Disney Will Pull This Film by Close of Business Friday

[Yavin4]

Bet on it. This is naked pure right wing propaganda, and they cannot take a chance with pissing off Democratic office holders and former President Clinton, whose wife may be president in two years. From a pure business point of view, they should dump this program and do it now.

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. I agree. I'd wager money on it. nt

[AX10]

2. You think the corporate media really cares about the Democrats?

They don't. But once we get back into office and bust up their monopolies, they will care.
But they might have to consider what is going to most likely happen this November. If they are on the bad side of the Democrats, they will get their asses handed to them. That might just be enough to get them to pull this "mockumentary".

[NanceGreggs]

13. No, they don't care about Democrats ...

... but their corporate owners care about boycotts of their products, and the possible impact on audience share -- which means their commercial air-time may not sell for other ABC programming.

It's all about MONEY (natch), and neither ABC, Disney, nor their related companies want to see a penny of that money lost due to bad publicity and/or a pissed-off audience share.

[Yavin4]

23. Aint About Democrats, It's About Fear of Payback

Disney has multiple business interests before ALL levels of governemt, theme parks, labor, movies, films, international business, network affiliates, cable interests, future mergers, etc. Pissing off half of Congress and the former President just is not good for business. Somewhere, someday down the line, their business interests will suffer.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. Obviously they don't care about Democrats, if they did, they would

have exposed bu$hco from day one. That said, maybe they will see the light. :shrug:

[liberaldemocrat7]

55. No but they care about not losing our money and viewership.

They will shake in their offices when 50,000 people email them like Bernie Ward said.

ABC and Disney do not want their advertisers to lose our money. No CEO wants half of his customer base to disappear.

No broadcaster wants his audience to drop down to the level of viewership of Fox News LOL.

And if ABC does broadcast this they will see the air sucked out of the bell jar.

[texpatriot2004]

3. I also believe that they will pull it nm

[AtomicKitten]

4. I am in on that bet.

My nasty messages and correspondence alone would give one pause. :)

[walldude]

5. I also agree.. The big guns have come out, politicans and lawyers

and they ain't fucking around.

[NanceGreggs]

17. Agreed.

If this thing airs, and Clinton et al sue (which I think they will), let's not forget WHAT will come out in open court.

WHO funded this.

WHY did ABC/Disney agree to allegedly invest $30 to 40 million in a project they planned to run commercial-free, i.e. no chance of recouping their investment (which they are duty-bound to do because they are public companies with shareholders)

WHY were certain scenes 'fabricated', when the writers had access to public records, and the public figures portrayed?

The list goes on and on. This is NOT a can of worms anyone wants opened in a court of law.

[sam sarrha]

6. what would the chance of Pres Clinton suing them for defimation..??!!

[NanceGreggs]

21. I think he will.

I've worked in the legal biz for twenty-five years, and the letter his lawyers sent today (posted on Greatest Page right now) uses your classic "we mean fuckin' business" language.

His lawyers are smart. They could have filed for an injunction to stop the airing until matter is settled in court. ABC has issued press releases as late as this afternoon, saying they are 'still editing'. That means they could show up in court with a strategically edited copy and say, "This is what we planned to air, but we were stopped from doing so."

Once the show actally DOES air, there's no going back. It's all there for a judge (or jury) to see and evaluate.

Big Bill has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by going through legal channels. And let's not forget that after the impeachment proceedings they instigated, he has a VERY BIG AXE to grind with these people.

Revenge, as they say, is a dish best served cold.

[mp3hound]

33. That would be cool but

if Bill's lawyers were "really" serious, why not file for an injunction already? The thing is set to air on Sunday, after all.

(Or maybe I'm late to the table and they have filed injunction proceedings by now? It's hard to tell with 300 threads on the same topic going on at the same time :) )

[NanceGreggs]

42. Re-read my post - I think you missed it ...

Were they to file for an injunction NOW, they would be asking the court to evaluate the merits of something that, according to ABC, is still not a 'finished product'. In other words, you're asking the court to make a determination based on something that may or may not actually be televised.

Once the project IS publicly aired, the court's determination can be based on fact, not supposition.

