The Path To 9/11 – Which Path Will It Be?
[posted by Justin Levine]
KFI’s John Ziegler claims to have sources in ABC now confirming that they have caved to pressure on the “Path To 9/11” by editing some key scenes that Clinton officials were objecting to. Many others have been hearing similar stories.
I can’t confirm the precise nature of the cuts, so its difficult for me to comment on it at this juncture. I’ve heard they involve a key scene where Sandy Berger refuses to give the final go-ahead to take out Bin Laden, but I am hearing all of this second-hand.
[Ziegler actually played a remarkable sound cut of actor Donnie Wahlberg suggesting that the original cut of the film that was set to air actually took it easy on the Clinton Administration based on some of the historical accounts that he has read.]
We will have to wait until this weekend to know for sure if anything of substance has been changed or not.
But regardless of what (if anything) was actually cut (or the issue of its justification) – this gives me a good opportunity to test the resolve of the Patterico readership on one of my pet issues:
Let’s say that it turns out that “The Path To 9/11” has indeed been cut specifically in order to shield Clinton officials from criticism. Let us also say that some of us could easily break the encryption of our original preview discs (thus likely breaking the law under the DMCA) and start making copies of the original “director’s cut” of the film for those who wish to see it. (Let’s also assume that this original version could also be posted to the Internet.)
Many of you are so militant about copyright protections that you believe it is perfectly reasonable to use such rights in order to effectuate political/viewpoint censorship – completely divorced from issues of financial incentives for creating new works. (Most of you know who you are.)
Would you still maintain that having access to this original “director’s cut” would be a form of “theft”? Or would you describe it as Fair Use? Would you be willing to accept a world where only a few elites have seen the original version of this film (and thus always be at a disadvantage to them when debating the merits of this controversy)?
Does the fact that the “Clintonized” version (for lack of a better term) will be offered for free affect your thinking on this issue? What if the changes made are palpable, but subtle?
From my point of view, the issue is simple: If you abuse copyrights to try and completely suppress a work from the public for all time, then Fair Use rights should correspondingly expand in a parallel fashion in order to ensure that such copyright abuse does not happen.
I would also argue that a strong First Amendment defense should exist against the DMCA. Free speech rights become a hollow joke if society doesn’t have a basic right to access the information surrounding it.
[posted by Justin Levine]
If they cut a scene to protect Clinton, its news. Showing enough to point out the different impact of the two cuts and no more would be news, imho. And if its news should be fair game. Just ask the NYT.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on the internet either. I’ll bake ya a cake with files in it, though.
jpm100 (06f700) — 9/5/2006 @ 11:15 pmRight now the antique MSM is in a horse race to see which one can tell the most lies by Nov.
Like the retarded democrats. The past three years where was no terrorists in Iraq until after the invasion. Today the talking heads of the dimocrats are shouting loud and clear that there was 5,000 terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion. Their reason for this scream is to make a case that there are now 20,000 (increase from the original 5,000) terrorists in Iraq. Like the Media the democrats tell so many lies they can’t keep them streight but an old country boy with a failing memory can remember enough to catch them in this outright lie.
Scrapiron (9f37aa) — 9/5/2006 @ 11:27 pmSounds like one of those “Clinton officials” is Richard Clarke (who worked for three presidents besides Clinton: Reagan, GHWB, GWB).
Tom (eb6b88) — 9/6/2006 @ 12:57 amI assume, from the little I’ve read of it, that the movie is based on public documentation, so I don’t see a good argument that the alleged cuts would suppress otherwise-unavailable information of historical importance.
However, there is a story if Clinton officials, knowing that most people won’t read the 9/11 Commission report or other original sources, applied pressure to ABC. Seeing the edits, and probably some of the surrounding material to understand the context, would be part of that story.
The one aspect of this I’m curious about is what it is that constitutes a “work”. Is every draft of something a “work”? Like many others I’m in an industry – software development – in which hundreds of versions of a product are created internally before something is made available to the public. We give preview copies, often with features that never make it into the final product, to the press. If a member of the press decides our final product (or some aspect of it, more typically) is inferior to a preview version, that we are “completely supressing a work from the public for all time”, is that person justified in releasing the preview version up onto the Internet? Relating this back to the ABC movie, what if these cuts had been made months ago, during the usual editing process, and a blogger had obtained a copy of the edited-out parts from an anonymous ABC staffer? Would those circumstances make releasing the footage to the public less justifiable?
