KATU to air false 9/11 claims; mislead viewers
By Michelle Neumann of Portland, Oregon. Michelle is an attorney and a political activist.
On September 10 and 11, ABC affiliates (KATU here in Portland) are planning to air a movie called "The Path to 9/11", which is a "fictionalized" version of the events leading up to September 11, 2001. Fictionalized in that the movie's avowedly conservative writer, Rush Limbaugh's buddy Cyrus Nowrasteh, took it upon himself to include entirely fabricated scenes that just so happen to portray the Clinton Administration as grossly incompetent and responsible for 9/11.
When I contacted KATU to ask that they not air the movie, I was flatly told that KATU will "definitely" air it. I subsequently received a canned e-mail response, noting that a disclaimer may be run during the movie. What, exactly, will this disclaimer say? "Keep in mind the movie you are watching is an intentional lie about one of the worst tragedies in American history, which we are exploiting for the purpose distributing political propaganda to help those who were truly negligent evade blame and get re-elected. Enjoy the show!"?
KATU, what are you thinking? A disclaimer is not a magic wand that absolves ABC, or KATU, of any responsibility for this deceptive and admittedly false portrayal that will certainly dupe tens of millions of uninformed voters eight weeks before mid-term elections. As far as I know, KATU is not providing equal time, much less even a brief opportunity, for rebuttal.
Further, KATU seems to be unwilling to acknowledge the firestorm of controversy surrounding this movie, or to conduct even the most basic research into its accuracy or lack thereof. (psst - KATU - you are a news organization - and this is what they call "news".) For example, among the extensive reporting on this issue at ThinkProgress
there is a statement from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for both Bush Administrations and the Clinton Administration (and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC), slamming the movie:
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden. 2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL. 3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
Congressional Quarterly reports that Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, stood up at the recent National Press Club screening of the movie and "denounced the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger", stating that the scene was not consistent with the research the commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it." (emphasis added) In this scene , Berger:
...freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.
CQ goes on to quote Thomas H. Kean, the 9/11 commission’s GOP chairman and an official adviser to the movie, as saying that the incident described above was a fictionalized composite. It was “representative of a series of events compacted into one”. CQ notes that neither Berger nor Ben-Veniste were consulted on the film.
As if airing the movie to millions of viewers isn't enough, ABC has announced that it will distribute copies of The Path to 9/11 for free on iTunes, and further, ABC is sending a letter from Thomas Kean to 100,000 high school educators informing them of the various ways to obtain the movie for free. ABC and Scholastic have agreed to produce an online study guide.
A study guide for a fictionalized, partisan mini-series? Who runs Scholastic - Mr. Garrison? Is it ABC's goal to indoctrinate students with its faulty version of history?
Let's put pressure on KATU and let them know that viewers in the community are paying attention and don't appreciate their participation in this stunt.
Please be polite when you call - let's take the high road, even if others want to take the low road.
|
September 7, 2006 |
Michelle Neumann | Comments (161 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: b!X | Sep 7, 2006 11:05:03 AM
"Kitty" - are you bothering to read any of the debunking of this film? Are you reading any of how it was given in advance to right-wing bloggers but no liberal bloggers? Are you reading any of the material written which provdes very specifically how the film is skewed?
Read before spewing.
http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Path+to+911
Posted by: Brian | Sep 7, 2006 11:06:20 AM
I've let all my friends know about this and several of them have attempted to contact KATU, also.
It seems incredible that Disney/ABC will be losing millions of dollars on this by airing it without advertisements and then giving it away for free downloads. That just boggles my mind - shouldn't the shareholders care about that? Unless... there's some shadowy financing going on here... I'm only speculating; it would be irresponsible not to.
In addition to contacting ABC, and KATU, I also tried to get an email to Steve Jobs at Apple Computer. I know it's a long bank shot, but Steve Jobs is on the board at Disney, and Apple is involved in making this partisan mockumentary available for download.
It seems that if they're not having ads during the movie, it removes our ability to pressure the local advertisers, and through them, KATU. Or does it? Are there any local business leaders who are committed to public service and accuracy who might stand up and say they'd use their local ad dollars elsewhere if KATU goes through with this? Paging Michael Powell... paging local businessman Michael Powell...
