Greenwald Makes Wild and Untrue Allegations About “Path to 9/11″
[UPDATE: Because this post has grown long, let me sum it up in a paragraph. In essence, my guest blogger Justin Levine saw "The Path to 9/11" because he is the producer for a highly-rated talk-radio show, and the video was sent to his show. Although that makes perfect sense, Glenn Greenwald says that's wrong; he believes Disney and ABC sent it to Justin personally, because he is (according to Greenwald) a rabid right-winger who has worked for David Horowitz and Matt Drudge. Justin's true explanation makes sense; Greenwald's is a wild conspiracy theory -- laced with nasty personal attacks on Justin. Read on for the details.]
[IMPORTANT UPDATE: Justin Levine answers Greenwald's wild conspiracy theories (and Greenwald's personal attacks on Justin's character) here. Read it all and judge for yourself whether Justin's sensible explanation makes more sense than Greenwald's nutty flight of fancy.]
Immediately below, I take Glenn Greenwald to task for his numerous misstatements about Justin Levine, and the reasons that he was able to receive an advance screening of “The Path to 9/11.” Now, in a second update to his post, Greenwald has come completely unhinged, theorizing that Disney specifically directed the advance screener of “Path to 9/11″ to Justin Levine personally, because of his nefarious conservative background:
This interview with Justin Levine (h/t HM) tells you all you need to know about why he received a Path to 9/11 screener. His prior jobs: serving as an intern for David Horowitz, working on behalf of Matt Drudge in Sydney Blumenthal’s libel lawsuit against Drudge, and then, after that, working as a screener for Drudge’s radio show.
. . . .
Levine is obviously the exact person whom Disney would want screening Path to 9/11 — a former colleague of David Horowitz and employee of Matt Drudge who now works for a highly “conservative” radio station.
According to Greenwald, Disney had Justin specifically in mind due to his notorious conservative credentials:
Levine also says in the interview that he is “one of three producers on the Bill Handel morning show on KFI,” and that duties include “dealing with fan mail and hate mail.” Does that really sound like the kind of person with towering influence which Disney, in normal circumstances, would want to ensure has a screener? Isn’t it infinitely more likely that it was his connections to Horowitz and Drudge, and the reliable ideological leanings those connections reflect, which caused a video to end up in his hands, ensuring that the quite predictable praise would thereafter gush forth?
“Man of substance” Greenwald also takes a personal swipe at Justin, which I won’t repeat.
Justin is away from the computer right now, but I just phoned him, and he assured me that Greenwald’s theory is utter nonsense. Here, in a nutshell, is what really happened — and it makes a lot more sense than Greenwald’s paranoid rantings:
As you would expect, radio personalities get all sorts of DVDs, books, and CDs in the mail from people hawking their wares. Justin heard John Ziegler talking about the movie on KFI, and asked to borrow the copy that had been sent to “The Bill Handel Show.” (By the way, while I don’t listen to Handel regularly, my impression of him is that he is hardly a doctrinaire conservative, but rather a man of eclectic and very strong opinions. Justin agreed with me about this.) Justin wasn’t sure whether Handel was going to talk about the movie, but lobbied Handel to talk about it once he’d seen it. (Wait . . . I hear Greenwald saying: THUS BRINGING DISNEY’S EVIL PLAN TO FULL FRUITION!!!)
So no, the U.S. Government didn’t blow up the Twin Towers, JFK was not killed by a conspiracy of thousands of government workers, and the Walt Disney Company did not direct that an advance copy of “The Path to 9/11″ be sent directly to wild-eyed conservative nutcase Justin Levine.
Good. Freakin’. Lord.
Since Greenwald and other lefties have made such a huge deal out of the astounding fact that a radio producer has seen an advance copy of a TV movie, I have asked Justin to do a post about this. He says he can do so very soon.
UPDATE: Greenwald has an “UPDATE V” to his post, in which he blames his paranoid ravings on me. In order to do so, he has to distort what I said yet again:
One minute, Patterico says that it’s so obvious that Levine got the film because he’s a producer of a highly important (conservative) radio show, so of course Disney would get him a copy. The next minute, he calls it “paranoid rantings” and “wild and untrue” to suggest — based on Patterico’s own post — that Disney gave Levine a screening.
Greenwald thus claims that I said Disney sent the video directly to Justin personally, as opposed to what really happened: the video was sent to the Bill Handel Radio Show, which Justin produces. But Greenwald’s claim is not true. Here’s what I actually said:
Justin received his advance screening, not because the publicists knew he would be writing guest posts on an “obscure” blog with a “tiny” audience — but because he produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show in Los Angeles.
Since the publicists have obviously been trying to generate buzz by promoting the movie on talk radio, it’s natural that Justin would get an advance screening.
That is completely consistent with what Justin told me earlier today: Justin’s radio show received a copy of the video addressed to “The Bill Handel Show,” and Justin was able to borrow it because he is Handel’s producer.
Neither Justin nor I ever said that the video came special delivery in an envelope bearing the words: “Justin Levine, Member, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.” What we said was that he obtained the video by virtue of his position as a producer of the Bill Handel show at KFI — not because he is a guest blogger on my blog, as Greenwald initially (and incorrectly) suggested. That is what Justin has consistently told me, and I believe it to be true. Greenwald is distorting what I said because he wants to try to paint Justin and myself as liars and zealots.
Greenwald’s sycophants will buy off on this. Sensible people won’t.
This, incidentally, is exactly why I have rarely tried to debate with Greenwald on matters of substance. Wiser men than I have said that you don’t debate with someone who can’t accurately quote back your argument to you. I have never — not once — been in a debate with Greenwald where he has fairly represented my position. If he can’t do that, he’s not worth engaging on the issues.
UPDATE x2: Again, don’t miss Justin’s response to Greenwald. It is excellent.
UPDATE x3: Since Greenwald’s sycophants don’t understand his misdirection, let me make it clear: I don’t accuse him of paranoia because he claimed that Justin was personally sent the video. I accuse him of paranoia for the reason he thinks Justin had access to the film. Common sense says Justin had access to the film because he produces a highly popular radio show. Crackpot paranoia says he had access to the film because he used to work for David Horowitz and Matt Drudge. That’s the point, folks.
UPDATE x4: In addition to falsely claiming that Justin is a “stalker” (a disgusting comment, but par for the course from this Man of Substance), Greenwald is remarkably silent about the incredible free speech abuses by Democrats that we’ve seen in recent days. Those who actually think Greenwald is serious about supporting the First Amendment are probably shocked.
I’m not.
UPDATE x5: Greenwald has finally mentioned the threats, and guess what? You’ll never believe it — this “real conservative” minimizes the Democrats’ threats and constructs a “you too” argument — pointing to past Republican efforts that he says are similar. Greenwald fails to point out that the current Democratic threats specifically mention ABC’s broadcast license and the fact that it is provided by the government, whereas the Republican letters don’t. Nevertheless, he goes on at length about how dire the letter from a single Republican Congressman is. And the current mafia-style Democrat threats, signed by numerous Senators including the minority leader? Why, it’s not clear they’re threats at all!
What a partisan hack.
UPDATE x6: I e-mailed Glenn Reynolds and John Hinderaker to ask them if they received advance copies. Both said “no.” I’m beginning to think this lefty idea that the publicists targeted only conservatives is a myth.
UPDATE x7: Charles Johnson didn’t get one either.
GiGi really takes this stuff personally, doesn’t he?
Comment by j.d. — 9/9/2006 @ 4:16 pm
[...] UPDATE x4: Greenwald has now come completely unhinged with paranoid conspiracy rantings. Details here. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Greenwald Propagates the Myth that “Path to 9/11″ Publicists Gave Advance Screenings to Obscure Right-Wing Blogs Like This One — 9/9/2006 @ 4:20 pm
Jealous, much? Glenn Greenwald has a bestselling book, a blog that has been quoted on the Senate floor, and is the kindest, most decent human being I have ever known, and I know him as well as I know myself.
Good day, sir!
Comment by Svenn Sveenwald — 9/9/2006 @ 4:34 pm
I don’t think it’s whether P. or J. is jealous. It’s whether GiGi is unhinged.
Which he is.
Comment by steve miller — 9/9/2006 @ 4:38 pm
Wheres the guys with the butterfly netss and streight jackets to restrain that blabbering idiot?
Comment by krazy kagu — 9/9/2006 @ 4:57 pm
Um … Patterico, Glenn wrote what he did because you yourself said that Justin specifically received his advanced “because he produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show in Los Angeles.” Is it really Glenn’s fault that you got the facts wrong?
