10 September 2006

The program you are watching contains lies and numerous unsubstantiated smears deliberately inserted by rightwing operatives

Much hubbub has erupted over a new crock-umentary (I think that's the proper term for a fictional dramatization full of bold faced lies) titled The Path to 9/11 to air on ABC to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the savage 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Democrats, naturally, are outraged, and lodging their disatisfaction all across the internet. Even Bill Clinton has fired off a letter of protest. And it appears that the show makers are indeed a well honed right wing propaganda operation, which in my view, doesn't necessarily disqualify the output, but the fact that they've taken steps to hide and obscure who has been involved is not a positive point.

Personally, it's like day 25 for my family's self imposed television blackout, and even when I return to watching, network news fare is probably at the bottom of my viewing wish list. While I concede that Path to 9/11 is garbage, it's not like all the other "non-fiction" shows put on are models of truth telling. Mainstream network journalism sold out to its corporate and government masters long ago, and spare an occasional spark of enlightenment here and there, it's a vast space of overhyped sensationalism, celebrity worship, cowing to authorities and extreme dearth of critical questioning. About the only thing I miss are sports telecasts — football, hockey, soccer. And maybe just filler time when it's time to feed and the fingers are no longer free to bang on a keyboard.

Still, I'd like to illustrate this item as another episode in Republican hypocrisy. Consider that ABC is owned by Disney, the same Disney that in 2004 refused to distribute Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.

Miramax had funded the film but Disney, which owns the art-house studio, had declined to distribute the movie, saying the documentary and its criticism of President Bush's war on Iraq were too politically charged

Now, Moore might be over the top in the manner which he gets in the face of interviewees and how he juxtaposes scenes together to create an outlandish picture, but he didn't make stuff up, and jam obvious false telling into fabricated reenactments (Dramatization, may not have occurred!). Not to make this post about Michael Moore, but even the worst criticism against Farhenheit 911 failed to show anything more than nitpickings or subjective dings on what was left out.

Liberal media bias my arse…


The screenwriter was on Medved's show the other day and urged everyone to wait until they'd watched the show (both parts). So far, only part 1 has been shown to people; Part 2 was given to critics to watch on their own. No one has mentioned Part 2 in their complaints.
Strange, someone once told me watch Moore's Propaganda Piece before making conclusions. My question is, why is this person now declaring it a P.O.S.? Why is this person suddenly hypocritically telling me it sucks, just because someone else said so?

While I admit my attitude about all this is juvenile, I can't help but break a big smile over this. The Dems embrace Farenheit 9/11, (no I haven't seen it yet); Libs whisper conspiracies on Air America about Neocons bringing down the towers, but get pissed before they've seen this entire documentary.

The screenwriter also declared the Albright complaint was false, propagated by false claims by Wolf et company. I haven't heard his side on the Berger piece, but at least it didn't discuss Berger's inflated pockets after visiting the National Archives.

Liberal Media? So far, can't seem to shake it, Naum.