A Second Opinion: Why I Wont Demand that ABC Censor Path to 9-11

[McCamy Taylor]

There have been many recent attempts to answer the question of whether or not there is bias in the finished fictional account of the history leading up to 9-11. The problem is that none of us have been allowed to view the final product, so we can not judge. We can only speculate from bits and pieces of information gleaned.

The most damning piece of evidence so far is this: ABC made the mini-series available to right wingers to preview, but not to Democrat or Clinton, despite their requests. There is bias here, but what is its purpose? Is there a conspiracy to slander the Clinton administration?

Or was there fear that the Bush administration (and the RNC) might object to the current administration being called negligent? I suggest that this scenerio is at least as likely as the former, especially since it is the Republican Party and the current president that has its political future on the line in two months.

I am curious why so few people consider the possibility that this program was run by right wingers to see whether or not they would object to its portrayal of Bush culpability in 9-11. I also advise people to consider the possibility that the OUTRAGE over scenes of Clinton incompetence that only right wingers have witnessed might actually be the right wing's attempt to censor a program which they want squashed for the political reason that they do not want their own leader's failings to be discussed with the midterms coming up. Better to let the Democrats look like the enemies of free speech than the Republicans. Better to let 9-11 be celebrated with Leni Reifenstahl-esque parades and fireworks and endless rhetoric about the enemies of Bush being the appeasers of Nazis.

I think Clinton's popularity is such that the nation will see the lies about his administration and quickly learn for itself that they are just that--lies. I would be interested in seeing if the truths about the Bush administration are covered. This much Mainstream Media attention to an issue critical of a big network suggests that the story is being propelled from behind the scenes and that there are forces at work that would like to ensure that we do not see this work of fiction. Somehow I doubt that the Democrats, who have trouble getting their message heard through the MSM, are the ones who are pulling the strings. Maybe it is just ABC getting cold feet and wanting a graceful way out. If that is the case, they should be men enough to admit that they made a mistake, without having to wait for a few hundred thousand to a million people to petition them to do the right thing. Maybe it is the RNC propaganda department that decided that 9-11 is not the right time to try to label Democrats as weak on terror for fear of undercutting one of their own best media opportunities.

Anyway, ABC can run whatever they want. No advertiser will touch this puppy with a ten foot poll, and if the facts turn out to be as wrong as everyone says they are, then ABC is the one that will suffer. I am not going to call for censorship, because when it is our turn to respond to the lies no one is going to be able to censor us either.

[Avalux]

1. I don't have a huge problem with ABC airing the film.

Are you aware Scholastic books developed a study guide as a companion to the film, to be distributed to thousands of schools across the country free of charge? Would you want your child taught this film as historical fact?

The film is one thing, but actively trying to brainwash our kids a la Nazi Germany is where I draw the line.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. That part was too much, but Scholastic dropped their course.

[Lex]

4. The dropped it altogether? Or are the waiting to see what the fall-out is

on this? :shrug:

[Avalux]

5. NO they did not.

They withdrew the initial guide and are rewriting it. The new version will be available tomorrow with reworded questions and a disclaimer they are in no way connected to the making of the film. They are still going through with the collaboration:

"After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online
to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did
not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," said
Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic. "At the same
time, we believe that developing critical thinking and media literacy
skills is crucial for students in today's society in order to participate
fully in our democracy and that a program such as 'The Path to 9/11'
provides a very 'teachable moment' for developing these skills at the high
school level. We encourage teachers not to shy away from the controversy
surrounding the program, but rather to engage their students in meaningful,
in-depth discussion."

The new guide will be available on Friday, September 8 at
http://www.scholastic.com/medialiteracy.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Thanks. I DO agree with correcting inaccurate teaching material.

[Avalux]

12. How can they correct teaching materials based on lies?

No matter how they try to revise the guide, it's still based on a film full of fabrications.

[Lex]

3. It's not about censorship of the project, but *accuracy*

of the project. From what has been seen by others, there are flat out lies about Clinton, Albright, Berger and others.

ABC has even partnered with Scholastic to teach this to kids as historical fact.

Someone has to speak up and not roll over.

[bliss_eternal]

30. Exactly...!

I am personally against this because...