Comment by PaulB — 9/9/2006 @ 4:59 pm
Oh boy, you realy took Glenn to task. How could he have ever gotten the idea that Justin Levine received a advanced copy of PT9/11.
Could it be this statement in your post below this one. “I have already explained and Justin has confirmed that Justin received his advance screening, not because the publicist knew he would be writing guest posts on an ‘obscure’ blog with a ‘tiny’ audience-but because he produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show in Los Angeles.”
It would be nice if you would get your facts straight before attacking other people.
By the way you never adress the issue of why no liberal bloggers, members of the media or people directly involved in the events of this show were consulted or given advance copies to review.
Comment by Pablo — 9/9/2006 @ 5:16 pm
Wheres the guys with the butterfly netss and streight jackets to restrain that blabbering idiot?
Boy, Spurwing/Kagu is EVERYWHERE!
Comment by cheshirecat — 9/9/2006 @ 5:21 pm
The “Path” to paranoia …
An evil conspiracy, masterminded by David Horowitz, has produced this ABC miniseries which calls into question a central tenet of the Left’s indictment of its enemies: That the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were chiefly the fault of negligence by the Bus…
Trackback by Alabama Liberation Front — 9/9/2006 @ 5:46 pm
Paul -
That Justin ’specifically received his advanced ..’ because he produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show’ is one thing. The question of *who supplied the copy* is quite another.
ABC did not give Justin a copy - therefore the linkage Greenwald et ipses makes to Disney is baseless.
A similar example is the one with Rush. He said on his show that he had a copy of ‘Path to 9/11′ but that it came in over the transom, not because Disney specifically sent him a copy.
So, excuse me while I think that Greenwald, Nix, Hamsher, Kos and Co. are ill-informed partisan hacks predisposed to condone actual, government-centered censorship.
.
Comment by BumperStickerist — 9/9/2006 @ 5:47 pm
Patterco earlier today:
“This is either disingenuous bilge, or lack of familiarity with the facts. I have already explained, and Justin has confirmed that Justin received his advance screening, not because the publicists knew he would be writing guest posts on an “obscure” blog with a “tiny” audience — but because he produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show in Los Angeles.
Since the publicists have obviously been trying to generate buzz by promoting the movie on talk radio, it’s natural that Justin would get an advance screening.”
Comment by Anomalous — 9/9/2006 @ 5:59 pm
Crack. Boosted with fentanyl or whatever the hell Bones said the other night makes people more likely to overdose on heroin.
Publishers, producers, etc. etc. send books, shows, movies, etc. etc. to people who can market the book, show, movie, etc. I’ve been interviewed on frickin’ WGN radio because they were sent a copy of a book I contributed to, liked it, thought their audience would be interested in what I had to say about J.R.R. Frickin’ Tolkien.
I cannot believe the tempest in a teacup some people are willing to make about bullshit. A radio show got sent a movie to screen and review and hopefully get people to watch!
GASP! THE HORROR! Get over it, Greenies!
Comment by Anwyn — 9/9/2006 @ 6:07 pm
Wow. Dude, you’re on the public dime as an assistant district attorney, and you write headlines like “Greenwald Makes Wild and Untrue Allegations About “Path to 9/11″ ? After basically all he did was repeat what you wrote?
Jeez. Being a soulless, partisan gerbil must suck.
By the way, the death toll for post-9/11 is up to more than 3,000 Americans now. But keep fighting as hard as you can to keep any of the stain of it off of your beloved party. While feeding your family with tax-payer money.
–WKW
Comment by William K. Wolfrum — 9/9/2006 @ 6:10 pm
GiGi, et al are displaying a total ignorance of how major-market talk radio works. The producers do more than answer mail — they book guests, often do background research on the same, scour the local media and the web for suggested topics, etc.
As for the comment asking why no members of the media got screeners, I’ll note that TIME magazine got one, as did the NYT and others.
Comment by Karl — 9/9/2006 @ 6:12 pm
GiGi, of course, did not just repeat what was written by Patterico, as GiGi engaged in unsupported conspiracy delusions that Levine got a screener because he knew Horowitz and Drudge, rather than because he’s a talk-show producer. As I’ve noted GiGi (and people visiting here, apparently) have no idea what the job entails, and apparently don’t know the lingo, e.g., that “screener,” “screening,” etc. are common in the biz, without meaning a physical premiere.
As for the post 9/11 death toll being higher than the loss on 9/11, I’ll merely note that the post-Pearl Harbor death toll was considerably larger than the death toll on 12/7/41.
Comment by Karl — 9/9/2006 @ 6:18 pm
As for the post 9/11 death toll being higher than the loss on 9/11, I’ll merely note that the post-Pearl Harbor death toll was considerably larger than the death toll on 12/7/41.
I’m sure you desperately want the “War on Terror” to equate with WWII, but it doesn’t. Not even close. So really, stop disrespecting the millions and millions of people who died world-wide for an actual reason, rather than “hey, it’s better we fight them there then here, right?” reasoning, or whatever the reasoning for fighting in Iraq is these days.
–WKW
Comment by William K. Wolfrum — 9/9/2006 @ 6:23 pm
[...] As Patterico notes, Glenn Greenwald gets it wrong all over the place. I’ll lay out the facts and let everyone decide for themselves about me (and by extension in this instance, the controversy over “The Path To 9/11″ - though it’s funny how Mr. Greenwald doesn’t seem to make a distinction between the two). [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » A Response To My Good Friend Glenn Greenwald — 9/9/2006 @ 6:25 pm
Maybe it’s me Karl… but Time and the NYT don’t seem like right wing hacks. Maybe Glenn’s time would be better spent looking in Google News… they have the reporters from the left who saw it… and said nothing until Podesta’s site shouted it out. Nevermind, nothing to see here… just wondering how all the uproar from the left started if NO ONE from the left saw it.
Glenn’s been betrayed… some saw it and didn’t tell him, or worse yet… thought it was okay in the beginning… so he didn’t notice. Both would really suck.
Oh Glenn, do me a favor if you see this… start with Chapter 4, Section 4.5 in the 9-11 Commission Report.
Comment by Ali — 9/9/2006 @ 6:25 pm
Really, give it up. Greenwald is kicking your ass, and you are completely overmatched.
But, hey, the traffic is probably more than you have ever received, so I don’t blame you for trying. I speculated over at Greenwald that you are one of the lame commenters over there, going under an assumed name to bring attention to this “argument.”
Two points to the moron who responds to my comments by calling me “Charlie” or “Chucky.” This is all I ever get when I visit these lunatic bins–grade-school comebacks from the poorly educated and angry.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 6:28 pm
Guys,
Check the updates. Justin has responded to Greenwald’s insane theories and personal attacks. Also, BumperStickerist has it exactly right, as I explain in the post — Justin saw the video because he is a KFI producer, but I never said that it came to him personally, just that he received the screening because of his position at KFI, not because (as Greenwald incorrectly said initially) he is a guest blogger here.
All:
If you can’t be civil, I may ban you. Final warning. I see that people are streaming in from Greenwald’s site, and the tone is diminishing rapidly. Again: be civil or you may be banned.
[UPDATE: That directed to "all," as in "everybody" -- not any one person. Also, I edited the comment to make it clear that I *may* ban people who aren't civil. It's all in my discretion. If I want to leave up a string of uncivil comments to make a point, I just may do that.]
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 6:29 pm
Being a soulless, partisan gerbil must suck.
That would be a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. If you Greenwald people can’t do better than that, take it to his blog.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 6:36 pm
the traffic is probably more than you have ever received
I’m getting plenty of traffic from Instapundit, thanks. From your hero, not so much. Look at the SiteMeter referrals.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 6:39 pm
Is it uncivil to call you a liar, Pettycakes?
Man, you’ve been schooled again. Hilarious.
Comment by Amused — 9/9/2006 @ 6:41 pm
Actually, my hero is probably Roberto Clemente. Maybe Bart Giamatti. Both great men, long gone. Greenwald is a pretty sharp guy who rips wingnuts like you to shreds.
For the record, you can count me as a new reader thanks to Greenwald. Next time I want to see what the angry and uneducated are thinking, I will come here for a few laughs.
The funniest part is you probably have no doubt that you are absolutely right on all things.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 6:43 pm
It’s an honest question, folks: do you think that Disney and ABC know who my friend is because they monitor the movement of all Horowitz and Drudge alumni? Or do you think that maybe Justin is telling the truth and saw the film because he’s a producer for a very highly-rated talk radio show, and the video was sent to the show?
