Greenwald Propagates the Myth that “Path to 9/11” Publicists Gave Advance Screenings to Obscure Right-Wing Blogs Like This One
Glenn Greenwald is spreading disinformation about “The Path to 9/11.” In this post, he endorses the myth — previously propagated by Think Progress and FireDogLake, and previously debunked by me — that the producers of “The Path to 9/11” are so desperate to push the film to conservatives that they even provided an advance screening to obscure conservative blogs with tiny audiences, like mine:
Think Progress has documented that bloggers with — to use Hewitt’s sneering description — “tiny” audiences received screeners, but they were individuals who were certain to ooze with praise for the film. And ooze with praise is exactly what they did (emphasis added).
The link is to Justin Levine’s praise for the film on this blog, which Greenwald then quotes, and terms “drooling, mindless praise.”
As when Think Progress noted that this blog is “obscure,” Greenwald argues that my blog has a “tiny” audience. Why are Think Progress and Greenwald so obsessed with the admittedly relatively small audience of my blog? The clear implication is that the publicists for “The Path to 9/11” are so desperate to reach out to conservatives that they are giving advance screenings to the most “obscure” blogs with “tiny” audiences, like this one.
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. Any connection between this blog and an advance “Path to 9/11” screening is only a coincidence — something I have already made quite clear.
No matter. For the above-mentioned lefty bloggers, the power of the myth is far stronger than the power of the facts.
UPDATE: I see LoafingOaf is over there banging his head against the wall in the comments seeking a correction — or even someone who cares about the facts. So far, he is (predictably) sorely disappointed.
UPDATE x2: Greenwald issues an update which notes this post, and tries to cast doubt on my assertions by making snide comments, slippery assertions, and by mangling the facts:
In response to this post, L.A. County Assistant District Attorney Patrick Frey (who blogs under the name “Patterico”) claims that the reason his guest blogger (quoted above) received a screener of Path to 9/11 was because the guest blogger is the highly influential Justin Levine, who, Frey says, “produces the highest-rated morning talk radio show in Los Angeles.” The link which Frey provides for that claim takes one to a post that was written by Levine but which has nothing to do with Levine’s work for any radio show.
(My emphasis.)
As you can see, Greenwald first tries to bat down the claim that Justin produces Bill Handel’s radio show with the false claim that the post I linked allegedly doesn’t reference Justin’s work for that show. Sorry, but that’s flatly wrong. Let’s go to that post, which has this passage:
Jerry Le Frois and I ended up speaking, and there was an informal agreement that your humble blogger would help out on his case in between my precious hours spent blogging, producing the highest rated morning radio show in Southern California, practicing my second deal, and blowing the heads off of zombies on my Playstation 2.
Gee, I guess the post does mention Justin’s work for the radio show after all! (Note: I’m taking Justin’s word for the ratings of his show. He provides a link for one ratings period in his post; I assume he knows what his show’s current ratings are.)
Greenwald also takes a shot at Justin for being “merely” the producer:
Levine, according to Frey, doesn’t have his own audience, but merely produces a show that does . . .
The arrogance reeking from this smarmy description of Justin is also present in the above reference to “the highly influential Justin Levine.”
I think the point here, which anyone not blinded by partisan venom can easily see, is not how influential Justin is, but how influential his boss Bill Handel is. Handel is a major figure in L.A. radio, and it’s a no-brainer that he’s going to get a copy of the film.
As to Justin being “merely” Handel’s producer: Justin can address this better than I can, but my understanding of the way talk radio works is that the producers are responsible for a great deal of the legwork (some might call it grunt work) in putting together the content for a show. From what little I know, I would expect that Justin would watch the movie if Handel were going to do a segment on it. It does not make the slightest bit of difference that Justin is “merely” Handel’s producer. There’s just nothing unusual whatsoever about Justin having seen this film.
As for Greenwald’s points about lefty bloggers and talk-radio hosts not having received copies, I am not entering that debate, because I don’t know the facts. I know some local talk-show hosts have seen it, because I’ve listened to the shows. But other than Justin, Hugh Hewitt, and several other people directly connected with L.A. talk radio, I don’t personally know which people on the left or right have seen advance copies of this film. And unlike Greenwald and Think Progress, I’m not going to pretend that I do know — nor am I going to trust the representations of web sites that have screwed up basic facts of which I am personally aware.
UPDATE x3: Here is a good example of why you shouldn’t trust the assertions that lefty bloggers haven’t gotten advance copies — they have. John Aravosis, who is definitely a lefty, reviews the movie here. So much for the conspiracy theories about right-wingers being the only ones to receive the movie . . .
UPDATE x4: Greenwald has now come completely unhinged with paranoid conspiracy rantings. Details here.
Besides, Justin doesn’t have any sock puppets so he must not be a best selling writer and does not have a blog that is quoted by Senators. Anybody who’s anybody has sock puppets, ask Greenwald.