Posted by: Mark Schwebke | Sep 7, 2006 11:08:49 AM
Anybody remember when a particular CBS Reagan docudrama/series "The Reagans" was pillaried by conservatives who forced it off the air?
Anybody have odds if the MSM will be forced to do the same with this conservative brainwashing pablum (The Sept Surprise)?
I can't wait for Rove's Oct effort...
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Sep 7, 2006 11:10:18 AM
Truer words have never been spoken by "Kitty C": "Even if I saw it, I wouldn't know what is or isn't truth."
Based on her previous posts, it's obvious Kitty has a serious problem with any kind of objective fact. She prefers anything that confirms her pro-Bush worldview.
I still don't understand why people committed to lies and lying are given a soapbox here on BlueOregon.
Posted by: b!X | Sep 7, 2006 11:27:58 AM
Steven's pegging of Kitty's "Even if I saw it, I wouldn't know what is or isn't truth." is really the crux of the matter, and the danger of this film running as is. The scene causing the biggest consternation -- showing a CIA team about to bear down on bin Laden but unable to get authority from Clinton so they mission is scrubbed -- is pure invention. But millions of people will watch this thing and assume it's true, since ABC keeps telling people the filmi s based on the 9/11 Commission report (which contains no such mission or moment, since it never happened).
If it turns out we have a nation of Kittys, the film is going to screw any factual understanding of the real path to 9/11.
Posted by: Zak J. | Sep 7, 2006 11:31:21 AM
First Fox, now ABC and Disney. Where's my left-wing biased media when I need it?
Lest we forget, jumping on the right-wing propaganda wagon is nothing new for Disney, who's founder helped promote both McCarthyism and blacklisting back in the day.
But just because they've always done it is no reason to let this stand--if this airs, neither I nor my three kids will ever go to Disneyland/world, ever go to a Disney- or Disney-affiliate movie, or watch another one of ABC's family-friendly television shows, e.g. Extreme Makeover, Home Addition (are you listening, Sears Co.?) But if it airs, I will watch this program--so I can see who advertises on it and add them to the boycott.
I invite others do the same.
Posted by: Anon | Sep 7, 2006 11:44:44 AM
Kitty,
What's wrong with taking a pre-emptive approach, just the same way that President Bush does? Or should we wait for the mushroom cloud of the stolen election?
Posted by: Zak J. | Sep 7, 2006 11:46:44 AM
I concur with b!X about our "nation of Kittys." There no such thing as fictionalization of recent history--it's called LYING.
I was teaching in Kyrghyzstan when state TV there ran Oliver Stone's JFK. The next day, my students came to class saying, "I never knew the CIA killed Kennedy." Nothing I said could refute it--they'd seen it on TV. Back then, I thought the media-savvy U.S. public was more sophisticated than the post-Soviet population, but ABC's willingness to lie to our faces shows the networks may know our gullibilities better than we do.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 7, 2006 11:57:03 AM
I still don't understand why people committed to lies and lying are given a soapbox here on BlueOregon.
Because I don't have all day to sit around and delete idiotic comments.
That, and the solution to bad free speech is more good free speech.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Sep 7, 2006 12:06:27 PM
Michelle hasn’t seen the movie yet wants it pulled, along with most everyone else posting on this subject it seems. Funny, but that sounds like censorship to me. How about we all watch the movie and then critique its contents? Don’t you think that would be a much fairer approach?
This film is clearly being promoted not as a documentary but as a dramatization based on actual events. This is Hollywood everybody, of course they are going to jazz things up. Is it the possible besmirching of Bill Clinton’s good name that has everybody’s panties in such a bunch? Somehow I think the American people are smart enough to know there was plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the security failures that led to 911 and will take that
into account when watching the movie.
I plan on seeing the movie and deciding its veracity myself without the “gatekeepers of truth” like Michelle making the decision for me.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 7, 2006 12:28:24 PM
It's funny how partisans react when something that doesn't quite mesh with their worldview hits the airwaves. Three years ago, for example, conservatives were in an uproar over the CBS miniseries about Ronald Reagan that was almost certainly a mix of fact and fiction. The film portrayed Reagan in a very bad light, and while liberals yelled about free speech, livid conservatives applied enormous pressure on the network until it was pulled; an edited version was later shown on cable.