You’re honestly telling me that you think the first scenario makes more sense than the second.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 6:48 pm
Uh, William, I’m not sure how you got the words but missed the point, in both posts. What Greenwald wrote bears some relation to what Patterico wrote, but is a convenient interpretation of selected bits. It is not a simple repeat of P’s comment The point about the Pearl Harbor/WWII counterexample was to illustrate that before and after death tolls, which you seemed to find important, actually have no bearing on issue of whether a war is just. There was no attempt made to declare that OIF was the same as WWII.
What people actually wrote seems to get in the way of the points you are determined to make in this case.
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot — 9/9/2006 @ 6:52 pm
It’s a good thing that I know it’s a rhetorical question, or I’d be worried about you, Patterico.
These are, after all, the same blinkered babboons who believe that the Magic Boyfriend Theory is more plausible and simple than sock puppetry.
I swear, I’ve met bricks more intelligent than that crowd, and those were some particularly fourth-tier, amazingly dumb bricks.
Comment by Misha — 9/9/2006 @ 7:05 pm
It is informative to note that the WKW is number 599,952 in rankings at Technorati.
I suspect his cheerful banter here is an attempt at traffic.
sad little man he is
Comment by Darleen — 9/9/2006 @ 7:05 pm
I’m never understood why anyone pays Ellison any attention. Leave the poor man to his echo chamber. What do you want? Him shouting his deranged views out on the steets?
Comment by Frank J. — 9/9/2006 @ 7:11 pm
I haven’t listened to Handel in a while, but afaik he’s a lifelong liberal Democrat who happens to think Islamic terrorism is bad. Which, I guess, makes him an evil kkkonservative Bushkultist to some.
Comment by Brendan — 9/9/2006 @ 7:12 pm
Charles Giacometti: “I speculated over at Greenwald that you are one of the lame commenters over there, going under an assumed name to bring attention to this “argument.””
Oh… the irony… it’s killing me… seriously, I can’t breath here…
Comment by John — 9/9/2006 @ 7:15 pm
Patterico
Bill Handel occupies his own space on the political spectrum … A naturalized American Jew whose father is a Holocaust survivor and his mother a Brazilian dentist, he’s pro-Israel, pro-gay, anti-illegal immigrant, VERY non-pc, and no one is immune to being made fun of by him.
In a highly competitive arena, he’s been successful for years.
Comment by Darleen — 9/9/2006 @ 7:16 pm
So I take it the defense: 1- that everybody of importance to a general media blitz got a copy, and 2- that the film itself represents events as they occurred, stands as it is.
There’s not much I can say to that. The Moon is made of green cheese (and of course that Apollo missions were faked)
Comment by Anomaloous — 9/9/2006 @ 7:28 pm
John,
If you are suggesting I am Greenwald, I am not. Ask Patterico to look at my IP address and he can tell you that I comment from Boston, MA, and not from New York, where Greenwald is from (or Brazil, where he spends some of his time, according to Wikipedia).
As for Greenwald needing traffic, looking at the sale of his book, he seems to be doing just fine.
I really am who I say I am, just a guy who reads blogs and likes laughing at stupid people. I really enjoy Greenwald because he gives very specific and very good refutations of what he reads. He is a pleasure to read, especially since the stuff that he skewers is dismal, illiterate, and angry. I really like knowing that Greenwald does what he does so I don’t have to. If I had to read half of what he does–no, make that 1% of what he does–I would probably blow my brains out.
But nice try. You were almost clever.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 7:31 pm
I really am who I say I am, just a guy who reads blogs and likes laughing at stupid people. I really enjoy Greenwald because he gives very specific and very good refutations of what he reads. He is a pleasure to read, especially since the stuff that he skewers is dismal, illiterate, and angry. I really like knowing that Greenwald does what he does so I don’t have to. If I had to read half of what he does–no, make that 1% of what he does–I would probably blow my brains out.
Good day, sir!
Comment by Svenn Sveenwald — 9/9/2006 @ 7:34 pm
If WKW’s attempts at argumentation are any indication, I’m surprised he ranks 599,952nd.
Comment by Karl — 9/9/2006 @ 7:35 pm
Link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-right_b_29015.html
Comment by Anomalous — 9/9/2006 @ 7:36 pm
Charles,
I don’t think the suggestion was that you are Greenwald, but rather than Greenwald uses sock puppets, whereas I don’t. So it’s ironic for you to accuse me of that very thing with no proof, when there is proof pointing to Greenwald doing that.
It would be like deciding on no evidence that Disney and ABC sent a video to Justin Levine, Super-Conservative, instead of believing something sensible like Disney and ABC sent out videos to popular talk-radio hosts.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 7:39 pm
So I take it the defense: 1- that everybody of importance to a general media blitz got a copy, and 2- that the film itself represents events as they occurred, stands as it is.
Who said that?
On the first issue, my position, as I have said, is that I don’t know who got a copy. Greenwald said that no left-wing bloggers got one, but apparently Arovosis did. He said obscure right-wing bloggers like me did, but I didn’t.
As to the second issue, if the film got important facts wrong, they should be changed. There has to be some license for drama, but not at the expense of the facts.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 7:45 pm
I absolutely LOVE how “Svenn” swoops right in with this absolutely silly insistence that I am Glenn Greenwald. Again, Patterico can look at his weblogs, see my IP address, and go to a site like this one to see where I am located. So I will leave it at that.
I assume the actual truth hurts. I’m just another guy who thinks Greenwald is intelligent and the people he targets are morons. If I worshipped some of the people Greenwald skewers, I would hold onto any myth that discredits Greenwald. Indeed, I would hold onto it dearly, grasping at anything that supports my frame of reference and summarily rejecting anything that challenges it.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 7:45 pm
Also ironic that someone linked to Blumenthal on this subject, given that Blumenthal creatively edited a key quote in the piece.
Comment by Karl — 9/9/2006 @ 7:48 pm
Patterico knows how to do an IP lookup, which is why everyone knows that GiGi’s sock-puppetry is not a myth. And Charles may not be a sock-puppet, just the same mentality.
Comment by Karl — 9/9/2006 @ 7:51 pm
BTW, Patterico will be interested to know the original video is leaking.
Comment by Karl — 9/9/2006 @ 7:58 pm
Charles,
1. Why do you feel comfortable accusing me of sock-puppetry when I haven’t done it and there is no evidence I did?
2. Why do you seem to reject the very idea that Greenwald has, when the IP evidence and other evidence indicates he may have?
3. Why do you think it makes more sense that Disney/ABC would send a video personally to someone because he’s an ex-Drudge and ex-Horowitz guy, as opposed to because he’s a producer for a highly rated talk-radio show? Doesn’t that obviously make much more sense?
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:00 pm
No reasonable person could read your words and fail to reach the conclusion that Justin Levine was personally given a screening copy. That such was not the case only demonstrates that you didn’t write what you meant to say. Your depiction of Greenwald as a lunatic for reaching that conclusion demonstrates a gift for hyperbole and partisan nonsense that at the very least matches Greenwald’s.
It does appear that advance copies were overwhelmingly sent to conservative sources, and deliberately withheld from potential critics and many of the people portrayed. All of this may be common marketing practice, but it does raise serious doubts about the project’s objectivity. You may choose to portray those doubts as delusional if you like, but again, such hyperbole only betrays you as a partisan hack.
It is pretty well established by now that the first half of the movie contains several lies about the Clinton administration. If the second half contains similar lies about the Bush administration at least it will be even-handed. Woo Hoo! Some consolation! Lies are lies, whether they come from the left or right. So now we have the spectacle of stooges from both political extremes calling each other out for their mutual hypocricy. Meanwhile, America sinks deeper into the abyss.
Comment by Observer — 9/9/2006 @ 8:01 pm
Great. You are all ignorant, and I know that because I read 1 percent of what Greenwald does. What an f-tard.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:01 pm
It ought to be a rather simple matter to get information regarding to whom advance copies may have been sent, and take this out of the realm of mere speculation. Meanwhile, why don’t we ask Ellison to whom advance copies of What Would a Patriot Do? were sent, so that we can determine for ourselves whether or not he’s a “partisan hack.”
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:07 pm
From a comment at the nuthouse:
Conservative Author Richard Miniter: ‘There’s Zero Factual Basis’ For Key Scene In Path To 9/11
Today on CNN’s Situation Room, Richard Miniter — conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror” — confirmed that scenes in ABC’s Path to 9/11 are based on “Internet myth.”
