ABC Team spreads 9/11 misinformation to students

I don't know about the rest of you, but all this controversy makes me want to see this program real bad.

0 Replies

Here's the European trailer for Pt911 - note the words 'official truth' in the trailer.

The fact that this movie was bankrolled by the owner of Melon-Scaife, was produced by a Christianist organization, was sent to right-wingers to review... shows that perhaps this movie was never intended to resemble reality whatsoever, but to present an alternate version of what happened, shifting the blame off of those currently in power.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Widowed Husband Of Former Disney Records Exec Killed On 9/11 Writes To ABC's Iger: I "Urge You Not To Air This Film"
By Greg Sargent | bio
John Beug, the widowed husband of Carolyn Beug, a former vice president at Walt Disney Records who was on the plane that slammed into 1 World Trade Center, has written a letter to ABC chief Bob Iger pleading with him not to run the film. A source provided us with a copy of the letter.

It reads, in part: "I am writing to express my concern and deep reservations about this film and to ask you, out of respect for the victims of 9/11 and their families, not to air it...I strongly and respectfully urge you not to air this film."

Reached by phone, Mr. Beug confirmed the letter was his and verified its accuracy. "I think it's unfortunate that people are sensationalizing the story for whatever reason they're doing it," Mr. Beug said. "It shouldn't be politicized." Soon after her death, Carolyn Beug was described by U.S.A. Today as a "former Walt Disney Records executive" who "won acclaim for her work on the Pocahontas film soundtrack."

ABC has said that judgments of the film are premature. "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing is not yet complete, so criticisms of film's specifics are premature and irresponsible," a recent ABC statement said.

The full text of the letter follows after the jump.

Full text of the letter:

September 9, 2006

Dear Mr. Iger,

I have seen the advertisements for and read the press coverage of ABC's film, "The Path to 9/11," that your network plans to air this Sunday and Monday to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks. I am writing to express my concern and deep reservations about this film and to ask you, out of respect for the victims of 9/11 and their families, not to air it.

My wife worked for the Walt Disney Corporation and was a victim of the terrorist attacks as a passenger on American Airlines Flight 11. I have great respect for you and your company and I know that you must have worked hard to make a good film. Admittedly, I have not seen it. However, accounts from those who have suggest that it contains inaccurate and invented scenes. It seems to me that fictionalizing this tragedy does not honor the memory of those who were lost on September 11th.

Given the gravity of this event for our nation and the personal loss I suffered, I believe it is critically important that we do everything possible to prevent another 9/11. That begins with making sure that we are united in our understanding of what we could have done better in the years, months and weeks leading up to the attacks of 2001. I am deeply concerned that Americans will watch this film and not fully understand -- or be led to misunderstand -- the true history of this tragedy.

I feel the 9/11 Commission Report was a correct and very responsible accounting of the terrorist attacks of 2001. Since "The Path to 9/11" deviates from this report in key instances, I strongly and respectfully urge you not to air this film.

Sincerely,

John Beug

0 Replies

Quote:

NY Times Credits The Conservative Voice for Fighting Clintonista Censorship of ABC
September 09, 2006 05:04 PM EST

by Jim Kouri -- In Saturday's New York Times, reporter Jesse McKinley addresses the controversy over the ABC TV docu-drama "The Path to 9-11" and the response by the Clintons and their minions to stop its airing Sunday and Monday evenings.

The Times credits TCV with spearheading a defense of ABC against the Clintonistas' attacks and threats.

The NY Times wrote:

"But the debate was not entirely one-sided. Among a variety of conservative Web sites that accused Democrats of politicizing Sept. 11 was that of Conservative Voice.

"'Former President William Jefferson Clinton and his minions are strong-arming the folks at ABC Television," a commentary on that site said, "in order to stop a docudrama being aired during the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The Clintonistas are conducting a full-court press to prevent Americans from learning the truth.'"

Below is the complete article:

September 9, 2006
New York Times

Democrats Maintaining the Pressure on 9/11 Film

By JESSE McKINLEY
Despite word of small last-minute cuts meant to soften the film's depiction of President Bill Clinton and his aides, members of his administration and Democratic officials yesterday stepped up their campaign to force ABC to cancel its disputed mini-series, "The Path to 9/11."

The Democratic National Committee delivered to the network a petition with more than 200,000 names that demanded withdrawal of the film, which the petition called "right-wing propaganda."

