{ require_once('class.compressor.php'); //Include the class. The full path may be required } $compressor = new compressor('css,javascript,page'); Left In Aboite: The Path to 9/11 <$BlogMetaData>


Thursday, September 07, 2006

The Path to 9/11

ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure


ABC has in recent days made changes to it's film "Path to 9/11" (set to air Sunday and Monday) after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and inaccuracies. Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress Action Fund has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries. As of Wednesday it had collected 25,000 letters asking ABC to either correct or cancel the miniseries. "The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration," the center said in a news release.

ABC unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for this new "docu-drama" and has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, billing it as a public service, a TV event, and to quote the ABC tagline, "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". That's false. "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. Does anyone else smell the stench of Karl Rove on this one? Put together by right-wing conservative writers, the film relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans. It mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.

After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute.

After much discussion, ABC toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved. "That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.

ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews." Not to mention, biased conservative opinions. . .

The statement adds: "The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."

None of ABC's moves is likely to quell the debate, however.


UPDATE: Read more on this over at Blognonymous.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

18 Comments:

Blogger John Good said...

That was sorta the same for me. then I started getting e-mails. . .

And your concerns are dead-on. . .

title="comment permalink">September 07, 2006 8:04 PM  
Blogger azgoddess said...

can they just give us a documentary that tells us exactly what happened

the real history?

now that would be refereshing!

title="comment permalink">September 07, 2006 9:27 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

AZ - I truly beleive that will happen. Sooner better than later.

title="comment permalink">September 07, 2006 9:30 PM  
Blogger Tim Zank said...

John, I am disappointed in you! As I began reading your post, I thought for sure it would lead you to be outraged! The thought of politicians DEMANDING that the film/television industry re-write portions of a movie just sounds so, well, conservative and republican now doesn't it?

This illustrates a marked change in liberal democratic party philosophy, does it not?

Don't the guys that made this film have the same rights as Michael Moore, Spike Lee and CBS (the reagan movie)?
The Dems want to censor hollywood, boy I didn't see that one coming!

title="comment permalink">September 07, 2006 9:44 PM  
Blogger Human said...

John - ABC put their blog back up on it. Funny they didn't post my comment on it. They are just posting supportive comments mostly.In my post I didn't demand that they take it down I just told him my viewpoint and that I won't be bringing my kid to Disney. Ever.

There are many, indeed the majority of Americans who will suck up the pablum served up by ABC just as they do everyday with everything else that the MSM serves.. What really pisses me off about it is that they are sending it to schools with "Teaching Kits".

Now where did I put my Mickey Mouse Club?

azgoddess - "They" won't, but others have. You can link to a few and more are coming at my place.

title="comment permalink">September 07, 2006 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim,

You left out the part that after receiving numerous right-winger complaints about the Reagan miniseries, CBS PULLED it and sold it to Showtime...

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 12:55 AM  
Blogger PTCruiser said...

Actually, I heard it was the Nazi's who didn't want this thing to air.

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 8:54 AM  
Blogger Tim Zank said...

Jeff, I don't think CBS should have caved in but I understand why they did(advertisers).

I just think it is hilarious that ANY democrat would find this type of censorship acceptable. I'd be very curious to know the opinions of Oliver Stone, Spike lee, and Michael Moore

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 11:20 AM  
Blogger Sewmouse said...

I'm sure some brave soul without the hypertension and heart arrythmia that I have will watch this debacle. (I would have a coronary from the anger this will doubtless produce if I watch it)

I hope that whoever does, takes very careful note of each and every national sponsor's commercials, and lists the advertisers in a prominent place.

I would CERTAINLY link to such a post/site - and recommend that nobody purchase products from, nor patronize business who chose to sponsor this outrageous electioneering mis-use of a national tragedy.

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 2:22 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

The thought of politicians DEMANDING that the film/television industry re-write portions of a movie just sounds so, well, conservative and republican now doesn't it?

Tim, we both understand the intent and timing of this "work". People are paying closer attention to these sort of conservative shenanagins. . .