BLITZER: Let me ask you about Sandy Berger specifically. Was he defamed by this scene as depicted — none of us, at least I haven’t seen it, you haven’t seen it.
MINITER: I’ve seen the scene. You’ve seen this scene too. This scene is based on an Internet myth. I did extensive reporting into the Clinton years, and as you say, I’m not afraid to take a few shots.
BLITZER: Hold on one second. We’re not hearing you. Start again. Was Sandy Berger defamed in this scene?
MINITER: That’s a legal question. But certainly if I was the producer I wouldn’t have gone with this scene because there’s no factual basis for it. It seems to be drawn from an Internet myth. From a profound misunderstanding of what actually happened. If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.
BLITZER: You’ve heard other 9/11 commission members saying it wasn’t Sandy Berger who pulled the trigger, it was George Tenet the CIA director. Based on what you know, is that accurate?
MINITER: Even that’s not accurate. We just never had eyes on bin Laden in the pre-9/11 situation. The 9/11 commission investigated this. The House and Senate joint committee investigated this and published a 1,000-page report. I looked into it extensively. Most of the sources for my book are Clinton administration officials. There’s just no basis for this at all, none.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/
—
And Arovosis was not sent a copy. He got his hands on one.
He
Comment by Anomalous — 9/9/2006 @ 8:09 pm
This is beyond stupid:
Patterico posted something which any sane person would interpret as saying that Levine personally received an advance copy. Turns out, Levine got a copy because the conservative station he works at got a copy and he picked it up, which is in fact how one could parse Patterico’s original statement if one had context Patterico did not originally provide.
Glenn Greenwald’s entire thesis is that only conservativarian trolls got advance copies. Patterico’s response is that Levine didn’t get an advance copy; he just works in a conservative troll lair and the lair got an advance copy. That is, HE IS PROVING GLENN COMPLETELY RIGHT.
Everything else is hand-waving and stupidity.
I almost hope that the program airs and ABC gets sued for defamation. The bar is so high that it’s almost never crossed, but I think ABC will manage it — and that will prove, once and for all, that you wingnuts have suffered a complete psychotic break from reality.
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/9/2006 @ 8:18 pm
Hi Patterico,
Wow, you have thin skin.
I said, “I speculated over at Greenwald that you are one of the lame commenters over there…” I hereby retract my statement. Will you stop crying now?
I have no idea what Greenwald does in his spare time. If you want to think he did what you suggest, go to town.
As to this Levine guy, I never weighed in on the details. I would speculate that the ABC folks saw a sympathetic audience in the talk radio show, and identified a producer or someone else to send it to. I work in publishing. We routinely send new books to radio show producers, and we routinely get requests from radio show producers. So I have no reason to doubt what Levine is saying.
However, as to the larger point about the way ABC reached out, as I commented over at Greenwald, all one needs to know about the selective sharing and screening of this film is that Rush Limbaugh and Hewitt were given a copy without asking and that former President Clinton was refused a copy when he asked for it.
Moreover, Hewitt has admitted that he is getting private assurances from ABC people about the show.
Those two facts alone make it clear to me that a special effort is being made to reach out to the wingnuts. If you think that is fine and dandy, then, well, good luck to you. If I were as invested in the fight as you are, I would want to win fair and square.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 8:18 pm
I’m just another guy who thinks Greenwald is intelligent and the people he targets are morons. If I worshipped some of the people Greenwald skewers, I would hold onto any myth that discredits Greenwald. Indeed, I would hold onto it dearly, grasping at anything that supports my frame of reference and summarily rejecting anything that challenges it.
Also, Greenwald has a bestselling book and his blog has been read on the floor of the Senate. You self-important right-wing bloggers are just trying to get traffic by attacking Greenwald.
Good day, sir!
Comment by Svenn Sveenwald — 9/9/2006 @ 8:18 pm
Perhaps he should have consulted Robert Patterson’s “Dereliction of Duty”?
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:20 pm
No reasonable person could read your words and fail to reach the conclusion that Justin Levine was personally given a screening copy. That such was not the case only demonstrates that you didn’t write what you meant to say.
Justin Levine *was* personally given a screening copy. By the person at KFI who loaned it to him, after it was sent to the Handel show.
I guess you didn’t write what you meant to say: that he was personally given a screening copy by Disney/ABC.
Your depiction of Greenwald as a lunatic for reaching that conclusion demonstrates a gift for hyperbole and partisan nonsense that at the very least matches Greenwald’s.
No, it demonstrates Greenwald’s gift for distraction.
I didn’t depict Greenwald as a lunatic for reaching the conclusion that Justin was personally sent a copy. I depicted him as a lunatic for the reason that he is one: because he concluded that the reason Justin had access to the copy was because he used to work for Horowitz and Drudge — when it’s obvious that he actually got access to it because he is a KFI producer.
Responding to Greenwald’s incorrect allegations that Justin received the screening because he guest-blogs here — I said Justin had received the screening because he is a KFI producer.
Then Greenwald argued that Disney sent Justin the copy directly — not because he’s a producer, but because he is (according to Greenwald) a right-wing loonie.
So pointed out that 1) that is a crazy theory, and 2) he didn’t even have it sent straight to him personally.
Then Greenwald suggested Justin and I were lying about how he got the copy because, according to the way Greenwald parsed my words, I claimed Disney sent it straight to Justin. So I pointed out that, no, I didn’t explicitly say that. I didn’t even know exactly how Justin had obtained the video; I just knew that he’d gotten it because he was a producer. That was true; what I learned today was that he got it from the Bill Handel show and not from Disney.
I hadn’t specified precisely where he had gotten it from before because I didn’t know. My point was to explain that it was because he was a producer and not because he was a guest-blogger here. If I had known that someone was going to parse my words to make an argument that Justin got the video straight from Disney, I probably would have written it differently. But it was clear what I meant — just like the first sentence of your comment was clear in context, even though you said one thing (Justin was personally given the video) and meant something a little different (Justin was personally given the video by Disney/ABC).
This is all very clever by Greenwald. Now, for people like you who can’t follow logic, Greenwald has made the issue whether the video was given to Justin personally by Disney/ABC. The real reason he is an insane conspiracy theorist is the reason he thinks Justin was personally given the video by Disney/ABC.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:23 pm
Chapter and verse? That’s a very interesting allegation. Where did you read that?
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:24 pm
Hi Patterico,
Wow, you have thin skin.
I said, “I speculated over at Greenwald that you are one of the lame commenters over there…” I hereby retract my statement. Will you stop crying now?
In your view it is A-OK to make an accusation on no evidence, and when someone points out that you have and asks you why, to accuse them of “crying” and having “thin skin.”
This is what you consider intelligence. You are an excellent example of a Glenn Greenwald reader.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:25 pm
Also, Mr. Giacometti, I wonder whether you could find out from Greenwald to whom he sent advance copies of his very important book. Would you indulge us?
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:27 pm
Rush Limbaugh and Hewitt were given a copy without asking and that former President Clinton was refused a copy when he asked for it.
I thought Hewitt asked for his copy weeks ago.
What station is Clinton’s talk radio show on?
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:28 pm
And Arovosis was not sent a copy. He got his hands on one.
What respectable member of the vast right-wing conspiracy would let Aravosis have a copy?
We gotta vote that guy out.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:30 pm
Patterico,
You were obviously unclear in your original post. When you type,”Justin received his advance screening, not because the publicists knew he would be writing guest posts on an “obscure” blog with a “tiny” audience — but because he produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show in Los Angeles.” that means he was an intended recipient. You really ought to take a deep breath and reread that, or ask a friend to do it, because it’s just plain as day to everyone out here.
Comment by david — 9/9/2006 @ 8:30 pm
And he was an intended recipient because? He’s the producer for the highest-rated morning talk radio show in LA.
Why was it Greenwald felt he was chosen to get a copy, again?
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:38 pm
You were obviously unclear in your original post. When you type,”Justin received his advance screening, not because the publicists knew he would be writing guest posts on an “obscure” blog with a “tiny” audience — but because he produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show in Los Angeles.” that means he was an intended recipient. You really ought to take a deep breath and reread that, or ask a friend to do it, because it’s just plain as day to everyone out here.
So if I later learn that his show was the intended recipient, and I say that, does that make me and Justin liars? Because that was Greenwald’s point.
The issue is not whether he was the intended recipient, but whether:
Greenwald has tried to change the issue from the one I just described, into one about whether Justin’s name was on the package, and whether I am a liar because one could read my earlier words and conclude that I meant to say Justin’s name was on the package.
Take a deep breath yourself, and see how you’re being misled.
