Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

ABC and 9/11 Mini-Series... Part II (Dems Threaten ABC Over Airing of MiniSeries)

Fergasun

By Fergasun
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

First off... let's keep this on topic.

Second... this is priceless... for the party worried about the Patriot Act infringing on Civil Liberties.

Third... they are proud of going after free speech...

Mr. Robert A. Iger President and CEO

The Walt Disney Company

500 South Buena Vista Street

Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,”
New York Times
, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,”
New York Times
, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,”
New York Times
, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

It's nice to know they cared so much about 9/11 that they tried to get Michael Moore's movie pulled.

I can't believe this crap... "Your television programming, which will be marked as 'some scenes dramatized' doesn't portray us in a good light... so please pull it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Allright... I don't want this to become a bashing thread...

So...

1) Is this a reasonable response? If not, what is?

2) If ABC corrects a little bit, would it be okay?

3) If you are a Democrat, are you happy about the hot air spent on this mini-series?

Bonus Question:

I'm a Christian who thinks the Patriot Act is good, we shouldn't give mass citizenship to illegal immigrants, taxes are too high, and not too happy with an out of control judicial branch that legislates from the bench. I'd be happy if Roe v. Wade was overturned, but it's not high on my priorities. I don't much care for the homosexual agenda because I believe teaching it would be like teaching kids it is okay to steal.

Is there any way those beliefs can be reconciled to Democrats or am I too far off for their party? I vote Republican because I don't believe Democrat values square with mine, and I don't even feel like they reach out to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dreamingwolf

dreamingwolf

Posted
Posted

good luck ferg, the far lefts only leg to stand on with this topic is to distract. They cant honestly oppose this docu-drama and in the same breath support the right of the Reagan one and the show about Bush being assassinated. Its impossible, so it will have to be hijacked by them.

Im not sure what can be achieved from this discussion, as with all politics you have the staunch right and staunch left just calling each other names.

In my opinion docu-dramas really need to friggin go away. Either make a documentary objectively, or make a fantasy. One or the other. This bullcrap about making a documentary and being able to take creative license with it should have been rejected when mike moore started pandering it as an industry. He wasnt the first, but he sure got the acclaim for it. There should be no docu-dramas, there should be documentaries or dramas and in no case both.

That said I sure hope theres an unedited dvd that is sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LApunkrocker72

LApunkrocker72

Posted
Posted

Fergasun,

You've got it all wrong. The reason why Clinton officials want "Path to 9/11" pulled is because it's filled with right-wing lies that were written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who is a unabashed conservative with an agenda. And it's being billed as "objective," which is so not the case.

If "Path to 9/11" were truthful and objective then the Democrats wouldn't be going after it. We liberals don't want to censor anybody, we just want the truth to be told.

I don't blame the Democrats at all for wanting to have "Path to 9/11" pulled.

BTW, Fergasun: I believe in evolution and I think the Patriot Act is a bad idea.

I think Roe vs. Wade should not be overturned because women should have a choice. Also, I'm all for immigrants rights because after all, we're all immigrants except for the Indians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted

I think its interesting that a mini-series about Reagan was pushed to Showtime more than a decade after he was out of office because folks in power felt a lot of it was made up.

But, this is about Free Speech.

Where is the person who supports this current movie, AND thinks its ok that there is some movie or show I think on the BBC that simulates the killing of the current President?

Either way its a touchy subject coming up on 9/11 again. Of course there is going to be backlash. If they made a movie based on the report that came across W's desk that said "Bin Laden plans on attacking within U.S. using airplanes" then made up some conversations where the President ignored it to go do something totally different. Do you think the current White House would go after it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cjcdaman

cjcdaman

Posted
Posted
If they made a movie based on the report that came across W's desk that said "Bin Laden plans on attacking within U.S. using airplanes" then made up some conversations where the President ignored it to go do something totally different.