Nels Nelson (7a2ebc) — 9/6/2006 @ 1:38 amWait, let me guess. It bothers no one here that the event with Sandy Berger never happened right? And that’s according to the 9/11 Commission report, which supposedly this movie is based upon.
I find it ironic that one commenter says “that most people won’t read the 9/11 Commission report” when it seems no one around here has bothered to read the sucker either.
Dominion (518fc7) — 9/6/2006 @ 5:18 amI would think that the French scene preceeding the cut, the contents of the cut, and the following French scene, compared to the released versions of the same scenes, would constitute “fair use”.
As I understand the DCMA, if you were to loan your preview disk to someone overseas, and they broke the encryption ….
htom (412a17) — 9/6/2006 @ 6:27 amI read many blogs during the day, and most of those who recieved preview copies have already firmly staked out the position that if tampering of the final from the promo occurs they will swarm it from the rooftops.
We shall have to see what the true outcome is.
SlimGuy (ea6549) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:01 amDominion said
I find it ironic that one commenter says “that most people won’t read the 9/11 Commission report” when it seems no one around here has bothered to read the sucker either.
Actually sir I have read it and also the House and Senate version of the immigration bills and many other similar documents.
Yes I need to get a life, but it still puts me ahead of perhaps 80% or more of the representatives who will vote on these bills.
SlimGuy (ea6549) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:07 amI thought there was no terrorism until Bush took office, so what would be the need to protect Clinton from anything? Everything was sunshine and lollipops then.
the wolf (241e95) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:13 amWill they now edit it to protect their beloved traitor and nerodic trasonous scoundrel?
krazy kagu (f24007) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:22 amIf you want to contact Robert Iger’s office to stop the censorship from the Clinton officials, the information is here:
http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2006/09/path-to-path-to-911.html
JSF (a90377) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:27 amIn a case of attempted information suppression, I have no problem violating the copyright restrictions in order to invalidate the supression, especially in an important matter of national debate like this. I don’t intend to profit from the crime, except possibly politically.
The fact that the copyright holders intend to release their wares for free further reduces the criminality involved, in my opinion.
mojo (8096f2) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:36 amDoes it make a difference if the item was sent to you unbidden and not purchased?
seePea (4a016b) — 9/6/2006 @ 8:00 amSeems to me that if someone sends you something that you did not ask for, that attachments such as DRM are not enforceable.
I wonder if Dominion was as upset about Farenheit 9/11?
The leftwing blogosphere is all over this, picking the movie apart, trying to defend Clinton’s actions/lack of actions. Fun reading!
sharon (03e82c) — 9/6/2006 @ 8:05 am13. the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is still in force, its illegal to bypass copy protection however you got the disc.
Aside from that, it would seem to me to be fair use to show short clips from before and after cuts in a video about “Path to 9/11”. However, good documentary practice would be to at least attempt to get permission from ABC to use such clips.
Sam (330c25) — 9/6/2006 @ 8:46 amIf they cut it, they cut because it was proven to be lies, and they didn’t want to be known as a group that used the public airwaves to broadcast partisan lies and propaganda about 9/11 ON 9/11.
And one DOES wonder why they would provide copies to RUSH LIMBAUGH – but not to BILL CLINTON and MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. Don’t YOU wonder about that?
From Madeleine Albright to ABC:
Iggy (05dc36) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:12 amAnd one DOES wonder why they would provide copies to RUSH LIMBAUGH – but not to BILL CLINTON and MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. Don’t YOU wonder about that?
I wouldn’t take Albright’s word for anything. For example she has stated that she supported the Gulf War and that she advocated going on to Baghdad. Complete lies.
Gerald A (add20f) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:20 amAnd one DOES wonder why they would provide copies to RUSH LIMBAUGH – but not to BILL CLINTON and MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. Don’t YOU wonder about that?
What is your source for that?
Gerald A (add20f) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:21 amhttp://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/
Why it even mentions YOU.