Today the shoe is on the other foot and it's a Democratic hero who is being allegedly smeared, yet the liberals who screamed "free speech!" during the CBS/Reagan fiasco now want everyone to boycott/email/denounce ABC until the program is pulled or edited. The hypocrisy on both sides is so thick that you could cut it with a knife.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 7, 2006 12:34:29 PM
I sent the following letter to "marketing@powells.com" -
Since Powell's stands so strongly in the Portland area for education and fairness, I am compelled to ask if Powell's has a public position on ABC-TV's docudrama, "Paths to 9/11"?I don't ever recall seeing Powell's ads on local stations, but Powell's is certainly a well-known local business and may have some influence on other local businesses that may advertise on KATU, the local ABC affilliate.
For me, the biggest sign that "Path to 9/11" is a partisan political advertisement, rather than a historical document, is the fact that over 900 advance copies were sent out to right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt - but President Clinton and members of his staff that are portrayed in the film have been denied advance copies. Why else would ABC market the movie to only one side of the political divide in this country?
The movie is also being marketed by Scholastic Books - as a LESSON IN HISTORY. This in spite of one of the chairs of the 9/11 Commission publically declaring that this movie contradicts research the bi-partisan committee conducted in the aftermath of 9/11.
If you need more information on the topic, here are a couple of links:
"Open Letter to ABC: Don't Airbrush 9/11"
Think Progress has done a series of posts on the inaccuracies and errors that have already been found - find more here.
I urge Michael Powell and the management and staff of Powell's Books to stand up for accuracy and fairness, to exert their financial power, and to urge KATU to either not show this 6-hour political advertisement, or modiy its content to more accurately portray the events depicted, or at the least to allow equal rebuttal time for the vast segment of the population who have not been given a voice in this misuse of our public airwaves.
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: doretta | Sep 7, 2006 12:38:25 PM
It's funny how partisans react when something that doesn't quite mesh with their worldview hits the airwaves.I think it's funnier how many people can't find their butt with both hands on a bright day. Or perhaps the word I'm looking for is "frightening" rather than "funny". Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts.
If you can't tell the difference between an unflattering personal portrait and outright lies about what led up to 9/11 staged for partisan political gain...well, I guess that does explain something about how we've ended up where we are now with a war going absoulutely nowhere useful and massive budget deficits brought to us by an administration that is, well, full of people who can't find their butts with both hands on a bright day.
Posted by: Carl | Sep 7, 2006 12:44:48 PM
What do expect from a station that pretends like John Stossel is a journalist instead of a crazy right wing nut?
KATU is crap.
Posted by: Kristi | Sep 7, 2006 12:55:22 PM
A petition to Disney:
http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911/ftqiqs
Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 7, 2006 12:59:16 PM
Conservatives will try to use the "What is good for "Farenheit 911" is good enough for "Path to 911". Here's one counterpoint: These are public stations working from tax payer dollars. If Conservatives want to release a movie paid with private dollars to fund their own crap, they can do so.
Posted by: Katy | Sep 7, 2006 1:04:02 PM
"Clinton officials to ABC: Fix or Pull 9/11 Miniseries"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Sep 7, 2006 1:06:37 PM
I think we all understand that dramatizations get to play a bit more fast and loose with dialogue than strict documentaries do. For the record, Ronald Reagan never said about AIDS suffers "They that live in sin shall die in sin." in the deleted scene from "The Reagans". He only said: "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." Oh yes. Big difference there!
Further, "The Reagans" was a puff piece, which largely whitewashed the record of "Thre Great Communicator". It never mentioned he opposed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and ran for governor promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books - "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so."
That explains why CBS was so surprised by the Republican reaction to it. They thought they were kissing the ex-president's rear end. They didn't understand that Republicans don't tolerate anything that contradicts their carefully constructed lies, lest it - like a house of cards - falls at the merest breath of truth.
Now compare this to the revisionist history that ABC is trying to pass off. Far from ignoring terrorism President Clinton had an obsession with it. It was Republicans in Congress who kept getting in the way. President Clinton:
- sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security (before 911) - defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
- sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding - defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives by terrorists - defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA
When not hindered by the Republican Congress and their hundreds of media shills...
