Jump to content


ABC miniseries creating controvery


Flying_Mollusk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been reading about this so called docudrama. Apparently the film, which is being called a drama and not a documentary, puts the blame on Clinton for 9-11. ABC allowed a number of conservative bloggers and pundits to have a screening of the movie but has refused to allow anyone on the left or any Clinton official to have a screening. People have been basing their accusations on what they've been reading on the conservative blogs which have been very pleased with the product. It's stupid to defend it as a drama and not expect people to take it as a fact.

 

And Im sure people will continue to argue the liberal media conspiracy while ignoring things like this which totally run counter to those accusations.

 

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- A miniseries about the events leading to the September 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, former Clinton administration officials demanded in letters to the head of ABC's parent company.

 

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

 

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band all wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11." (Read the letter from Sandy Berger -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat)

 

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the September 11 commission. ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary.

 

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

 

The letter writers said that the miniseries contained factual errors, and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered.

 

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known," Lindsey and Band wrote in their letter.

 

The letter writers pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries, but which they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, and that she was the one who made the warning.

 

"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said. (Read Albright's letter -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat)

 

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

 

Lindsey and Band objected to advertisements for the miniseries, which they said suggested that Clinton wasn't paying enough attention to the threat of terrorism.

 

"While ABC is promoting 'The Path to 9/11' as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," they said. "Given your stated obligation to 'get it right,' we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film."

 

Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada commented on the controversy at a morning news conference.

 

"I haven't seen it, but from everything I've heard it's not down the middle. It's not fair at all. And to have a film that seems to be biased and take one side put on by a network seems to be the wrong thing to do," said Schumer. "You can't take a film that's supposed to report on something that's so real and so close and make it into fiction. That's beneath ABC's dignity."

 

"They started off this as being a documentary," added Reid. "They changed it to a docudrama and now it's a work of fiction and that's what it is. And, yes, they should pull it."

 

The five-hour miniseries is set to run without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. Among the actors in it are Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.

 

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewrit

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/9...c.ap/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Im sure people will continue to argue the liberal media conspiracy while ignoring things like this which totally run counter to those accusations.

 

I'm sorry--not to totally hijack your thread, but a person would have to be either doggone impressionable or just a blinded liberal (not that there's anything wrong that, F_M) to watch most major news telecasts on networks not named Fox News and not detect a left-leaning news bias.

 

I have absolutely no interest in debating the issue at all, though I thought I'd just throw the counter blanket statement out there since I happen to find the ongoing crusade against those who "continue to argue the liberal media conspiracy" particularly amusing.

 

Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the outcry over the movie being made depicting the assasination of Bush?

 

Well it's a British film and it isn't being shown on a major American network to Americans. Plus, people aren't likely to mix it up as historical fact since it presents a future scenario.

 

And I don't know if you remember, but a few years ago CBS was going to air a movie on the Reagans. Conservatives got upset because they argued it wasnt accurate. The movie was pulled because of the pressure.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the accusations made in the ABC mini-series are true, then everyone whining about it needs to quit their bitching.

 

If the accusations are false, then bitch on!

 

I have yet to see anyone on TV during discussions of this story say that the accusations were wrong. That's coming from CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN, as well as internet print stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only idiots that will believe it are the same ones that feel Bush is a good president. Which is about 10% of the country.

 

 

Its around 37% now actually. But either way, fahrenheit 9/11 was shown in theatres, whats the difference? That this is on TV and not the movies? Both claimed to be documentaries based on fact, although the facts were skewed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 3 observations on the issue:

 

1) This is a Dramatic Mini-Series, not a Documentary.

2) We have no idea what it is going to look like because ABC has not finished it yet.

3) The Democrats threatening the licenses of WABC-TV New York, KABC-TV Los Angeles, WLS-TV Chicago, KGO-TV San Francisco, WPVI-TV Philadelphia, KTRK-TV Houston, WTVD-TV Raleigh-Durham, KFSN-TV Fresno, WJRT-TV Flint, and WTVG-TV Toledo looks very thuggish and a big stretch to attempt censorship. The Democrats have also threatened to go after ABC affiliates that air the series.

 

ABC's official The Path to 8/11 site: http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html

ABC's official blog: http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 3 observations on the issue:

 

1) This is a Dramatic Mini-Series, not a Documentary.

2) We have no idea what it is going to look like because ABC has not finished it yet.

3) The Democrats threatening the licenses of WABC-TV New York, KABC-TV Los Angeles, WLS-TV Chicago, KGO-TV San Francisco, WPVI-TV Philadelphia, KTRK-TV Houston, WTVD-TV Raleigh-Durham, KFSN-TV Fresno, WJRT-TV Flint, and WTVG-TV Toledo looks very thuggish and a big stretch to attempt censorship. The Democrats have also threatened to go after ABC affiliates that air the series.

 

ABC's official The Path to 8/11 site: http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html

ABC's official blog: http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/

 

We have some idea because they have already allowed many many conservatives to view it and those conservatives have said what it claims. They couldnt control their glee. Wanna explain why Rush Limbaugh gets a screening and Clinton officials who are actually portrayed in it don't? We also have information from an FBI consultant who worked on the project and quit because he said they were taking huge leaps from facts to fiction.

 

Those who get licenses are not supposed to end up political. But how bad does it look when they are assuring conservatives and refuse to let anyone else but conservatives get a screening of it?