And as for “taking Albright’s word” – she QUOTES the 9/11 commision report and gives the page number where they CONTRADICT this “documentary” supposed BASED on the report.
Face it – this is spreading lies, and ABC is pissing on the New Yorkers who died on 9/11 by using the date of their death to lie about their death. If you can defend that, you’ll dfend ANYthing.
But you know what the silver lining is? That crap about “Bill Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter and didn’t want him” has been floating around cyberspace and right-wing talk radio for 5 years, and it has largely gone unchallenged by major media outlets BECAUSE it’s only been floating around cyberspace and right-wing talk radio. But the lie still got out there, and lot of people have heard the lie, but have never heard that it WAS a lie.
But by breaching that wall, ABC FORCES the major media to mention it, and therefore forces them to ALSO point out that it IS bullshit.
So now, for the first time in five years, many, many people who have ONLY heard the crap about how “Bill Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter and didn’t want him” will now hear for the first time that that was a lie, and that that was an attempt by the right-wing to play partisan politics with an attack on the United States of America.
Iggy (05dc36) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:35 am“And one DOES wonder why they would provide copies to RUSH LIMBAUGH – but not to BILL CLINTON and MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. Don’t YOU wonder about that?”
I don’t wonder about it. Rush Limbaugh has a program that reaches millions of people. It’s great advertising. Besides, isn’t this a “docudrama,” as Actus pointed out earlier, not a “documentary”?
sharon (03e82c) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:37 am[…] There are also some reports that the film has been edited based on criticisms of former Clinton administration officials. This may or may not be a bad thing, depending on whether the edits make the film more or less accurate. Surely both versions wil make their way into public view before too long, so people can judge. […]
The Unalienable Right » NY Times Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased (7644ea) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:38 amSo those of you in the blogsphere with screeners have the original cut, why not leak it. Most certainly that would be a “good leak” would it not?
Gabriel Chapman (6d7447) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:38 amNow is as good of time as any to have this conversation again.
Richard Clarke is focusing on a single event in the drama. Clarke has that story line working for him. What he doesn’t have working for him is the numerous public statements he has made ON CAMERA that likely contradict his current memory.
One of the advisers to “The Path to 9/11” is Gary Schroen. Schroen is one of a handful of CIA agents that were tasked at the Afghan desk for 20 some years. Schroen was on the ground in Afghanistan for most of the events there. So was Schroen knowingly participating in an event that did not occur just for this mini-series?
Gabriel Sutherland (90b3a1) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:57 amIt seems to me that if you had the original promo disc in one hand, and the version that was broadcast in the other, you could “fair use’ the beast until the public was fully informed and you would not have violated any copyright laws.
RJN (e12f22) — 9/6/2006 @ 11:26 amABC is a business, after all. I imagine that if Mr. Levine were to offer a fair price for a license to disseminate the “director’s cut”, in the manner and for the purposes he proposes, its executives would agree (or justify to the board of directors and shareholders why they did not).
nk (5e5670) — 9/6/2006 @ 12:02 pmI cannot wait to see this movie. I think it will start a great dialogue in this country.
Dr. Jeff (4976ec) — 9/6/2006 @ 12:08 pmnk:
If ABC wanted to release the “director’s cut”, they would obviosuly do it thmeselves and wouldn’t need me to “license” it.
Don’t try and avoid my challenge. The hypothetical in this situation is that the “director’s cut” stays burried by ABC for all time in order to placate the critics in the Clinton administration. Given that scenario, do you believe that people with copies of this original version have the right to distribute them for free, or not? (And again I ask – Does thet fact that ABC is offering the newer cut version for free change your thinking on this question in any way?)
Justin Levine (4398af) — 9/6/2006 @ 12:32 pmTell you what. I’d accept the ‘composite’ nature of the ‘facts’ if there was also some reference that even Clinton’s modest efforts to go after Bin Ladin were attacked by Republicans. That he was accused of ‘wagging the dog’ to distract attention from Lewinsky. There was little or no Republican support for going after Al Queda. So to just blame Clinton for ignoring the threat is playing loose with the historical truth.
Ed (fcb51d) — 9/6/2006 @ 12:47 pmI’m curious:
When Michael Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” was being shown, did the Left decry it with half the vehemence that they are condemning this docudrama?