- sent missles to try and kill Osama - which Republicans denounced as "wagging the dog"
- developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy and our first anti-terrorism national coordinator
- Stopped cold, planned attacks on the U.N. Headquarters, the FBI Headquarters, the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C., the U.S. Embassy in Albania, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in New York, the Boston airport, the George Washington Bridge, and 12 jetliners.
Said Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar, of Clinton's efforts at the time: "Overall, I give them very high marks". "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
The ABC docudrama a flat out lie. It doesn't even come close to giving the jist of the truth.
Posted by: Sandy | Sep 7, 2006 1:10:54 PM
KATU is so bad these days - I think even worse than Fox 12. I realize we're talking about abc - but the local affiliate doesn't even do news anymore, it's all fluff.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 7, 2006 1:25:19 PM
Crooks and Liars has a number of video clips up about the mockumentary. Links to those clips:
Richard Ben Veniste on Countdown
Posted by: Dan | Sep 7, 2006 1:39:57 PM
Who watches ABC anyways?
Thanks to all the liberal boo-hoo-hooing, the attention level to this TV production will be much higher than had it been ignored.
Good job on raising awareness!!!!
Disney should send all of you a fee pass to DisneyLand and a complimentary pair of fuzzy mouse ears.
Steve,
nice job in summing up your emotions in less than 10,000 words.
Posted by: Zak J. | Sep 7, 2006 1:48:12 PM
Quoted from the ABC-Comments-on-their-dislaimer: "As such–-for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes-–composite and representative characters and dialogue-–and time compression."
So the character referred to as "Madyline Albright" is a composite of Madyline Albright and...who exactly?
I don't think anyone's "panties are in a twist" about this. Waiting to denounce the program until after it airs would be the political equivalent of closing the barn door after the horse is out. The outrage people are expressing shows that Democrats have finally learned what happens when you let the right-wing Swift Boat you. It's only been 20 years since "Willie Horton" became a household name, but we do learn eventually.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 7, 2006 1:55:32 PM
"Dan" said: "Thanks to all the liberal boo-hoo-hooing, the attention level to this TV production will be much higher than had it been ignored.
Good job on raising awareness!!!!"
Right! Damn, we should have thought of all that free publicity we're giving ABC! We're so stupid - why, just think of all the advertising revenue... we're... um... giving to... ABC...
Oh, right. ABC is airing this "commercial free", and tossing (I've read at least) $65 million in the toilet for this.
Hey, wonder how they're gonna make money off this thing? Isn't that what a business is supposed to be doing?
(Hint: I'm being snarky)
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Sep 7, 2006 2:30:42 PM
Dan: Steve,nice job in summing up your emotions in less than 10,000 words.
Why thank you, Dan. Since we both know that if I'd said anything even remotely refutable, you'd have pounced on it like a hungry lion, the fact that you are reduced to sputtering out weak ad-hominem attacks is high praise indeed.
Now do us all a favor and go crawl back under your rock, OK?
Posted by: wino | Sep 7, 2006 2:50:20 PM
Buckman Res,
You've gotta be kidding! You really think "the American people are smart enough to know" .... and to think for themselves? A poll last month showed that 50% of Americans still believe that Saddam DID have WMDs when we invaded with all evidence to the contrary and even Bush admitting that we did not. How smart is that?
The scary part is how clever these guys are. Even though the movie runs counter to the findings of the 9/11 Commission (all the while stating that is has the blessings of it's co-chair), even though it was only distributed to right wing nutcases (Limbaugh is bragging about the latest propaganda tool created by his buddy), even though most would consider it tacky and in poor taste to "fictionlize" and take creative license with the most traumatic, defining moment in our living history EVEN SO the Democrats are still gonna lose this one. They are going to look scared, as if there is something to hide, that they are soft on national security and are hypocrites who believe in censorship when it suits them. Doesn't matter that the movie is a biased smear piece. This is what they do. Can't wait to see what's next.