 

 

 

 

The only idiots that will believe it are the same ones that feel Bush is a good president. Which is about 10% of the country.

 

 

Its around 37% now actually. But either way, fahrenheit 9/11 was shown in theatres, whats the difference? That this is on TV and not the movies? Both claimed to be documentaries based on fact, although the facts were skewed

Actually, Disney refused Moore's film and they had to find a new production studio if you recall. So thanks for pointing out that Disney is a huge political hypocrite. And F911 was an argument made by a political biased figure, no hidden agendas. This movie is presented as objective facts by an apparent unbiased releaser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video from conservative Bill Bennett:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/video-...in-path-to-911/

 

BENNETT: Well, maybe having been a cabinet member you know you have some heightened concern about being quoted accurately and correctly. Look, "The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that's no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn't happen.

 

Conservatives have to be consistent Soledad, when the Reagan's that show about the Reagan's, CBS show came out, had all sorts of distortions and misstatements. Conservatives went crazy and had it relegated somewhere, I don't know, it never appeared on CBS. And so I think they should be consistent. And when ABC comes out and has conversations taking place among cabinet members on recent history, on matters that are still before us, I think they should correct those inaccuracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how hypocritical some can be. If this was mostly about Bush, people like Cape will go nuts. The point is, like him or not, Clinton was a President of OUR country, and this is a disrespect to him, the people who died in 9/11, and the Office of the President.

 

 

If this movie was about Bush, id be equally as upset. I may disagree with him, but he is my President and I respect his position and would serve under his pleasure if asked, PERIOD.

 

 

Now, if this was cable TV, a movie, a DVD, and was not presented as fact, I wouldnt care at all. Its freedom of speech, no one HAS to see F911. This is on national TV and some people, especially low income families, have very few channels to watch. This is CLEARLY propaganda for the 06 election. If some of you are patriots as you say(Accord) youd be outraged as I am. Its disrespectful, even conservatives have agreed. Plus, some of these guys(Tenet) served under both administrations. Matters like National Security are not partisan, this is not wanted by anybody.

 

 

We need to stop politicising this and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet, so I can't know if it is any good or not. But trying to shut it up without even having a good look at it makes no sense.

 

The Bush Administration wasn't out there trying to shut up Michael Moore.

 

Let's wait until ABC finally airs it and reserve judgement. ABC was planning a news special after it, but that may go too now.

 

Either way you look at it, someone needs to do a good re-telling of the events in the timeline this program does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet, so I can't know if it is any good or not. But trying to shut it up without even having a good look at it makes no sense.

 

The Bush Administration wasn't out there trying to shut up Michael Moore.

 

Let's wait until ABC finally airs it and reserve judgement. ABC was planning a news special after it, but that may go too now.

 

Either way you look at it, someone needs to do a good re-telling of the events in the timeline this program does.

 

 

The bush admin got Bill Maer fired and his show canceled from the major networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet, so I can't know if it is any good or not. But trying to shut it up without even having a good look at it makes no sense.

 

The Bush Administration wasn't out there trying to shut up Michael Moore.

 

Let's wait until ABC finally airs it and reserve judgement. ABC was planning a news special after it, but that may go too now.

 

Either way you look at it, someone needs to do a good re-telling of the events in the timeline this program does.

 

 

The bush admin got Bill Maer fired and his show canceled from the major networks.

Huh?

 

It was cancelled because Maher said this after 9/11: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." After that comment alot of advertisers pulled their ads.

 

Disney also claims that they wanted to go with entertainment in their late night spot to compete with the major networks.

 

What exactly does Bush have to do with this besides you not liking him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this is very strange. Why did so many well-known conservatives get a screening before anyone else? I believe that almost none of the people actually portrayed in the film were invited to see it.

 

Former members of the 9/11 commission have come out to oppose this program, which was first being called a Docu-Drama. They have since changed their tune on that.

 

The weird thing is, Tom Kane (co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, former Republican governor) was one of the advisors to the show.

 

I mean, it has a scene where a sniper is basically looking down the scope at Bin Laden's head, and they call off the attack because of 'political concerns'. This never happened, period. They never got that close to taking him out. The show also says that Clinton was too distracted by MonicaGate to function effectively as President. That claim was looked into by the 9/11 Commission, and rebuked. They believe he did all he could at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arent the Dems all for protecting our constitutional rights, why arent they defending the first amendment in this case?

 

Shouldn't the ACLU file a lawsuit agains these senators for infringing on their first amendment rights by threatening their license???

 

 

Oh wait...its not part of of their liberal agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arent the Dems all for protecting our constitutional rights, why arent they defending the first amendment in this case?

 

Shouldn't the ACLU file a lawsuit agains these senator for infringing on their first amendment rights by threatening their license???

 

 

Oh wait...its not part of of their liberal agenda.

 

 

would you like some cheese with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arent the Dems all for protecting our constitutional rights, why arent they defending the first amendment in this case?

 

Shouldn't the ACLU file a lawsuit agains these senators for infringing on their first amendment rights by threatening their license???

 

 

Oh wait...its not part of of their liberal agenda.

Go ahead and air it. Just don't present it as fact.

 

 

Hell, I watched F911 and I took it with a huge grain of salt because I know how much Michael Moore skewed it in his favor. Oh well.

 

 

 

I do find the argument entertaining, though. Carry on old chaps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...