Best Viewed with IE or Opera. Sorry, Firefox works, but loses some sidebar layout,
'my profile' and other stuff... Anybody with a fix, please leave a comment. Many thanks in advance.

That said, if you must use Firefox (and I don't blame you, it's become my browser of choice, too)
...get the "IE Tab" extension. This allows you to view problem pages with the IE rendering engine. Very cool!

Thursday, September 07, 2006

ABC's "The Path to 9/11" docuvomit [UPDATED]

Update: 9-7-06 6:48pm
And here's the last I will post on this travesty. Glenn Greenwald points out another film that was shot down, this time by the right for the very reasons cited by the left in the current situation. The rightwing pundits were equally pissed off by the much less impactful docudrama "The Reagans" in 2003. CBS quickly capitulated and moved it to the much smaller venue of the Showtime network. Some contrast. --pseudolus

read about it here.
Update: 9-7-06 6:35pm
Oh yeah...As Atrios points out, not so long ago ABC's parent company pulled out of releasing Fahrenheit 9-11 because it was controversial and might upset a segment of voters and would therefor be unfair. huh! funny that... (and I must point out that while F'9-11 was a biased documentary, Moore never claimed otherwise and his dramatic touches didn't alter the facts as presented like this film does.) --pseudolus
Moore's agent Emanuel told the New York Times that Eisner asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Emanuel said Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where President Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, is governor.

The Times reported that Disney executives denied that allegation. One executive told the paper it did not want to be seen taking sides in the election and risk alienating customers of different political views.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," said the executive, who was not identified by the paper.

But Moore said he believed the protection of tax cuts was the reason for the media conglomerate's position.
Update: 9-7-06 6:15pm
Here is an example of why this flick is such a good example of a "bad docudrama", and how it will be used by the rightards to spin Clinton and his admin as failures in the GWOT. --pseudolus
Gaffney Cites Made-Up Scene In Path To 9/11 As Symbolic of Clinton Admin’s ‘Risk-Averse Attitude’ »

Today on MSNBC, right-wing commentator Frank Gaffney cited a made-up scene in The Path To 9/11, in which former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger allegedly refuses to give an order to the CIA to take out bin Laden. 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean was forced to acknowledge the scene was fictionalized and the writer of the film, Cyrus Nowrasteh, said it was “improvised.”

Gaffney said, “I don’t know the facts here.” Nonetheless, he continued, “To the extent there is basis for this kind of reporting, I think it suggests a risk-averse attitude that was characteristic of the Clinton administration.” Watch it.

Gaffney’s comments underscore why ABC must correct its false scenes in the movie. If it fails to do so, the scenes will be cited as evidence by Gaffney and others, slowly making their way from myth to reality.
Gaffney the Liar
So, ABC put their Blog for the upcoming movie back on line. I went over to drop a comment on them yesterday. Of course the comments are being moderated and won't get posted unless the Producer approves. Well, my comment wasn't approved. This "fair and balanced" producer didn't see fit to post it. The comments that have been posted are 90% "bumkisses" from regressive conservatards. My unposted comment follows this rip from the blog's post. Does it seem all that harsh to you?

Even Further Clarification

It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors. link below >>>


The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.

The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.

Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.

-David Cunningham [producer]
September 02, 2006
The Path to 9/11

my comment 09-05-2005:

"Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance."

Very nice, you know full well that the damage will be done by the end of the broadcast. Any discussion after that will in all likelihood be ignored by the press and/or the average viewer. Your magnanimous offer to "discuss" it notwithstanding.

I would ask you to do as Rep. Slaughter has asked and make it clear that this is a work of fiction "based on fact". It would certainly appear to be a piece of pro-Bush propaganda what with reports of Mr. Bottoms' portraying Mr. Bush as a brave soul challenging the terrorists to come and get him at the Whitehouse when he was jetting around from one secure facilty after another that day.

Other sketchy scenes have been reported that would make one suspect the same. And I would sure like to have references to all this "rightwing criticism" you claim to have received. --pseudolus

post script 09-06-2006:

So far it would appear that this 'docuvomit' was sent out for preview to many rightwing pundits, reporters and even 3rd tier bloggers, but hardly anyone on the left has seen it. Even the folks who have been trashed in the movie like Clinton, Albright and Berger have requested to see it and been turned down.

If it were so even handed, you know the likes of Rush Limbaugh would be savaging it, but instead he has nothing but praise for it and his close friend, the director, 'fair and balanced' indeed. --pseudolus


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

free webpage hit counter