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 9:30 PM  
Blogger Tim Zank said...

What about Fahrenheit 9-11 or Spike lee's Katrina film? My point is:::::::it's extremely hypocritical of dems to cry foul on this movie while cheering on the very same behavior by the aforementioned liberal icons. As the old saying goes, if you can dish it out, you better be able to take it...

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 9:48 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

I haven't seen Katrina, so I can't comment on that one. But, as far as Farenheit goes, the facts were presented. Whether you agree with those facts or not, they are on the record.
The Path movie, however, portrays a false version of events. These events are also on record and are the matter of dispute. CBS has already conceded that point by changing their wording:

based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report

and

the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary

That's all there is to say on that.

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 10:21 PM  
Blogger LP Mike Sylvester said...

I am obviosuly with Tim Zank on this one.

I am very disappointed in The Democrats.

I have not seen the series yet; however, I am looking forward to it.

I cannot believe the Democrats are threatening a news network and that they are coming out in favor of censorship.

Actions like this will certainly hurt The Dems chances in November...

I doubt this could be as inaccurate as Michael Moore's film...

Censorship is WRONG.

Mike Sylvester

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 10:36 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

Mike - So, you are:

-with Tim Zank (beleive what you beleive despite the facts)

-disappointed with Dems (yesterday on here you were flailing the GOP)

-looking forward to seeing it (despite the distortions and downright LIES that can and are being proven)

-threatening censorship (Not at all! Just demanding that an opinion film not be labeled and presented as a factual documentary)

-Actions will hurt Dems (No, Mike. People are tired of the lies and distortion of Karl Rove.)

-Farenheit 911 (Try reading the credits at the end. All of Moore's facts are in order and a matter of public record.)

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 10:49 PM  
Blogger Tim Zank said...

Nice try...Moores movie had to be reclassified at the oscars from documentary to "drama", as far as reading the credits after his movie to prove it's validity, that is absurd on it's face, because it's in print it MUST be true?

Your leadership has spent 6 long years just beatin' the bejesus out of everybody on film, in interviews, in papers and especially on this well known bastion of truth, the internet.

Do you honestly believe if you keep reaffirming each others opinions in print it will all become true? Man, your party threw common sense out the window years ago...you need to re-group.

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 11:19 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

Enjoy your Kool-Aid, and, as Robert stated, have the last word if you so desire. Good luck and good night. . .

title="comment permalink">September 08, 2006 11:52 PM  
Blogger Robert Rouse said...

I have something to say about this. If ABC wants to air it, so be it. CBS airs those CSI shows that are based on actual science but are, in reality, pieces of fiction, so ABC can do it too.

Tim, let me explain something that should be oh so obvious. Michael Moore and Oliver Stone tend to release their films in these little places called "Cinemas" (look the word up, you'll find it is much different that television). I'm not counting the Reagan telepic, which in the long run was a piece of crap film that wasn't broadcast on free TV anyway.

Yes, you are right that Moore's film was released to try to influence the election, but the vast majority of the people who saw it were already opposed to Bush, so it became an exercise in preaching to the crowd who ended up paying to see it. In the case of "The Path to 9/11", this is being broadcast (for free). I am so sorry no one ever educated you on the difference. There are times, Tim, when I genuinely feel pity for the uniformed - this isn't one of those times, but I thought I would mention the part of me, as a member of the Left, that actually cares about people instead of Money, Greed and Power.

'nuff said, now do as John said and take the last word - you know we only do that because you'll just keep spouting your crap until we let you have it anyway. :)

title="comment permalink">September 10, 2006 11:56 AM  
Blogger Tim Zank said...

Well, Robert, glad your back from the bake off or camp out or whatever it is you guys do to right the worlds wrongs. It makes no difference if it's on the big screen or the small screen, my position is and has been that they should be left alone to air whatever they want. My point was simply how thin skinned you guys are. Picking up your marbles and going home(the equivalent of your last paragraph) kind of makes my point ya know?

title="comment permalink">September 10, 2006 10:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

$compressor->finish();