[mp3hound]

49. I don't think I missed anything.

I know the difference between various types of injunctions and the rationale for them. I'm not so sure you do but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can explain to me why it makes any sense not to preempt the film in favor of letting it air for an after the fact injunction (against what exactly - since it will spread far and wide on the internet and beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction in any event after it's been aired?)

It seems to me that the only effective injunction to be had in the circumstances of this piece of tripe is one that precludes it from being aired. An injunction after the fact will be pretty meaningless.

I'm guessing that you are not a lawyer, and that your "25 years in the legal biz" have been spent in some peripheral capacity and that you don't have a law degree. No disrepect intended whatsoever, but your legal "analysis" here just doesn't convince me that you have any particular expertise in law, as much as I love your rants, which I've been reading and enjoying for almost 2 years. Sorry.

[NanceGreggs]

54. The producers of the show covered their asses ...

... by issuing a press release today that they were 'still editing' the program, and had not yet come up with the 'finished product' that will be aired this weekend.

If injunctive relief was sought today or tomorrow, ABC could come into court and say, "We have not yet determined what scenes will be edited, deleted, changed, etc. In other words, the Plaintiff is asking the court to determine that we have publicly presented something that skews the facts in a way detrimental to the Plaintiff BEFORE we have done so, and with no way of knowing that we WOULD HAVE done so."

It would be like asking a judge to rule that you MIGHT do something, as opposed to actually having done it. It gives the defendants (ABC, producers, writers, etc.) a legal 'out' by declaring that they were still 'fact checking' and NEVER had any intention of airing the 'objectionable' material if it couldn't be independently corroborated before airtime.

In this situation, there are also the political and PR aspects to consider. Clinton files for injunction to have the airing stopped in its tracks -- and the Repubs have a field day with the publicity: "If he has NOTHING TO HIDE, why would he stop this from going forward?" After all is said and done, they air an extremely cleaned-up version of the program and the viewers wonder WHY Bill Clinton was SO UPSET by something so innocuous.

Again, they covered themselves by publicly announcing today that this was still a 'work in progress'. That means asking the court to rule on the basis of what might have happened, as opposed to what actually DID happen.

I know our democracy is tenuous these days, but we still haven't gotten to the 'Minority Report' form of justice. It is virtually impossible to prove that you WOULD have aired something that slandered me before it hit TV screens -- especially if you, your editors and your publishers all swore to the fact that last-minute changes were still being made that would make my accusations sound like paranoid conjecture.

But as I have said, if this airs and it is a done deal, the onus is on THEM to disprove malicious intent, ignorance of the facts (which are a matter of public record), etc.

If you threaten to slander my good name, that's one thing. If you have already published something that can be determined to have slandered me, that's a whole 'nother ballgame.



Edited to add: Sorry, I missed something you said: "An injunction after the fact will be pretty meaningless."

There can be no 'injunction after the fact'. An injunction motion is brought to secure a court ruling that something cannot proceed until its legal right to proceed is duly settled by the court. As powerful as any court may deem itself to be, there is still no way to unring a bell.

[marions ghost]

62. since they've already done

preliminary screenings and the intent is to air it, the intent to distort and slander is there. Isn't the idea for the plaintiff to check a clear threat by injunction?

The media has made a big deal of this so I think the public would know it has been 'cleaned up' and they would be even more interested in what was chopped and why. Clinton has a lot of support in this...they can't contain it to him.

[NanceGreggs]

76. They've done preliminary screenings, yes

But they still haven't aired -- and they are saying (true or not) that it is still a work-in-progress, hasn't been fully edited yet, etc.

If this were a slanderous book, already at the printers, bound and ready-to-ship, the intent is obvious. But in this case, they can still tell a court: "We are still making changes to the final cut, and there is no proof that what we WILL finally air is slanderous to anyone."

But once this thing hits the airwaves, there is no turning back. An injunction would be useless after-the-fact, because millions of people have already seen it; the damage is done.

Wouldn't want to be sued afterwards, if I was one of them. Imagine trying to explain why you chose to 'fabricate' certain scenes, putting Clinton and others in a bad light, when you had access to the TRUE facts all along via public records, access to the people who were actually there, etc. Imagine trying to explain why you sent pre-releases out to some people (rightwingers) and not others (the very people about to get slammed).

