Thank You To Durbin, Reid, Stabenow, Schumer & Dorgan

[orleans]

"Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11." They were joined Thursday by Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Charles Schumer of New York and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who sent a joint letter to Iger asking the broadcast be canceled.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/15464354.htm

snip of lettter:

"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."


read the entire letter here:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71989

send them a thank you note:
durbin:
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
dorgan's email:
[e-mail]
reid:
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
schumer:
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
stabenow:
http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm


(um, hello? where the hell are all the other democratic senators on this? why only five signatures on the letter?)

[bobbolink]

1. Now, how 'bout the rest of the Senate Dems signing on!

I agree with your last sentence.. where are they??

Surely there can be a bit more spine than those 5!!

[orleans]

2. (i just added links to send thank yous) n/t

[bobbolink]

7. Great! I'm better at the thank you calls.

BTW -- my illustrative story of what that is so important.

Many months ago, the Congressional Black Caucus did a whopper of a press conference. I called some of the offices of the Reps who took part, and often was told that I was the first caller to thank them, or one of only a few.

Then I called Carolyn Fitzpatrick's office, and one of her staffers whispered to me that I was their first thank you call, and "we're getting death threats". She was audibly upset, and asked me to hang on while she took another call.

When she came back, I told her that I wished I had the money to get there, and I'd stand there and hold her hand, because I so appreciated the Reps who did that conference. She let me know that my call meant a lot to her.

We never know when our support and thanks can make such a difference in someone's day, and make it a bit easier to keep up their efforts.

So, please, remember to thank them!!

[MH1]

4. Pease see my post below before you get too concerned -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2816705&mesg_id=2816720

[MH1]

3. Where were the others -

All of the signers are members of the official Democratic Party Senate leadership -

http://democrats.senate.gov/leadership/

Harry Reid, Democratic Leader

Dick Durbin, Assistant Democratic Leader

Debbie Stabenow, Secretary of the Conference

Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of Campaign Committee

Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of Policy Committee


There are others listed on the page, but these are the top 5 current leaders in the official hierarchy. (Some Senators that many DUers might call leaders, like Feingold, Kerry, and Kennedy, are not part of the official leadership hierarchy at all and probably wouldn't be asked to sign such a letter.)

[sandnsea]

24. They spoke for the entire Senate

as I understood it. That's why only the leadership signed, they probably didn't want to give any of the weaklings an opportunity to NOT sign.

[stillcool]

5. ...and therein lies the rub...

every frigging time. Back in the 60's I used to hear 'down with the establishment'....has a whole new meaning for me today.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. I hope when & if we take back congress.....

one of the first items on the agenda will be the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Enough of this broadcast sensationalism passing as news.

[WePurrsevere]

8. I can sort of understand Hillary not signing it but why not more Dem

leaders like Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold, etc?

[MH1]

9. I tried to answer this above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2816705&mesg_id=2816720

[orleans]

10. i get your point but it would have been nice if there were more

names on this list--even those listed on the "leadership" page

[MH1]

11. But did Harry Reid ask?

I think we need to consider that question before faulting those whose signatures don't appear. JMO.

[WePurrsevere]

21. Thank you. That makes sense although there is power in numbers as well. nt

[mopinko]

23. the hell! hillary ought to be the first.

ferchrisakes. that takes political calculation to a whole new level if it could make her bite her tongue while they trash her husband and her colleagues. she needs to grow some huevos.

[WePurrsevere]

26. Just about any other wife & I'd agree completely. In the past

she has stood by Bill and spoken out in his defense and from her record I'd say she's very much a Dem however if she could have signed this, which is a moot point since she's not a "leader" as has been pointed out, she may very well have detracted from the message and it would become all about Hillary just because she is who she is. Since I'm not privy to her thought process and don't know why she hasn't spoken up about this propaganda yet or for that matter if she has and it's not been covered by the MSM.

Anyway, as I said in my OP I can "sort of" understand why she wouldn't (if she could have)... OTOH as a wife who dearly loves, respects and believes in her husband there is a big part of me that can't understand someone biting one's tongue when one's spouse/loved one is undeservedly attacked... God/dess help anyone who goes after mine. :nuke:

[mopinko]

28. i just think if she was smart

/if it were me, i would just take on the mantle of that presidency, like al should have done, and wear it proudly. "when we were in the white house we..." they kinda get what they deserve for allowing themselves to be shamed.

[WePurrsevere]

30. That's a tough one. I can see your point but perhaps she wants to make

a name for herself separate from her husband even after using her recognition factor as a launching point. Would it be better if she used that "when we were in the WH we...." It might be okay once in a while and for a bit but eventually it would may very well wear thin... much like some of our parents would bring up the ole "When I was a kid we...." thing. Sometimes you need to fight against that and find out who you are, find your own way, make your own mistakes and hopefully take pride in what are truly YOUR hard earned successes.

[mopinko]

31. "her way" has been as part of a team.

she should be proud of it.

