fired from ABC for suggesting that it does take courage to blow yourself up for what you believe in. It wasn't politically correct, so they canned him after getting alot of complaints from Republicans. I think it's obvious that ABC's unwillingness to pull this "mockumentary" in the face of widespread Democratic opposition proves one thing; they're owned and controlled by the right wing.

[rodeodance]

49. well, folks, the fight has only begun. I am disappointed to say the least

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

6. I Knew They Wouldn't Cancel

Fucking Cowards.

You can damn well bet I won't be watching abc this season, and will let them know why.

[maryallen]

71. Yeah, and Sumner Redstone "used to" vote Democratic, but ...

now we have "cutsy, tootsy Katie" on CBS nightly news and "Limpballs" on Thursdays to pontificate.

Lucky us ...

[JI7]

7. fuck them

[Alacrat]

8. I believe A&E has already made those accusations

I watched a show the other night, I'm pretty sure it was on A&E, but it could have been Discovery, or TLC. The show said Bill Clinton had at least 2 chances to take osama out. Clinton declined the first time because he was afraid of civilian casualties, the second time, osama was with a Saudi Prince, and was afraid the prince would be killed, which would put our relationship with the Saudi's in danger. They said Clinton fired a cruise missile to retaliate for the USS Cole, but many believed it was to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal. These accusations have been made before, and I didn't hear anyone denying them. IMO Clinton did the right thing by passing up the chance to get osama on both occasions, IMO he was a threat, but it was still pre 9/11, so at the time we didn't know how bad he was. The cruise missile in retaliation for the Cole also seemed appropriate, maybe he could have done a little more, but I'm not going to second guess him. The CIA and FBI people who were interviewed thought Clinton should have taken the shot, one of them said the Saudi prince knew who he was hanging out with, and if he happened to get killed because of it, he should have known better. Why all the fuss now, and not before, if these things are supposed to be lies?

[ClintonTyree]

12. So let's just let it ride..........

and let them continue to get away with their lies, right? :eyes: Who's side are you on here? You're either for truth or you're for perpetuating lies. Which is it?

[Alacrat]

30. Who said let it ride?

and why are you questioning what side I'm on? My whole point was, all this has been said before, abc isn't the first to say it. I believe Clinton did the right thing, if he decided not to take the shots at osama. Taking the shot, and killing a bunch of civilians, or a Saudi prince, would have been wrong IMO at that time. Now if the whole Clinton not taking the shot is a lie, why haven't people been raising hell about it before now, because this isn't the first time it has been said. The Lewinsky BS is exactly that IMO, I was quoting the A&E, or who ever it was, show. Which again makes my point, why all the fuss about abc, when others have been saying the same thing, and I haven't heard anyone raising hell about it. I want any and all lies corrected, and the truth to be told, whether it's abc or anyone else telling it. Did Clinton pass on a shot or not? If so, and the above isn't correct, what is?

[ClintonTyree]

94. It slipped under the radar......

you caught it but not many others did I suppose. "Why all the fuss now, and not before, if these things are supposed to be lies?" Because we KNOW about this one, it's been well advertised and people know about it ahead of time. Like I said, the others probably just slipped under our radar.
You seem to be supporting the premise that these things are true just because they've been on TV before. Just because you see something on TV doesn't make it true. If they slipped under our radar, OK. This one hasn't, THAT'S why were making such a big deal out of it.
And I'm still not convinced where your allegiances lie because of your rhetoric. So sue me! :shrug:

[WolverineDG]

13. The Lewinsky scandal was waaaay over

by the time of the attack on the US Cole. Clinton didn't respond to that because he didn't want to start a war for the next President to finish, figuring the next President (whoever it would be) wouldn't leave that task undone. Hindsight on that, I'm sure, is 20/20.

dg

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. They also needed to investigate first

before they decided who was behind the attack. Unlike the Bush misadministration who attacks first and then asks questions later.

[Alacrat]

33. It wasn't the Cole, I think it was the embassy bombings

It's late, and early at the same time, I've been up and down with a crying baby all night, I got my events confused.

