From the Chicago Tribune:
HOLLYWOOD — ABC’s upcoming five-hour docudrama “The Path to 9/11” is becoming a political cause celebre.
In recent days the network has made changes to the mini-series, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. A left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to “correct” or dump the mini-series, while conservative blogs have mounted a vigorous defense.
[snip]
ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. “That sequence has been the focus of attention,” the source said.
The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 panel report, rather than “based on” the report, as the producers originally intended.
More from the Ostroy Report:
The Ostroy Report has learned from a reliable source connected to ABC that an unnamed ABC executive said that former President Bill Clinton called Disney President and CEO Robert Iger this week to voice his anger and frustration over the network’s plan to air a six-hour movie, “The Path to 9/11,” on Sunday and Monday, and that Iger agreed to make certain changes requested by Clinton. According to this ABC source, the film is currently being edited. In seeking confirmation, our call to Iger’s office went straight into voicemail. We will update our story if and when we hear from a Disney official. Disney is the parent company of ABC.
ABC succumbs to the pressure and bows at the altar of Clinton.
Update: Dan Riehl links to another report confirming ABC made changes to the movie under pressure from Bill Clinton.
Hat tip: Allahpundit and Kirsten Powers
And if I’m not mistaken I thought I heard even Keen was critical of some of the movies inaccuracies.
Be scared, very scared of the eventual damage that will occur directly from the lies the public has been told in the last eleven years by the democrats. The democrats have lied for so long they no longer know there is such a thing as truth.
It’s bad when Osama has to reveal some of their lies and the public has to dig out the truth about things like the Plame lies that have been told as fact by the democrats and the antique MSM. Not one of them has had the guts to issue an apology to Mr. Rove or Chaney. To me that (never admit you were wrong of that you lied) is the greatest sign that they will sell out the country to anyone that offers them power. Every person in this country knows this is true but half won’t admit it even to themselves. BDS has really progressed to something worse than insanity.
The fact that senior Senate Democrats actually threatened ABC with loss of licenses, etc, demonstrate that they should never be given any kind of political power, and the country is much better off with them NOT in power.
Hey Wingnuts, check this out, the Dems are not going to take this one laying down.
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC – 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it’s not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don’t make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney’s broadcast license. Not the use of the word “trustee” at the beginning of the letter and “trust” at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.
Ha Ha I knew it!
Aah the Demorats ever the defenders of free speech,as long as that speech isnt from the right side of the ledger.
Dead at nine,they say it so it must be true.You make me laugh.The party of the noted truth teller KKKlinton,the party of stealing state secrets,yea we can believe you.In a pigs eye we can.
Jainphx,
I don’t recall asking you to believe or not believe me. All I did was cut and past a letter from the Senate Democratic leadership for you to read. But since you appear to be in a fighting mood tonight, I’ll play along. But it will take a little bit of effort on your part to win this challenge.
Bill Clinton was inaugurated on 1-20-93. The first WTC bombing was on 2-26-93, 37 days after he became President. Can you find one quote from Clinton or a Clinton White House official who blamed Bush 1 for the first WTC bombing?
Wingnut = Blame others for your mistakes.
Of course, you didn’t see Republicans blaming Clinton for the first one, either.
Then again, you don’t see the GOP threatening licenses while Dems do — but, hey, who wants an actual voice?
-=Mike
Live@9, Dang, I never thought I’d see the day when the senate democats straight out admitted to being fascists.
You didn’t really thinks the Dems were going to let the Repubs rewrite history do you?
But hey, look at it this way. All the Dems were able to do is get ABC to “tone down” a scene and change the language in the credts from “based on” to “in part” on the 911 panel report. The Repubs were able to get an entire mini-series about Reagan knocked off of Network TV.
I’d say the censorship prize in round one goes to the Repubs.
Don’t you wish you had a leg to stand on for your censorship argument?
All the Dems were able to do is get ABC to “tone down” a scene and change the language in the credts from “based on” to “in part” on the 911 panel report. The Repubs were able to get an entire mini-series about Reagan knocked off of Network TV.
There’s a key part you’re missing here. Republicans got the Reagan mini-series knocked off by protesting, writing letters and threatening boycotts – which we all have the right to do.