I called KATU and spoke to a nice gal who said that she had taken hundreds of complaints, none of them abusive, but that she believed it is "an ABC decision, not a local one". I don't think that's the case, but how should I know? It probably doesn't matter anyway because a gazillion tapes will be sent to all the box churches and shown to all the "believers" who always knew it was Clinton's fault anyway!
Posted by: Jesse Bufton | Sep 7, 2006 2:59:40 PM
I think comparing a fictionalized miniseries about a President and one of the largest tragedies in American history are two very different things.
Buckman Res seems to think that it's okay to "jazz things up" when it comes to something like this. This isn't about censoring something that will be damaging to one political party or another. This is about misrepresenting events that lead up to a national tragedy. I don't know about you, but when I'm talking to someone about history I want to know that my teachers never lied to me.
You cannot deny the fact that to many, this film will be viewed as public record. ABC is doing nothing to address the falsehoods that will be propegated on a mass scale and as such is disrespecting every American, especially the 2,997 who either died or remain missing as a result of the terrorist attacks on September the 11th.
The most sickening fact is that not only are they displaying this on national television, but they are promoting it to schools throughout the country.
Imagine history teachers showing Oliver Stone's JFK to classes as gospel. My stomach sinks to think of the impact this will have on our younger generations.
Posted by: karol | Sep 7, 2006 3:32:41 PM
I just emailed KATU - alas, the woman who receives these complaints is out of the office for the rest of the week. Any other desks over there we can contact?
Posted by: notchomsky | Sep 7, 2006 3:36:53 PM
What we need is a documentary that tells the truth about illegal and immoral foreign policy debacles sponsored by both parties. Republicans, as sleazy and unambiguously fascistic as they've been for the last 5 years, have no monopoly on misuse of the iron fist. We were attacked because of a very long-term policy of violence and abuse in the Middle East as a way to control the oil there. The response was and is inevitable as long as we continue this policy.
Posted by: wino | Sep 7, 2006 3:43:00 PM
karol,
I emailed the Programming Dept. at KATU this a.m. and it went through. Who did you send your email to?
Posted by: Buckman Res | Sep 7, 2006 4:00:32 PM
“We were attacked because of a very long-term policy of violence and abuse in the Middle East as a way to control the oil there.”
Wow, somebody needs dig out their old social studies book from high school. Have you ever heard of OPEC or the '73 oil embargo?
MidEast oil is controlled by the countries of that region, not the US. For some further background you might try reading “The Prize” by Daniel Yergin. It details how western nations found the oil reserves in the Middle East, supplied the technology with which to extract it, and then provided the markets to sell oil at, making the Saudis, Iranians, etc, rich beyond their wildest dreams.
The real reason we were attacked is because fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with modern western society. Western societies, and the USA in particular, are open and accepting of religious freedom, women’s rights, homosexuality, a free press...I’m sure you can think of many more examples yourself. All the freedoms we value are denied in fundamentalist theocracies like the one that was toppled in Afghanistan (I make no defense of our Iraq
invasion).
Class dismissed.
Posted by: carla | Sep 7, 2006 4:02:14 PM
Email may not be enough. They're easy to ignore.
Phone might be a better alternative:
Main Phone
503-231-4222
800-777-KATU
Pressure does work. As TJ notes on Loaded Orygun, Scholastic is now pulling this ABC/9-11 Muckumentary crap from their material that's distributed in schools.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 7, 2006 4:09:26 PM
Buckman - Seriously? The USA in particular is accepting of homosexuality?
Buwaahhahhahaa!
Now that's rich!
Posted by: Sid Leader | Sep 7, 2006 4:45:21 PM
As one of the few people on Earth who has actually read the entire 9/11 Commission Report (and the footnotes), I find it UNBELIEVABLE that ABC-TV would make lie and lie and lie to make money off of 3,000 dead people -- which makes them BLOOD LIES.
Of course, when I worked at KATU with Jeff and Julie, we were Number One and didn't have to run crapola like that.
So, the further KATU sinks, they'll be trailing Channel 14 soon, the more desperate they become.
And as for me, I'm not going to stop emailing these idiots until I can roll up ABC-TV's FCC License in my hand and slap the movie's wing nut producer around a bit for laughs.
Posted by: David English | Sep 7, 2006 4:48:00 PM
It looks like they have pulled the email address of the programming department off the website. Can someone post that? I'm overseas, so calling isn't really that easy for me.