[anotherdrew]

15. the problem is BUSH pulled the bin laden watch, and bungled anti-terrorism

THAT is the reality of the situation, BUSH CHOSE to remove the sub that was waiting to launch cruise missile, BUSH impeded investigations, BUSH's FBI REFUSED to even ASK for FISA warrants that would have blown open the whole plot. BUSH FAILED so BADLY it LOOKS intentional. but no, we've got to focus on weather or not one or two shots should have been taken, when this bin laden dick was a sitting duck, they could have killed him nearly ANYTIME. There was no need for an early kill, they could have taken him at any time of their choosing. Clinton PUSHED and FORCED them to develop the unmanned ARMED drones just for this. If bin laden HAD to be killed, why didn't bush even try to? At least Clinton had forces standing by to act, bush called them home. But these simple FACTS are apparently too damn much to expect any mindless god damned republican (worthless ignorant fools all) to even be able to understand or know about or realize or admit. fuck them.

The ENTIRE republican base has a bad case of selective memory. stockholm syndrome. and bad hair.

bush fucking DESERVES blame for 9.11 it's HIS and his cronies god damned fault, agents were 1 step away from blowing the ring wide open, but were PREVENTED from doing so by GWbush's hand-picked FBI leadership.

ya know, ya can forget all the 'theory' ... just go from the offical FACTS ... bush was clearly negligent in extreme, to the point that it should cost him dearly.

[regnaD kciN]

19. True, and that's another BIG problem with the mini-series...

While it blames Clinton and the liberals for not having the guts to take out ObL earlier, it also apparently portrays Bush as getting the infamous 8/6 daily briefing, and responding by ramping up the attempt to defeat al-Qaeda instead of ignoring it (as in real life). The essential message is that Bush tried his best to stop 9/11, but it was too late due to Clinton and the liberals letting them off the hook time after time.

:puke:

[Justice]

21. I agree - Absolutely Spot On Point

This second point does not get enough coverage - the focus now is only on the lies about the Clinton administration.

[BootinUp]

32. Apparently the 5 hour ABC movie

has factual errors and quotes assisned to recent (living and non-living) former government officials that are fabricated and highly misleading.

What is it you don't understand about that?

It is propaganda by people who actually have a mission statement to spread propaganda.

[jab105]

146. Never fucking happened...

I think you are making shit up...there was NEVER a time when we had Bin Laden in our sight, CLinton NEVER refused to take him out...

But, my guess is that this is a troll anyways...

[truthisfreedom]

10. destroy them. destroy disney. means NOTHING to me now.

i will never ever spend a penny on that piece of shit company ever again.

and that goes for all of my employees, their families, associates, and friends.

[deacon]

11. Can you say zero credibility? They showed their hand

erase them from your remote, and remeber them at holiday time before you buy a mickey mouse doll...

[diamidue]

79. Amazing that the film was commercial free-

That only leaves Disney to take the brunt of the public's wrath. Stupid, stupid move on Disney's part.

[KitSileya]

121. Which is why people need to call the companies

that advertise on any Disney Channel, and tell them that they will be boycotted due to that fact - in addition to refusing to see any Disney films, ABC tv series, ESPN sports etc. That means not buying POTC: Dead Man's Chest on DVD, not seeing the premiere of Grey's Anatomy later this month, and no Monday night football, of course. But also, it means sitting down and writing an email or a letter to the companies that regularly do business with Disney and telling them how you feel about the Disney company, and why.

I myself live in Norway, so that boycott doesn't work for me (about the only thing I buy that might apply is Wishbone Ranch dressing - Pepsi and Coca Cola is already being boycotted...) but a letter to TV2 about Grey's Anatomy is in the works.

[humbled_opinion]

14. Rovian Stink

Step 1. Controversial mockumentary about how Clinton had opportunities to get Osama Bin Laden.
Step 2. Produce one dead Osama Bin Laden right after the 5th anniversary of 911 making Brush the hero.

Result: Good for at least 15 points in the various midterm election races.

[rman]

16. Fine, just keep digging

that grave of yours.

[regnaD kciN]

17. Is anyone really surprised...?

Two days before a major miniseries begins is way too late to cancel it.

Besides, this way, ABC will be able to cry "artistic freedom," and will get credit from the wingnuts for "bravely standing up to liberal censorship."

:puke:

P.S.: They probably also feel that the controversy will cause more people to tune in, to "see what all the fuss is about."

[Neshanic]

20. Is this a surprise? Now the real Disney shows up.

[Tellurian]

23. Someone had to just hand them a huge hunk of CA$H to go on..

you can bet the farm on that one..
when the Repugs want something, they just keep throwing money at it until it's enough!

[robcon]

22. I'm glad they withstood the onslaught

Free press means that it is free. And ABC is free to say anything it likes, or to show lies, or the truth, unless willfully defamatory.

