The path to relatively successful online activism

September 11, 2006

I have a confession to make: I didn’t watch “The Path to 9/11.” After all those concerns I reported on last week, I intended to tune in, if for no other reason than to help document the mistakes. But I didn’t get to it, and after reading some of the reviews, I honestly didn’t try very hard.

Given the results, was all of last week’s work for naught? In one sense, it may seem like a defeat — political leaders and the grassroots urged ABC to pull its fictional movie, but the network demurred and aired it anyway. That said, as Judd noted this morning, activists, particularly online activists, had an impressive impact during this controversy, both on the network and on its affiliates.

* ABC stopped marketing Path to 9/11 as “based on the 9/11 report.”

* An extended disclaimer report ran three times during the first night alone.

* Scholastic stopped promoting Path to 9/11 to students.

* Prominent media commentators, including many conservatives, spoke out against the film.

* Substantial edits were made to the film.

Sure, it’s disappointing that the program aired, but given one week’s worth of efforts, Judd’s list is pretty impressive.

One more docudrama note to bring to your attention. Alternet’s Evan Derkacz has posted a very good item with two clips, one of the drama as it was going to be aired, and the second following “some lawyerly editing to cut down on the explicit misrepresentations in favor of implicit ones.” They’re worth watching, if only to see how big ABC’s mistake really is. As Evan put it:

Think about what it must be like to be Sandy Berger or Madeleine Albright. Here you have ABC/Disney greenlight this bozo project for $40 million, listening to no independent knowledgeable voice, lying about the contents of the final edit after criticism pours in, and STILL you’re accused of allowing the tragedy of 9/11 for your cold and cowardly inability to act… Right wing operatives will always try to salt the media with revisionist BS. But shame on ABC/Disney for biting.

Did any of you happen to tune in? Was it as bad as it sounded?

Nope, watched both “Kill Bill”s on DVD and went to bed early. Just a quiet Sunday.

Hopefully, no Republican’t politician will be able to quote this lying piece of trash show without everybody in the audience standing up and calling him on it, but I would not expect that in a world where Ricky “Man on Dog” Santorum regularly claims we found the WMD in Iraq in the form of 500 1990’s saran and mustard gas artillery shells. Is that what we went to war about? We could have bought each one for $100,000,000 each and saved money, not to mention lives.

  • I tried to watch it for five minutes, but the “glossy” film techniques made it unwatchable.

    The bigger question is this: For forty million bucks, what kind of Nielsen ratings did/will ABC get? If it is a large enough turkey, ABC and the producers (and the rest of the MSM) will have learned their lesson. If real estate is location, location, location, than television is ratings, ratings, ratings.

    Speaking of the Nielsen television ratings, anybody got a link to the weekly ratings.

  • You know, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch it. Life is too short to get as pissed off as I knew the film would make me. I thought you Carpetbagger would watch it for me and I would get a book report, but you too allowed common sense to rule the evening. So be it. I am sure there will be more dirty tricks to follow until November.

  • Why does everyone keep pretending ABC was duped? Or every other news organization who just happens to quote the 9/11 Commission as saying the exact opposite of what it said? They hired an evangelical to direct, had their consultants quit, their star fight over innaccuracies in the script, and then promoted it only to right wing pundits, and we’re supposed to think they got bamboozled? And then after getting caught, they sent e-mails of reassurance to the right wing that Clinton would be libelled as planned, and they got duped?

    Then after Clinton personally made requests that the movie be altered, they begrudgingly changed it as little as possible, and were outright deceptive at every turn to deflect criticism long enough to let the genie out of the bottle. Everything they have done was implicitly designed to do as much damage to history as they were able to get away with.

    ABC didn’t “bite”. They cooked up this steaming pot of feces and fed it to us commercial free. And after all this, the whitewash of Bush’s night is apparently still too rough on the man, and will be pre-empted by the President’s speech.

    Plain and simple: these are fiends, not fools. They aren’t getting played, they’re playing dumb. This is just another example of how the rightwing has created a monopoly of ideas so their boneheaded idiocy doesn’t have to weather the competition of the open market because if they ever had to face any competition, they would fade from popularity quicker than an eight track, and would generate about as much nostalgia as Disco.

  • Watching Kill Bill 1 & 2 counts as quiet Sunday? Wow!

    Actually, I think the fact that ABC had to add disclaimers was very important. I held my nose and watched Howard Kurtz on Sunday, with David Gergen and someone else. Both guests responded to repeated questioning by saying ABC should not have created conversations about killing bin Laden that did not happen. The transcript will be worth reading.

    The fact that Scholastic stopped promoting it as educational material was especially important. We did not need kids getting a distorted picture of what led up to that terrible day.

    I count this a major win.

  • FOOTBALL RATINGS DOUBLE ABC ‘911’ FUSS FILM… MORE… 15.1 RATING/23 SHARE FOR NBC ‘SUNDAY NIGHT’ FOOTBALL EASILY BEATS CONTROVERSIAL ABC ‘PATH TO 9-11’ 8.3 RATING/12 SHARE AND CBS ‘9-11’ DOCUMENTARY 8.2/12… DEVELOPING..