I will ask once again for the Greenwald supporters to answer the real question: do you really believe that Justin Levine got to watch the video because he used to work for Drudge and Horowitz, ergo Disney/ABC sent him the video for that reason? Or was it because he produces a popular radio show?
Be careful how you answer: if you pick the common-sense option, you’re contradicting your paranoid hero Greenwald.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:39 pm
Dan Collins understands. Because he is rational, and not blinded by Greenwald-hero-worship.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:41 pm
Why not both?
Comment by actus — 9/9/2006 @ 8:43 pm
For one thing, because it was SENT TO THE BILL HANDEL SHOW AND NOT TO HIM PERSONALLY.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:44 pm
Actus, that’s obtuse even by your standards, man.
Why don’t you call Dan Rather and ask him whether he got his advance copy?
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:46 pm
I can hardly wait to see what Andrew Sullivan has to say about all of this. I know I shouldn’t derive such kicks from watching him melting down, but . . . hey, if I rubberneck on the internet, it’s not like I’m a traffic hazard. So I’m evil. I’ll go to confession.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 8:49 pm
Here’s my update above for those fooled by Greenwald’s misdirection:
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 8:52 pm
Hi Dan,
I don’t have any special link to Greenwald. You can ask him yourself.
But by way of background, when a book is published, the author (or his or her agent) typically negotiates in advance on the number of books that will be sent out for promotional and review purporses. The author also usually provides the publisher with a list of people to receive it, and the publisher then sends such copies out for the author, along with copies they also see fit to send–mainly to reviewers and people in the media. A book like Greenwald’s, which is a bestseller, likely was sent to several dozen or more people at the time of publication. Sometimes books are sent in advance of being seen by the public, but not so often anymore. It’s enough, in terms of promoting the book, for the reviews to come out around the time of publication. So promotional copies begin shipping at about the same time you could order the book on Amazon.com.
If you are equating the distribution of a book to advance copies of a broadcast televsion show, obviously they are two different things. Some of it is just physics–everyone gets the opportunity to see a broadcast show for the first time simultaneously (except for reviewers who might get it in advance), so advance screening is a pretty big deal. Of course, the other big difference is that ABC occupies the publicly regulated airwaves, and most published books are a matter of private enterprise. As such, ABC has a special responsibility to present information fairly and accurately–and citizens have a responsibility to hold ABC to a high standard of fairness.
As for your earlier f-tard comment, thanks so much for making my point about wingnut blogs and blog readers much better than I ever could. Really, I only need to read your comment to know everything I need to know about you. Similarly, I only need to read about 1% of the drivel on some of these blogs to know everything I need to know about the author and the blog’s supporters.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 8:54 pm
I don’t have any special link to Greenwald. You can ask him yourself.
Comment by Svenn Sveenwald — 9/9/2006 @ 9:02 pm
You come here without any regard for the facts of the case, and let us know that you disdain us and consider us liars, and then you expect that you’ll be treated with deference. What world did you grow up in?
You tell us how little regard for the facts or for sources you have, and you consider it a point of pride. Why should I care for your opinion. Big turn-off, man. So take your sanctimony somewhere it’s appreciated. Like Greenwald’s.
I don’t care whether you do or don’t know Greenwald. I asked you to do a little digging to sustain your argument, but you are far too intellectually lazy for anything of the sort. Point of pride, I guess.
Disney? Do you remember the (humorous) Catholic League’s reaction to “Dogma”? ABC, home of “Desperate Housewives”? Oh, yeah. Major conspiracy.
What do you think the producers did? Googled producer Justin Levine from Handell, to find out what his political leanings were, then sent a copy to Handell without his name on it, figuring that it would find its way to him? Y’all are nuts. But then again, the “reality-based” don’t need facts, because they already know the truth.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 9:09 pm
“do you really believe that Justin Levine got to watch the video because he used to work for Drudge and Horowitz, ergo Disney/ABC sent him the video for that reason? Or was it because he produces a popular radio show?”
No I believe- in fact it’s been demonstrated- that the crap was sent out to sympathetic audience of pundits and hacks, and denied to anyoe who could not be trusted. And this for a lousy pseudo-doc chock full of lies and being billed as ‘truth.’
All in the service of this:
—Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.
In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.
“How did they get the intel?” he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.
“Why aren’t you giving it to us?” Rumsfeld wanted to know.
Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop.
A CIA spokesman said Hayden, now the CIA director, does not recall this conversation. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, “The notion that the department would do anything that would jeopardize the success of an operation to kill or capture bin Laden is ridiculous.” The NSA continues to share intelligence with the CIA and the Defense Department.
. . .
Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. “There’s nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!” one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. “Nobody!”—
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901105_pf.html
You people don’t even make me angry anymore.
I just get depressed.
Comment by anomalous — 9/9/2006 @ 9:11 pm
“and denied to anyone OF SIMILAR STATURE IN THE MEDIA who could not be trusted.”
there, is that better?
Comment by anomalous — 9/9/2006 @ 9:14 pm
Occam’s Razor. Pat and Justin’s explaination fits the bill.
Comment by Dawnsblood — 9/9/2006 @ 9:17 pm
And that’s why folks at the WP and NYT were invited to screenings, right? And NPR? MSNBC? Newsweek? I quote:
Huh?
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 9:29 pm
Actually, Dan, I think I said that you were morons, angry, and uneducated. I don’t think I mentioned lying, but if you are feeling guilty about some lies, you should talk to someone about that. I love your mock indignation. At least I hope it is mock indignation. After all, the entirety of your argument was to call me an “f-tard,” which is, well, kind of fourth grade. (I take that back–fourth graders are wittier.) What else am I supposed to conclude about you?
As to your question about the distribution of copies of Greenwald’s book, I answered it, realizing full well that you were ignoring (or, more likely, simply ignorant of) major elements of the situation–that ABC is a broadcast network and that book publishing is a private, constitutionally protected enterprise.
Now, while you were bursting into tears (what is with you people and having thin skins?), I was finding a citation for your question about Clinton not receiving a copy of the film. It was mentioned in a letter that Clinton’s lawyer sent to ABC. The letter has been posted to numerous blogs. Here is one citation. God only knows why I bothered to look this up for you. If you were following the facts of this case at all you would know this is one of the reasons why people are so upset about this issue.
Apparently, Madeline Albright also asked for a copy and was refused.
So, if you can raise your taunts above the second grade–and if you can demonstrate at least a middle-school understanding of the issues involved–I will gladly continue to talk. But, raise your game, brother. My life is far too short to spend it bringing people like you up to speed on the basics of American civics.
As to Patterico’s earlier non sequitur about what talk radio shows Clinton hosts, I see the lame point he was making, but I was making a broader one. No matter how much you hate Clinton, he is still a former President of the United States, and as such is entitled to certain things, such as being given a copy of a TV show that has been given to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 9:36 pm
“… the other big difference is that ABC occupies the publicly regulated airwaves, and most published books are a matter of private enterprise. As such, ABC has a special responsibility to present information fairly and accurately–and citizens have a responsibility to hold ABC to a high standard of fairness.”
That’s total nonsense. The “publicly regulated airwaves” are just allocations of bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum. There are millions of such allocations agreed upon by international treaties (your cell phone is one). Their only purpose is to keep broadcasters from stepping on each others’ broadcasts. PBS is publicly supported. ABC is not. It is a private enterprise. The broadcast content of both is protected by the First Amendment. The government has no more business regulating the content of broadcasts on “publicly regulated airways” than it has regulating the content of books transported on publicly regulated and built by tax-payer dollars highways.
Comment by nk — 9/9/2006 @ 9:36 pm
Please, nk. Tell me that you are joking. Please google FCC, television, radio and “public interest” and some such combination of terms and get back to me.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 9:45 pm
Well, I’d really like to see more hard core porn, during prime time at least. (I go to bed early)
Comment by Anomalous — 9/9/2006 @ 9:46 pm
nk is right. Charles is the (I wouldn’t use this term, except that he does) moron.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 9:48 pm
Patterico, so despite your alleged law school background, you also don’t understand that there are specific FCC regulations requiring radio and television stations to act in the public interest? You have, at minimum, heard of broadcast stations needing to provide equal time to political parties at least?
Really, no wonder you folks are so angry all the time. You really are clueless about the most basic things.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 9:52 pm
The bottom line is that Pt911 is factually flawed and should be consigned to a lesser cable channel. The timing is too close to the five-year anniversary of a sacred event as far as I’m concerned. Let’s never forget the loss of that day!