[ShortnFiery]

25. There's nothing relating to "Free Speech" but "Propaganda"

when you consider the Republican Hack money that is funding this POS of lies and deceptions.

Free Speech has nothing to do with this Republican Propaganda Piece that they will replay and hype all the way to the election. :grr:

[Onlooker]

26. Yet another Democratic ally to the right wing

Wake up, we're in the middle of a political struggle. People are dying because of the way the right wing is manipulating information. No one here is calling for new laws to restrict freedom of the press, but we have every right and obligation to try to rein in the right wing propaganda machine. Your advocacy of ABC's freedom to "show lies" does not serve the interests of anyone but the right wing, who have control over the largest number of airwaves.

[ShortnFiery]

43. I disagree ...

It's beyond time to get as "mad as hell."

Just because the M$M tells us something does NOT make it "the truth."

Boycotts work! And ABC is using Scholastic to teach our kids PROPAGANDA. Yes, and we'll use "Gone With The Wind" to teach the specifics of the Civil War and Reconstruction. The forgoing is the same absurd and inane principle that Scholastic is using by promoting the Republican Sponsored DocuDrama "The Path to 9/11."

No child should be encouraged to watch FICTION that parades itself as HISTORY. Again, it's like using Historical Novels to study History. :thumbsdown:

Yes, let's not lose heart, but continue to protest and boycott en masse. You nay sayers be damned, we will do it and we will overcome. :-) It takes patience, but protests and boycotts both WORK because it hurts the bloated corporations where it counts, CUTTING into their almighty bottom line PROFITS. :hi:

[BootinUp]

28. Yes, but is it a responsible act?

Because if it is not, they may lose their license to control our airwaves.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberalynn]

141. Since I cannot edit my original post any longer.

I will correct my statement here:

It is only MY HUMBLE OPINION: THAT THEY MAYBE Are KNOWINGLY LIBELING AND SLANDERING. It does depend on what they actually end up airing, and for the lawyers and courts to decide not me.

I apologize for stating it as definite and shouting. I've been loosing my temper and ability to think rationally over this far too much, I loose common sense when I get frustated and upset.

[lynne]

57. I agree. I hate censorship and infringements on Free Press & Speech -

- more than I hate this hacked movie. American's are smart enough to weigh what they see on TV against what they lived through and be able to tell the difference.

[Puglover]

93. ONCE AGAIN LYNNE IF YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT!

Libel and slander are NOT protected under the 1st ammendment. Can you possibly wrap your head around that fact???

[lynne]

119. Sorry, I don't see it that way -

- all speech is protected based on the amendment. There is nothing in the amendment about only certain types of speech being protected. In fact, there are no "qualifiers" at all.

If speech is then found to be libelous or slanderous, take the offenders butt to court! Which is what needs to happen here.

BTW - no need to shout.

FIRST AMENDMENT:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Puglover]

120. Okay great.

Go out to your nearest street corner and start shouting it to whoever will listen that the mayor of your town is a pedophile and an extortionist. Hell, take out a full page add in your local paper.

Get back to me on how that goes for you.

[lynne]

130. As long as I don't break any other laws - such as Disturbing the Peace -

- I can stand on the corner and say that about the mayor. The mayor can then take me to court and sue me for slander, libel and defamation of character. Right or wrong about the mayor, my ability to say that is protected. However, I must then deal with the consequences - be it a lawsuit or boycott of my business, shunned by my neighbors or whatever. My speech is free. The consequences are not.

About the only speech I can think of that is prohibited is yelling FIRE in a theater when there isn't a fire - and that's to protect people from injury in a mass exit.

I'd rather them run it and Clinton then sue their butts. That way everyone's rights are intact and Clinton proves himself in court.

[NorthernSpy]

134. freedom of speech is a right, but a broadcast license is a PRIVILEGE...

The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. If the people behind this piece of propaganda wished to distribute copies of their work via retail, or hand them out for free, and the government tried to stop them, then there would be a First Amendment issue.

ABC is attempting to use broadcast licenses to distribute 'The Path to 9/11' via the public-owned broadcast spectrum.

A broadcast license is a privilege, not a right. In return for exclusivity in a portion of the public-owned broadcast spectrum, the licensee agrees to use the airwaves in the public's interest.

