Politicians Seek to Censure Media That Portray Them Critically in the WoT

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's right, American politicians are seeking to censure a company from showing a 'docu-drama' that portrays them and their associates in a very critical light regarding their actions during the time leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

This docu-drama, based in part upon the findings of the 9/11 commission, has gathered heated criticism from politicians who are trying to intimidate the company producing it, ABC, into changing it to suit their own political agenda or dropping it comepletely. One group of senators sent a letter to ABC's parent company, Disney, with veiled threats of taking away their license to broadcast if the show is not changed to suit their tastes.

Let me say that again: those with power in our nations capital are going all out in an attempt to pressure an independent company because the duco-drama they made is not favorable to them. Even now-retired officials are using all their weight to shut this down.

So why haven't you heard about it? Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation. It is not Bush, his administration, or Republicans, but democrats seeking to pressure an independent media company into altering their show. I guess they can't stand the public seeing how Clinton and company handled Osama during his administration right before the '06 elections. Funny when you consider who whines about suppression of the press.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk...cl-tv-features

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601819_pf.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...respondent.htm

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FiMDVkYmUzNWY=

The threatening letter from some Senators:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post...gwMTkwZjYwMDE=

A thorough dissection (of some) of these politicians claims:
http://occupied-territory.blogspot.c...ear-sandy.html

Crazed Rabbit

[yesdachi]

Sometimes the truth hurts, suck it up and sleep in the beds you’ve made. Crybaby bitches. If it is not true they can sue for slander (or something), I don’t think we will see many lawsuits, just a bunch of has-beens trying to spin it and rewrite history.

I don’t know why this is such a big deal, everyone already knows that when Clinton was dropping his pants for Monica his administration was dropping Americas pants for Osama.

Rush Limbaugh got an advanced copy and gave it a little review on his radio program yesterday, what I thought was funny is that many of the people (former Clinton administration) that are upset about it haven’t even seen it yet.

I can’t wait to see the program, even though I am sure it will frustrate me.

[Marshal Murat]

I think that this program is more entertainment and not scholastic in nature, and should be broadcast on public airways. If it's not scholastic, then why is there a show about women talking to other women about stuff, shows about doctors, and other such media that NO ONE LEARNS FROM.

[Lemur]

What's pathetic is that whenever somebody makes a ruckus like this, it only gives the object of their wrath free publicity. So not only are they being silly; they're promoting the thing that's irritating them. You would think people would learn.

The story is featured prominently on Google News, so I don't know about whether or not this is being soft-shoed by the (repeat after me) liberal elite defeatist anti-american ivory tower media. (Except for Fox news. They're okay.)

Interesting snippet from the coverage on E! shows that the author is not claiming he based the script entirely on the 9/11 report, which is good:

The film's writer-producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, whose credits include the 2001 docudrama The Day Reagan Was Shot, dismissed such assertions. In an interview Wednesday with Los Angeles radio station KRLA-AM, the filmmaker explained away the contradictions with the 9/11 Commission by insisting Path was based on two other books, The Cell by former ABC journalist John Miller and Michael Stone, and The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz.

He also said that he took dramatic license with certain events. "You know, when you're making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, 'You know, maybe we can use that.' "

Well, if I can't get a completely accurate rendition of history from an ABC miniseries, where will I turn?

[Tribesman]

So why haven't you heard about it?
Well who hasn't heard of it ? you managed to find plenty of links , which must have been really hard as it clearly is absent from both the mainstream media and all the little independants and certainly isn't being covered worldwide .

So I take it you mean why havn't the secret sect of monks from Bhutan who have taken a vow never to view any form of media heard of it ?
Well I hate to disappoint you Rabbit , but their vow also covers the internet so they will not be able to answer you .

[Lemur]

So why haven't you heard about it? Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation.

Indeed. That explains the 1,060 stories listed as current on Google News. Damn you, Clinton!

[Crazed Rabbit]

My question was rhetorical and certainly not intended to imply that noone has heard of it, only that the mainstream media isn't making a fuss about this, not that the AP hasn't written a story on it. As journalists know, there is a big difference between writing one story and doing a multi-part series on the front page. The point is the MSM isn't getting their panties in a bunch over this because its the democrats trying to pressure ABC.

Well who hasn't heard of it ? you managed to find plenty of links , which must have been really hard as it clearly is absent from both the mainstream media and all the little independants and certainly isn't being covered worldwide .

Strawmen must shiver in fright whenever they see you. Did I say it was absent from the mainstream media? No, I did not.

So I take it you mean why havn't the secret sect of monks from Bhutan who have taken a vow never to view any form of media heard of it ?
Well I hate to disappoint you Rabbit , but their vow also covers the internet so they will not be able to answer you .

Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that. Of course, then you might have to take advantage of what, I'm sure, is your amazing education and think a bit.

Anyways, what do you think of the politicos doing this Lemur? Surely you must have some opinion on them? It almost appears like you're trying to ignore what they're doing.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

This reminds me much of the media crisis around the Biography of Ronald Regan.