Comment by FairNBalanced — 9/9/2006 @ 9:54 pm
The moron thinks any FCC regulation is kosher, no matter how inconsistent with the First Amendment.
Which is typical. The Greenwald types claim to be for the First Amendment, but you won’t hear a peep out of them when Senators and the DNC Chairman threaten ABC’s broadcast license. They claim to be for the First Amendment, but they’ll scream “Fairness Doctrine!” until the cows come home.
My First Amendment professor in law school, a raging lefty — but a principled supporter of free speech — called the Fairness Doctrine the “Shut up Rush Limbaugh law.”
He didn’t like Rush, but still, that was not a compliment.
No wonder morons like Charles are so clueless. They don’t understand that the Constitution trumps FCC regulations, and applies even when it helps the right.
Morons.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 9:56 pm
alleged law school background
Ah, the veiled implication that I’m lying about that.
You’re good at Google, right, Charles? See if you can find out whether I’m a member of the state bar.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 9:57 pm
[...] 3) Bonus See-Dubya: Best Word Use of the Week: Pulchritudinous. Note the first sentence in See-Dub’s post: He didn’t give a damn about ABC’s 9/11 miniseries until the stink began to rise off the party of free speech. Neither did Allah. Neither did I. But the brilliant Dems, instead of being content to set the facts straight themselves, ask that the facts be set straight in the mini, or any other such sensible course of action, have, by their despicable thuggery, ensured more viewers for this–if it airs–than ABC could ever have gotten on its own. Which they were trying assiduously to do, by–of course!–sending advance copies to obscure right-wing bloggers. Justin, Patterico! What are you doing angering the socks?!?? [...]
Pingback by Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Week in Review — 9/9/2006 @ 9:57 pm
I “love the way” you “love [my] mock indignation.” It’s so . . . Greenwaldian. To recap, you think you’ve got game you haven’t got.
Which is, of course, a deeply insightful way of answering someone who disagrees with you: res ipsa loquitur, right?
So, you weren’t supporting Greenwald’s argument that Patterico was misrepresenting? Liar.
Earlier: “As to this Levine guy, I never weighed in on the details. I would speculate that the ABC folks saw a sympathetic audience in the talk radio show, and identified a producer or someone else to send it to. I work in publishing. We routinely send new books to radio show producers, and we routinely get requests from radio show producers. So I have no reason to doubt what Levine is saying.”
Yes, as a constitutional scholar you would be aware of the fact that freedom of the press doesn’t extend to television or radio, right?
Oh, yes. And I suppose you typed that as you were crapping your pants. If you repeat that meme–as above–and the thin-skinned/can’t take criticism thing that’s very, how shall I put this . . . pre-adolescent, in my opinion. Just as are your fourth or second grade gibes. Does that pass for wit in the publishing areas in which you are employed? Really doesn’t matter, because I’m rubber, and you are glue.
Look closely at this passage in the letter you link to:
Would that indicate that they’d made a request and are trying to depict it as multiple requests?
Well, I don’t know how you would like me to rephrase it, but you demonstrate that you are a complete ass in practically every sentence that you type, if that’s not too sophisticated for you. The issues involved in this instance are regarding who has and has not accurately conveyed the reasons for which one particular individual received an advance copy of the docudrama. Further, why would I want to receive a civics lesson from someone so ill-informed in the first place, so proud of it in the second, and in the third so patently uncivil?
Really? And the basis of that entitlement is?
Best regards,
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 10:02 pm
Oh. I suppose. Better send it to the dude that jokes about muslims practicing bestiality than the dude that worked for D-Ho.
Charles’ analysis happens to be in tune with first amendment doctrine. You can regulate broadcast TV and radio in ways you can’t regulate broadcast media. The communication’s decency act tried to bring decency-level regulation (what you see on broadcast) to the internet (where you have obscenity level). It failed.
Comment by actus — 9/9/2006 @ 10:02 pm
Shoot, that should have been:
You can regulate broadcast TV and radio in ways you can’t regulate Non-broadcast media.
Comment by actus — 9/9/2006 @ 10:03 pm
You can regulate broadcast TV and radio in ways you can’t regulate broadcast media.
Aren’t TV and radio broadcast media?
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:05 pm
Ah. We posted at the same time.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:06 pm
That’s not the “real question” at all; it is merely a false dichotomy as neither answer is accurate.
That is not the point, and that’s not what Mr. Greenwald argued, either.
Considering to whom Disney sent its advance copies and to whom it did not, it’s very reasonable to conclude that Mr Levine got access to it because of his work at a conservative radio station. Lots of popular radio show producers didn’t get the advance viewing. It wasn’t just his prior work with Horowitz and Drudge, but rather “the reliable ideological leanings those connections reflect” that best explain Levine’s access to the preview.
As Mr Greenwald blogged:
And really, Mr Frey:
…is that supposed to be an example of the “civil” discourse you would like to see on your blog? Yes, I know that others have been less than polite to you, but this is your website, afterall; shouldn’t you be setting the standard?
Comment by Rick — 9/9/2006 @ 10:07 pm
I happen to think that it’s unAmerican and inconsistent with the First Amendment to use the fig leaf of “scarce spectrum” to justify ham-handed content regulation of broadcast media by Government.
I would have thought someone like you would have agreed with me.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:07 pm
he just works in a conservative troll lair
Oh yeah… a 50,0000 watt station in LOS ANGELES (a real hotbed of conservative wingnuts) with the top rated morning drive time and afternoon drive time shows is Winger Troll Lair!
They all goosestep, salute a portrait of Karl Rove, and fake their Arbitron ratings.
Comment by Darleen — 9/9/2006 @ 10:11 pm
whoops… 50,000 watt
Comment by Darleen — 9/9/2006 @ 10:11 pm
No wonder morons like Charles are so clueless.
That was an ironic comment on Charles’ previous use of the word “moron,” Rick. Read all the comments.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:11 pm
I think the regulations we currently have on broadcast aren’t so ham handed. I’d prefer more community owned and non-profit stations, and less concentrated ownership. And probably less disproportionate indecency fines. But in general I’m fine with keeping this rather limited part of our media at the decency level, rather than obscenity level. Specially since it’s a part of our media that is being overtaken.
Comment by actus — 9/9/2006 @ 10:13 pm
Their afternoon drive show is “John and Ken,” a rough version of a talk radio Michelle Malkin.
ROFLMAO!
Justin, if you’re reading this, please drop a note to John & Ken on “I heart sockpuppets” Greenwald’s attempt at characterizing them. I’m sure John would love to get GiGi on the air …
:::snicker:::
Comment by Darleen — 9/9/2006 @ 10:16 pm
Rick:
I said:
And you replied:
Sorry, Rick. Not so. Let’s quote your hero, Rick:
As I said, Greenwald advanced the paranoid and insane theory that Justin had access to the film because he used to work for David Horowitz and Matt Drudge. You say that he didn’t argue that, but it’s crystal clear that he did — from his own quotes.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:17 pm
Actually, Patterico, I was merely trying to establish if you knew the mere existence of FCC regulations. Your initial “second” of NK’s remark suggested to me that you were ignorant of such things.
I have no idea if every FCC regulation is kosher. Why would you assume that from a brief remark I made? But I do agree with the idea that broadcast stations have an obligation to include programs that further the public interest.
Anyway, this has all been terribly interesting, but I really can’t spend my time educating your readers on the basics of life in America.
Did I say it has been interesting? No, it hasn’t. It has been thuddingly dull, except for the glimpses it has given me into the sources of anger on the “right.” That part I will take with me for a long time.
Comment by Charles Giacometti — 9/9/2006 @ 10:20 pm
Gosh, and after all the wit and insight that you dropped on us gratis? We really ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 10:22 pm
Hey, don’t go away angry, man; just go away.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 10:23 pm
Aw, and he was so magisterial, too.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 10:24 pm
Charles,
Your dishonest form of argumentation has been mostly dull and a waste of time as well. You imply that you are leaving, not to come back. Goodbye! Won’t miss you!
But I did appreciate your illustrating the type of person who reads Glenn Greenwald and finds him intelligent. The kind who hurls unsubstantiated allegations at the drop of a hat.
So that was useful.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:25 pm
Aw, and he was so magisterial, too.
Yeah. Any guy who can use the terms “moron” and “wingnut” like that?
Genius, I tells ya.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:26 pm
For sheer condescending and vacuous prickishness, that one’s hard to beat.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 10:26 pm
Another publishing guy who doesn’t know the difference between “if” and “whether.” Anyway, is it okay if I go to bed now? I’m on the East coast.