Did they protest when his “Bowling for Columbine” was nominated (and won!) for an Oscar as “Best Documentary“? This, despite blatant inaccuracies, such as the history of the NRA somehow being part of the KKK?
Somehow, methinks that there’s an awfully selective sense of outrage underway.
But I think it’s safe to say, whatever the accuracies or casualness with the truth, the makers of this film will not be in the Presidential box at the GOP Convention in 2008.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 9/6/2006 @ 1:51 pmTo the Clintonoid: I can’t comment on the substance of a docudrama I haven’t seen. From what I’ve heard, it’s trying to be non-partisan, and source materials such as the 9/11 Commission and The Cell back that up.
In a movie, some dramatic license has to be tolerated, although whether it should be tolerated depends on the intent and effects. There was dramatic license in Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center, but I defend that movie. For Path to 9/11, it remains to be seen.
What Clintonoids who lose sleep over how Berger, Albright, and Slick have to come to grips with, though, is that the 8 years prior to 9/11 cannot be brushed under the rug, no matter how many documents Berger steals from the National Archive. Those 8 years will be written about in books and portrayed in movies for generations to come. You’re not gonna be able to put a lid on it.
In the time between now and the broadcast of Path to 9/11, it’s not to late for those who oppose lies to finally make a very public condemnation of the most deceitful propaganda film in American history – a propaganda film that has been embraced by terrorist groups around the world – F9/11 by Michael Moore, a film any person who cares about truth should apologize for having supported. And to make a public condemnation of proven liar Joe Wilson.
As for Think Progress, I won’t ever go to that web site again, as they have engaged in lies and smears against U.S. soldiers. Like me to a respectable web site and I’ll click right over.
As far as Albright, her destiny is to be disgraced in history, and not just over terrorism. This is a woman who went to the UN and had them pull peacekeepers out of Rwanda just as a genocide that killed 800,000 people was starting to take place. But I agree that lies should not be told about her. The truth is damning enough.
LoafingOaf (71415b) — 9/6/2006 @ 2:20 pm“Like me to a respectable web site and I’ll click right over.”
I meant, LINK me to a respectable web site. I can only roll my eyes when I see links to Think Progress.
LoafingOaf (71415b) — 9/6/2006 @ 2:23 pmThat he was accused of ‘wagging the dog’ to distract attention from Lewinsky.
I have some comments about the attack in Sudan.
1. When Clinton hit the medicine factory, his administration said that both Iraq and al Qaeda were involved with producing chemical weapons there. In the 9/11 Commission Report, Richard Clark (page 128 of my edition) said that VX precursor traces were the same formula used in Iraq. If both Iraq and al Qaeda were involved with a nerve gas operation in Sudan, why is it that Bush was a “liar” for linking Iraq to terrorism? Is it not a lie to call Bush a liar if links between al Qaeda and Iraq were made by the Clinton administration and were even the basis for a military strike?
2. The “wag the dog” probably stemmed from the fact Clinton didn’t follow normal procedures in ordering the attack. I remain suspicious about it for the reason that I still find the attack on the medicine factory strange. Christopher Hitchens raised a number of questions about this. For example, why weren’t UN inspectors sent to Sudan to confirm what was going on there, since we weren’t at war with Sudan and the al Shifa plant wasn’t going anywhere? Instead, it was blown up on the exact day it would be most beneficial to Clinton.
Perhaps it can be defended when taken in tandem with the missile attack in Afghanistan, the timing of which seems more sound even though the attack itself was a failure and showed weakness to the enemy.
But doesn’t it look like Clinton wanted something a little more dramatic than just that Afghanistan target, and went down a list of potential add-on targets and chose the medicine factory because it would enable them to talk about chemical weapons and so forth to the public? One aspect that points to phoniness is the way Clinton stole a scene out of An American President starring Michael Douglas when he anounced it. Something remains fishy with the Sudan attack, IMHO.
LoafingOaf (71415b) — 9/6/2006 @ 2:54 pmI said: Is it not a lie to call Bush a liar if links between al Qaeda and Iraq were made by the Clinton administration and were even the basis for a military strike?