1. They want to show errors and lies as fact and teach it to our children.

2. The company that is airing this garbage is a company that has claimed to not be partisan (i.e. Disney's refusal to distribute F 9/11 so as not to appear to have a political agenda). With my insistence that they pull this crap, I am calling them on their hypocrisy.


IF they were going to air this trash and then subsequently air (commercial free)Fahrenheit 9/11, THEN I might be ok with it...IF they also worked with Scholastic to also distribute materials to review Fahrenheit 9/11. Since they aren't going to do any of the things I mentioned--it needs to be pulled as far as I'm concerned.

Whether they air it or not I'm done with ABC and Disney.

[Vincardog]

6. No advertiser is asked for this project. It is to be aired interruption Free

It is not a question of Censoring to demand that false propaganda not be aired as a "Docu" anything. The "Teaching Materials" have been sent to the schools. We can not wait to fight back against the lies.

ABC can air anything it wants as long as it is labeled

FICTION

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Read this link. Code for "couldnt get sponsors".

http://tvbb.zap2it.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=585790&an=0&page=0

ABC is now tryning to get back its $30 million investment in a project that no sponsor will touch.

[bobbolink]

15. In other words, it's free election advertising for the RW!

[rpannier]

I'd like to agree with your analysis, but...

the fact the capt oxycotin is drooling over the film makes me suspicious.
the fact that knowledgeable people like Clark are citing distortions in the film makes me very suspicious.
the fact that they won't give copies to Clinton, Albright and Berger make me think there's something to hide.
I don't buy the right wing censorship part to protect scrubbie because they won't release it to liberal groups and members of the Clinton Admin.

ABC can run whatever they want, but if we sit on our hands and do/say nothing then we are guilty of what we are accused of -- not having the guts to stand up to lies and distortions about us as a Party. Doing nothing in the face of lies and distortions helped destroy Dukakais' campaign.

[mazzarro]

16. Amen my friend --- n/t

[City Lights]

8. What makes you think we'll get a turn to respond to the lies? eom

[zoeb]

9. it's not censorship

it's false and misleading statements that are supposed to be taught as history to young minds. Would you want your child being taught this garbage? It was called a documentary, then changed to docudrama and now it's a dramatization with edits. It should be labeled a fictional account of the events that occurred on 911. But ABC and Disney have tons of money invested and know that if it were labeled as a fictional account, it would never attract viewers like a partisan-one-sided view blaming one party more than the other. I also saw it listed as a GOP-u-drama. That's more accurate than any of the above. It's all about labeling!

[aquart]

10. No. They can NOT run whatever they want.

They hold the license to broadcast from US.

As such, they have obligations to US, the American people, and we have the right to pull the plug on them whenever they fail to meet those obligations.

Since ABC is a business, you might want to reflect on why they spent millions for a project that will have no advertising whatsoever. It will run on two primetime evenings, not one. What makes it worth the cost to them?

[McCamy Taylor]

Why havent we pulled the plug on FOX NEWS yet?

[aquart]

26. Republican fascist administration.

The regulations are there. The enforcement is not.

[aquart]

28. However, the Dems just threatened Disney:

<http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democratic-leadership-threatens.html>

[EST]

11. You give "the nation" far too much credit.

"I think Clinton's popularity is such that the nation will see the lies about his administration and quickly learn for itself that they are just that--lies"

[bobbolink]

14. Whoa! Where to start on this..... You are so very wrong.

First off, it's not the airwaves of ABC -- it's the PEOPLE's airwaves. Have we already handed over the pink slip to the corporations?

Second, yes, we DO know, for certain, many of the lies being told. That's not conjecture, it's certain. Clinton wouldn't be threatening a lawsuit if it wasn't.

Have you heard any of what Richard Ben-Veniste said? Any of it? He saw the first 90 minutes, and was part of the commission, and has said there are falsehoods in it. What's to argue?

It's a good thing there are still those of us who value truth in this country, and I sure hope that you're in the minority who don't.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Did you read my post? I want to know what happens after the 1st 90 minutes

I am willing to watch some lies about Clinton in order to see why so many right wingers and people in the MSM are trying so hard to keep us from seeing this miniseries.

Is no one even curious about the Bush part and what it might do to the image that Bush is "tough" on terra?

