Comments on: Senate Democrats Threaten ABC’s License over ‘Path to 9/11′

By: See You At The Yard, Meat » The Path To 9/11

See You At The Yard, Meat » The Path To 9/11 — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:38:00 +0000

[...] I don’t think anybody escapes criticism of this movie and I’ll say this: From a political perspective, there is nothing worse the Democrats could have done than to attack this movie the way they did. Why? Because they made sure that a bunch of people who otherwise would not have seen it, watched it. Making subtle threats to ABC regarding their license is ridiculous. There are some who are suggesting legal action after the fact (defamation and libel lawsuits) is even worse. [...]

By: Joseph S

Joseph S — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:28:37 +0000

On the aftermath of 9/11 2001, George Bush and his administration have every resource available to them to fight Osama Bin Laden and the war on terrorism. Some of the resources are the $19 billion he has spent on the war, 140,000 troops he has deployed in the middle east, revoking the civil rights of the American people by means of the Patriot Act, Wire taping, spying on their finances, and the 5 year time from 9/11 to the present. He had all these and yet he is finding a very long and a very hard time on laying a hand on Osama Bin Laden and terrorism. So the question is, what is ABC's "The Path to 9/11" asking from the Clinton admistration where he had none of any resource that Bush has? Should they have done a better job if they have focus on aftermath of 9/11, and in so order asking why did he waste all the resources that was given to him by the fear of the American people from 9/11 and terrorism.

By: Kent G. Budge

Kent G. Budge — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:53:21 +0000

I never thought I'd be sympathizing with the Democrats over gross misrepresentations in a TV drama. That's because, up until now, there was good reason to believe that the TV producers were solidly on the Democrats' side. Now I'm trying to decide whether I really like this step towards more balanced libel. I think the best approach for the Republicans would be to put a sympathetic arm around the Democrats' shoulder, and say, "Yeah, I can relate completely. It's kind of how we felt about the Reagan miniseries and most of Michael Moore's 'documentaries.' I think we're together on this." That is, publicly agree that the show is fabricating events and that it oughtn't shouldn't, that this does not raise the level of public discourse. But not to the point where both sides agree on more McCain-Feingold-like approaches to television regulation.

By: Lin Bowles

Lin Bowles — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:31:49 +0000

I am in no position of influence, except as a voter and consumer. Therefore, I will carefully consider what "A Path to 9/11 says about the Republican Party and ABC's standards and policies.

I am a person of honor and integrity, and if I find such lacking in Disney and ABC, it will definitely affect my viewing, buying and voting choices.

Sure, "Bring it on!", but don't be surprised if there are repercussions!

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:47:02 +0000

To Herb and Charles and all the other "Democrats are against Freedom of Speech" kneejerks: This is not about whether or not ABC has the right to broadcast whatever trash they like. This is about whether ABC can claim that it represents historical fact when it deviates significantly and importantly and, dare I say, intentionally from historical fact. So stop wasting space on OTB's servers ranting about freedom of speech when it's about misrepresentation of a product. McDonald's can't claim their BigMac is fat-free, and nobody says their freedom of speech is being limited.

By: clearwaterconservative

clearwaterconservative — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:52:24 +0000

As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative say this.

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

By: Herb

Herb — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:11:56 +0000

Happy Days are Here Again:

It looks like the Democrats are going to be successful in,

"Eliminating Freedom of Speech"

Congratulations Democrats, You are making a mockery of our Constitution in order to cover your rear ends and show how your Monica Boy screwed up and let Bin Laden get away to "Take the Towers Down".

By: the musings of Brandon Jaynes » The Contoversy Over ABC’s 9/11 Miniseries

Sat, 09 Sep 2006 12:43:38 +0000

[...] I had originally planned to MythTV this miniseries, but the controversy of Democrats going so far as to even give veiled threats of revoking ABC’s broadcasting license if they don’t pull the miniseries has really gotten me interested. OTB has a full discussion over the controversy. [...]

By: charles austin

charles austin — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:39:33 +0000

When are all of you going to comprehend that opposition to the party line is evil, or perhaps even a sign of mental instability. Oh my, the reeducation camps that we are going to have to build come January.

By: concerned citizen

concerned citizen — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:49:40 +0000

There is a big difference between a 9-11 docu-drama on a major network and a film by Michael Moore. Networks use the public airways and are regulated by the federal government. If, in fact, the charges are accurate and the program is right wing propaganda intended to help the Republican Party in an election year, that is a clear violation of federal law and a betrayal of the public trust (the public giving Disney/ABC a license to use its airways). So Reid's "threat" in his letter is in fact entirely appropriate, not a limitation on free speech. The crux of the matter is whether these charges are accurate. If so, and if Disney airs the program, then serious consideration must be given to revoking their license.

By: Herb

Herb — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:07:23 +0000

Finally, the truth comes out where everyone can see it.

Freedom of Speach only applies to Democrats and is not applicable to anyone else. Any deviation of Freedom of Speach that remotely applies a negative light on "Their Fair Haired Boy", and the Democrats cry, whine, and threaten those who dare expose Clinton and the Democrats for the two faced, power hungry party, they are

One can only conclude that,

"The Truth Hurts"

I love every minute of it because now, everyone can see the Democrats for exactly what they are.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:14:05 +0000

The MSM including CBS, ABC and NBC put on propaganda pieces and shows all the time. Most of the time it is liberal propaganda that they promote and the liberals defend it vigorously. Now they are on the receiving end and they do not like it. How many times have they spread lies and accusation against the Bush administration. Perhaps the government should get involve in truth in programs. Stop spending money on NPR and do away with the monopoly the big three have and open it to competition.

The claims Clinton did much of anything against terrorist organization is a joke. Clinton failed for 8 years before 911. Bush failed for 8 months before 911.

By: legion

legion — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:44:32 +0000

Well, when Janet Jackson's nipple runs for office, you let me know. :-)

By: Fersboo

Fersboo — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:42:03 +0000

This whole thing is kind of funny. Who would imagine that the Democrats would have people defending a move like this. Reminds me of, hmmm wait a minute, uhmmmm, o'yeah, Janet Jackson's nipple being flashed across the screen at the Super Bowl. Free speech, licenses, FCC, decency, yada, yada, yada.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:14:10 +0000

Lily,
I have to agree with James that slander is a bit out of the question here. I also have to disagree with your feeling that showing propaganda as entertainment is over the line. You would be surprised how much propaganda you watch in the form of entertainment without realizing it. In fact, you could say that people find propaganda entertaining.

My sole complaint is that this "docu-drama" is being marketed as fact-based, when major aspects of the "fact-based" storyline are not based on fact at all.