    At least ABC got to show the film and let the viewers make their own viewing choices… I for one did not watch it. Needless to say, ABC can’t be happy with the numbers.

  • It’s not just a week. As the parent of a 2-year-old, i have every intention of making this last throughout his childhood. we will never go to a Disney theme park, never watch a Disney movie, never purchase a Disney product, and i’ll be telling him, over the years, just exactly why.

  • Watching Cheney lie for an entire hour on Meet the Press was as much as I could stomach for one day.

    Franken was just talking about how he was screaming at his tv throughout the show. I listened later to the podcast, so I was screaming at my computer instead.

  • There was a pretty good football game on last night. I’m betting a lot of would-be targets for the propaganda were watching the Mannings instead. With lots more football tonight, a lot of those targets may not even have a look-in.

    A friend of mine opined that the movie was unlikely to change anybody’s minds. The right already thinks it was Clinton’s fault and a bad TV movie isn’t likely to sway many others.

    The most important thing is to ensure that it is not shown to school kids in the future. That would cement the fabrications into myth. Even though Scholastic pulled out, individual schools may decide to re-air it in the future, and that needs to be watched for and fought.

  • LOL We were all waiting for someone else to watch it for us. Good for us for not wasting our time. I don’t like to be elitist, but I think the CarpetBagger Report attracts just a bit more intelligence and thoughtfulness than most blogs.

  • Did not watch it. Watched “The Birdcage” on AMC instead.

    Made sure the cable box never went near ABC all evening. I did not want to risk giving ABC any help at all on its ratings.

    I believe the next “sweeps” ratings month is November. There needs to be a movement to not turn on ABC at anytime during the “sweeps” period. Lousy ratings then will really hit them in the wallet, since it is those ratings that set their advertising rates. No ABC in November!

  • Apparently, the ratings were less-than stellar. More thorough numbers should be available tomorrow.

    Those who know someone who was a casualty of 9/11 can solemnize the day in their own way. Putting a special on TV about it is another matter entirely. I for one am automatically extremely skeptically about anything like that, which truly seems like bathing in the blood of 9/11. It’s just too recent. You have to question the motives.

    I think that explains why a lot of people didn’t tune in. They’re not looking for a collective remembrance just like I’m not, because at this point it seems a little stinky. Not an appropriate “memorial.”

  • Didn’t see it. But the one-line summary in my newspaper TV schedule for tonight’s installment looks interesting:

    “Based on the 9/11 Commission report.” Period.

    Also, the Associated Press story about the movie
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14778419
    mentions a few of the edits, but ends with a summary of the fictitious Osama-grab sequence without stating that it’s phony.

  • saw it over here in the UK. shorter me: BOOOOR-ING! *in a Homer Simpson voice*

    the two disclaimers on title cards were on once at the beginning. i’m a very fast reader and i couldn’t finish either one.

    i took copious notes for my posts on last week’s 9/11 remembrance TV programmes here. i quit last night after almost filling a quarter of an A3-sized page. kept it on but went to check my mail &c. glanced back and forth occasionally but what i saw was a total yawn.

  • I watched the whole thing and I’m usually sound asleep by 9 on Sunday evenings. It wasn’t bad. I haven’t the foggiest idea what parts were true and what were made-up, so I just assume it’s all made up. If I want dispassionate truth I come here. Cough!

    I certainly didn’t have any trouble with the less than flattering portrayals of Berger or Albright. Those two were always the worst sort of CYA/Windbag DC types. I only wish that they left the snippets of Berger at his worst in. The guy is a horses be-hind. Ditto for that awful, awful woman (“what good is that wonderful Army of yours if you don’t use it?”).

    The cut to Clenis and his “I did not have sex with that woman” elicited loud groans. Absolutely no need to include that.

    The thing that bothered me the most was that the notion that our existing Laws and Layers of Bureaucracy somehow were part of the problem. Almost as bothersome is that some of the know-it-all’s that hang out here admit they didn’t watch, yet won’t let that stop them from forming an opinion anyway. Don’t you accuse your opponents of that very behavior on a regular basis?

  • Im betting the unedited version will be shown in the future(who knows when) and end up in the schools. These fanatics are playing the long game. Believing that their ultimate victory will produce a 1000 year reich, they can be patient. There can be no bi-partisanship with zealots.

  • “Household Rating/Share
    NBC: 12.5/19, Fox: 8.0/12, ABC: 7.5/11, CBS: 7.4/11”

    It didn’t just lose to football. It lost to The Simpsons/Family Guy, and it barely edged out a repeat of Cold Case.

    My guess: The 35% hardcores who still approve of the charade made up almost all of the viewership (and even a lot of them were watching football.) The rest of the viewers were liberal bloggers documenting the atrocities.