I sincerely hope Clinton goes after them. They'll have a lot of 'splaining to do, and ABC, Disney, et al have very deep pockets. If a court decides that Clinton's reputation has indeed been damaged, he could direct the lot of them to fork over MILLIONS.

[mp3hound]

82. No disrespect intended but

your legal analysis is badly flawed.

I notice that despite your lengthy post purporting to respond to mine, you avoided the parts that explicitly questioned whether or not you actually have a law degree or any legal training. I'm guessing that's because you do not, as that appears to be borne out by your response.

You are quite wrong in saying "there can be no injunction after the fact" and quite wrong in saying that "an injunction motion is brought to secure... blah blah blah" - please, do not pretend to tell others what the state of the law is when it is apparent that you are not qualified to do so. If you were, you'd know that there are both pre-emptive type injunctions (which seek to prevent someone from doing something before they do it), and post-action type injunctions (which seek to stop someone from continuing to do something that they have already embarked upon).

Please. Don't pretend expertise that you do not possess. I like your journal as I've said previously, but faking knowledge that you do not have is not a good idea.

[NanceGreggs]

83. You are right ...

... of course there can be an injunction after the fact; I was talking about this situation in particular, not in general -- I should have made myself clear. If you sell a product that I think infringes my patent, I could ask a court to stop you from selling it -- until the matter gets a full hearing and a court determines whether you are infringing or not.

But in this situation, my point was twofold: As late as yesterday, ABC was claiming they were still editing, therefore this was a 'work in progress'. The Plaintiffs would have been asking the court to rule on something that may or may not be the final product. ABC had given themselves an out by stating that the final product had still not been determined.

Secondly, as you pointed out, an after-the-fact injunction would, in this case, be useless - millions of viewers would have already seen the film, would have taped it, distributed it, etc. That's what I meant by not being able to unring a bell. The damage would have already been done, at which point a lawsuit (should one be filed) would be based on the after-the-fact damage to the reputations of those portrayed.

As for my qualifications, no, I am not a lawyer. I am a court reporter, and have been so for almost twenty-two years. I have spent every working day of those 22 years in courtrooms, at trials, in depositions, government inquiries, etc., and have produced thousands of transcripts of such proceedings. Over the course of my career, I have been the court reporter at literally hundreds of injunction motions, and therefore am familiar with the 'burden of proof' a court looks to in granting an injunction -- and in a case like this, where so much is at stake with the attendant time constraints involved, that burden could probably not be met.

Had ABC said, "This is the final, fully edited version we will be airing. It's a done deal, and we are not changing a word of it," a judge could have viewed it for himself and weighed whether, in his assessment, it was probable that the Plaintiffs would indeed be damaged by its airing.

The timing here, IMHO, was no accident on ABC's part. Had these 'pre-release' copies been circulated and come to light weeks ago, a full hearing could have been held, witnesses called, documents produced to show the differences between what is a matter of public record and how it was distorted or simply fabricated in a way that would be damaging to the good names of public figures.

If this airs (which it looks like it will), and still contains the objectionable scenes and dialogue, I hope that Clinton et al WILL sue. It will be interesting to see what ABC offers as a defence for 'making up scenes' that never happened, when they had full access to public records and the recollections of those who were actually there when these events occurred.

And if this does go to trial somewhere down the line, I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to act as court reporter, free of charge! It will be one of the most interesting cases to ever be heard.

[jmowreader]

85. A post-action injunction in this case does no good

This fictional drama is scheduled to air on September 10 and 11. It will probably never be aired again--DVDs might be sold, but the only people who would buy a DVD of a six-hour Clinton slam are kool-aid-drinking conservatives who think that if only Clinton wouldn't have gotten that damn blowjob, we'd have beaten the Nazis at Kasserine Pass.

All of the damage this film can cause, and it can do a lot, will happen on September 10 and 11. An injunction against it granted on September 12 will make the freepers laugh hysterically, but that's about it.

If this film is to be stopped through the court system, the decree has to come down before airtime.

[NanceGreggs]

86. Exactly.

If I were Clinton et al in these circustamces, I wouldn't have filed for a last-minute injunction either. You never know ahead of time how a judge is going to rule, and in this case, PR-wise, it would have been a lose-lose situation either way.

