Clinton Demands ABC PULL Miniseries

Everyone determines responsibility for their own actions. Those who choose not to do so, or don't take responsibility are poor citizens, IMO.

I don't think ABC should air the show, and I don't think they would air Farenheit 9/11, but if that's what they choose to do I won't cry about how they "should have been stopped." I just think they should stop themselves from showing it.

Your mother probably told you more than once not to lie, but the guys at ABC apparently didn't have mothers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 8 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]316338[/snapback]</div>

michael moore= clearly left wing, clearly biased. anyone who believed that was a nonpartisan account had to be on a field trip to the movie theater from the mental incompetency institution.

abc television, as far as i know, claims no party affiliation and no bias toward either side. at the very least they should clearly indicate this is NOT nonfiction, though as stated earlier, the vast majority of people in this country will believe everything they see in tv.

sure responsible speech is a slippery slope. however, there are things that are blatantly irresponsible. shouting "fire" in a movie theater when there is no fire, saying you've got a bomb while in the vicinity of an airport when you don't just to stir people up, etc. saying that bill clinton had OBL in his fist and let him go and tying that in to the future instance on 9/11 is lying to stir people up. not nearly as dangerous as the other 2 offenses i mentioned, but not honorable in any way whatsoever.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 8 2006, 10:08 AM) [snapback]316338[/snapback]</div>

This comparison doesn't make sense. F 9/11 was not aired on the free public airways.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 8 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]316324[/snapback]</div>

It's also, in case you forgot, a couple of days from the 5 year anniversary of 9/11. People tend to think of multiples of 5 as being very significant, particularly when dealing with years and anniversaries. Probably has to do with having 5 fingers on a hand. Regardless as to why, people regard counts that are multiples of 5 with much more significance than counts that are not a multiple of 5. That's why your 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th, etc. birthdays were significant landmarks, but no one made a big deal about your 23rd, 26th, 32nd, or 43rd birthday. Same goes with wedding anniversaries, high school reunions, and just about any other event measured in years.

Do you really think Hollywood, particularly producers such as Oliver Stone, have made all these 9/11 movies this year because they want to help elect Republicans? Of course not. They made these movies because they knew the interest would be high, because it's the 5 year anniversary of 9/11. An anniversary that will be viewed by the public as more significant than the 4 year or 6 year anniversaries. You just wait until 2011. Multiples of 10 are much more significant to people than multiples of 5. The 10 year anniversary of 9/11 will be quite a spectacle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 8 2006, 07:04 AM) [snapback]316296[/snapback]</div>

Of course they should air it. This is America, and what's more American than cashing in on the firestorm of controversy that you carefully created. People are going to watch and they're going to make a lot of money.

WRT your question. Sometimes the courts (AKA activist judges) decide. My opinion is that what is finally aired will be largely decided by ABC's legal staff. I doubt they'll air anything that's actionable, and IF some of the allegations about the piece are true it's quite possible that some of it is.

I'm just astounded at the disingenuous (and quite successful) way that ABC has orchestrated this.

Let's see, we'll release a preview to some right leaning nutjobs which they'll talk up. This is bound to cause a ferocious response from the left leaning nutjobs. Then we'll say "We don't understand why you're so upset. No one has seen the finished product. We're still editting it."

I don't know whether they really thought they'd get a response directly from the principles or not. That may have just been serendipity.

 

the network is putting itself to be sued. they can post disclaimers, but anything made up or considered slanderous will put them in line for a lawsuit. as a former sitting president not wanting to sully his reputation, clinton will most likely decline the option of doing so.

but this story would simply be out of line. you dont create "fiction" using real names and events.

have a story about pres. thomas who allowed things to happen that lead up to the destruction of the city of Anytown's cherished landmark then you can say what you want.

to put the illusion of fact into a fictionalized account is simply completely unreliable journalism and obviously put up by the current administration, something that flies perfectly in line with the morals of bush.

he has consistently lied and misled us and this is simply another tactic to boost his pathetic party

another telling reason to consider

why is a comercial station airing a two part "movie" commercial free???

 

<sarcasm>Obviously it's only because this is the 5 year anniversary, and a respectable institution like ABC could not possibly be swayed by such concerns as where a boatload of money came from, or whose politics are being supported.</sarcasm>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 7 2006, 04:15 PM) [snapback]315894[/snapback]</div>

I think Clinton should have no more say than you or I in what a network airs. If he had spent more time on terrorism and less time on Monica maybe 9/11 would never have happened.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ Sep 8 2006, 11:44 AM) [snapback]316486[/snapback]</div>

Could be they've found the target audience, then.