The FCC has the authority to take action against broadcasters who violate the various rules that have been established to protect the public interest. Broadcasters accept these rules when they seek licensure. Anyone who disagrees with the terms and conditions of a broadcast license is free to distribute his opinions through public performance, or print or recorded media instead.


Do you understand any of this?

[Liberalynn]

137. Sorry for shouting

Lynne, I agree with you that the wording of the Amendment itself does not say anything about exceptions for lible or slander. We both agree there is no federal or criminal laws on this issue because the Supreme Court weighs heavily in favor of the First Ammendmant as it well should.

BUT: Civil Conquesences IMHO view, however qualify as a limitation and I guess the point I was trying to make is that the First Amendent in a Civil Court will still provide protection but it is "qualified protection."

From my old political science textbook:

"The American Constitution and the Judicial Process"
Wallace Mendelson. The Dorsey Press. 1980

In summary of the courts opinion on NY Times V. Sullivan: "

"To be liable the alleged defamer of public officials or of
public figures must know or have reason to know his publication
is false."

The burden of proof would then be on any potential complaintant.

So I guess we don't disagree in principal just what qualifies as a "Limitation."

[FlaGranny]

150. Lynn,

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense - speech is free, consequences are not? It's the consequences of libel that prevent the libelous speech from being free speech. In order words, if you have to pay for it - it is not free.

[Liberalynn]

139. I'm adding a seperate post for a seperate thought

I also have a right to request of ABC that they not air something that I find offensive, and from what has been nationally reported to be in this piece, I believe I will find it offensive on many levels, and surprise, surprise not just as a Democrat.

Because I really do believe what I said in my letters to ABC/Disney. IMHO I think it is sad and shameful to be using what should be a national day of mourning for those lost to air what is reported to be a highly divisive and finger pointing piece. They should be using that time to honor those lost, IMHO.

Its my right to have that and any other opinion and to voice it to them.

They can and have ignored me, but I don't feel bad about asking them to pull it.

[reprobate]

86. Sorry, robcon, but you don't seem to know the law.

It is absolutely illegal to broadcast anything that can be termed propaganda. If it is apparently intended to effect political leanings it must be labeled as such, plus who paid for it. Just as you could not now broadcast a show like the original Orson Wells Mercury Theater "War of the Worlds" or shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

As to Libelous and defamatory, the network has been told by the principals it portrays that those portrayals are false. They are therefore laying themselves open for libel and defamation.

On a wider frame, I'm wondering if it would be possible to form a class action suit against the network if it broadcasts patently false political 'facts'. I believe that it could be maintained that their act is intended to have the effect of influencing a political outcome thru the use of falsehoods. That might be shown to harm the American citizens by illegal propaganda. If so, that could be actionable.

Personally, I think it would be fair for the class to approve a settlement of ten dollars per citizen. That would translate to three billion dollars. Perhaps not enough to bankrupt the network, but definitely enough to REALLY piss off it's stockholders, maybe even to a complete change of management.

[robcon]

135. I don't think you know the first thing about the law, reprobate

"It is absolutely illegal to broadcast anything that can be termed propaganda.

That is absolute nonsense. You mean I can't publish a tract arguing that the Republicans are demons? That AAR can't broadcast that Bush is a liar, a thief, a rapist or a warmonger?

You haven't the slightest notion what the law is. And sadly, you probably are a college graduate, and you don't know the first amendment, and your the alleged "prohibition" of propaganda is certainly unique... uniquely foolish. It's heartbreaking to read such tripe on DU.

The long-standing judicial prohibition against shouting "fire" in a theater has nothing to do with the free speech rights of TV, radio, magazines, newspapers and books. The prohibition on shouting "fire" is cited as the kind of speech that is illegal... posing an immediate, obvious danger to the public.

[NorthernSpy]

136. legally, broadcasting and publishing are very different things

Whereas anyone can publish his views, broadcasting requires licensure. Those who seek exclusive use of a portion of the public-owned broadcast spectrum must agree to follow a number of rules intended to protect and promote the interests of the public (since we are actual owners of the airwaves).

So yes, there are indeed numerous restrictions on how license holders can use our airwaves, and on what sort of material can be broadcast under license. Your failure to understand the distinction between broadcasting and publishing underlies your mistaken assumption that ABC's partisan propaganda venture must be tolerated under the free-press principle.

[reprobate]

138. As I recall we have tangled ideas before. You prefer ad hominim attacks

and I simply won't play your game. Go play with the rest of the children.

The grown ups are busy.