The Plaintiffs win and get the thing pulled off the air, it's spun by the RW as: "Clinton stops public from seeing the truth about his incompetence." And you can already hear the cries of 'activitist judge'!

The Plaintiffs lose, the thing airs, and millions of dumb, ill-informed viewers say, "Well, everything in this film must be the gospel truth, otherwise that judge would never have let them show it on TV."

I'd rather let it air and, if it IS detrimental to my reputation, sue for the damage done to my good name. At that point, the film is no longer a work-in-progress that might or might not be slanderous; it's a done deal and there's no going back.

Now it goes to a full trial, witnesses are called and questioned, and you can just imagine all of the 'questions' the people behind this debacle are not going to want to answer.

There's also the fact that Clinton, Berger, Albright, etc., being public figures of international stature, are not very likely to settle this one out of court. It's not like you're dealing with a bunch of nobodies with limited funds to spend on legal fees, who would grab a quick cash settlement and happily fade into oblivion.

Just happy I'm not on staff at the ABC/Disney legal departments. I'd say they're having a VERY busy weekend, wouldn't you think?

What I'm also interested in knowing is how much they're going to edit in order to fend off a future lawsuit, and whether they're going to be left with anything remotely watchable.

I've seen some of the critiques by those who got those (unedited) pre-release copies, and they're all pretty much agreed that it's a total yawn. As one reviewer said, "How was it possible to use something as dramatic as the events of 9/11 and make it THIS BORING?"

It will be interesting to see how many viewers watch Part I who don't even bother tuning-in for Part II. And THAT would be the perfect outcome - all of this legal mess, threatened boycotts, etc., all for the sake of something that turns out to be a big fat LOSER that no one wants to see after all.

[sam sarrha]

70. thank you for the reply

[populistdriven]

7. I hope the highways to Disney get freeway blogged

I4, Beeline Expressway, Central Florida Greenway, Route 536, Florida Turnpike

[Subdivisions]

8. I think they will too.

[petersjo02]

9. I suspect you are right

That's been my feeling over the last couple days.

[hippiechick]

10. I think the GOP will ask them to, then point the finger ...

.... at "Democratic whiners" for not "allowing" the story to be told ... :eyes:

[LynneSin]

18. If it gets pulled, that's the scenario

Repukes want to come out smelling like Roses. If they can make it seem like it was their idea to pull it then they can come out clean.

[EVDebs]

11. NO ! Let them go down with Bush's sinking ship nt

[BobRossi]

12. ABC = state run propaganda outlet.

It won't happen. In fact they are no doubt inserting harsher lies.

[FightingIrish]

14. Think globally, act locally

The local affiliates are going to feel the heat before the Magic Kingdom does. I sent this to the news director of our local ABC affilaiate whom I consider a friend:

"As you well know, I've been a big fan of KDRV for many years. I have admired your quality local broadcasting and your commitment to our community. Sadly I find myself at odds with any station that will broadcast ABC's blatantly political and terriby flawed "docudrama" on 9-11. I think this is where community service and corporate greed must part ways. I realize that your station owner is a major supporter of the Bush administration, but that is no justification for leaving the truth on the cutting room floor. If KDRV airs "The Path to 9-11", I will finally have to abandon my last hope for commercial broadcast television . I suspect that you are not thrilled to be in the position your network has put you. I have made some unpopular decisions that cost me clients but preserved my integrity. This might be your opportunity to do likewise. I hope you can find this in the midst all the angry email you must be receiveing."

[UTUSN]

15. Bidness hours, working hours, wha-da-CHEENEE-hours?? n/t

[LynneSin]

16. This movie is becoming a cash cow bonzanza

People now know about the movie and will probably watch even if they know about the flaws and disagree with them. And advertisers love those big ratings because it means that perhaps in future ABC mini-series they can command higher prices.

I'm thinking the only way the show won't go is if Clinton files the lawsuit

[Pale Blue Dot]

24. There are NO advertisers. That's the REALLY suspicious part.

ABC is airing a $30 million movie with NO COMMERCIALS.

