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.
BTW, I probably won't watch this anyway. The story's been told already; we already know the country wasn't prepared for this attack. I'm not going to put all the blame on this to Clinton et al., just as I wouldn't for Bush et al. The fact is, our mentality prior to 9/11 was such that we never thought it would happen, even if we thought it could. Pearl Harbor Redux.

This movie in Part 1 focuses on Clinton et al, and their failures to treat Osama as a real threat; Part 2 focuses on Bush et al. The screenwriter expected most of the griping to come from conservatives over Part 2, which details failures by Bush, Rice, etc. in their inactions to blatant warnings (especially Condi Rice apparently).

Again, without seeing this, but hearing it from the screenwriter himself, this appears to be a rather neutral attempt to augment the failure of the Federal Government between 1993-2001.

I guess those who watch it can tell us; but I doubt it. Libs will be libs-Conservative pundits will be Conservative. Without watching this Naum, you'll decide based on liberal reactuion, just as I would vice versa. Yadda Yadda Yadda......

Have a great weekend, the Cards are getting ready to win.
If you haven't seen F911, you can't comment as there are no "made up" scenes like there are in this flick, according to what's been released so far. Scenes depicting events that just didn't occur...

...if F911 was over the top, it was so by what it omitted or the juxtaposition of scenes for emphasis. That's quite different that making shit up that is totally contrary to the public record.

Yeah both administrations share blame... ...but the point of my post wasn't about that or even if Path to 911 is garbage or not. Just that Disney dropped Moore's flick, which made no pretense of being "balanced" whereas its hawking an ideological bent piece as "the truth" when there are added dramatizations of shit that flat out flies in the face of the truth -- all the while promos pop up about "the truth" and its presented as a historical piece.

And it's just not Dems, historians have protested and expressed outrage over the false tellings.

Furthemore, the shame is, that there are many questions that still go unanswered, 5 years after, even after the cowardly 9/11 commission refused to ask critical questions even amidst public decrying. And now we have a book from Kean and Hamilton saying that the government and military lied and concealed and covered up information...
Oh, and I didn't mention that documentary about the Reagans that got spiked a few years back... ...and Republicans were outraged over crap that really was picking at nits IMV (stuff that according to inner staffers and those close to him) was closer to the truth than the idealized model painted by Reagan worshippers.
My point here is you're singing with choir without having seen it. You feel I can't comment on F 9/11; why do so many feel right about commenting on this flick? It's only partisan hacks crying foul here. The rest are relying on what they've read in the press. If, on Tuesday morning, facts have been misconstrued, warped, etc., then I'll concede. I find it rather hypocritical on your part, though.

I didn't mention the Reagan piece, because it doesn't mean anything. Of course it was nothing IYV (same with me, but only because of the obvious smear attempt-only the haters would buy such bunk); and of course, just like Rathergate---it was truth according to (insert any name here). Blah blah blah.......

Cards won!!!!! Okay, they let San Fran score 27 points, when they should've been destroyed. But the offense was superb.
Really, I can't comment on it, I've not seen it, but correct me please, but I think umbrage was taken that it didn't portray him in the idolized light that celebratory rememberance worthy of legendary presidency.

Meantime, if one takes the time to read numerous biographies of Reagan, including those favorable to him on the whole, the picture is a bit complex, and some PR cast around him fades. Just like it does for the Kennedys, FDR, Lincoln, etc...

I can "sing foul" because what has been revealed (as released by the makers) by makers and actors have admitted that scenes were made up in contradiction to the facts. If I read that F911 included made up scenes that contradict the public record, I wouldn't have to see it either to discount its accuracy and value. But one cannot make that argument with F911 (see Kopel's list, which nitpicks or at best, criticizes for what wasn't included, and his list is put to shreds by any critical inquiry), which was the point of my comment. Therin the difference.

And I don't remember if that "dramatization" was billed as a documentary either, or just a trashy mini-series.

Let's not get into Rathergate - where truth is concealed because of a presentation flaw, and the truth that his CO secretary and others confirmed at the time (i.e., that the content of the memo was absolutely true...)... ...it would be like a man divorcing his wife and then someone reproduced a copy to show proof of the divorce -- it doesn't change the truth of the matter, just proves the overzealousness or errancy of the reporting on that particular aspect of the story.

::I didn't mention the Reagan piece, because it doesn't mean anything. Of course it was nothing IYV (same with me, but only because of the obvious smear attempt-only the haters would buy such bunk); and of course, just like Rathergate---it was truth according to (insert any name here). Blah blah blah.......

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it