Thanks,
D
Posted by: David English | Sep 7, 2006 4:49:38 PM
Never mind...I found it.
Posted by: djk | Sep 7, 2006 5:33:18 PM
Just wondering ... if, say, sometime in mid-October another network ran a free, no-commercials history of the modern "war on terror" that portrayed Clinton as a heroic, highly competent warrior against terrorism and Bush as a lazy, uninformed, stupid puppet of an sinister neo-conservative cabal in the White House -- and showed every significant Republican character as venal and corrupt and every Democrat as upstanding and heroic -- and presented a number of manufactured events and conversations as historic fact...
y'think maybe the right wing would call foul? Especially if it popped up just a few weeks before the election?
Of course they would. And for once, they'd be right. Correct. Whatever. The public airwaves are no place for this stuff. This slanted, partisan smear job is being put out just a couple of months before midterm elections, and is exploiting the anniversary of a national tragedy in a transparent effort to influence those elections.
Which makes me wonder... is there time (and does Michael Moore have the inclination) to update Farenheit 9/11 (maybe Farenheit 9/11: Five Years Later or something) and see if there's a network willing to run it on a special night ... maybe Sunday October 29. Maybe ABC would do it in the interests of balance. (Satan just called -- he needs some foot warmers.)
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 7, 2006 5:51:48 PM
KATU just ran a report on this, which actually started out pretty well. They framed the controversy fairly well, gave sound bites to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, but when they went to the GOP for the balancing opinion they played a clip of ... Rush Limbaugh. D'oh!
Posted by: someonesane | Sep 7, 2006 5:59:42 PM
I wonder what you cult-of-personality-afflicted Clinton-worshippers would have to say about a documentary or movie that accurately portrayed his administration's sadistic cynicism and manipulation of the facts in the run-up to the barbaric, "technically illegal," air war against Serbia. That crime against humanity killed roughly as many civilians as 9/11, and also set precedent for the US hooking up with "coalitions of the willing" to try and forcibly oust foreign dictators who had otherwise done our country no harm.
Face facts: The last Democrat in the White House was an evil liar and a war criminal no different than the current occupant. Anyone who defends the foreign policy of either is ignorant or evil himself.
Posted by: Mister Tee | Sep 7, 2006 6:23:45 PM
I guess all those "Nobody died when Clinton Lied" bumperstickers should be banned from public display? Because I believe they distort the truth.
Or should free speech protections only protect the Left?
One man's propaganda, is another's gospel. You've got to take the good with the bad.
Posted by: Mister Tee | Sep 7, 2006 6:33:08 PM
The Path to 9/11 is clearly right-wing propaganda and a lie. ABC is running it in a way to trick uniformed viewers into thinking it is the truth.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Sep 7, 2006 6:54:01 PM
That's funny in a pitiful way, someone insane calling us Clinton-worshippers! Really, focussing on personalities in matters of historical import is missing the point.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Sep 7, 2006 7:06:54 PM
While they are never really successful against media outlets, its possible that in this case perhaps declaring a boycott of any sponsors whose advertisements appear during the program would be effective. Essentially if you buy Kraft products, for instance, you are paying for rightwing propaganda. Perhaps even more effective would be going after any local advertisers to pressure KATU. They are smaller fish and could be targeted with picket lines the day after the filming. I don't know if it would scare off KATU, but it would likely create some follow-up media about the fact that the program was distorting history with partisan results.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Sep 7, 2006 7:38:33 PM
Let me withdraw the suggestion of a boycott. Apparently it is being aired without commercial interruption. Essentially they are airing five hours of right wing propaganda free of charge.
Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Sep 7, 2006 7:46:45 PM
#
It is not surprising rightwingers are stupid. The surprise is they so willingly admit it openly, as in any comment of his above, pick one.
No, I don't watch TV. To whoever commented that they are going to take the names of sponsors: Post the SPONSORS' NAMES here when it's over.
Name calling and gripe calling at KATU means nothing. Any who mean what they say, and want to DO SOMETHING that matters: Cancel your cable TV subscription.
Bad for them, good for you.