    The ratings probably have nowhere to go but down, too. How many people will tune in tonight after missing Part 1? How many who watched will have had enough?

    Taking all that heat and facing potential boycotts for an eleven-share and a third place tie with repeats. Disney shareholders ought to be posing some pointed questions of their own to Mr. Iger.

  • JRS Jr.,

    At least ABC got to show the film and let the viewers make their own viewing choices

    Just to be clear then, you’d be fine with NBC showing a “docudrama” of how Bush was part of a conspiracy to let the 9/11 hijackers finish their job, right?

  • I didn’t watch and won’t watch. I was most happy to hear on this morning’s Thom Hartmann show (Air America) that he simply made a decision to boycott Disney, Disneyland and ABC (as much as possible). Maybe we should all think about that. Ratings and profits appear to be their only value system, so hit ’em where it hurts.

  • I watched nearly all of it. It was actually fairly well done.

    It really concentrated on the hunt for Ramzi Yousef and a few other terrorists. Albright, Tenet and Berger did not come off well. Though they were not really trashed either.

    They were reluctant to kill Osama at all costs. Who can blame them?

    With 20-20 hindsight we can see that he should have been killed, but no one can see the future. Personally I don’t think they can be faulted for not risking so much (such as killing Royalty of the UAE) when the intelligence was rather weak. Let’s remember that the CIA has made plenty of mistakes in the past. They are only human.

    I think that the claims that Clinton and/or Bush should have been focused on possible terrorist activity by Osama to the neglect of other issues such as relations with China and Russia are ridiculous.

    Anyone can say what should be done after the fact.

    The one thing that does come out is that the intelligent acts of a few frontline police/customs officers were crucial in saving lives.

  • Given the lack of advertising, Sunday’s ratings are a bit beside the point for the network. They get the same amount (nada) whatever the numbers are that watched.

    Assuming tonight’s showing DOES have advertisers, then rating are germaine. Still, if part 1 got low ratings, part 2 will likely be lower still.

  • As much as I hope ABC finds those ratings disappointing, it appears those are up 56% from the same week last year for ABC. No wonder they enjoyed the controversy.

    While I appreciate Judd’s list, I think the most important way in which progressive activism (online and offline) was successful is that nearly everyone was exposed to the questions about the veracity of the program and the controversy. I am optimistic enough to believe that meant a much larger share of the audience viewed the propaganda with a critical eye, rather than sponging it up with unquestioning passivity. Although Scholastic did get a great twist of the knife in by not just pulling the study guide by replacing it with one on critical thinking.

    I do agree we need to be vigilant for this nonsense showing up elsewhere in the future — and I really hope that Albright sues ABC, the writers and producers.

  • I did watch it. Might as well know what I complained about.

    Overall – I thought it began well. I’d second the complaint about its directorial style. Memo to Hollywood: jerky camera movements no longer convey realism – they just make our eyes tired. Quick cuts are not a substitute for lousy pacing.

    Frankly, my issues with what I saw were at the beginning and the end.
    It began with the disclaimer – then displayed a few quotes from the 9/11 report.

    As in: “This is fiction. But here’s our unimpeachable source material.”

    The bulk of the movie after that I think played out well – reasonably accurate (albeit dramaticized, from what I know) portrayals of how Ramzi Yousef was captured and the first WTC attack.

    The last fifteen minutes were chock full of the “why are they making this part up?” scenes – and these came fast and thick. Edited remarks from Clinton mispronouncing Bin Laden’s name – the fictional opportunity to get UBL (using Massoud’s forces, who were nowhere near Bin Laden) is called off.

    The fictionalized Massoud chides the CIA operative “Are there any real men left in Washington? or are they all cowards?”

    The arrest of Yousef provokes the Taliban to attack Massouds followers and many of his people are massacred – (subtext – it’s all our fault).

    -cut to Clinton being burned in effigy
    -cut to Clinton’s projected image being used for target practice by Kalid Sheikh Mohammed
    -cut to 9/11 hijackers beginning their takeover of the planes.

    Taken as a package, I’d say this ending could have been plenty dramatic without the fabrication. With it, I’d agree that the Clinton administration officials have a right to be angry at their portrayal.

  • “Just to be clear then, you’d be fine with NBC showing a “docudrama” of how Bush was part of a conspiracy to let the 9/11 hijackers finish their job, right?”

    Edo, just to be very clear, as long as a movie like that included similar disclaimers and was called a “docu-drama” I’d have no problem with it airing. Bottom line: The last thing I want is right and/or left wingers telling me what I can and can’t watch on TV.

  • I didn’t watch it, either. Wouldn’t give them the satisfaction and sure wouldn’t want to contribute to their ratings.

    One silver lining to this toxic sludge pile is that *somebody* paid $40 million bucks on a ratings dude whose cover was blown before it even aired and probably won’t change anybody’s mind that wasn’t that way inclined to start with.

    So how eager will Mr. Moneybags be to finance another turkey like this one? Hopefully not so much.