[thepurpose]

21. The Bush part? What are you talking about people who have seen have said

it does not touch on Bush much at all. Finally the right wing is not trying hard to stop it from being aired they are encouraging it and the media for once is reporting that we on the left are unhappy about some thing and why.

[bobbolink]

24. Good try. I have a feeling logic is going to be lost on this issue...

sigh....

[bobbolink]

22. oh sigh.. No, I can't read.

:eyes:

What "right wingers" are trying so hard to keep us from seeing this miniseries????

They're *promoting* the bugger!

[mazzarro]

23. How this affects *'s image is of no significance at this time

With his approval rating stuck in the low 30's, I don't believe any of his remaining supporters will abandon him even if he is caught doing the nasty in the WH with under aged kid(s). These are die-hard supporters and no amount of wrong by his administration is going to propel them to abandon him. So the most appropriate approach to this crap-u-mentary is to have it topedoed before it has any chance of being used to further confuse and steal another election.

[Eric J in MN]

18. I haven't seen it, but Al Franken said there is a scene of Condoleeza Rice

...telling people how upset Bush is about reports of terrorist plans.

Franken thinks Bush didn't even read the reports.

[McCamy Taylor]

19. FOX News, CNN etc all pushing "ABC is a liar". Who wants this show yanked?

Gotta go watch Countdown. Please think about who is the puppetmaster behind the news.

[thepurpose]

20. The reason the way ABC has handled this material matters so much

is simple. The media is a powerful medium and they have the ability to implant certain concepts into people's minds and shape debate(s), especially young minds. Not holding ABC accountable for distorting historical events could taint any debate(s) our kids might be having in the future about 9/11 for generations. Not to mention they are going out of their way to specifically distort known historical facts.

[bobbolink]

27. Isn't it sad that you should even have to explain this?

We're lost.

This is so very sad.

[bobbolink]

25. Oh, and good use of the RW talking point "censorship"

Some of us still love this country.

Some of us demand truth, not truthiness.

[Imagevision]

29. Who said anything about censorship of 9-11, just stick with the facts!

[davidwparker]

31. I hope ABC just opens up the whole can of worms about what happened

on 9/11. The Report isn't it. The miniseries apparently isn't it.

Let's start again with this http://physics911.net and see if we can get it out this time.

I also want to see Berger sue for defamation. If the Wilsons can sue to get to the bottom of Valerie being out, why can't we expect those in the Clinton administration to do the same.

Kerry would have been better off if he is really serious about running again to have gone after the Swift boat crowd.

Rolling over gets you no where and is just another reason to cheer the Wilsons.

[McCamy Taylor]

33. I agree. I want Berger to sue, too. He can only do that if they air it.

If this program airs, it should uncover a whole nasty can of worms of media bias and start an interesting dialogue about who really was negligent.

I want to see a documentary that talks about Papa Bush arming Osama in the first place. Instead of censoring ABC, why cant NBC whip up a counter documentary that shows Reagan-Bush creating Osama the terrorist, then Clinton trying to fight him and the GOP Congress calling it wag the dog, then W. dropping the ball, then having a round table discuss all the errors in the Path to 9-11? Air this before, during and after Path to 9-11 on MSNBC and have it on-line? It would make for very educational TV.

Instead of protecting America from propaganda, teach them to see through it.

[AntiFascist]

32. Turn about is fair play...

after Bush leaves office (or after he gets impeached, whichever happens first) just imagine the docu-drama scenes that could get made about 9-11 and the War on Terror:

A backroom meeting with Saudi princes where Bush assures them that "Our relationship is of paramount importance, even more important than American lives (wink, wink)."

A meeting between Michael Ledeen and Dick Cheney where Ledeen explains the thinking behind "creative destruction" and how the Administration briefly turning a blind eye, or worse yet, allowing certain agencies to enable Bin Ladin's plot against America might lead to good things, including an immediate approval rating blasting into the stratosphere. "Once that is achieved, we'll take care of fabricating the evidence necessary for a war."

A meeting with Chalabi where he explains that, turning over nuclear secrets to Iran, and allowing Shiites to take control in Iraq, could lead to a most creatively destructive path to war with Iran.

Jeff Gannon literally in bed with the White House....

the possiblities are endless!