[robcon]

147. Excuse me, hypocrite.

You wrote, reprobate: "Sorry, robcon, but you don't seem to know the law."

And you claim I am the one who engage in ad hominem attacks

Aside from your ignorance, your hypocrisy is showing.

[ChipsAhoy]

151. There goes the name-calling.

Must it always come down to name-calling? How tiresome.

[NorthernSpy]

152. pointing out that you don't seem to know the law is not an ad hominem...

... it's just an inescapable conclusion that one forms after reading your posts on this subject. No one is saying that your arguments are invalid because of your character, or the circumstances of your personal life.



Oh, and do you understand now the difference between broadcasting and publishing?

[reprobate]

154. Bye bye to the new and sole occupant of 'ignore'.

[SOS]

153. Over-the air-broadcast

and publishing are two very different things. You can publish a tract aruing that Republicans are demons.
ABC cannot air a program arguing that Republicans are demons.
These provisions are different for airwave and cable and do not apply to any type of publishing.

FYI:

Originally contained in United States public utility law, the "public interest, convenience and necessity" provision was incorporated into the Radio Act of 1927 to become the operational standard for broadcast licensees. This Act contained a regulatory framework which ensured broadcasters operated within their assigned frequencies, and at the appropriate time periods. It not only specified technical, but programming and licensing requirements as well. The Communications Act of 1934 expanded upon the Radio Act of 1927 to include the telephone and telegraph industries, and has been amended to accommodate subsequent telecommunications technologies, such as television and cable.
The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting--the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government body responsible for determining whether or not applicants for broadcast license meet the requirements to obtain them and for further regulation of those to whom licenses have been granted.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicintere/publicintere.htm

[leesa]

91. It's willfully defamatory because as Clinton and the others have pointed

out to them personally, they did not say these things and the events did not happen.

[NorthernSpy]

117. it's OUR broadcast spectrum they're using to spread false history

Freedom of the press belongs to whoever actually owns the press. If you own a printing press, you can print more or less what you wish (even then, there are exceptions).

But ABC doesn't own the airwaves; we do. They are trying to use OUR BROADCAST SPECTRM to promote false history and spread partisan propaganda. Just weeks before a critical election, no less.

ABC is allowed to use our airwaves only in a manner consistent with the public interest. That is a condition for holding a broadcast license. It's up to you, "robcon", to explain how the spread of falsified history is actually in the interest of the American public.

[Hosnon]

149. Speech is only "free" regarding government interference. If we don't like

what they are "speaking" there is no Constitutional problem with pressuring them to stop.

ABC is indeed free to say anything it likes...however, the market is free to punish it for what it says.

[BootinUp]

27. I hope Democrats will join a boycott

of ABC/Disney. Its so important for us to fight this even after it is shown we should not forget.

[Dem2theMax]

34. Don't give up. Never. Keep fighting. nt.

[blue cat]

35. They declared war on us

a long time ago. We cannot ever stop fighting. They are misinforming our public, and had an elaborate plan to take it to the school rooms. They think all this controversy will help them per some rw douche on CNN last pm.

[Dem2theMax]

36. That's exactly right. It's more than time we organize a LOT better

and put a LOT more action behind our words. :mad:

[MasonJar]

42. If ABC airs this, it will be damaging to the Dems. in Nov. ABC &

Disney must face a world-wide boycott. They MUST be brought down. Otherwise this atrocity will only be the beginning. This cannot be allowed to stand. DU can be the driving force behind the boycott. I will never again buy anything connected to Disney or watch any program on ABC. We need to find their sponsors and boycott them also. This IS the FUTURE of American democracy.

[ShortnFiery]

45. I'm with you! ... see you (and many others) in the Activist Forum. eom

[Triana]

46. SUE THEM (n/t)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. Withholding Judgement

Let us slander you first, and then you can complain.

Let us put a bullet in your head, and then you can get upsent.

I smell a restraining order coming.

[Felinity]

52. Is it too late?

I am surprised noone has filed for a restraining order. You would think Bill Clinton still had a few contacts in the courts, and some credibility.

Can you get a restraining order on a Saturday from a federal judge and be able to serve the damn thing to who? where? I suspect the appropriate company officials are all on there yachts in international waters for the weekend.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

114. I think it's possible...

Networks have legal and standards offices that are pretty much available 24/7. I would think that Madeline Albright would have grounds to file a restraining order -- from what I understand, the film makes her out to be Osama Bin Laden's patron saint and protector.