I think this is why people don’t talk about that attack much. If it was “wag the dog” Clinton abused his powers. If it was a legit target for the reasons the Clinton administration stated, people who call Bush a liar for linking Iraq with al Qaeda would have to apologize to Bush or else they would be the liars.
So, I’m all for revisiting the al Shifa attack and getting to the bottom of it.
LoafingOaf (71415b) — 9/6/2006 @ 3:02 pm“ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-assures-bloggers/
(HEH!)
clarice (c49871) — 9/6/2006 @ 3:10 pmIt doesn’t seem to me that the charged contents of the Path to 9/11 “Director’s Cut” should make much difference as to the copyright and Fair Use issues. As pointed out earlier, this is a work of art, not a documentary. As someone who knows a fair amount on the history that led to 9/11, I’ll be very interested to see the film, and then to read on blogs about where it departed from the record, and where it hewed to the accepted wisdom of the 9/11 Commission and its other sources.
It’ll be too bad for folks who tune in to learn the history of 9/11, as by definition they’ll be unable to distinguish exciting and agonizing interpretations of fact from exciting and agonizing dramatic liberties. Changing timelines and creating composite events to advance the story line are acceptable devices in the docudrama world–but would anybody accept similar methods in a nonfiction book on the subject (e.g. “The Cell” or “The Looming Tower”)?
This movie isn’t a historical document that is being revised, or, less charitably, bowdlerized for reasons of political correctness. It’s the director’s and actors’ personal interpretation. So the copyright/Fair Use argument will be a “debate about the debate,” rather than a debate about the underlying facts of the matter.
AMac (b6037f) — 9/6/2006 @ 3:49 pmWho cares? If the bigs (ABC/NBC/CBS) are putting a signal on the air, they’re lying about something. After all, it’s just entertainment (fantasy).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/6/2006 @ 5:14 pmIf the edits made a substantial difference from the preview version to the broadcast version I would be decrypting the disc before the broadcast ended.
If the network and the director made substantial last minute changes they should be prepared to explain why.
Stephen Macklin (4ea65b) — 9/6/2006 @ 5:36 pmI followed Clarice’s (#34) link to the leftwing site thinkprogress.org and nosed about.
(Previewing isn’t working so here’s hoping this comment goes through.)
Here’s an excerpt from another entry on the subject.
There are Hollywood arguments for conflating and exaggerating scenes in the service of keeping the plot moving, and the like. But do that, and it isn’t serving history any more. I wish the director had made a movie that was more boring or confusing, but more truthful with its facts. As the movie doubtlessly gets right, in many other instances the facts were damning enough. (IIRC, Scheuer claimed that the Clinton Administration did duck the issue of capturing or killing bin Laden–just not in this particular composited way.)
AMac (b6037f) — 9/6/2006 @ 5:41 pmMr. Levine:
Re your comment #27 and generally. This is a work of authorship. Although it is based on historical events, those events have been selectively picked, emphasized and dramatized in accordance with the producers’, writers’ and directors’ judgments and tastes. Someone else may take those same historical events and make his own historical drama as he pleases. It is not as though an exclusive interview, with someone who had intimate knowledge of the events and is now dead, is being suppressed. (This is one area where we agree. I do not consider “stenographers” to have copyright.)
Therefore the owners’ right to the product of their imagination, talent, education, labor and capital should not be disregarded under your scenario. It makes no difference that the bowdlerized version is distributed for free. A donor’s gift of one particular thing or to one particular person does not impose a duty on him to make a gift of anything that may be demanded by anyone at all. In your particular case and the case of other critics who were given a preview version, I also see a contractual duty, actually a fiduciary duty. You were trusted, and explicitly or tacitly agreed, to use the preview only in accordance with the wishes of the owners. I can see no moral, ethical or legal justification to violate this duty, or the copyright law, other than to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to an innocent human being.
nk (32c481) — 9/6/2006 @ 6:25 pmnk:
Fair enough. At least that was an honest direct response. You are now on record as stating that you are ok with a select group of media elites being the only ones able to see the “original” version while the rest of the country will be debating the merits of the cuts in a black hole since they will not have access to the first version before it was changed. Couple that with your desire to keep George Orwell’s works out of the public domain for all time and readers can see just how radical you are on this issue. It doesn’t even seem to matter to you that the changes were specifically made do to political pressure from a past governmental administration.