No Republican lawmakers ever threatened Congressional action against CBS. No Republican threatened their broadcasting license. If you cannot see the difference between governmental action and private legal action by individuals i.e. boycotts, then it is obvious that you are significantly more ignorant and stupid than you’ve let on.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Harry Reid and his cohorts just threatened to do exactly what the Constitution forbids them to do, promising punishment by the government for the expression of views with which they disagree.
The Democrats have not been able to articulate a unified view of any issue for nearly a decade. At least we now know exactly what the Democrats stand for.
Martin,
I think you’re being a little nieve about “No Republican lawmakers ever threatened Congressional action against CBS.” for the airing of a Reagan hit piece mini-series. What do you call holding up federal action on rules to restrict ownership of local TV stations? Sound like a threat to Viacom’s first amendment rights to me. You can’t broadcast with out a FCC license.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/
“Showtime and CBS are both owned by Viacom, which is anxiously awaiting federal action on rules to restrict ownership of local TV stations. Failure to enact such changes could cost Viacom millions of dollars, said Jeff Chester, head of the Center for Digital Democracy, a communications lobbying group.”
If that’s not a government threat to their broadcast license, I don’t know what is.
So don’t freak out about a perceived threat by the Dems when your side used actual government intimidation to silence a First Amendment protected broadcast.
PS I thought the whole Reagan mini series was pack of left wing lies. I just wanted you to take off your right wing rose colored glasses and see how the real world works.
Live@9,
I read the article … but could you please direct me to a quote by any elected Republican Congressman threatening to punish CBS for “The Reagans?“
I have a letter signed by the top leadership of the Congressional Democrat Party with a clear threat to revoke ABC’s broadcasting license unless they accede to the Democrat Party’s demands.
You have nothing more than speculation by some lobbyist named Jeff Chester. The article does not even mention whether anything was held up, so where did you get that from?
Are you kidding me?
If that’s not a government threat to their broadcast license, I don’t know what is.
It’s not. Worst possible case scenario (this, of course, lacks a letter from the Republicans with the names of Republican Senators specifically listed): it was a threat to not change rules to their advantage, not to REMOVE THEIR ABILITY TO BROADCAST.
-=Mike
I have a letter signed by the top leadership of the Congressional Democrat Party with a clear threat to revoke ABC’s broadcasting license unless they accede to the Democrat Party’s demands.
This is hilarious. It’s like a Red Sox fan and a Yankees fan seeing the same replay, and coming to completely different conclusions.
From the letter above,
Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day.
See, ‘serious inaccuracies’? That’s means ‘it’s wrong’ or, in my words, ‘it’s bullshit.’
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility.
The ‘fictionalized’ disclaimer came along AFTER the ad blitz started. Cut out the inaccuracies, and stick to the report, since that what ABC claimed it had done in the first place, and you’re golden. This is not censorship, unless from the beginning it was promoted as entertainment, rather than a fact-based rendering. (Insert logic loop here: “Well, since its inaccurate, it’s NOT a fact-based rendering, so anyone who wants to change it is trying to CENSOR IT!!1!” Go ahead and try your own loop – it’s fun!)
To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Yes, Steve, it is. And to hold you to that is not ‘censorship,’ but rather that incredibly rare element that used to be known as ‘accountability.’
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
“Concerns,” not demands, not threats, not court-order or subpoena or attack signal. “Concerns.” Scary word, I know, but it’ll be okay, I promise.
We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
“Clear threats” generally do not include invitations for dialogue, or “urg[ing] .. to uphold responsibilities as a respected member of American society.” Reid’s letter is more like your buddy coming up to you and saying, “WTF are you thinking?” when you are about to do something you want to think about twice.
The “implicit threat” line was written by John Arivosis of AMERICABlog, and it is his singular interpretation. But, hey, if John and the Big Bad Dems are scaring you under the bed, by all means, do carry on.
In his wildest dreams Iger couldn’t have come up with a better media blitz than what’s happening now. I can imagine his letter back to Reid, saying, gee, Harry, thanks for your concern – have some Mickey ears.
-GFO
MikeSC,
Are you kidding me? If you do not grant a license to broadcast, or you remove a license, is not the end result the same? A broadcast entity with no means to broadcast. I also don’t see a “clear threat to revoke ABC’s license” in the letter. A perceived threat yes, a clear threat no. Good luck Harry getting that legislation through the House and Senate and sign by George Bush. So it’s an empty threat at best.