Officials of the committee said they would continue to collect and deliver signatures until ABC "does the right thing and pulls this scandalous project."

Senator John Kerry and Al Gore, Mr. Clinton's vice president, also released statements castigating ABC.

But the debate was not entirely one-sided. Among a variety of conservative Web sites that accused Democrats of politicizing Sept. 11 was that of Conservative Voice.

"Former President William Jefferson Clinton and his minions are strong-arming the folks at ABC Television," a commentary on that site said, "in order to stop a docudrama being aired during the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The Clintonistas are conducting a full-court press to prevent Americans from learning the truth."

As for ABC, its officials stood by earlier statements that the mini-series was a docudrama, not a documentary. The network, which this summer sent copies of the film to journalists for review, also 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."

At least before any late editing, the five-hour film depicts some Clinton administration officials, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Samuel R. Berger, national security adviser, as placing obstacles in the way of strikes against Osama bin Laden.

Both Ms. Albright and Mr. Berger have called such depictions a fabrication.

One particular target of Democratic anger is Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission that Congress created to investigate the events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Kean was a senior consultant to the mini-series, and in a strongly worded letter to him dated yesterday, Ms. Albright and Mr. Berger expressed "deep dismay" that he had played such a role.

"Actors portraying us do contemptible things we never did, and say things we neither said nor believed," the letter read. "What's more, in many instances these portrayals are contradicted by your commission's own findings."

The letter outlined five such instances in the mini-series' first half, due to be broadcast tomorrow night.

The Walt Disney Company, ABC's corporate parent, was also under pressure. Bruce R. Lindsey of the Clinton Foundation and Douglas J. Band, counselor to Mr. Clinton, sent a second letter to Robert A. Iger, Disney's chief executive, saying they remained concerned about the impact the mini-series would have on public perception of events.

"We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film," the letter said.

The former president's wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, was somewhat more guarded in remarks at an event at Columbia University.

"My bottom-line view," Ms. Clinton said, "is that when it comes to something as serious and historically significant as 9/11, the truth is enough and we ought to stick to the facts."

The Republican national leadership was quiet on the mini-series, though President Bush did complicate ABC's broadcast plans by scheduling a speech to the nation for 9 p.m., Eastern time, on Monday, the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

That is the night that ABC plans to broadcast the mini-series' second half. The network said yesterday that it would most likely break into the telecast to show the speech and then resume the film.

ABC's promotions department must be beside themselves with glee - their network's $40 Million production has been gifted with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free advertising; Path is just about the most anticipated TV show since the "Who Shot J.R." episode ... and all thanks to the Dems.

<chuckle>

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Regardless how Path reflects on the Dem's, the Dem's preemptive, presumptive outrage against it reflects badly on themselves, and does so at a time when they really need no further embarrassments.

I agree about their reaction very possibly being counterproductive. But I'm a bit intrigued by your last sentence.

The Dems have been riding high in the polls - ever more Republican-held Senate and House races are rated as being in play. Yet you say "further embarassments" - what prior "embarrasments" do you consider the Dems to have recently suffered?

As far as the public eye is concerned, judging on the polls at least, things seem to have gone better for them this past half a year than in many years before.

0 Replies

A poster on TNR's The Plank blog makes a fair enough point, IMO:

Quote:

agreeing with you guys, to the extent that it would have been just about impossible to please everyone. That said, deliberately fictionalizing the actions of real people is about as bad a script choice as I can imagine. You can get away with composite characters doing things that didn't exactly happen, but not the real people involved. There is no way to have a fictional "Madeline Albright" really. Having a character named that do things that she did not in real life is begging for a lawsuit.

0 Replies

The bottom line for me is that these self-serving politicians are completely out of line threatening ABC and pressuring them to drop the film. I don't believe for a second that their primary concern is the "truth" getting to the people, they are simply outraged that the angelic Clinton administration is portrayed in a negative light. They are loathe to admit that we were attacked numerous times by al-qaeda on Clinton's watch and that his response was negligent at best. Lest we forget that OBL officially declared war on America in 1996. Yet George Bush is lambasted for something that happened a mere 9 months after he took office. This is not to say that Bush is innocent by any means, but as much of a buffoon as he is, at least he has some balls. The bottom line is this, there is enough guilt to go around, everyone messed up. But politicians have no right to threaten and intimidate ABC. If the public feels strongly enough about the issue, then I would say they have the right to challenge ABC, but politicians should stay out of it.