  • Dear Bubble-Boy.

    I have to go to work on Monday at 7:45 AM, so I am selective when I decide to stay up and watch something. Your criticism is unfair and misses the point. My concerns are threefold: the first is from the point of view of an educator. When material is shown in the classroom as ABC clearly intended to do with this film, it is important for the future as well as now, that the material be accurate. As time passes, people die, and memories fade, all we have is the record. That is what writing down History is all about. This program is a blatant attempt at revisionism, and that is something that as a free society we need to gaurd against.

    My next concern is ABC’s use of public airways for a partisan point of view. The program, shown without commercial interuptions, is slanted in the direction of the GOP’s most right wing element. It is the stated goal of at least one of the film’s producers to pull point of view to the right.

    That leads me to my third concern: we are less than two months to a very important election. What right has Disney got to produce a bunch of propoganda and try to palm it off as truth? If Disney didn’t want Fahrenhiet 9-11 to be shown at all in 2004, then they are very aware of the rules. They have a political bias and they are attempting to corrupt the electorate with falsehoods.

  • JRS,
    You’re part of the problem. Anything that deviates in any way from full GOP support gets instant backlash, while Liberals will defend a Republican hatchet job, and concede what a good point the other side has criticizing something that pushes our view. See how open minded we are? I criticize Democrats, and defend the enemy!

    What this means in practice is that the safest bet for any media outlet is GOP porn. Since conservatives are the only ones that think certain POVs should not be heard, they’re the only ones who boycott and raise a stink.

    But it’s not about censorship. It’s about propoganda. This series’ first priority was not to entertain, but to rewrite history. It’s sole purpose is to suck up to the powerful by injecting character assasinating myths into the discourse to distract from the very real failures of the truly responsible. ABC gets far more bang for the buck pumping out campaign infomercials than the would with a straight cash contribution.

    The inevitable result is censorship: views that differ from K Street are punished, and therefore shut out. It’s a far more sophisticated means of state-run media; in practice, cash and favorable riders slipped into telecommunications bills have proven to be just as effective as journalist muzzlign laws written and enforced by tyrants.

    Just as television advertising has put most political power in the hands of contributors rather than voters, the consolidating media market has made legislators far more crucial to a media baron’s financial success that viewers.

    Should our media be devoted to campaigning for our politicians? Or participating in an open market where financial success is determined by producing the best programs? Is the media supposed to serve us, or them?

  • I didn’t watch it. Full disclosure: I have no plans to watch any TV or movie-studio rehashes of 9/11. Ever. The movie this summer? Nope. Memorial services? Nope. Nightly News “5 Year Anniversary” recaps? No.

    It’s not that I don’t care – I feel I have to move past it, even if the country won’t. I’m so cynical about airport security and so on – it’s a complete facade of nothingness. If 9/11 had actually served to make a damn bit of difference in the US, if our leaders had done anything more than wave flags and fists at our distant attackers I might feel like what happened somehow resulted in the country being a better, stronger place.

    I think if anything, our country has become a worse country; our politicians have purposefully steered it to be so. The terrorists have won far more than they ever thought, starting with the collapse of the towers, which they did not foresee, up to yesterday’s pronouncement by Cheney that those who even dare to disagree are unpatriotic.

    A few dozen extremists from half-way across the globe put the bait on the hook, and a whole school of fish fought over who could get the biggest bite. Bin Ladin isn’t laughing – he’s shaking his head in disbelief in how easy it was to turn us against ourselves.

  • Nightline ran a 15 or 20 min special after the film. I watched that but not the film (watched the real documentary on the other network which was amazing even though I saw it the first time too). The Nightline treatment was not as good as what Ted Koppel would have done, but it did make the point that there were different “opinions” about whether the CIA every had a legit opportunity to kill Bin Laden. They had Clark and others to address that issue specifically (more people said no than yes). I don’t know how awful the film was, but this part at the end seemed more “fair and balanced” than I would have anticipated. They mentioned that both administrations failed to retaliate for the Cole (sp?) and that this is acknowledged to have been seen as an act of weakness.

  • wrt murph’s comments:

    ” Edited remarks from Clinton mispronouncing Bin Laden’s name – the fictional opportunity to get UBL (using Massoud’s forces, who were nowhere near Bin Laden) is called off.

    The fictionalized Massoud chides the CIA operative “Are there any real men left in Washington? or are they all cowards?”

    The arrest of Yousef provokes the Taliban to attack Massouds followers and many of his people are massacred – (subtext – it’s all our fault).”

    I would agree with most of this though I don’t think that it was really so critical of the Clinton administration.

    Of course, more comes tonight.

    However, I would say that people who characterize this movie without having seen it are on thin ice.

    ‘toxic sludge pile” Curmoudgeon? On what basis do you come to that conclusion? Remember we are the reality based community. Let’s not stoop to the levels of some of our political opponents.