What disappoints me is what some of the Senator's and Congressmen are doing in their tactics of applying pressure in regards to a television show.
Just goes to show that all of the politicans in our current government deserve the boot.

[Xiahou]

This reminds me much of the media crisis around the Biography of Ronald Regan.

What disappoints me is what some of the Senator's and Congressmen are doing in their tactics of applying pressure in regards to a television show.
Just goes to show that all of the politicans in our current government deserve the boot.

Did sitting Senators write threatening letters demanding edits to the Reagan movie? I seem to remember it as a more grassroots protest- I could be wrong.

[Redleg]

Did sitting Senators write threatening letters demanding edits to the Reagan movie? I seem to remember it as a more grassroots protest- I could be wrong.

Hince you see the part about what disappoints me

[Xiahou]

Well I agree it's disappointing. At least this show purports itself to be a docu-drama. Some of the dialog and specific situations are dramatized, but there's no doubt that Clinton passed up several opportunities to assassinate bin Laden. I'm afraid that the Democrats who are complaining want all references to that purged from the record.

[Redleg]

Well I agree it's disappointing. At least this show purports itself to be a docu-drama. Some of the dialog and specific situations are dramatized, but there's no doubt that Clinton passed up several opportunities to assassinate bin Laden. I'm afraid that the Democrats who are complaining want all references to that purged from the record.

Given that a past president signed an executive order stating that the United States does not use assassinate as a policy of state, that seems to be an acceptable response in my opinion. However it does not excuse the failure of the Clinton Adminstration to attempt to capture and bring him to trail during several of those opportunities.

[Xiahou]

I dont think the cruise missiles that Clinton had launched were intended to capture Bin Laden.

As to Reagan's executive order:

There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides, at least after the evidence showed they were responsible for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The ban on assassinations -- contained in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan -- did not apply to military targets, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had previously ruled in classified opinions. Bin Laden's Tarnak Farm and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan were legitimate military targets under this definition, White House lawyers agreed.

Also, the assassination ban did not apply to attacks carried out in preemptive self-defense -- when it seemed likely that the target was planning to strike the United States. White House and Justice Department lawyers debated whether bin Laden qualified under this standard as well, and most of the time agreed that he did.

From Washington Post

That whole story lends further credence to what was being portrayed in the movie (before they re-cut it to make Clinton happy) that the Clinton administration wasnt taking Al Qaeda seriously.

[Tribesman]

Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that.
Rabbit you muppet , you made the strawman with your opening post.

[Redleg]

I dont think the cruise missiles that Clinton had launched were intended to capture Bin Laden.

Neither were they assassinatipn attempts, as stated in the reasoning behind the use of the cruise missiles - they were attempting to destroy the Terrorist base camps and their command structure. But we digress from the actual topic. (The Predator drones, especially the one used in Yemen not so long ago could be considered a violation of the Executive order banning assassinations, as a policy of state.)

That whole story lends further credence to what was being portrayed in the movie (before they re-cut it to make Clinton happy) that the Clinton administration wasnt taking Al Qaeda seriously.

That has been known for some time.

[Divinus Arma]

This story has some legs.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...09-08-19-31-38

ABC Gets More Pressure to Toss 9/11 Film
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC faced growing pressure Friday about its planned miniseries on the buildup to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Former Clinton administration officials, historians and a Democratic petition with nearly 200,000 signatures urged the network to scrap the five-hour drama.

Apparently the Bin Laden event is "false" according to every Democrat except for the CIA agent on the ground during the event. And that CIA agent is no friend of the GOP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer He's the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why America is Losing the War on Terror".

ABC would be nuts to pull the show, given all the buzz about the miniseries.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that.
Rabbit you muppet , you made the strawman with your opening post.

Ah, the good old ad hominem. I was wondering how soon you'd resort to it. Perhaps you should try and get a refund from any debate classes you might have attended.

And you need to read the link for a strawman argument:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Did I misrepresent the actions or positions of those democrat Senators or Clinton and his gang? No, I did not. Of course, had you read the links, you would have seen that. But what time is there for learning when there are personal attacks to be launched? Perhaps next time you'll get a clue and bring some actual arguments instead of the same, tired logical fallacies. I worry for you when you seem to so fervently believe that you're actually debating.

Crazed Rabbit

[Pindar]

Given that a past president signed an executive order stating that the United States does not use assassinate as a policy of state, that seems to be an acceptable response in my opinion.

Hello,

An Executive Order is not codified law. The Executive may change, amend, suspend, overrule or narrowly interpret such as deemed fit at any time. The Executive Order(s) (EO) in question (Reagan's being the most recent) have typically been subject to a wide array interpretation. The language of the EOs are particularly ambiguous. A simple example is assassination is never actually defined in any of the EOs.

[Don Corleone]

If anybody doubts that Clinton seriously underestimated the threat Al-Queda posed and gave them more free passes then they deserved, in effect encouraging them, they're delusional. If anybody similarly thinks that Bush and company didn't get blindsided without a clue, again, they're delusional. Both administrations failed their most basic task miserably. There's no covering that up.