[LynneSin]

27. Trust me, ABC isn't doing it for free, someone is sponsering it

I remember when Schnidler's List was first aired on network TV. They had one break in the film (it was 3 hours people need to go to the bathroom) and Ford Motors was the sponser of the show. So basically they had their named plastered over everything with showing that movie.

ABC isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts

[Pale Blue Dot]

28. Honest to God, they are doing this for free.

There are NO sponsors for this. You can look it up.

Unless, of course, Richard Mellon Scaife is a sponsor....

[LynneSin]

39. DING DING DING - we have a winner

Someone is sponser this movie, trust me, $40million dollars has to come from somewhere

[mhatrw]

61. A Radical Evangelical Christian Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2073411&mesg_id=2073411

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. No, somebody's paying for it.

There will be lengthy commercials before and after the movie.

There will probably also be plenty of product placement within the movie.

[Irreverend IX]

58. Ford Motors?

Interesting, considering that Henry Ford was a big-time sponsor of the Holocaust itself.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. RNC? nt

[walldude]

26. Nope, no advertisers for this ABC is running commercial free.

Another reason for them to back out, making it commercial free leaves them little room to say they did this for the money...



Can you believe Flav dumped Like Dat over Buck Wild? (that was you with the addiction to FOL2 right?) :evilgrin:

[bliss_eternal]

52. Or they are witholding the name so no one can threaten them...

which is what I think they are doing. They knew going into this they were going to piss people off. So they are prepared for it by telling anyone and everyone that calls, e-mails, etc. there is NO sponsor.

Wouldn't be the first time a corporation has lied to protect their interests. The last time I recall...oh wait, it was Disney when they said they couldn't distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. :eyes: So it's not like they're incapable of lying to the public at large.

[liberaldemocrat7]

56. I tell people to hold Wendy's and Red Lobster accountable.

They give money exclusively to the GOP and the run ads on ABC prime time tv often.

Go boycott them.

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[blue cat]

66. teehee

I'm watching Flavor Flav too.

[chefgirl]

68. With apologies to the OP

Hate to thread-jack, but I had to add, Flavor of Love is comedy gold!!
So when is 'Bootz's' number up? Can't stand her. :puke:

-chef-

[Imagevision]

19. If Disney doesn't pull it they will suffer the consequences...

[BuyingThyme]

20. What if your "business" was involved in perpetrating 9/11, and

good people are about to prove it?

[BootinUp]

22. I give it a probablitity of 6 out of 10.

[ccpup]

25. Not to mention that Disney

is also a publicly held company with shareholders. I know of several people who are ready to dump their Disney/ABC stock if they play the 9/11 docudrama. One wonders if a publicly held company is willing to endure the bad press associated with such a partisan ploy.

[Quixote1818]

29. It will depend on how much BS was in the movie and how much must be cut

It sounds like it may end up being a shell of what it was by the time they cut out all the lies. If it's unrecognizable then you can bet they will just cut their losses and dump it. If it was just a few scenes then they may try to salvage it.

[sendero]

31. I agree with you..

... the fact is, all the misinformation aside, they will be opening themselves up to a serious legal liability at this point. Among the issues of fairness that would be addressed in court proceedings (whether the plaintiff ultimately wins or not) there would also be the issue of who paid for it, how were revenues to be derived from it, and other such questions ABC will not be able to answer without serious embarrassment.

The morons who produced this thing really shot themselves in the ass by screening it to selective audiences, trying to shove it into schools, etc. You have to consider the possibility that these folks are as stupid as the administration they hoped to bolster.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. I think it will go to DVD, or.....

they'll work out a deal with Showtime or HBO?

[eridani]

65. Fine by me

That's where it belongs.

[Neshanic]

34. I will make a bet with the OP. I will give 50 bucks to DU if .....

it is pulled by Friday, midnight Pacific time. If It airs, he has to crush his Ipod. I will be leaving my crushed Ipod at the Apple store anyway this weekend. And telling them they work for a whore.

[Yavin4]

35. I Don't Have An IPOD

But I won't watch "LOST" for a month.

[Neshanic]

38. OK...Deal!

[Neshanic]

88. Looks like you will not be watching "Lost" Sorry.....

[AndyTiedye]

36. If They Run It, ABC's Ratings May Look Like **'s Ratings

Albatross! Get yer albatross!