  • “However, I would say that people who characterize this movie without having seen it are on thin ice.” — NeilS

    This plays right into the rightwinger’s hands. They only give copies to conservative pundits, and then when we hear the scenes’ they effusively praise on Limbaugh, et al, we’re supposed to wait until the show airs and the damage is done to raise a stink? The stuff we complained about were IN THE FILM. The only reason this movie isn’t the hatchet job ABC/Disney wanted it to be is because we complained about the inaccuracies that had been leaked ahead of time. It’s the only reason this government-excusing propoganda isn’t being taught to our children, Saudi style, in our high schools today.

    Now that it has aired, it’s clear why they tried to let the genie out of the bottle before liberals got a good look — it’s pure, government propoganda that could have slipped by unchallenged had we not acted in time.

  • Well Gracious I am in work NLT 6:00 a.m. I’m getting a bit long in tooth to boot, yet I watched it. I’m fully aware that I’m not watching a documentary. I’m also aware that many may not be aware that it’s not. So, to those who either read the script, or somehow got a preview of the film itself, and then went on to spread the word about misinformation – thank you.

    To those who make lame excuses like they had to be in work at 7:45, well, where are you getting your information from? I read a number of blogs and was getting the impression that this fillum was a one-sided hatchet job. There was an agenda in there for sure. But after watching for myself I’ve concluded that most of these bloggers are guilty of hysterical over-reaction.

    I ask again – where are you getting your information from if you’re not watching yourself? Seems to me your opinion would be nothing other than a parrotting of someone elses opinion. And lord knows where that opinion came from.

  • I didn’t watch it, but I found this interesting:

    Thomas Kean and Lee Hamiltion both appeared at the National Press Club today on C-Span. I saw a snippet. Kean said he saw the show last night and thought it was fine, and doesn’t understand what all the controversy is about. He said ABC adopted some of his suggestions but not all. Lee Hamilton said he didn’t watch it, but WAS NOT ASKED BY ABC TO BE AN ADVISOR, nor did they even inform him about the project. He went on to say he was disturbed by the term “docudrama” and the blending of news and entertainment.

    As to the last comment by Hamilton, I have to disagree. The blending of fiction and real events is ubiquitous in literature, film and television. What’s an historical novel? How about those Titanic movies? All the true crime movies. All the NASA space projects with animation sequences. Dramatizations in advertising. It’s everywhere. Nothing evil or pernicious about it.

    It’s the misrepresentation of it that matters. Had ABC simply presented a proper disclaimer it might have been all right, although if it was politicized, one has to question whether that’s appropriate for such a momentous event in our history.

  • Like murph, I thought I should watch it after writing so many letters complaining based on second-hand reports. After the first few minutes, it became clear this was a rather uncompelling and hacked together piece of work. The classifieds are about as interesting, and about as well written. In the end, I’d have to say I had it on, but only glanced up from time to time.

    With about an hour to go, they began gradually building the case against Clinton, et.al. When they showed Lewinsky waltzing across the screen and Clinton “not having sex with that woman,” I could hear my 80-something parents going berzerk from 250 miles away. If there’s a button for Repubs that’s hotter than Hillary, it has got to be Lewinsky and that Clinton clip. As someone else noted, those scenes seemed out of place and unncecessary — unless, of course, you wanted to rile up Clinton-hate among the faithful so that they’d buy the falsehoods that followed. (Now that I think about it, that may have been the most effective part of the film).

    Anyway, after trashing Clinton, it’ll be interesting to see how they deal with “Okay, you’ve covered your ass now.” Oh, I forgot — tonight’s the night I have to rearrange my sock drawer.

  • “Watching Kill Bill 1 & 2 counts as quiet Sunday? Wow!” – zak822

    What, that’s not your idea of a quiet Sunday?

    We have every right to critize bad speach. We have every right to defend people from defamation (which I understand was exactly what this whole thing was about). And we have every right to boycott ABC and Disney.

    I really can’t stand the meme of intolerant people who walk into your house or your church and demand that you, being the ‘liberal’, tolerate the poisonous crap they spew out. I read an article years ago about an evangelical group that thought every other religion was satanic and all other believers would go to hell, but who were pissed off that they couldn’t join an ecumentical association promoting the tolerance of other religions. They just didn’t understand why those ‘liberal’ religions didn’t want their sorry ass selves in the room.

  • I didn’t watch it, for a lot of reasons. I can’t bear to watch fictionalized accounts of the events of that day, no matter whose point of view is being expressed. I don’t need to be any more angry at the right than I am now. I think most made-for-television movies are substandard and a waste of time. I didn’t want to contribute to their ratings. And, Mystery was on PBS.

  • The last thing I want is right and/or left wingers telling me what I can and can’t watch on TV.

    Comment by JRS Jr

    Yeah and I’m really glad it’s illegal for both rich people AND poor people to sleep under the bridges.

  • Memekiller:
    “This plays right into the rightwinger’s hands.”

    I don’t care what they think. If I base my actions and thoughts on others opinions than they are in control of me.