#
Posted by: Troix | Sep 7, 2006 8:20:09 PM
someonesane:
So write a movie about that. Apparently you didn't notice we're talking 9/11 not Bosnia. Typical neocon style tactic, though-- switch topics when the argument isnt going well for you. You might want to practice first before attempting it on people who have better concentration skills than those you're used to bullying.
Posted by: Lee | Sep 7, 2006 8:44:15 PM
I thought Michael Powell favored "free speech" in all forms of media.?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 7, 2006 8:55:28 PM
Tee, it's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of propaganda. You yourself admit it's "propaganda and a lie." Should we just turn the other cheek, let millions be lied to, and take no action? It's a commercial product, and liberals/Dems have every right to keep it off the air. Or am I missing something?
This is also strangely illustrative: The last Democrat in the White House was an evil liar and a war criminal .
It seems that no matter how much liberals disagree with Bush's plainly illegal and/or dishonest policies, we'll never must the kind of blazing hatred the right had of Clinton. The man hasn't been in office for six years, and it's like he was still sitting in the West Wing for many righties.
Posted by: Rodger Dodger | Sep 7, 2006 9:49:22 PM
Steven,
Do you ever read what you're writing BEFORE you hit "post"? A majority of democrats opposed both the original Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our party is adrift in its own BS, so what do we have to offer LOOKING FORWARD?? We always seem so busy trying to redefine our own misdeeds, rather than owning up to them and pledging to do better in the future in certain, defined, concrete, ways.
Posted by: Brian Moon | Sep 7, 2006 10:07:14 PM
@"Lee" - I have only the vaguest idea what Michael Powell favors these days, but "free speech" sounds like a good idea. It was good enough to put into the Bill of Rights, after all, right? I mean, I remember back in the '90s when Rush Limbaugh's first book came out, and Rush had all his ditto-heads checking independent bookstores to make sure that his book was prominently displayed and for sale - Powell's, being one of the larger stores and located in "Little Beirut" (as Bush 41 called Portland) was especially targeted.
And Michael Powell and the staff had to take great pains to make sure that when the book was sold out, that there was a huge sign, spelled out in very small words, to explain that the book was currently sold out, there was a high demand, and that staff would happily take customers' names for an order for when the book was back in stock.
That didn't stop the ditto-heads from harassing the staff and claiming that they were "censoring" Rush Limbaugh and how that's supposedly un-American and just who did Michael Powell think he was, anyway?
I know 'cause I worked there then. I thought it was a valuable lesson in sticking up for principles - because Michael Powell was liberal, the ditto-heads just assumed that he'd "censor" Limbaugh's book. Classic projection. And no amount of pointing out the facts would satisfy them.
So now we've got a smear job from a bunch of right-wingers, aided by an historic financial move by a major corporation to get it on the air at a huge cost to their profits. And those of us on the Left are supposed to just sit back and accept it?
I'm fine with letting ABC have their "free speech" - but I got a problem with them doing it on the public airwaves. And since the public airwaves belong to all of us, and that includes me, I'm going to do what I can to loudly voice my opinion of what ABC is doing. And if that means enlisting folks like Michael Powell, folks who might have a bit more economic clout than I do, that's an easy call.
I'm a consumer - my dollars are often more powerful than my vote (especially these days). I don't see anything wrong with talking back to corporate America and pointing out that if they piss me off I'm gonna take my money elsewhere.
In the end, ABC and KATU have the choice to air this or not. From the way it was marketed (over 900 DVDs sent only to right-wing bloggers and media figures like Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh), it sounds like they know the slant the movie has taken. I'm just not sure why they'd focus on a market as small as the percentage of Americans who like what Bush is doing. But I'm kinda glad that those of us in the MAJORITY are making our opinions felt.
If ABC wants their free speech they're gonna have to fight for it, just like any other American. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch, y'know. Or if you'd prefer, "Freedom isn't free".
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kitty C | Sep 7, 2006 11:00:30 AM
Ms. Neumann:
Such venom from someone who hasn't seen the program yet. Are you sure your an attorney? I remember something about innocent until proven guilty.
I will wait until an unbiased review of the movie is available before I trash or praise. Even if I saw it, I wouldn't know what is or isn't the truth. I doubt you do too.
Have a nice day,
Kitty