[Snivi Yllom]

81. ABC aint worried about ratings

FLASH: ABC 'WORLD NEWS' PASSES COURIC 'EVENING NEWS' AND WINS THURSDAY NIGHT IN NYC, CHICAGO, PHILLY... MORE... COURIC STAYS TOP OVERALL OVERNIGHTS WITH 6.4 RATING/13 SHARE IN THIRD AIRING ... ABC AND NBC SCORE 5.3 RATING/11 SHARE THURSDAY NITE... NEW YORK CITY TURNS TO ABC WITH 5.3/11 TO COURIC 4.7/10... DEVELOPING...

[Imagevision]

37. I believe Disney will pull the plug also, it does make them look weak...

[Alacrat]

40. If this piece of crap gets pulled, how are the repugs going to spin it?

What I fear is that the repug spin machine will claim the Democrats fought to have this pulled because Democrats have something to hide. They(repugs) have the media behind them, and IMO, they will claim, that it would have shown the Democrats are weak on security, afraid to fight, knew that osama was a threat, and had multiple chances to take him out, but failed to act. How do we defend against that? If this piece of fiction is shown, and abc said through out the movie, "this is fiction" or "this is a dramatization", we would be able to back up the fact that it's fiction and dramatized, point out the parts that are BS, and also tell the real story. If it isn't shown, they can claim, it would have told the truth, and Democrats are afraid of the truth, and then be able to make up more lies, and a whole lot of people will believe them. I feel like it's almost damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[bullwinkle428]

41. *"The Democraps kan't handul the trooth"

* as seen on Free Republic!

[liberaldemocrat7]

57. The Republicans have hidden their failure on 9-11 in plain sight

for 5 years. They blame everyone else but they appear the ones soft on terrorism and weak on national defense.

The Spanish people appear smarter than the indpendents and swing voters in America. They dumped their conservative government right after the 3/11 train attacks.

[Alacrat]

73. I still think it is better for it to air

I also believe we should be boycotting disney, and abc, but the show should go on. Democrats will be put in a terrible position trying to defend pulling this thing. We can address the BS once it airs, but we look like we have something to hide, and that their BS is true, if we keep trying to get this thing pulled. repugs are the masters of spin, even with the so called "no spin zone", O'rielly will have a field day if we get it pulled, so will rush limpbaugh, like it or not, they have the machine, we don't.

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. I am thinking of the neo-con's response to the Dixie Chicks

You know if this were reversed, the neo-cons would have had Disney-movie burning parties and stuffed lions and mermaids branded with--"traitors," and "anti-american." The local tv stations would stop airing disney channel.

[global1]

44. Boycott Disney Stores - Boycott Disney ThemeParks - Boycott Disney.....

DVD's - Boycott Disney Channel (Radio & TV) - send all those collectable films back - you know the ones Bambi, Snow White, Cinderella, Fantasia, etc, etc, etc, Quit the Mickey Mouse Club - Sell your Disney Stock - Bring them down where it hurts them the most -in the pocket book - encourage stockholders to bring suit against Disney. Stop the Disney/ABC 9/11 Docudrama today.

[alfredo]

45. Let's see how ABC and Disney's stock do Friday.

I think that will have as much to do with what they do with the show.

[Canuckistanian]

46. I'm not so sure

There's gotta be a hell of a lot of money involved here....

[steely]

47. It should be pulled.

It smells of propaganda.

[Disturbed]

48. What the Hell were these people thinking?

They did not anticipate a strong reaction to blatant lies about the previous Admin. and fabrications based on the 911 Commission Report?

Could they be that stupid? Maybe they did figure that a strong negative reaction would come forth and planed upon releasing it on Showtime then on DVD? They sure got a whole lot of free advertising for this crap.