BTW here is the headline from the article quoted in the thread starter:

BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC
ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11
MOVIE

INSISTS NET PULL DRAMA

Here's what was in the actual letter sent as quoted in the article:

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,"

Here's the only public utterance I've heard from Clinton himself:

Former President Clinton, speaking with news reporters after a Democratic fundraiser in Arkansas on Thursday, said he hadn't seen the ABC film.

"But I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they are going to claim it is based on the 9/11 Commission report," he said. "They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 report."

Tell the truth. Is there no limit to the hateful rhetoric of the liberals?

 

I don't know how to link to other threads....but just a few days ago there was the thread about Nat'l Geographic and Discovery doing a good 9/11 show...and I said "Wait until ABC, CBS, etc got ahold of it..." Am I prescient or WHAT!!!!!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Sep 8 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]316515[/snapback]</div>

Here you go. BTW for those who missed this (like me) it will air Saturday evening at 9:00 EDT and Sunday morning at 1:00 EDT. Looks like they also have a number of other things lined up for the weekend. "Anatomy of a Collapse" and "The Flight that Fought Back" will air tonight at 9:00.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 8 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]316439[/snapback]</div>

The boatload of money will come from the commercials they sell during the miniseries because the interest is high, because it's the 5 year anniversary, and especially because it's being aired the day before and the day of the anniversary. All this controversy will just draw in more viewers and therefore more money.

Why do you think Oliver Stone et. al. released a 9/11 movie earlier this summer? Why do you think they picked this summer instead of last summer or next summer? Is it because they wanted to help elect Republicans? Or do you perhaps think that they did it because the summer of the 5th anniversary of a major event such as 9/11 is a good time to make a lot of money from a movie about the event and a much better opportunity than the summer of the 4th or 6th anniversary?

If ABC had targeted the release of this movie in October, rather than on the day before and the day of 9/11, then I might start to believe in your conspiracy theories that ABC and Disney is trying to influence the elections.

 

The think the presses in this country are our worst enamies. They got part of the stories and then filled in the blanks what they like. They brain washed the pupblic with all the negatives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 8 2006, 07:04 AM) [snapback]316296[/snapback]</div>

While on the other hand, you stand up for the right of the mass media to commit libel.

 

Hmm. The miniseries is said to reflect the "essence" of the 9/11 report yet it directly contradicts the findings. Interesting. How did this come about. Exactly what liberal media is involved in the making of film? Okay, what unbiased media is involved in the making of this film?

Okay....who did it? AHA! That explains it.

"The director of ABC's controversial "Path to 9/11" docudrama has ties to an evangelical Christian group whose goals include "transform[ing] Hollywood from the inside out," according to research by readers of prominent blogs.

"Path" director David L. Cunningham is also involved in "The Film Institute," an offshoot of the Hawaii-based global evangelical group, Youth With a Mission.

One goal of Cunningham's Film Institute is to "fast-track" students from a digital film program associated with the YWAM organization into positions "within the film industry, not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," according to a cached version of page from a YWAM Web site. The original appears to have been moved or deleted."

And we know how evangelical Christians feel about sex. No wonder Clinton is the Anti-Christ.

And who got advance copies? Everyone who requested one? Was there an equitable distribution? Was there even common courtesy? Uh...looks like.....not.

Who got copies.

" 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.

But ABC has refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied. Both Berger and Albright are harshly criticized in the film in scenes that, according to former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, are “180 degrees from what happened.†"

So much for the "liberal" media. If they were so liberal, how come only the right wing got advance copies?

Will people believe it is a non-fiction documentary and accurately portrays the truth? You betcha. They already are.

One moron got a preview.)

Isn't it funny that this production comes from the same conglomerate that refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 -- in violation of their contract -- on the grounds that "we don't believe it's appropriate for this company to be involved with political material." I guess Disney's non-involvement in politics depends on which way the politics lean.

If there's really so much legitimate grounds to skewer Clinton on the issue, why don't they use true stuff instead of making things up? And there's *no* mention in this film of Bush being given the August 6, 2001 PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", to which he responded "okay, you've covered your nice person" and then did nothing because he was on vacation the whole month.