0 Replies

Worth noting is that the 8-year Clinton administration is treated in the first half, the 9 months from the advent of the Bush administration through 9/11 is the subject of the second half - if anything, that might indicate Clinton's watch gets superficially glossed over, as background, and as much or more criticism via artistic license attaches to the folks who were in charge then.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The Dems have been riding high in the polls - ever more Republican-held Senate and House races are rated as being in play. Yet you say "further embarassments" - what prior "embarrasments" do you consider the Dems to have recently suffered?

As far as the public eye is concerned, judging on the polls at least, things seem to have gone better for them this past half a year than in many years before.

The only thing the Democrats have going for them is the mediocrity of their opponents. They have done nothing of their own merit, they simply offer an alternative to the current buffoons.

0 Replies

Well thats a clear opinion and I'm actually with you there, Atavistic Smile

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

At least this should (but wont) be the end of the talk about "the liberal media".

I cant remember network TV broadcasting that other high-profile part-fiction drama of a doc, Fahrenheit 9/11. But it will broadcast a partisan, fictionalised docudrama about 9/11 parading as teaching tool that's produced by an entity with evangelical ties and an explicitly partisan conservative mission - and right in the middle of a tight election campaign as well, possibly even neatly intermixed with a Bush speech about the topic for good measure.

Oh those liberal network media.

So, one channel airs a program, while almost every other media outlet discusses the drama associated with that program, most only telling the liberal side of thestory and VERY few defending it and that should somehow end the talk about "the liberal media"? Shocked

I don't see how you figured that one.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Well thats a clear opinion and I'm actually with you there, Atavistic

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, one channel airs a program, while almost every other media outlet discusses the drama associated with that program,

Apples and oranges.

Network TV wouldnt touch the idea of screening F 9/11 with a ten foot pole - too inendiary, too stridently partisan, and that in the midst of an election campaign - cant do that!

But planning to screen a stridently partisan fictionalised docudrama produced by folks with explicitly partisan conservative mission in the middle of an election campaign - sure, no problem.

Does that sound like 'reliably liberal media' to you?

0 Replies

timber

"Clitonistas"?

Running dogs? Fellow travellers? Are you now or have you ever been...?

Imperialistas? Christofascists? How about Peepublians?

How silly do you want to get here? That piece you linked is a grab-bag of thoughtless cliches.

0 Replies

Quote:

Network TV wouldnt touch the idea of screening F 9/11 with a ten foot pole - too inendiary, too stridently partisan, and that in the midst of an election campaign - cant do that!

But planning to screen a stridently partisan fictionalised docudrama produced by folks with explicitly partisan conservative mission in the middle of an election campaign - sure, no problem.

Does that sound like 'reliably liberal media' to you?

And for five hundred A2K points name the Parent Company of the Television Network which refused to distribute F 9/11.

Disney

And what is the Network Disney owns?

A B C

Right. No pattern of bias here.

Joe(back to bed)Nation

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

ABC's promotions department must be beside themselves with glee - their network's $40 Million production has been gifted with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free advertising; Path is just about the most anticipated TV show since the "Who Shot J.R." episode ... and all thanks to the Dems.

<chuckle>

Nonsense. This is a no win situation for Disney. Even if this piece of fiction gets a couple extra rating points because of the publiciity, it is not woth the black eye that Disney/ABC has recieved over this. Disney puts out a lot of product, people can avoid, it doesn't just come down to one show.

As well, I haven't perceived that there is any buzz out there to see this show. And, if nothing else, those who tune in after hearing the protests will know that the piece is a fabrication.

Contrary to ABC executives being in a state of glee, the buzz I hear is that there are some who are afraid of their jobs.

Stay tuned.

0 Replies

The question with the film is whether it tells the truth or not. I would have no problem with it if it were either presented as pure fiction-- or if it were based on facts.

If it is propaganda (and I haven't seen it but this is the complaint) than it is despicable. Propaganda invents or mistates "facts" to deliberately mislead viewers with a political goal. Using the tragedy of 9/11 for propaganda is obscene.

So the question about whether this is good TV, or perverse political propaganda comes down to the facts in the film.