Comment by Dan Collins — 9/9/2006 @ 10:28 pm
Mr Frey was kind enough to reply to me with
Here is my reply: to adequately address and refute what Greenwald is arguing requires the inclusion of “and the reliable ideological leanings those connections reflect” Had he not wrote that part, Greenwald would be truly arguing that it was because “he used to work for David Horowitz and Matt Drudge”, but that is not his point, and parsing it that way misrepresents what he actually posted. True, Greenwald offers Levine’s work with Horowitz and Drudge as part of Levine’s conservative pedigree, but it is not the heart of Greenwald’s argument, and parsing his quotes to mean otherwise isn’t refuting what Greenwald blogged.
The preview was offered by Disney largely to those with a conservative bias, and Levine, having worked for Horowitz and Drudge, appears to fit Greenwald’s characterization
Comment by Rick — 9/9/2006 @ 10:40 pm
WingNuts ALWAYS insult others rather than stick with the facts, because the facts aren’t kind to the right. DUH!
Comment by FairNBalanced — 9/9/2006 @ 10:43 pm
He means: because he used to work for David Horowitz and Matt Drudge, ergo he is a right-winger.
He didn’t say: “and the reliable ideological connections that past employment reflects.”
He said: “and the reliable ideological leanings those connections reflect.”
I.e. Justin is a raging righty.
And raging righties work for Playboy all the time. But he didn’t talk about that.
And Handel is not a reliable conservative. But he didn’t talk about that either.
Oh well. Those facts don’t fit his paranoid fantasy.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:51 pm
I wasn’t going to watch this ABC crap because, lets face it, it’s TV and it’s crap. But I guess I’ll have to now, Jeez…thanks a lot fellas.
Comment by Ron — 9/9/2006 @ 10:51 pm
But the idea that they sent the video to Justin because he is a righty, Rick, rather than because he WORKS FOR A TOP-RATED RADIO TALK-SHOW HOST — that is still paranoid and delusional, any way you slice it.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:53 pm
I wasn’t going to watch this ABC crap because, lets face it, it’s TV and it’s crap. But I guess I’ll have to now, Jeez…thanks a lot fellas.
TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE, RON!
We can’t tell you what to do.
Throw a baseball around with your kid.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 10:54 pm
Mr Frey, lots of “rightys” didn’t get to see the preview, and lots of producers that work for top rated radio talk-show hosts didn’t get to see the preview, either; it appears that Mr. Levine viewed the preview both because he is a “righty” and because he works for a top-rated radio talk-show host. I think that’s Greenwald’s point
Comment by Rick — 9/9/2006 @ 11:07 pm
That ain’t what he wrote. What he wrote, since you apparently forgot, was this:
I.e. it’s because he’s a righty, not because he’s a radio producer.
You’re making excuses for him, because what he actually said sounds paranoid and crazy.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 11:09 pm
Rick
Justin got the tape because it was sent to Bill Handel’s show.
Now if you think it’s because Handel is a “righty” then I would ask you to explain what makes Handel a “righty” AND why the fact of Handel’s show being the highest rated in LA area would be a lesser reason than “rightiness” to preview the movie.
Comment by Darleen — 9/9/2006 @ 11:23 pm
Darleen, you’re asking for logic — and for a Greenwald supporter to confront your arguments, just as you presented them, in a fair and reasonable manner.
You idiot. And I say that lovingly, with respect for you as a long-time commenter.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 11:25 pm
Mr Frey, what Greenwald posted in it’s entirety doesn’t come across as all that paranoid or crazy:
Comment by Rick — 9/9/2006 @ 11:30 pm
Darleen, if audience size was the key factor in who got to preview the film, then why didn’t Stewart, Olberman, Colmes, or Moulitsas get to preview it?
Comment by Rick — 9/9/2006 @ 11:32 pm
Rick, I don’t trust Greenwald’s assertions about who received copies and who didn’t. He initially claimed Justin got one because he blogs on my site — flatly wrong. He claimed no lefty bloggers got one, but Aravosis did. He claimed only conservative nutcases got one, but Handel is not one. Frankly, neither is Justin.
Hey: do you support your hero Glenn Greenwald calling Justin Levine a “stalker”? Have you read Justin’s post? Do you think Greenwald had a sufficient factual basis to call Justin a “stalker”? Do you think that was appropriate? Was that the famous “substance” and “civility” that we keep hearing about from the famous Glenn Greenwald?
I just want to know how far the slavish devotion goes here. If you support that, I want nothing to do with you.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 11:37 pm
Darleen, if audience size was the key factor in who got to preview the film, then why didn’t Stewart, Olberman, Colmes, or Moulitsas get to preview it?
And we know this is true because the great Glenn Greenwald assures us it is so? Or is this more unresearched crap from Think Progress and FireDogLake?
I don’t know, and I bet you don’t either.
Comment by Patterico — 9/9/2006 @ 11:38 pm
As I noted above — with links — Time and the New York Times were among those sent copies. The Time reporter thought it indicted Bush; the NYT thought it even handed. Perhaps Socky McSockerson can explain how this fits into the “send it only to the conservatives” delusion he’s laboring under.
And if were going to start comparing resumes, I would note:
1. The screenwriter of “Path to 9/11″ has worked with noted right-wingnut Oliver Stone; and
2. If we were to actually compare caseloads, I’ll bet Patterico has actually litigated more cases involving constitutional law that GiGi.
Comment by Karl — 9/9/2006 @ 11:58 pm
Well, that might be misleading. If I do 40 routine suppression motions, and he has done 39 complex appeals on First Amendment issues, do I win? I’m not saying that’s the case, but it’s a tough comparison.
If you want to know Glenn Greenwald’s bona fides on the First Amendment, ask him where he stands on the current Democrat thuggery against “Path to 9/11.” (Hint: crickets.) Then ask me where I stood when the FEC questioned Michael Moore’s right to advertise F-9/11. (Hint: the FEC talked about preventing advertising and I was livid.)
Greenwald is a partisan hack who supports the First Amendment only when it supports the left. I support the First Amendment at all times. That is far more relevant than the sheer number of Con Law cases we have done.
Comment by Patterico — 9/10/2006 @ 12:06 am
#106
Rick,
How long did it take you to get your degree in literature, and how long before you upgrade to a bachelors?
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 9/10/2006 @ 12:20 am
After reading the original post and the comments in this thread it has become clear to me that a horrible crime was committed by the ABC television network. Namely, that despite all his hard work KFI producer Justin Levine was not personally sent a copy of The Path to 9/11, but had to borrow a copy sent to some talk show host at KFI.
This is an insult. It is an outrage. It’s even cheap. I say it’s time for the American Broadcasting Corporation to make things right and send Mr. Justin Levine his own copy of The Path to 9/11.
A complete run of Lost up to the fourth season wouldn’t hurt either.
Justice for Justin! Send him the flick!
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 9/10/2006 @ 12:29 am
Not only did he work for Horowitz, he worked for Drudge! What does he have to do, get a TATTOO that says “Live Conservative or Die”??
Comment by Patterico — 9/10/2006 @ 12:33 am
so wait- if Greenwald’s claim is that only conservative commentators were sent the previews…wouldn’t that mean he and Sullivan received copies? After all, they are “the last real conservatives”, so claim…well, themselves.
Or did Greenwald forget to use hius “Bu$h Kultist” meme again?
Comment by Some Guy in Chicago — 9/10/2006 @ 12:34 am
err…”his”, not “huis”
Comment by Some Guy in Chicago — 9/10/2006 @ 12:35 am
#124
Pat,
I’m up this late because I’m a loon. What’s your excuse?
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 9/10/2006 @ 12:40 am
Rick,
Do you think the answer might be because none of the people you mentioned have or work at the number 1 morning talk show in the number 2 market in the US? I’m pretty sure that was never part of the reason a copy was sent to the show & not Justin personally. You’re right, it makes more sense that ABC/Disney just wanted that highly influential & numerous conservative audience that LA is mainly known for & Justin single-handily controls from behind the scene. Who better to champion their cause then someone who worked for David Horowitz… how many years ago again? Curious how a simple factor like that was never mentioned, much less considered by Glenn, you or his witless defenders. I also can’t help but notice that none of the liberal commentators Glenn mentioned in his rantings/postings, have similar ratings in said market share & w/ the morning commuting (captive) audience or w/ ABC’s preferred demographics for the mini-series that KFI’s audience does for that particular time slot… or at all. In fact, Colmes, Oberman & Stewart aren’t even on until the evening & only one has a radio show. What Liberal talk show host in morning has similar ratings to KFI in LA again? According to the ratings, it sure isn’t the Air America affiliate, but ratings would never be a part of how & where a company chooses to advertise or promote their product, it’s all partisanship & calculated political thinking…right? Nothing like comparing apples to oranges to make an argument appear valid, but then again Greenwald has mostly relied upon conjecture or projection to make a point lately, if at all… well that & allegedly false aliases.