For Congress to step in and threaten to pull the license of a major network for telling a drama that is more true in the general than anything we've seen in the past 6 years, even if it is wrong in the particulars convinces me we don't need to worry about losing our free expression any more. That train has apparently left the station.

[Xiahou]

That whole story lends further credence to what was being portrayed in the movie (before they re-cut it to make Clinton happy) that the Clinton administration wasnt taking Al Qaeda seriously.

That has been known for some time.

Known to us certainly.
Certain members of the Clinton administration (including Clinton himself) must not think it well-known or they wouldnt be trying so hard to stifle any portayal of it.

[Lemur]

ABC would be nuts to pull the show, given all the buzz about the miniseries.

Amen to that. The misguided Dems who are making a ruckus, well, like I said, you can't buy that kind of publicity.

[Xiahou]

They should leave it un-edited and bill it as "The mini-series the politcians don't want you to see."

[Reverend Joe]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You people make me laugh so much... so the man made up a bunch of wild crap because he hates Clinton. Who cares? Don't watch it. And if you believe it- too bad! Go ahead, believe whatever comes over the glass screen... ignorance is bliss.

[Divinus Arma]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You people make me laugh so much... so the man made up a bunch of wild crap because he hates Clinton. Who cares? Don't watch it. And if you believe it- too bad! Go ahead, believe whatever comes over the glass screen... ignorance is bliss.

Actually the CIA agent is a Democrat who dislikes Bush.

[Reverend Joe]

Actually the CIA agent is a Democrat who dislikes Bush.

You need to relax more... you people are all alike: clever people and grocers. Always weighing, always knowing the exact measurements and facts. A man makes a documentary full of lies- what can be divided about that? Only a fool sees truth in what comes on the television. It is all a pack of lies, and the sooner you see, the easier it is to laugh at.

Damn them all! Damn all the idiots who claim to know our minds, our will, our hearts!

[Lemur]

Judging by some of the reviews, this miniseries is going to need all of the free publicity it can get.

It's hard to fathom a brouhaha brewed over such a bore. ABC has received tens of thousands of letters -- including one from Bill Clinton's office -- insisting "Path" is wildly inaccurate and should not air. But ABC still plans to air the two-part movie.

Controversy could boost viewership, except "Path" is the dullest, worst-shot TV movie since ABC's disastrous "Ten Commandments" remake. It substitutes shaky handheld cameras and dumb dialogue for craftsmanship. It could not be more amateurish or poorly constructed unless someone had forgotten to light the sets.

Oooh, this reviewer does a textbook "damning with faint praise" ...

Though "The Path to 9/11" lacks the high-level artistic excellence of such recent 9/11 feature films as "Flight 93" and "World Trade Center," there is a worthy, nuts-and-bolts integrity to the carefully stitched dramatic quilt of the storytelling on this thoughtfully well-wrought miniseries.

I still don't plan to watch it. I can think of much more profitable ways to spend five hours. Maybe if it winds up being a true cultural phenomenon I'll catch it later ...

[Xiahou]

Well, I wasn't planning on watching it before- and I'm definitely not planning on watching it now that they're recutting it. I'm really disappointed in ABC for knuckling under to pressure from politicians so easily though.

Where's their righteous indignation and cries of censorship on this one?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Dems are rather vile and foolish regarding this, and I sense more foolishness over this soon.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Ah, the good old ad hominem. I was wondering how soon you'd resort to it. Perhaps you should try and get a refund from any debate classes you might have attended.

Well rabbit perhaps you had better read what you wrote if you cannot remember it is in the first post of the topic written by Crazed Rabbit if you need more help you could look at it when it is bolded again .

So why haven't you heard about it?
Errr .......we have . Oh but thats just rhetorical isn't it you are only asking people why they havn't heard of something when they have heard of something .....errrrr ....... thats not rhetorical rabbit thats bollox .
But then you give a bollox reason why people havn't heard what they have heard.....Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation. It is not Bush, his administration, or Republicans, but democrats seeking to pressure an independent media company into altering their show......ahhhhh of course the good old liberal media bias that doesn't report things ...but it is reported isn't it So you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .
Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that. Of course, then you might have to take advantage of what, I'm sure, is your amazing education and think a bit.
perhaps you should heed your own words .

[whyidie]

Wasn't it a local ABC affiliate that tried aired a hack piece on John Kerry during the '04 elections ? Or was it the other way around ?


Either way the difficulty is if "Some of the dialog and specific situations are dramatized" while the majority of the movie is based on fact it gives the impression that the whole docu-drama is based on reality. Its a bit devious if you asked me. Oliver Stones JFK did similar things and there was huge controversy surrounding that film as well. Senatorial involvement prior to the release of JFK ?


No, but I'd say the timing of the release of the show (purely coincidental) puts the Democratic party in a unique position. It is a fine line, and maybe one that should not be approached, but as long as they did not threaten to legislate against ABC they are protecting their interests in a legal manner. Maybe it would have been more acceptable if no politicians currently holding office were involved in sending the letter.

As for ABC caving in I'm going to have to say I would like to see why they pulled it.