The debate should center on what facts are presented by the film, and whether they are true, plausible, possible or outright lies.

If the democrats who are complaining can show that they are lies, then they are right to object vociferously to a cynical use of national tragedy for political gain.

0 Replies

BBB
Timber, the article you posted attributes Patterson's book as the basis for the TV show according to the producer, not the 9/11 Commission Report as it claims. That is a big lie that explains the lies in the TV show.

If you check out Petterson, you will find that he is right wing Republican. As far as his designation as a "Clinton Administration aide", that is really a stretch. In fact, he was the man that carried the "football", the suitcase carrying the nuclear trigger. In other words, he was a go-for, and not involved in anything other than lugging around the football. He's the military equivalent of Ann Coulter.---BBB

The following is from Publishers Weekly:

No man is a hero to his valet-or his personal military aide, to judge by this memoir of the Clinton White House by a retired Air Force colonel who carried Clinton's "nuclear football" and had intimate access to the President from morning jog to evening card game. Although Patterson claims to have no political agenda and to personally like the man, he revisits all the familiar touchstones of conservative Clinton-hatred (he also suggests that the former president bears some responsibility for the events of 9/11). In Patterson's account, Clinton emerges as a careless, disingenuous frat boy, mercilessly hen-pecked by the domineering Hillary, whose tirades leave him looking like a "beaten puppy." He presides over a chaotic administration focused on spin and fund-raising; he fondles an Air Force One stewardess and ogles Patterson's wife in the Oval Office; he loses the nuclear launch codes; and he cheats at golf-which Patterson views as "not just a peccadillo but symptomatic of the way he approached life." Patterson also asserts that Clinton "directly and severely harmed this nation's security." Clinton debilitated the military, Patterson claims, by downsizing it, trying to remove the ban on homosexuals and put women in combat roles, "gutting morale" with pay freezes and "rudderless" peace-keeping missions, and turning it into an "armed social services agency." Worst of all, Clinton was soft on terrorism and missed a chance to get bin Laden with cruise missiles. Patterson raises important issues, but he seems most often affronted by what he sees as Clinton's belief that he "was privileged to conduct himself at a much lower code of conduct than the men or women he would repeatedly order into harm's way." There's a case to be made for Clinton's laxness on security matters, but Patterson's rendition is too anecdotal and brief, as well as too disgruntled-offended, even-to convince many. [/I]

What are Patterson'stest activities:

Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson - Board Member, Move America Forward

Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson, United States Air Force (Retired), has joined the Board of Move America Forward. He provides strategic input, guidance and takes direct action to mobilize Americans to support our troops, the war on terrorism and the national security of the United States.

Buzz is host of a weekly radio program on RighTalk.com radio - "The Buzz Cut."

"The Buzz Cut" is also the name of his regular column, which is carried by the conservative national newsweekly, Human Events.

Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson is the author of two New York Times best selling books, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security and his recently completed Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security, which was released in July 2004.

Patterson served 20 years on active duty in the military with distinction and saw tours of duty as an Air Force pilot during combat operations in Grenada, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia.

From 1996 to 1998, Colonel Patterson was the Senior Military Aide to President Bill Clinton. During that time he was responsible for the President's Emergency Satchel, otherwise known as the "Nuclear Football," the black bag with the nation's nuclear capability that accompanies the president at all times. In addition, Colonel Patterson was operational commander for all military units assigned to the White House, to include Air Force One, Marine One, Camp David, White House Transportation Agency and White House Mess.

0 Replies

George Stephanopoulos of ABC says that now that some of the fictionalized scenes have been taken out, (and it is a fact that fictionalized scenes had been included in the original version) ABC is now getting heat from conservative organizations complaining about that! So no one is happy!

ABC would have been wise to pull this from broadcast TV as CBS did with the Reagan Docudrama (which conservatives seems to have conveniantly forgottten about) and put it on cable. Disney doesn't have a Premium Channel to air it on but they could have made it available on VOD for a token fee.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

timber

"Clitonistas"?

Running dogs? Fellow travellers? Are you now or have you ever been...?

Imperialistas? Christofascists? How about Peepublians?

How silly do you want to get here? That piece you linked is a grab-bag of thoughtless cliches.

No argument there - damned near a tit-for-tat thoughtless cliche response to the thoughtless cliches it rails against.

0 Replies

ABC Team spreads 9/11 misinformation to students

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know