Ummmm, I could be wrong . . . but didn't it say "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S."? It's not like it said,"Al-Queda to hijack 4 planes and crash them into the WTC and Pentagon on September 11, 2001."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
portisizzle

portisizzle

Posted
Posted

And you know just for kicks I am going to watch the show. I can almost ASSURE you I would not have watched the show has it not been for extremeskins.com and the thread starter bringing up this topic.

And you know what? I will believe more of what I see on the screen then I will believe partisan hacks trying to protect BJ Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chomerics

chomerics

Posted
Posted
That thread got hi-jacked, I requested it to be closed... and we are privy to some new ****.

So I figured I'd start a Part II...

Fair enough. . .

Personally, this is nothing more then a political con job, it was the same thing with the Reagan special, nothing more. It will be interesting to see people's opinions saying this is free speech, when they were against the other "docudrama".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
  • Author
Posted

From what I understand, the major problem is that the film-makers attribute Berger as the one who called off the Bin Laden hit... when this was done by Tenet. I have no problem with scenes being tweaked.

I have more of a problem with Congressman sending blackmail letters to ABC, and concerned over speech. Again, Republicans didn't do this when the Moore movie came out... to me it's a case of "Thou Dost Protest too Much".

Anyway... we were so close to Bin Laden before 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
portisizzle

portisizzle

Posted
Posted
Obviously ignoring the partisan hacks who wrote the sctipt :rotflmao:

To your point, do you really believe that the script is totally fiction? How about the draconian cut in military and intelligence spending under BJ CLinton? There will be enough factual information in this movie to cause BJ some serious reputation damage. Otherwise the BJ crowd would not be responding this way.

Dan Rather much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
To your point, do you really believe that the script is totally fiction? How about the draconian cut in military and intelligence spending under BJ CLinton? There will be enough factual information in this movie to cause BJ some serious reputation damage. Otherwise the BJ crowd would not be responding this way.

Dan Rather much?

Off topic: I believe that people should speak respectfully of Presidents and ex-Presidents. It's cool to disagree or dispariage their views or policies, but calling a former President, BJ Clinton, belittles you as much as President Clinton. It also advises everyone how subjective your opinions are.

On topic: I think that they should be able to air it and that the filmmakers views should not be tampered with. If this is presented as news, as factual, and not a "based on" fiction, I believe extreme due dilligence should be made to make sure they got it right. Especially, since 9/11 is so recent and for many the wounds are still open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
From what I understand, the major problem is that the film-makers attribute Berger as the one who called off the Bin Laden hit... when this was done by Tenet. I have no problem with scenes being tweaked.

I have more of a problem with Congressman sending blackmail letters to ABC, and concerned over speech. Again, Republicans didn't do this when the Moore movie came out... to me it's a case of "Thou Dost Protest too Much".

Anyway... we were so close to Bin Laden before 2000.

You need to stop comparing this to something Moore does as a film in theater. and start comparing it to the Reagan movie that was made for T.V..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zguy28

Zguy28

Posted
Posted
Off topic: I believe that people should speak respectfully of Presidents and ex-Presidents. It's cool to disagree or dispariage their views or policies, but calling a former President, BJ Clinton, belittles you as much as President Clinton. It also advises everyone how subjective your opinions are.
I prefer Slick Willy or Bubba. :silly:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
portisizzle

portisizzle

Posted
Posted
Off topic: I believe that people should speak respectfully of Presidents and ex-Presidents. It's cool to disagree or dispariage their views or policies, but calling a former President, BJ Clinton, belittles you as much as President Clinton. It also advises everyone how subjective your opinions are.

.

Im sorry, Clintons action and lieing under oath about those actions did not belittle the office he held? Bagels?

What WILL the history books say of William Jefferson Clinton if not the truth? Or shall it be forgotten and forgiven. BJ CLinton was as disgraceful a President as we have EVER had hold the office. And that is being VERRRYYYY subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...