[NJmaverick]

51. BOYCOTT!!!

Boycott Disney, ABC and any company that sponsors the lie.

Become a Nielson family and make sure ABC's ratings tank!

We need to stop this rogue corperate propaganda wing of the repukes!

[RangerSmith]

125. Can I wait till

after Texas plays Ohio State tonight? ;-)

[lpbk2713]

58. Absolve .... Bush .... Completely

The trend continues.


The BushCo conspirators figure finger pointing worked for them in the aftermath of Katrina so why not try it again. Just make anyone but their side look like the guilty party.

[BootinUp]

80. "Absolve"

I associate that word with religious ceremonies, very appropriate for Bush and his faith based policies.

[City Lights]

59. Buh-bye disneyabc.

Been nice knowing ya.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Don't forget

SCHOLASTIC who is, in essence, (through Study Guides) legitimizing this Republican Sponsored Propaganda docuDRAMA as The HISTORICAL TRUTH. :(

[BootinUp]

66. No, they have distanced themselves

now.

Here's a pretty good account of things as of last night.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609090003

[countingbluecars]

69. Not far enough away for me! eom

[City Lights]

96. They're pissing me off too.

They're very, very sneaky. One minute I read that they've pulled their info and the next I hear the pull was only temporary. :shrug: What's the latest?

My eldest is a freshman and she hasn't said a word about having to watch that POS for an assignment, so I'm glad for that anyway.

[mvd]

67. Well, I see ABC is carrying on Disney's legacy

Walt Disney was not a progressive person at all. Showing this film is as un-American as it gets. People only get one side of the story here - a story that is full of lies and propaganda. The Repukes continue to drive a wedge between this country's people, and ABC goes along with it. :grr: I'm sure that on 9/11, people will notice that this is here - and it's far out enough from 2001 that people will watch.

ABC says wait until it airs to pass judgment. Well, if there are only minor edits, I don't think the Clinton scenes in question will go away completely. That's a major part of this propaganda. I will not watch it, but if I hear they didn't cut out the Clinton blame, I will do a Disney boycott.

[TripleD]

70. How are they going to edit all the DVD's...

...that they already sent out to the school teachers?

[countingbluecars]

75. I wonder if the movie will include

a scene of Bush receiving the PDB, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"?

[Vinca]

77. Or the "My Pet Goat" 7 minutes. nt

[ShortnFiery]

82. This DVD should only be used for Drama Classes. eom

[lpbk2713]

83. ABC should air it on weekday afternoons.

Along with all the other soap operas.

[Zorra]

85. It is past time for a mass week long general strike and boycott

by everyone that really cares about people, our country, and our planet.

It is time to take an effective stand against fascism.

Want to stop a fascist in her/his tracks?

Hit 'em in their wallet.

[MasonJar]

89. This calls for a permanent boycott, not a week. I am sure that no

one wanted to advertise on this program...too dangerous to their health. DUers, Disney must go down or this will be only the tip of the fabled iceberg.

[leesa]

90. Of course they will. Bush's magnificent speech is built into the

production.

[Barrett808]

92. Couldn't ABC/Disney just screen the film for "left-wing" bloggers?

Then the "withhold judgment" angle wouldn't apply.

[reprobate]

98. My LTE to Orlando Slantinel. Use all or parts if you want or write your

own. But write! Express your outrage. Spread the word:

"I opened this morning's paper in the hope of reading the latest news about the coming ABC network "mock-u-drama" titled "The Path to 9/11". I then counted all the page space allotted to it, and true to my guess, how much did I find?

Well, column inches totaled - NONE. Paragraphs? Not one. Sentences? Zip.

In fact, not a single WORD!

When you look at the facts involved behind this network piece you discover some strange goings on. It was written by a group of far right author who have in the past penned columns defending the administration from any wrongdoing, malfeasance, misfeasance, or even incompetence in anything it has done, ever. It's promotion was a project of a group from the religious far right to influence their fundamentalist agenda. Certainly all this qualifies it as eminently fair and balanced.

ABC has been told by the principle characters it portrays that they did not do what they are portrayed as doing, meaning the network lays itself open for libel and defamation. It was stated by one of the top security officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations that "not only did they get all the BIG stuff wrong, they also got all the small stuff wrong."