    “They only give copies to conservative pundits, ..”

    Very suspicious in my view. When I heard Rush praise the film I thought it was going to be a real hatchet piece. So far it hasn’t been, but again there is another night to go.

    “we’re supposed to wait until the show airs and the damage is done to raise a stink? ”

    No. We/you did the right thing. I don’t know if they changed anything substantial in response to the complaints on liberal blogs, but it was a good idea to let them know that we were watching carefully.

    I don’t see this as much use to schools. It’s really a thriller and quite light on ideas. I don’t think its really all that good as history. For instance it doesn’t really address important questions about the Taliban, Ramzi Yousef’s background, Osama’s background, the basis of US policy etc.

    I don’t see it as having any affect on the elections…….so far, but again there is more coming tonight.

  • I was so pissed when I found out ABC was out of the Monday night football game, but now I am so glad. I have absolutely no reason to tune into ABC or purchase Disney goods.

    I am sorry to offend, but anyone who actually gives a damn about politics should not have watched this movie, right or left. It was a movie, no docu this or docu that. Principles are what separates us from them (you pick). And not watching national propaganda costs nothing, actually gives you time, and might have some impact on future docu-whatevers.

    For all of you that watched it and supported both ABC and Disney, sorry, but you are an enablers. You can say this or that, but let’s be honest, you still watched it and you still contributed to their ratings. Does anyone think ABC or Disney is researching to see how many critical thinkers viewed in to determine inaccuracies. They don’t give a damn.

    The good news is they decided to play it on the opening of Sunday Night Football when the Mannings were playing head to head and the second part will be airing on the first Monday night ever to have two games.

  • First things first.

    We need a movement to rescue Mickey, Donald, Goofy and Pluto ~ the cartoon characters, not the Administration.

  • “you still watched it and you still contributed to their ratings.” – ScottW

    Scott, if you are not a Neilson family, you don’t contribute to anybody’s ratings.

    Don’t go scary all spooky on us now.

  • I ask again – where are you getting your information from if you’re not watching yourself? Seems to me your opinion would be nothing other than a parrotting of someone elses opinion. And lord knows where that opinion came from.
    Comment by Bubble Boy

    I think you continue to miss my point. I am informed by my own value system which tells me: 1.) It is not appropriate to use public airways for propoganda purposes. 2.) It is not appropriate to try to fictionalize the truth and try to palm it off as fact and try to introduce your fiction into the public school classrooms of America. 3. ) It is not appropriate for large corporations to use their enormous power to influence elections.

    The contents of this film were not top secret. Thousands of advance copies were distributed to the right wing media. If you had watched Bill Maher on Friday night one of the people who recieved an advance copy gave a brief rundown of the most serious distortions.

    If this film came off as you said and it was not so bad, then it is because of the active bloggers who gave the public a heads up.

  • Seems to me your opinion would be nothing other than a parrotting of someone elses opinion. And lord knows where that opinion came from.

    Comment by Bubble Boy

    Usually when the left wing tells you the right wing is lying you can be pretty sure the right wing is lying. When the right-wing says the left wing is lying you can be pretty sure that the right wing is lying.

    Not you, Bubble Boy, but the right wing has turned a blind eye and a held tongue to so many massive abuses of free speech, that they have a huge burden of proof to to even convince that they’re not actively misrepresenting things.

    The cons have used up all their benefits of the doubt and don’t really deserve the principled fairness that only the left seems capable of any more and which the right takes advantage.

    Just my opinion.

  • “It is not appropriate for large corporations to use their enormous power to influence elections.” – Gracious

    End corporate ownership of Media. Every media outlet, be it a radio station, TV station, network, magazine or newspaper should be owned by private individuals with full liabilities. There should be no corporate ownership of anything that can be used to express an opinion. I don’t mind Rupert Murdock owning Fox, but not through News Corp, and I don’t like NBC being owned by GE.

    Corporations have a perverted take on reality. If they don’t see that their stock goes up each quarter, the Directors get tanked. Though most news media outlets/departments are already vastly profitable (20% plus), they still have to MORE PROFITABLE each quarter or the stock value falls and the stockholders sue. And that is what is wrong with corporate ownership of media. They emasculate the news divisions and then are surprised that three years later their ratings plung when the new News Anchor has nothing but pablem to peddle.

  • “anyone who actually gives a damn about politics should not have watched this movie…” — ScottW

    I respectfully disagree. In fact, I’m a bit surprised more folks here didn’t at least try to watch it. One of the dangers in modern media discourse is that we all tend to select sources of information that we already agree with. To a certain extent, we’re all drinking the kool-aid flavor we prefer. So, it seems to me that anyone who “actually gives a damn about politics” would occasionally seek to expand our bubbles of understanding, if not for our own benefit, then to learn what others who disagree with us are thinking.

    In this particular case, I wrote a number of letters to ABC, Apple, and Disney based upon second-hand sources. It seemed to me, I owed it to myself to at least see what it was I had complained about. And, as Lance noted, my watching had no effect on ratings because we’re not a Nielson household.