[flyarm]

53. nahhh when this went into production * was still riding kinda high..

they just didn't count on the winds of opinion changing so drastically!

and they underestimated the American people..that we will not put up with this kind of bullshit over something so sensitive ..and they underestimated us being as protective of the families of 9/11

i do believe people were appalled with Ann fucking Man Coulter being as nasty as she was to the Jersy wives..i know my repug friends were furious over it..but i live in NJ...near Kristin and Patty C....it was not taken lightly here...or humorously..there is a building rage going on in this country...

we may have surprised even ourselves...when propaganda is being pushed on children in schools...and when those involved, were the very people who have suffered among us the most..the families of 9/11. People i believe are getting mad as hell and not taking it anymore!

i know i spent the day sending emails out to internet groups all over the country for people to call and email and write ABC/disney, and Scholastic and their schools and school boards and principles..i got trememdous response..people were pissed...very, very pissed..and they got active contacting all of the above!

yes i do believe when ABC did this piece of crap they thought Little lord pissy pants was still riding high..they did not anticipate the anger brewing in this country about this fucker in our white house!

fly

[marions ghost]

60. Look at what they've gotten away with so far

their arrogance has no bounds. They intended to promote some big lies, to indoctrinate. My guess is they underestimated the reaction.

Let them go ahead and run it now :evilgrin: Big backlash potential, with possibly the opposite effect of what they intended :popcorn:

[Marr]

50. Not a chance.

They know what side their bread is buttered on, and they'll cuddle up to this fascist government as close as they can.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

51. I say if they want to chuck $40 mil into a black hole, let 'em.

This will be an albatross around their neck for a long time to come. The word is out on it- let it drag 'em all down.

[Nikki Stone 1]

59. Are there Vegas odds on this?

:)

[zonkers]

63. I bet this film sucks and that is why they are hoping a bit of controversy

might translate into viewers.

[B Calm]

64. If they do show it I look for it to backfire on the neocons.

[Crabby Appleton]

67. No they won't pull it

And Clinton won't sue. Can you imagine in the run up to the 2008 presidential election the husband of the Dem candidate in court over he was too distracted by his personal life - depositions by Monica leaked to the press - ain't gonna happen.

[sentelle]

78. There is reason to believe

That Hill won't run.
What I'd like to see.

People boycotting Anything Disney (films, theme parks, television, books)
People boycotting anyone who advertises on Disney.

Bill buys one share of disney. Sues.
Does class action suit as a shareholder.

Albright sues.

Congress undoes the Sonny Bono Act, and Disney starts loosing some of their IP due to its move to the public domain.

Disney has to hire lawyers to defend the suits, and their broadcast lisenses. all while revenue is down.

It can happen.

[onenote]

84. actually, pretty much none of that can happen

other than the possibility of lawsuits. The Sonny Bono Act is getting undone and any boycott of Disney is destined to fail, just as the fundies long boycott of Disney was a failure.

[onenote]

69. doubtful

they'll edit it a bit here and there, but my gut feeling is that it will definitely still air.

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. Business ponit of view?

It's remarkable what they are willing to risk for the sake of profit. I can't get over the daily sacrifices from our boys in Iraq, just so that Cheney and his Chain gang can feel they have more money than God.

Look to see Cheney and Co., come back with that ill-gotten bootey to buy our public infra-structure. We must not allow them to spread their mafia network so deep in this country, that they can travel from shore to shore without fear of inspection.

[salinen]

72. Hey Disney?

How about a docudrama about grandpa dealing with Hitler? Or, this one's even better, Rummy, as the head of a pharma/chemical company selling something to Saddam just before the Kurds breath death, then shaking hands. Lots of smiles from Rummy and Saddam. Reagan selling arms to both Iran & Iraq would make for good T.V. too.

So many possibilities.

[Chimichurri]

74. No way they're pulling it. the republicans paid $40 million for it.

It'll be on ABC and nothing will come of them airing it. That's how the Bush cabal roll. If Bushco can bypass the Supreme court and congress - ABC can surely air a silly little movie.

[blogslut]

75. I think it will air

I also believe ABC will be forced to release an impotent version of the original production. They'e gonna just plain cut all the scenes in question. They might pull the show but I think it will air, heavily edited and with disclaimers at every break.

[slackmaster]

79. How can it be RW propaganda when it's clearly intended to be comedy?

Stephen Root plays Richard Clarke!

http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/bios/stephen_root.html



"If they crash into the Pentagon, I'll put strychnine in the guacamole!"

[DemExpat]

87. They are showing it world wide.

Just saw an ad for it on BBC television. Tomorrow night at 8.

:puke:

DemEx