[warrens]

12. The local ABC news had Durbin on tape last night

It ain't their fault, but the newsreaders made the little frowny faces that mean "we're very concerned."

[onenote]

13. I'm not going to win any popularity contests, but I disagree

I think its great and entirely appropriate for the public to rise up and fight ABC over the broadcast of The Path to 9/11. I think its great that Clinton,Albright and Berger have objected and implicitly, if not explicitly, threatened legal action. I think the actions of the DNC in starting a petition drive and in Conyers in calling on Democrats to contact ABC are fantastic. I've made my voice heard in various ways.

But elected members of the legislature writing to demand that a broadcaster not air a particular program offends my First Amendment sensibilities. And yes, broadcasters have First Amendment rights. Anyone who thinks they don't is wrong. Are they equivalent to the First Amendment rights of newspapers? Probably not. But they have First Amendment rights.

Put it this way: if a year from now, someone has made a program about 9/11 and the MIHOP theory that shows Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld sitting around discussing how they might arrange for an attack on the WTC,and the repubs predictably went nuts about it and the principals involved publicly stated no such conversation ever took place and that there is nothing in any of the 9/11 investigations to support that such a conversation took place...and then the repub leadership in the House and Senate wrote to the broadcaster that was going to put that program on (maybe its a radio show and its Pacifica) and implicitly threatens their license, I would be screaming bloody murder about their attempt to infrige on the free speech rights of the broadcaster.

I hope like hell the program is cancelled or substantially revised. And if its not, I hope Clinton, Albright et al do sue and are victorious. But I really cannot countenance the idea of elected officials threatening broadcasters in advance of the broadcast of programming.

Fire away...

[loyalsister]

14. I've got to agree with you.

I hate that the effects of this may be that people will be totally miseducated, but I feel like I need to be consistent when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

[ProSense]

15. Fake news! Propaganda! Truth in advertising!

ABC can't pass off fiction as fact. They can't label it an objective documentary when it distorts official public record.

[onenote]

16. and if Reid et al had demanded the show be labelled fiction

I would probably feel differently. But they didn't. They demanded it be cancelled. Would you be satisfied if Disney labelled the show "fiction"? (BTW, I haven't seen where they called it an objective documentary. They are calling it a dramatization. That doesn't do the trick imo. But if they called it a fictional account of the events leading up to 9/11...I wouldn't watch the show, but I wouldn't be demanding its cancellation either.

[ProSense]

17. This is from ABC

On September 11, 2001 the world stood still as terrorists used four planes as lethal weapons against innocent Americans. The 9/11 Commission was formed to determine how such an attack could happen, and its report documents the trail from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the tragedy of that autumn morning. The bipartisan commission effort created a comprehensive record of events and provides valuable insight into what must be done to protect the nation in the future.

ABC will present "The Path to 9/11," a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.

Directed by David L. Cunningham ("To End All Wars"), the project stars acclaimed actor and Oscar nominee Harvey Keitel ("Pulp Fiction," "The Piano") as FBI agent John O'Neill, an expert on al Qaeda and on Osama bin Laden at the time of the attacks. His co-stars include (in alphabetical order): Michael Benyaer ("24") as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Yousef's uncle; Shirley Douglas ("A House Divided") as Madeleine Albright; newcomer Mido Hamada as Massoud, one of America's pivotal allies; Emmy winner Patricia Heaton ("Everybody Loves Raymond") as Barbara Bodine, Ambassador to Yemen; Frank John Hughes ("Without a Trace") as Bill Miller, DSS agent in Pakistan; Penny Johnson Jerald ("24") as Condoleezza Rice; Dan Lauria ("Wonder Years") as CIA Director George Tenet; Golden Globe winner Amy Madigan ("Carnivale") as Patricia Carver, a top CIA analyst who prodded her superiors to take further action against terrorism; Michael Murphy ("Tanner on Tanner") as William Cohen, President Clinton's Secretary of Defense; Stephen Root ("News Radio") as Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism advisor to four presidents; William Sadler ("The Shawshank Redemption") as Neil Herman, an FBI Supervisory Special Agent who worked closely with O'Neill; Katy Selverstone ("Drew Carey Show") as Nancy Floyd, an agent who cultivated a key informant; Pip Torrens ("Pride & Prejudice") as CIA man Paul Kessler; film star Shaun Toub ("Crash") as Emad Salem, an FBI informant who helped bring down the Blind Sheikh, and Donnie Wahlberg as "Kirk," an undercover CIA agent.

The miniseries will take viewers behind closed doors at the CIA, the FBI and the White House and into the world of Richard Clarke, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Sandy Berger and CIA Director Richard Tenet, among others. Viewers will follow the international manhunt for elusive bomber Ramzi Yousef (Nabil Elouahabi, "Eastenders") and meet several key players in the 9/11 saga, including: John O'Neill, the career FBI agent who spent years zealously chasing bin Laden; then-ABC newsman John Miller (portrayed by Barclay Hope, "Stargate SG-1") who interviewed bin Laden; Emad Salem and other key Muslim informants who aided the U.S.; and Ahmed Shah Massoud, commander of the Northern Alliance, a crucial American ally and the person bin Laden feared most.