Comment by PMain — 9/10/2006 @ 12:56 am
yeah, and I watched Bill Maher’s show tonight and he had a lefty editor from Salon.com on who had recieved a screener copy. So…another Greenwald theory doesn’t hold up in court.
I haven’t caught myself up on Greenwald’s updates to his original and erroneous post, but judging from what Justin had to get into in his reply perhaps I should spare myself from reading more Greenwald sleaze. Amazing how someone has to defend his entire life just because he posted his thoughts on a movie……
Comment by LoafingOaf — 9/10/2006 @ 1:25 am
“Common sense says Justin had access to the film because he produces a highly popular radio show.”
No, common sense says Justin had access to the film because he produces a highly popular conservative radio show. Which is true. Which is Greenwald’s point.
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/10/2006 @ 3:49 am
GiGi is an absolute goon. I’ve never seen a thiongs he’s written that wasn’t rife with irresponsible speculation and overblown self-congratulatory moralizing. Greenwald is long on everything but facts, which he just sort of makes up to compensate.
Why does anyone read this fool? Except for Thomas Ellers, Rick Ellensburg, Wilson, Ryan, his Magic Boyfriend and the rest of his sockpuppet crew, that is.
Comment by Pablo — 9/10/2006 @ 3:49 am
Except that it’s not. Handel isn’t a conservative. He’s a centrist, at most.
Comment by Pablo — 9/10/2006 @ 3:50 am
That would be a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. If you Greenwald people can’t do better than that, take it to his blog.
Sorry, your hysterical blog title (which in itself is an effort to take the focus off the “Path to 9/11 issue) threw me off. And then I started writing INSANE AND MANIACALLY CRAZED, WILDLY HEROIN INDUCED COMMENTS!!!. How’s that, does that fit with your style?
Now, you kids can go back to discussing where everyone ranks at Technorati. After that, feel free to give me hell for not owning the complete set of Harry Potter action figures.
Attacking the messenger: A proven, Rovian strategy to keep any bad light off of your beloved party. Maybe eventually one of the GOP folks will give you a cookie for your efforts.
–WKW
Comment by William K. Wolfrum — 9/10/2006 @ 6:39 am
Get the feeling Dingocoors is new to this planet?
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 9/10/2006 @ 7:13 am
Attacking the messenger: A proven, Rovian strategy to keep any bad light off of your beloved party.
Oh, and Justin Levine is a “stalker.”
Comment by Patterico — 9/10/2006 @ 8:40 am
“On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. “We were there last night,” bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.
That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.
“I was appalled when I learned about it,” said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration’s counterterrorism policy. “I don’t know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It’s very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn’t done that.”
Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2001.”
The Washington Post
Comment by Seth Edenbaum — 9/10/2006 @ 8:44 am
Levine: “I used to screen for the Matt Drudge show [Sunday nights].
“I had an ex-girlfriend who worked in the building. We weren’t getting along. She complained about me, that I said hello to her and talked to her. She did not want me speaking to her. Near the end, that became fine with me. Unfortunately, the management decided to take her word for it and disregard my end of the story. It was a trumped up way to get rid of me because I was making more money than they really wanted to pay me.”
Do we have to take his word for it?
Comment by Seth Edenbaum — 9/10/2006 @ 9:20 am
Kimmet
You keep trying to beat the “conservative” show bit, but you don’t seem to understand that its irrelevant to what corporate entities are interested in
Numbers
Go on. Look at the Arbitron ratings for Los Angeles.
Then understand PR/Marketing/Advertising strategies. Print and radio are the most efficient means of marketing specific products and reach specific markets. TV advertising is used more for brand recognition.
If “conservative” was a more important criteria than numbers, then why did they send screening copies to the NYTimes? Not exactly a hotbed of wingnuttery, eh?
Who is listening to drive-time morning radio? Understand that the prime audience that this movie will be aimed at is NOT 12-17 year olds, but the adult 25-54 demographic… exactly the one that listens to Talk Radio (high “passion” index). The talk radio format is more popular than either straight news or music format.
A person who is marketing a movie to a demographic that would be most interested in anything doing with the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack on America, s/he would consider getting it into the hands of people who could devote some time/space to reviewing AND reach the target demographic. Print and radio (where hosts can spend any length of time on a subject within their 2-4 hour shows) make sense.
My father is a retired advertising professional. I grew up discussing all manner marketing campaigns, print ads, Arbitron ratings, and target demographics. Believe me, when dealing with handing out free screenings, like sending out press releases, you are interested in NUMBERS and MARKET SHARE, not whether or not the host is “conservative” … cuz I’m aiming at the audience NOT engaging in a vast right-wing conspiracy with the host.
Unless you think Karl Rove is secretly manipulating Arbitron. Ah, what an evil genius!
BTW, what I think is most telling this morning is that Democrats have upped their demands… they are not satisfied with “edits”…they want the series yanked completely.
All hail the Censorship Party (shameless photoshop alert)
Comment by Darleen — 9/10/2006 @ 9:29 am
OK, I’ll bite.
What is your evidence you say you have that Greenwald uses sock puppets?
By the way, I think it would be important to know when these liberals getting advance copies of pt9/11 happened. It is happening after the firestorm of controversy in an attempt to show ABC/Disney as non-partisan.
Comment by Pablo — 9/10/2006 @ 9:35 am
“And, of course, Republican efforts to demand that CBS cancel — not change or alter, but cancel — The Reagans was led not by private citizen groups or concerned bloggers, but by Ed Gillespie, in his official capacity as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, at a time when that party controlled the entire executive branch and both houses of Congress. Gillespie filed a complaint with CBS officially on behalf of the RNC, and then went all over television objecting to the content of CBS’ broadcast.”
This is fun.
Comment by Seth Edenbaum — 9/10/2006 @ 9:35 am
Patterico, it seems a little pathetic to go back and update and change the words in the past post itself, in order to make yourself look better and Glenn worse.
If your want to update your post why dont you just put UPDATE 1: or something under the post and leave the original as it is as that was the basis for the disagreement in the first place.
Comment by Pablo — 9/10/2006 @ 9:42 am
Seth
Hello? :::tap:::tap:::tap::: is this thing on?
Have you been paying attention at all? The series is not kind to either admin in the run up to 9/11. Few of us “got it” vis a vis the real threat of Islamism. Recall, too, that the 2000 election was about domestic issues and both candidates were squarely interested in appealing to voters preference for American isolationism. We all saw the tagging on the wall, but believed it was just a nuisance tagging crew, not warnings of gangbanger violence. It was happening over there, so just put some extra foam on the latte and flip open the most recent catelogue from Crate&Barrel and let someone else worry about it.
Is there any wonder at why visiting former Iranian “President” Khatami would love a return to the Clinton era?
Even Dem Rockefeller is blatantly peddling his it would be a better world if Saddam were still in power” views in an effort to pretend all was kite flying and fluffy bunnies on 9/10/01.
Comment by Darleen — 9/10/2006 @ 9:49 am
[...] For example, my commenter Loafing Oaf says: I watched Bill Maher’s show tonight and he had a lefty editor from Salon.com on who had rec[ei]ved a screener copy. So…another Greenwald theory doesn’t hold up in court. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » So Who Really Did Get Advance Copies of “Path to 9/11″? — 9/10/2006 @ 9:59 am
Seth
Did Republican senators threaten CBS’s broadcast license?
Hell, they didn’t even do it when Dan Rather attempted to pass off fraudulent memos under the guise of a NEWS program prior to an election.
:::sigh::: The Dem party — where liberals have been replaced by Leftists and when you scratch a Leftist you find an authoritarian. Of course, an authoritarian that has the best of intentions, and just is looking out for the interests of the rest of us great unwashed who would be unduly upset to be reminded that Islamist terrorism never existed before January 2001.
tool
Comment by Darleen — 9/10/2006 @ 9:59 am
Oh, I hate Clinton. But he wasn’t an idiot, and neither were the people he appointed.
You’re not interested in knowledge, your’re interested in attitude. The movie is telling ‘truth’ to you because it reinforces what you already believe. The movie blames is a partisan hit piece against someone I dispise. And it was and is being billed as truth. Meanwhile the idiocy g