Mike K (f78551) — 9/9/2006 @ 3:51 pm[…] 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. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Greenwald Makes Wild and Untrue Allegations About “Path to 9/11″ (421107) — 9/9/2006 @ 3:57 pm[…] H/t to this from Patterico who is dubunking the hysterics of America’s Blog as well as others moonbats like Glenn Greenwald (not even worth a link) who at this point are just making stuff up. […]
Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Sandy Berger Fact vs. Fiction (ca15f9) — 9/9/2006 @ 7:52 pm[…] I reckon Patterico and Glenn Greenwald won't be sitting down to a nice cup of tea anytime soon. Patterico is calling Greenwald – hard – on Greenwald's latest post. Glenn Greenwald is spreading disinformation about “The Path to 9/11.” In this post, he endorses the myth — previously propagated by Think Progress and FireDogLake, and previously debunked by me — that the producers of “The Path to 9/11″ are so desperate to push the film to conservatives that they even provided an advance screening to obscure conservative blogs with tiny audiences, like mine: […]
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » “Obscure Conservative Blogs With Tiny Audiences” (a177fd) — 9/9/2006 @ 8:32 pmWhat does Greenwald’s sock puppet think about this?
mishu (392c18) — 9/9/2006 @ 11:30 pmWhich one?
Patterico (de0616) — 9/9/2006 @ 11:39 pmWow. You guys sure do deviate from the pertinent points easily. What a bunch of whining babies!
ROFLMAOAY!
Cuckoo Clock Cleaner (675ca8) — 9/10/2006 @ 12:38 amOh, that one.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/10/2006 @ 12:54 amGreenwald argues that my blog has a “tiny” audience.
And exactly who is he to be looking down on your site traffic? Does his site stats have a sock puppet inflated disclaimer?
Look how Mr. Elite compares to the commoner Ann Coulter:
Traffic Rank for glenngreenwald.blogspot.com: 46,132
Traffic Rank for anncoulter.com: 12,204
Here’s the results…
liontooth (178098) — 9/10/2006 @ 1:30 amBoy, nothing like finding a way to divert our attention from the main point.
That main point being that the PT9/11 producers exclusively promoted their film through right-wing outlets of varying sizes, while refusing the screenings not only to liberal bloggers, but to the subjects of the film who are clearly being atttacked by it: Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright.
I don’t think you have to be a liberal to understand that that stinks. Especially for production being sold to the public as a factual, nonpartisan exploration of our very recent history.
But hey, divert away. It’s what you specialize in.
David Neiwert (5a0a8f) — 9/10/2006 @ 8:39 amThat main point being that the PT9/11 producers exclusively promoted their film through right-wing outlets of varying sizes, while refusing the screenings not only to liberal bloggers, but to the subjects of the film who are clearly being atttacked by it: Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright.
Loafing Oaf from another thread:
So much for your theory.
What liberal bloggers were refused a copy of the film after requesting it? What conservative bloggers who aren’t also in radio got a copy without requesting it?
But hey, spread myths. It’s what you specialize in.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/10/2006 @ 8:43 amHey Neiwert:
I assume you approve of your pal calling Justin Levine a “stalker”?
It’s 1) based on a misreading of something Justin had said, and 2) relevant to this discussion how, again?
Oh yes, Glenn Greenwald, Man of Substance. Mr. Civil.
And you, no doubt, will ignore my question entirely — because there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.
Which says plenty about you too.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/10/2006 @ 8:48 am[…] Patterico / Patterico’s Pontifications: Greenwald Propagates the Myth that “Path to 9/11″ Publicists … […]
Neptunus Lex » So… (f67377) — 9/10/2006 @ 8:50 amBoy, nothing like finding a way to divert our attention from the main point.
Your comment is posted on the wrong blog. You need to ask Greenwald why he brought up this diverting subject.
liontooth (178098) — 9/10/2006 @ 12:08 pm, but to the subjects of the film who are clearly being atttacked by it: Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright.
But GW and Condi are also attacked in it. Did they get copies? Did they even request ’em?
I’m still not seeing ABC as a Rovian doppelgänger based on your unsubstantiated assertions.
Darleen (03346c) — 9/10/2006 @ 12:29 pmSpeaking of Sandy Berger, now would be a good time for him to answer, “What were you covering up when you destroyed classified documents?”
Maybe Greenwald will ask him?
liontooth (178098) — 9/10/2006 @ 1:20 pmThat hardly seems justified.
One could certainly discuss and even agree with Mr Greenwald’s main point that Disney promoted PT9/11 through right-wing outlets while not agreeing with his impolite personal attack upon Mr. Levine. There was really no good reason for Mr. Greenwald’s personal attack upon Mr. Levine, but there’s also really no good reason to divert the subject further, and there’s certainly no point in implicitly casting aspersions upon the character of others who agree with Mr. Greenwald’s main thesis.
Agreed, it’s not relevant. So why mention it?
Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is certain: making unjustified assumptions about what others may approve or believe won’t make you any better than Mr. Greenwald.
Rick (c4e376) — 9/10/2006 @ 2:22 pmThere was really no good reason for Mr. Greenwald’s personal attack upon Mr. Levine, but there’s also really no good reason to divert the subject further
Well, Rick, maybe you’re right. If Mr. Neiwert comes back here and says what you said — that there was no good reason for Greenwald’s attack on Justin — then I’ll apologize to him for assuming he agreed.
It just amuses the hell out of me that some people are bamboozled into thinking Greenwald is civil and aboveboard. When someone points out flaws in his logic, he waits for his commenters to dig up dirt on them, then he attacks with that dirt — no matter how distorted, and no matter how personal.
He’s as civil as an attack dog.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/10/2006 @ 2:31 pmYeah, but Pat–I mean, just as a thought experiment–don’t you think that it’s possible that it’s because he guest posts at a right-wing blog with a tiny audience that has been known to be critical of famous constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald?
Dan Collins (599259) — 9/10/2006 @ 4:52 pm