The Path to 9/11" is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election. But you have to wonder why they are doing this. Is Robert Iger channeling Joseph Goebbels? It's probably more likely that the network has been promised some quid pro quo, like being able to own more stations in more markets.

It has been said by some that this country has a 'liberal media'. This ABC piece and your lack of news ore even editorial coverage of it puts the torch to that idea. We don't have a liberal media. In fact we don't even have a news media. We have 'infotainment'.

As for ABC-Disney, if this piece airs I can promise that the corporation will never get another penny from me, my family, or any of my friends whom I've discussed this with."

[trof]

100. Reuters: ABC tinkers with 9/11 drama

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Under pressure from former President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party, ABC scrambled on Friday to make 11th-hour changes to a miniseries suggesting he was inattentive to the Islamic militant threat that led to the September 11 attacks.

ABC declined to say how the movie was being reshaped or whether any changes would address specific complaints lodged by Clinton, his former aides and congressional Democrats that the film contained numerous inaccuracies and distortions.

The Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety, citing sources close to the project, reported the network was considering canceling the miniseries altogether.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-09T121841Z_01_N08449906_RTRUKOC_0_US-SEPT11-ABC.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2

This may come under the heading of "OK, what color lipstick do we put on this pig?"

[ShortnFiery]

101. tinkers!?!

Horse's patooties - one and all of the Republican Hacks that donated and promoted this TRASH video parading as TRUTH. :puke:

[blue cat]

102. I hope to God

that Clinton sues the hell out of those people. We have to gear up and never back down against these bastards that are trying to misinform the world about the tragedy of 911.

[Wretched Refuse]

103. The long and winding Path to 9/11

Well, could not we go further back in our time machine and ask:
What the hell did George Bush I do to stop Osama? I mean why not do that? He had the whole middle east in his grubby little hands back in 1991, so why not take Osama out right then either?

Now HERE is a concept for y'all,

It has struck me that this "non-issue" (really if you think about all the treason this admin is doing, this is a non-issue) is REALLY the DLC re-asserting itself as the controller of ALL things Democrat.
I mean it is all a Clinton (+administration) face saving thing that now supposedly ALL good Dems come to the aid of their "fearless leader." Well, it really is sapping our "momentum" on other more important issues, and the corporate controlled DLC KNOWS THAT.

So, I have stayed outside the blogosphere on this one, except for the few phone calls to ABC radio to gnash my teeth on the air, with the likes of Levin (the Zionist) and the new idiot (Jerry) last night taking over Laura Ingram's 8-10 slot in the NY ABC market.

Screw Disney and ABC, they were the next to fall to the nazis after Fox anyway, everyone knew that. I believe that ABC is also stirring the pot to get all good Dems back into the DLC fold, as Hilary was starting to get REALLY antsy at the calls to debate Tasini and with Lamont, and the Screw the DLC push happening as of late, I feel this is the motive for the over-hype of this non-issue.

This all just another Corporate-control of our sense of "what is important."

[dweller]

104. they forgot the S .

in stinkers

dp

[BootinUp]

107. lol. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

105. How can it be determined whose idea this project was in the FIRST place?

It would be worth a king's ransom to know exactly WHO set this thing in motion, and who the others were who helped ram it through.

[BootinUp]

109. No mystery there, a DU'er has already done it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2080965

[Judi Lynn]

110. WONDERFUL! So thankful to see this. It's even uglier than I expected!

Have not finished reading the link: had to get back here in a rush to thank you for posting it.

It would be so appropriate to see these people brought into televised interviews, to answer reality-based questions.

You have done all of us who missed this link the first time an ENORMOUS favor.

[ShockediSay]

106. Kean: "did not pretend to be a documentary" neglects soundbite mentality

In the recent NYTimes article:

"ABC Said to Re-Edit Key Parts of 9/11 Show"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08film.html

9/11 Commission Co-Chairman Kean was quoted as saying: "he stood by the film because ... the film did not pretend to be a documentary."

HAS HE NO APPRECIATION OF THE SOUNDBITE MENTALITY OF THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTING PUBLIC? All the disclaimers at the beginning of a bit on TV is long forgotten by the time they get to the distortions.

One of the ways they used to suck us into this stupid war in Iraq was the bit/bite with the mushroom cloud, and just the murky hint of the suggested link b/n Saddam and Osama (an outrageous falsehood)!

If it's out there, the vast majority of Americans believe it. That's why the license to broadcast is truly a trusteeship.