Martin, of course no Senator can be quoted, and no letter was written and signed threatening CBS with refusal to grant more broadcast licenses. They didn’t need to, the Republicans have control of the House, Senate and the White House and thus control of the legislative process that oversees the FCC and the rules governing broadcast ownership. Viacom was well aware of this and decided the long term financial interest of the company was more important than a badly flawed mini-series about the Reagans. But to claim the government did not use it’s regulatory pressure on Viacom concerning the Reagan show is just plain wrong.
Are you kidding me? If you do not grant a license to broadcast, or you remove a license, is not the end result the same?
What was being referred to was a CHANGE IN RULES to allow Viacom to own MORE stations than they used to be allowed to do. They, at the time, could not control more than 35% of a market’s viewership. The changes in question would have raised it to 45 (it ended up going up to only 39%).
That is not threatening to yank a license. It is a “threat” to vote with the Democrats and not allow more consolidation in media ownership — which lefties have griped about for years now.
But nice try. You might want to read up on the topics you’re discussing.
Just to give you a comparison: Kerry threatened that, if he won, he’d have ALL of Sinclair communications’ licenses revoked. The Republicans threatened to not change the rules and allow CBS/Viacom to own more stations than they already did.
You really can’t see the difference, eh?
A broadcast entity with no means to broadcast. I also don’t see a “clear threat to revoke ABC’s license” in the letter. A perceived threat yes, a clear threat no. Good luck Harry getting that legislation through the House and Senate and sign by George Bush. So it’s an empty threat at best.
That the ATTEMPT would be made should be chilling as hell. What happens if a Dem gains the WH? Will the networks then have to worry about their licenses being yanked for reporting negatively on the Democratic Party?
It seems to be that way.
Martin, of course no Senator can be quoted, and no letter was written and signed threatening CBS with refusal to grant more broadcast licenses. They didn’t need to, the Republicans have control of the House, Senate and the White House and thus control of the legislative process that oversees the FCC and the rules governing broadcast ownership.
So a threat specifically written out and signed by Democrats is not a big deal because the Republicans COULD do the same and — well, even though they didn’t, it doesn’t mean anything?
Got it.
But to claim the government did not use it’s regulatory pressure on Viacom concerning the Reagan show is just plain wrong.
The GOP did not threaten to LOWER the percentage of a market’s viewership one company could own. They threatened to not increase it.
A far cry from what you’re erroneously stating.
In fact, if I was a Democrat, I’d now threaten to bust your computer and destroy your internet connection.
-=Mike
MikeSC,
Is your point that “The GOP did not threaten to LOWER the percentage of a market’s viewership one company could own. They threatened to not increase it.”, was not a government threat to have CBS cancel the Reagan mini-series? ( I assumed we all knew the CNN quote was concerning market share, next time I’ll spell it out better for you.) You need a separate broadcast license for each TV station owned, by not granting a license to your new stations you have no way of broadcasting on your newly acquired broadcast properties.
“That the ATTEMPT would be made should be chilling as hell.” I agree, why are you guys not all over the GOP for trying to threaten CBS by not allowing it to increase market share. I thought you were all for free markets, threatening to restricting a company to a 35% market share for airing a Reagan mini-series does not sound like conservative values to me.
“So a threat specifically written out and signed by Democrats is not a big deal because the Republicans COULD do the same and — well, even though they didn’t, it doesn’t mean anything?”
Viacom did get to increase their share from 35% to 39% (your numbers) because the did cave in to a threat and did cancel the Reagan mini-series. So it does mean something.
“Kerry threatened that, if he won, he’d have ALL of Sinclair communications’ licenses revoked.” If you can back this statement up with some facts I’d love to see it. ( It would also help me settle a bet with my boss.)
PS
It was Clinton who signed the Media Consolidation Legislation not Bush.
It seems that ABC is going to reschedule the 2nd part for Saturday in San Diego to Saturday because they say of the Charger and Oakland game. Is this national? It seems to me that they could have picked any other day Tuesday – Thursday if they wanted to, but instead picked a day with low viewership. Perhaps the Democrats will let ABC to keep their license. “ABC: We the people would have stood beside you had the Democrats tried to yank your license.”
But you have to pay for it so i can use the time for you.