But as I said, it is an honest and consistent response and I thank you for it.
Justin Levine (4398af) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:21 pm[…] Boy are are these wack jobs running scared. Except it won’t work. In spite of some “cut talk” there will be no cutting of the original film. Even if ABC at this point were to “cave”, and cut the “Berger Moment”, it’s too late, too much press on it. […]
Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Clinton Path to 9/11 - I think they’re bugging now (ca15f9) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:29 pmIt was obvious that ABC, for whatever reason, was pandering to conservatives in the making of this film.
In this wondrous system of capitalism, they’ve learned that serving up rightwing agitprop will offend a great many of their viewers. Especially this election season.
I mean, imagine if Fahrenheit 911 had been produced by a network and purported to be a non-partisan look at the War on Terror/Islamic Extremism/whatever.
Geek, Esq. (7dcd40) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:32 pmGeek, you are a riot. The Democrats sat Moore in the ex-president’s box at their convention. If the ABC execs are invited to the GOP convention, you’ll have a point. Otherwise….
I especially like Sandy Burglar complaining. I’d still like to know what was in his pants.
Mike K (416363) — 9/6/2006 @ 8:00 pmMr. Levine:
My creative writing professor was a friend and sometime editor of Saul Bellow. He told us that Bellow rewrote “Herzog” three times. I inferred that my professor was privileged to see variations of Nobel quality literature in progress that very few others will be privileged to see. Why “media elites” and not simply people who were deemed qualified to render an opinion, were in the right place at the right time, and like “this kind of stuff”? And what’s so great about egalitarianism in any case?
nk (f58916) — 9/6/2006 @ 8:05 pmFeatured on BuzzTracker…
…
BuzzTracker.com (db9469) — 9/6/2006 @ 8:10 pmUh…actually watched the preview disks. It wasn’t Sandy Berger depicted in 9/11 as killing the go-ahead. It was Tennant.
Hopefully, the rest of Justin’s breathless reportage is better sourced.
SilverPaladin (2b90bd) — 9/6/2006 @ 9:03 pmRe 46: Tennant makes much more sense than Berger, as Berger was not in any position to make a policy decision like that but i think this is a good lead to what he put in his pants.
Re 39: Why should I be oligated in any way to someone who sends me a tape/book when I never asked for it in any way shape or form and I am not a reviewer?
seePea (ed38bc) — 9/6/2006 @ 9:36 pmUnder the UCC , is their any thing a receiver of such goods is prohibited from doing?
P.S. And, in retrospect, I see that my comment #25 was silly. ABC would never agree to provide the ammunition, at any price, for the destruction of its image of objectivity (giggle), impartiality (hee-hee) and independence (guffaw). Still, it’s their movie, made with their money, and they can do whatever they like with it. If we don’t like it, we should make our own.
nk (32c481) — 9/6/2006 @ 9:40 pmseePea, #47: The UCC is not actually applicable in this case, and I do not believe that Mr. Levine received an unsolicited copy without a copyright notice on it.
nk (32c481) — 9/6/2006 @ 9:52 pmABC’s “The Path To 911” Is Now Totally Politicized (UPDATED)…
I haven’t weighed on the controversy over ABC’s upcoming docudrama “The Path to 911.” But now it’s time to say it.
After what I’ve rea……
The Moderate Voice (fa8fba) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:04 pmI understand that a lot of lefties harbor a lot of anger toward President Bush, Israel, America, the Easter Bunny, Clarence Thomas, rich people, Rush Limbaugh, God, and the ref who called a foul against their kid in last Saturday’s youth soccer game.
But screaming unhinged accusations about ABC being a shill for the GOP is juvenile behavior, even for Ned Lamont’s cheerleaders.
A few people among the media have already viewed the mini-series, however, the rest of us must wait patiently until next week to view it.
There are rumors that the Clintonistas have been pressuring ABC/Disney to ‘censor’ some scenes from the final product.
We’ll all have to wait-and-see if that comes to fruition.
But I am surprised to see that the lefties who report to ‘know’ the covert political motivations of the ABC network brass have conveniently failed to report that the current Chairman of Disney is none other than former Democrat Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell—who was reportedly once offered a nomination to the US Supreme Court by then-President Bill Clinton.