  • this from Talking Points Memo:
    After watching the first installment of “The Path to 9/11,” Bill Clinton’s lawyers have written another blistering letter to Disney chief Robert Iger. In the letter — which we’ve obtained — Clinton lawyers Bruce Lindsey and Douglas Band write that they actually spoke to Iger twice and that Iger assured them that he was “personally taking the responsibility to ensure that appropriate edits to the film would be made.”

    But, the lawyers add: “Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention.” The letter concludes that the film does “a disservice to the American people” and is “disgraceful.” Full text after the jump.

    The full text:

    September 10, 2006

    Dear Bob,

    We are deeply disappointed that ABC and the Disney Corporation chose to air “The Path to 9/11.” The final product was fraught with error and contained contrived scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report. The film has undoubtedly cemented in millions of viewers’ minds a false impression of critical historical events.

    While there is not enough room here to fully document the fiction in your film, attached to this letter is a detailed fact sheet listing the numerous inaccuracies in the film according to the 9/11 Commission.

    Nine days ago, we wrote to you asking simply that the miniseries tell the truth, as researched extensively and definitively by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We asked that your network not present outright fiction as historical fact to the American public. In fact, we took pains to detail sequences in the movie that were plainly invented, based upon the version of the film that was shown to television critics and distributed to many conservative commentators. During our two recent conversations, you assured us that you were personally taking the responsibility to ensure that appropriate edits to the film would be made. Publicly, ABC said that the editing process was ongoing and that it was irresponsible” to condemn the film before seeing the finished product.

    Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention. “The Path to 9/11” flagrantly ignored the facts as reported by the 9/11 Commission and invented its own version of history. The result, in our judgment, is irreparable damage to the Commission’s work. More importantly, it is a disservice to the American people.

    That the film directly contradicts the findings of the 9/11 Commission is troubling. That it defames dedicated public officials is tragic. But the fact that it misleads millions of people about the most tragic and consequential event in recent history is disgraceful.

    Sincerely,

    Bruce R. Lindsey
    Chief Executive Officer
    William J. Clinton Foundation

    Douglas J. Band
    Counselor to President Clinton
    Office of William Jefferson Clinton

  • beep52, while it is a tough call I have to disagree. Normally, i think you would be correct — that those who are criticizing a show should know what it is they are criticizing based on first-hand knowledge. But this is a little different: ABC’s self-serving press release gave the game away when it said “watch us first, debate about it later!” They were willing to disregard truth to use the controversy to garner eyeballs. Anyone who then provided eyeballs played into the wrong-doer’s hands. ABC established that as the measure; the only way for critics to win was to deny them the viewership. The best way to marginalize this propaganda — and at the same time discourage others from trying in the future (and to make the perpetrators politically toxic) would have been for this thing to have a lower ratings share than Home Shopping Network Quilting With Orange Yarn Special. And I understand the “we aren’t a Nielsen household” argument, but I’m not sure right and wrong shuld be determined by random draw, and I am not convinced that cable and satellite systems do not pass on viewership info to the content providers.

  • “He went on to say he was disturbed by the term “docudrama” and the blending of news and entertainment.”

    This sums up my main reason for not watching this or any attempt to mate fact with fiction. Although you can substitute nauseated for disturbed.

    There are certain things that don’t need to be sexed up to make them more exciting. There are other things that should not be sexed up because it involves (in a way) sexing up tragedy.

    The September 11th attacks fall into both categories.

  • Didn’t watch the docufabrication, I made a conscious effort years ago to get rid of the tv.

    As a side line has anyone thought about whether capturing Bin Laden before 9/11 would have stopped 9/11? I highly doubt that.

  • I’ll sit down with a few colleagues on Tuesday to watch the entire sordid mess (taped by a friend, so as to diminish ABC’s ratings), and then retire to my pedagogical cave to pick its bones at length….

  • I feel obligated to mention Richard Clarke’s reaction to the first installment:

    “There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton Administration officials as holding back the hard charging CIA, FBI, and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9-11.

    The exact opposite is true. From the President, to all of his White House team, and NSC Principals (Lake, Berger, Albright, Tenet, Reno) there was a common fixation with terrorism, al qaeda, and bin Ladin. ”

    And much more that can be found TPM cafe.

    I say this because Clarke would certainly know better than I whether the depiction was accurate or not. John O’Neill, and to a lesser extent, Clarke are the heroes of the story. They press for action while the others are more careful.

    Clarke also writes:
    “But if history is to know where to assign some of that culpability, it should not be guided by this fictionalization. It might better focus on leaders of the FBI who held back John O’Neill, leaders of the CIA’s Clandestine Service whose risk aversion prevented the Counter Terrorism Center from doing its job, and senior generals who strongly urged the Commander-in-Chief not to use our military to go after the al qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. Somehow, all of that is missing from this not too subtle televised politicization of history.”