The 9/11 Commission Report instantly became a national bestseller when it was published in July 2004. Writer Cyrus Nowrasteh ("The Day Reagan Was Shot") uses this historic document as the basis for a powerful story with action as gripping and far reaching as the source material itself. Shot in Toronto, Morocco, New York and Washington, DC, actors portray the famous and infamous, along with the formerly anonymous and often heroic people thrust onto history's stage.

Beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and ending on the morning of 9/11, the miniseries draws on detailed information from the Report and other sources to take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day -- to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period.

Former ABC News anchor John Miller, now the FBI's Assistant Director of Public Affairs, was also a consultant on the project. His book, The Cell, co-authored with Michael Stone, was optioned by ABC for use in the teleplay. In addition, The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz was also optioned.

"The Path to 9/11" is executive-produced by Marc Platt ("Empire Falls"). The producers are Hans Proppe ("Anne Frank") and Cyrus Nowrasteh (also the writer). Governor Thomas H. Kean (Chairman, The 9/11 Commission) is senior consultant. The director is David L. Cunningham. The miniseries is a production of UHP Productions, Ltd., and is distributed by Touchstone Television.

http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/about.html

(Emphasis added)

[orleans]

18. i'm all for free speech as well

i particularly enjoy writing "parodies" of various things/situations/people etc

this film is different. it is supposedly based on the 9/11 commission findings--although they are now attempting to call it a "docudrama" it is supposedly BASED on fact. docudramas allow for invented dialog--however. this appears as if the invented dialog will imply several specific untruths, leading to defamation of character by clinton, berger, albright, clarke.

and i'd bet money that thomas kean (senior adviser/consultant or whatever his PAID position was) advised in such a way that will help his kid get elected to the senate.

"What is defamation?
In the most general terms, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Defamation can come in either the form of libel (written defamation) or slander (oral defamation). To succeed in a case for defamation, you have to prove four elements: 1) a false or defamatory statement was made against you; 2) the statement was made to a third party (anyone other than you, either verbally or in written form); 3) if the defamation was of public concern, then the publisher of the defamation had to be negligent; and 4) you suffered damage, such as an injury to your reputation or, in some cases, mental anguish. "
http://www.quizlaw.com/personal_injury_law/what_is_defamation.php?gclid=CNb8yPTCnocCFQ6LIgodbyJzuA

[onenote]

19. as I said, if it airs without changes, I think a lawsuit is in order

by those who have been defamed. However, that's a different issue than whether its appropriate, in advance of the broadcast, for elected officials to demand that the program be cancelled. I think that is inappropriate. Its much different to call for the program to be cancelled than it is to suggest that it should be relabelled as fiction.

[orleans]

20. (just because the repukes did this with that reagan movie...

we wouldn't want to be like them...?)

[onenote]

22. damn straight I don't want to be like the repubs

and I sure as hell don't want to be even worse than them when it comes to the first amendment. I thought CBS was cowardly when it caved and cancelled the Reagan movie. But I also don't recall elected repubs writing to CBS demanding that the show be cancelled. (What I recall is that the Ed Gillespie of the RNC, not elected officials) wrote to CBS and demanded that the network provide a copy of the program to a group of historians and friends of Reagan to screen in advance or, in the alternative, that CBS run a repeated on-screen crawl during the program's broadcast stating that program is fiction.

[lynne]

27. Agree with you 100%. Elected officials should not be promoting censorship

of any kind. Citizens, organizations, grassroots, etc. = YES. Elected officials doing so is a direct threat to our First Amendment rights. If the situation were turned around, we'd be screaming bloody hell and rightfully so.

I think the Senator's letter is a mistake and sets a bad precedent.

[mopinko]

29. your analogy to newspapers is wrong.

broadcast television is a whole nother animal. these networks have a duty to serve the public. that is the price of being handed these great public commons to use for themselves, to get rich. in return they must be good citizens. perhaps the fairness doctrine is a dead letter, but the spirit of it remains. when they stray from their duty, those that granted them this enormous privilege ought to yank their leash, and yank it hard.
as you say, their privilege under the first amendment is nothing like that of a newspaper. we do not own the paper that the news is printed on, or the presses or the ink. but the air waves belong to us. it is absolutely proper for our elected officials to make sure that they are being used in the interest of good citizenship.

[onenote]

32. I expressly did NOT analogize to newspapers

I acknowledged that the first amendment rights of a broadcaster probably differ from those of a newspaper (probably, because that has how the law has been interpreted in the past although there are arguments that the validity of those precedents, which are based on a "scarcity" rationale may not have the same strength and standing in a world of cable,satellite and Internet communications). In any event, there is a process for challenging broadcast licenses and its through the FCC. Elected officials jumping in and demanding a show be cancelled is a horrible precedent.

[orleans]

25. okay--i've thanked them all n/t