Whether or not former Senator Mitchell’s position as Chairman has any bearing on any edits to the final cut, remains to be seen.
My inclination is that the final cut of a TV mini-series is not within his jurisdiction regardless of whether or not he has a former President (and friend) lobbying him.
Nonetheless, George Mitchell is no contributor to the GOP.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:38 pmDon’t worry about copyright laws; if you start propagating copies of a film that demonstrably defames a former President and other public officials (as this one pretty clearly does if the reports about it are true) you better be prepared to defend yourself in a libel suit…argue artistic liscence all you want, if you portray a real person doing something that never happened and present it as the truth you’re asking for a lawsuit. Especially when those lies are being pushed as facts in a program for high school students. We’re way beyond mere “entertainment” here folks…
Read Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” if you want a good look at what really happened in the Clinton years.
A Hermit (291774) — 9/7/2006 @ 1:32 pmThe same right wingers who want to pretend that Clinton was “soft” on terrorism all howled like banshees and called him warmonger when he actually attacked Al Qaeda with cruise missiles. What a pacl of cowardly hypocrites…
There are plenty of good reasons to be critical of Clinton on a whole host of issues without making up lies about him. But I guess that’s the new, right wing American way…
A Hermit (291774) — 9/7/2006 @ 1:39 pmSilverPaladin:
I never reported that the film shows Berger “killing” the plan to capture Bin Laden. I said that it shows him “not giving the go-ahead” (in order to force others to make the decision so that they would take the blame if it didn’t go done smoothly). So in the end, Berger forces Tenant to make the decision. The film clearly depicts that, does it not?? So how is my reporting not accurate?
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 9/7/2006 @ 3:20 pmnk:
So in your mind, there are certain people in life who are “deemed qualified to render an opinion” on “variations of Nobel quality literature”. Others who are not “qualified” should not have access to such works if I understand your opinion correctly. Astounding…but I appreciate you putting your curious views on display for the public to see.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 9/7/2006 @ 3:24 pmTo Justin Levine
Since you are one of the few who have actually seen the film, and you gave a rave review of the original version back on 8/31 saying it was “historical fact”, maybe you should wait to see how this shakes-out, maybe ABC is editing it because of its innaccuracies and you wouldn’t want to make a fool of youself, just a thought!
Linden (c5d150) — 9/7/2006 @ 3:46 pmIn Comment #55 Justin Levine wrote:
“nk:
So in your mind, there are certain people in life who are “deemed qualified to render an opinion” on “variations of Nobel quality literature”. Others who are not “qualified” should not have access to such works if I understand your opinion correctly. Astounding…but I appreciate you putting your curious views on display for the public to see.”
And I appreciate finally finding someone who when it comes to disingenousness, deliberate distortion and intellectual dishonesty makes Glenn Greenwald look good.
nk (32c481) — 9/7/2006 @ 7:28 pmBe proud to be an american! Not for torture but for the word of law. America is only for human rights weather it be a terroist or a citizen. Human rights are the basis of our society. As americans we must stand stong againt a government that wants to take these rights a way for any reason. The media must be held accountable in all matters concerning historical facts. The media can not sway the truth. Remember the Boston tea party! Do not let Karl Rove scare us1! His father is gay and he is afraid of the world knowing. He was abandonded and needs love.
meme (3f714a) — 9/8/2006 @ 3:46 am[…] Meanwhile, a small part of me is actually hoping that ABC yanks the film altogether and buries it in their vault. Then I’d have an opportunity to really challenge people’s thinking on overly restrictive copyright laws…. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » The Path To 9/11 - More on the Continuing Debate (421107) — 9/8/2006 @ 1:00 pmThe Bush gang and its supporters have been lying about 9/11, Osama, Iraq, and the “war-on-terrorism” from day one. When will Americans wake up from their coma and ride these crooks out of town on a rail?
Max Gross (2f07be) — 9/8/2006 @ 9:11 pmI want to see the original, non-partisan version of the Path to 9/11 before the Democratic Party got in the editing room. Copyright laws be damned.
John B. (2d2445) — 9/9/2006 @ 5:26 am