[0007]

118. Letter to Thomas Kean from Sibel Edmonds

Dear Chairman Kean:

It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11 <2001>, during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate "facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and to "provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism", and has now issued its "9-11 Commission Report". You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives. Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice inspector general investigation, and a witness for your own 9-11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues:

Read rest of the letter here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH05Aa01.html

On April 4, 2004, Kean stated that the September 11 attacks could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle al-Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, which was seen as a political criticism of the Clinton administration's perceived failure to act with sufficient aggression against al-Qaeda.

On July 22, 2004, the Commission issued its final report, which concluded that the CIA and the FBI had ill-served President Bush and the American people in failing to predict or prevent the September 11 attacks, which the report concluded was preventable.

[brentspeak]

108. This sham "docu-drama" is a September "October surprise"

Reading comments from RW idiots on other sites, they're absolutely delighted that a gigantic lie like "The Path To 9/11" is being foisted upon the public. But it's not the morans who actually believe the "Clinton had Osama cornered, but chose not to capture him" fairy tale that gets me mad; it's the slimeballs who know it to be a fairy tale, but still want it aired. Those people are lower than dog poop encrusted on an old sneaker.

[AX10]

111. Unless ABC pulls this POS, I will BOYCOTT DISNEY/ABC properties!

[annabanana]

112. If Cunningham doesn't resign in a howling hissy fit. . . .

they did not "tinker" enough.

This is very easy to figure out. If they "tinker" enough to bring it into line factually, all of the funding will fall through. ABC will be left holding an empty moneysack.

[WePurrsevere]

113. Tinkers? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's rear. ...

If they insist on showing this BS we must fight the spin with facts and lies with truth via word of mouth, the internet, DU's Google "bomb", etc.

[stepnw1f]

115. SUE ABC and DISNEY! Enough is Enough! (nt)

[NotGivingUp]

116. i guess they accomplished what they set out to do...make

a propaganda film that will sell people on the republican party AND drumming up an ABSOLUTE TON of free publicity that will get even more people to watch it.

[IndianaGreen]

123. Path to 9-11 is not a free speech issue, but one of false advertising!

The film is being advertised by ABC as being faithful to the 9-11 Commission Report, but there is compelling evidence that it is anything but that.

ABC can show the film all they want, but they cannot tell the viewing public that the film is a true depiction of events. The film is nothing more than a fictionalized version from a conservative scriptwriter with an agenda and an evangelical director that belongs to a religious group that is trying to "infiltrate" Hollywood with their biases.

[truthisfreedom]

127. i will NEVER tune into ABC and will NEVER spend money on Disney crap again

not ever.

[wordpix2]

133. Let Disney CEO know your mind: Bob Iger, [phone]

[rocketdem]

128. Who else is sponsoring this?

Besides Disney, do we know who has commercial time during this fiasco? The proposed boycott ought to be expanded to any company that supports this crap through the purchase of commerical air time.

[diamidue]

131. Film is narrated by actor Robert De Niro??

Is that correct?

[LiberalHeart]

140. I thought he was narrating the documentary on CBS

On edit:

Just checked. It is the CBS Show....

"Actor Robert De Niro hosts the award-winning documentary, which began as a quest to follow a rookie firefighter on an ordinary day but resulted in the only known video of the first plane striking the World Trade Center and horrific and inspiring scenes of rescue, escape and death. CBS will show it on Sept. 10 from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT, profanity intact."

[Liberalynn]

142. Thank heaven!

He's involved with the CBS piece and to the ABC one. I think I will watch CBS as they are doing what's right. Honoring the heroes and the victims. Good for them.

[LiberalHeart]

144. I saw the CBS one when it first ran. It's EXCELLENT.

ABC should watch and learn.

[Liberalynn]

145. Thanks

I will definitely watch CBS, and I hope a lot of our fellow country people do to. I hope this whole controversy is good for us notion backfires on ABC and peole tune them out instead.

Maybe I am hoping against hope, but I really want that to happen.

I know Andrea, a reporter on the Daily Buzz, said politics aside that she wasn't going to watch the ABC Path to 911, simply because she didn't want to devote five hours to it. Hopefully others will tune out for that reason too.

The guy filling in for one of their other regular hosts, Clayton, suggested downloading and reading the 911 Comission's report instead of watching.

Clayton is unabashadly liberal so that is why I watch the Daily Buzz. LOL.

So GO CBS and thanks for being a responsible network in this instance, and airing a real story from 911.