    Wow

  • Wow

    Comment by NeilS (59)

    Yes, I too thought that Clarke’s response was much stronger than the lawyerly wishy-washy one from Clinton. No ambiguities, no maybes, straight one-two punch to the nose. I loved it 🙂

  • Didn’t watch it. Tired of seeing the annual dragging out of the bones of the nearly 3000 that perished on that day. R.I.P.

    But there is an ever growing number of dead that is just as large that most folks fail to pay attention to. When will there be a day that the names of dead and injured soldiers of the wars “over there” are read in public for us to take note? The 9/11 victims have a special place reserved for them, while the war dead fade away and turn into numbers that people then debate whether that’s really all that many dead or if it’s really much of a sacrifice compared to, say, the 30 Years War.

    So many lives tragically lost due to this day in September and its repurcussions. Yet only the politically attractive corpses get their due.

  • I only managed to get through half of the second night. I thought it was commercial-free, but some SNL skit featuring a bad Alfed E. Newman impersonator came on and they lost me.

    But what I did see spent much of the time ripping the dysfunction between the CIA and FBI, the lack of cooperation from Ambassadors, and the such. Again, no clue to what’s real and what’s made-up. I went in watching a TV movie and went out the same way. The first night was better.

    Last shot to “Gracious” (ironically chosen, no doubt. Like “Tiny” for a really big guy). You’re parrotting. When you’re not impersonating an Ostrich with your head in the sand. If you really are an Educator then you ought to make some lemonade. Bring a tape into your classroom. Show it to your students. Point out the inaccuracies. It will help develop their critical faculties. If everyone adopted your attitude and pretended it wasn’t there then we’d be in deep do-do.

    Personally I think it was way too boring a movie to appeal to the 30% still hanging on to this disasterous administration. Not enough T&A, for starters. Some Car explosions, but again not enough. Keeping track of the characters was tough, even assuming you could find Louisiana or Iraq on a map and clearly a Wingnut cannot. So, as political propoganda it failed on all counts.

  • Last shot to “Gracious” (ironically chosen, no doubt. Like “Tiny” for a really big guy). You’re parrotting. When you’re not impersonating an Ostrich with your head in the sand.

    Dear Bubble -Boy:

    I don’t think this is an appropriate forum for personal attacks, and if you felt personally attacked by me I sincerely apologize.
    The nickname “Gracious” was given to me years ago by my best friend, and whether or not it is an accurate name is probably best decided by those who have a personal relationship with me.
    As to my work, let’s start with the above referenced text:
    “You’re parrotting.” is a complete sentence however it contains one spelling error. There is only a single t in parroting.
    “When you’re not impersonating an Ostrich with your head in the sand.” is not a complete sentence, but is a sentence fragment. It can be a complete sentence if you remove the period after parroting and replace it with a comma. The better choice is to reverse the order of the sentences and have it read thus: When you’re not impersonating an ostrich with your head in the sand, you’re parroting. Consider yourself educated.

    Does it feel good to have someone attack you personally? I don’t think it does. There is so much more that we agree upon that it is silly to get personal, and in the past, I have always enjoyed your posts. If you have six free hours to watch a mini-series, good for you. I don’t have the same priorities or that much leisure time. I am not making a “lame excuse”; I am stating a fact.
    Perhaps in the future you could knock off the personal insults and be a little more civil.

  • I notice you never answered my direct question. I also notice that you started this, jerk. Not me.

    I’m glad you let others make up your mind for you. I’m also glad you’re not educating my children. Adios my thin-skinned Parrot!

  • Yeesh. Bubble Boy, you’re sounding a little like the opposition in your angered rhetoric. Just cool it.

    Having said that, GRACIOUS, nitpicking about Bubbly Boy’s grammar (although common in this forum) was clearly done out of your own anger, and not in the interests of keeping us all on our intellectual “toes”.

    As for my contribution to this thread, I guess I spend too much time playing “catch up” and completely missed the opening night of the ABC mini. I had every intention of watching it but I was under the impression it started on 9/11.

    Looking at the ratings for Monday night versus Sunday night, I’d say there were many who made the same mistake. I will try to find a copy of the 1st installment and had set my DVR to record the 2nd.

    Though I agree that we shouldn’t play into what appears to be ABC/Disney’s ploy for “eyeballs”, I feel our obligation to know the enemy outweighs this. The right are going to have a field day blasting the “pathetic” left for criticizing something they haven’t even seen. After all, the left have done the same thing for years when religious fanatics have tried to have something yanked based on content they’ve only heard about “at the Kool-Aid bowl”.

  • JTK: Thank-you for you rational comments. You are right; I don’t like personal attacks because my point of view differs from another’s. Typically I do not spend time correcting people’s grammar because I already spend half my life doing just that, so I must be pretty angry. Also it is a given that in an ideal world we should view and read every point of view, and perhaps, I like you, may soon watch the tape.

    Bubble-boy: Once again I am very sorry for having offended you.

    • Comments are closed.