Is There Going To Be An Organized "Boycott Of ABC/Path To 9-11"?

[Dinger]

I know I'm not going to watch it. I've seen the ads, but not much reporting/propogandizing of this bullshit pseudo-campaign/save bu$h/save repug movie yet. Has MoveOn been invilved, or any other organization.

P.S. I see Ted Koppel is having sort of an alternative choice, and here are some other possibilities. It's kind of interesting how "Path to 9-11" is listed last, as a "very different sort of prokect."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14601485/


I wonder if Link T.V. or FSTV is having anything. I'll go check . . . . . .

[ThomWV]

1. I Won't Watch It And If You Don't Either Then We Are Organized

Anybody else want to join in this vast conspiracy?

[Warpy]

4. I'm sure I'll find other ways to spend the time

I just got satellite 2 weeks ago and I'm not bored with it yet. I've got a sweater that needs the last sleeve finished. My hair might need washing.

I really have no need to watch another badly done network disaster movie. They're usually awful fare, formulaic and cheap, with witless scripts relying heavily on old news footage.

If it gets rave reviews, I'll wait until ABC/Disney decides to run it just before the 2008 election.

[Sinti]

8. You bet. TV rots your brain.

There's no way they're going to tell the truth in a movie about the "path to 9/11." If they even came close people would realize how little this administration cares about their well-being as compared to the reputation of their Saudi friends, not to mention too many would start to think maybe something nefarious happened there.

[bullimiami]

2. i already virtually boycott all network and cable news stations.

[City Lights]

3. There are a number of threads here that have contact info for ABC.

Lots of DUers have already written to complain.

I haven't heard a word about an "organized" boycott from a MoveOn-type organization, nor have I read anything about anyone here having notified them of the garbage ABC plans to air as an "unbiased documentary." Maybe it would be worth it for some of us to contact MoveOn... :shrug:

I'm not going to watch ABC's "special" either. I steer clear of anything that gives Rush a Viagra-free erection... :evilgrin:

[Dinger]

6. I Have Sent Several E-Mails Out

It's not much, but it's something. And I posted this because I want to keep people aware of the bullshit of ABC.

"I steer clear of anything that gives Rush a Viagra-free erection... " . . . . Priceless!:evilgrin:

[screembloodymurder]

5. Cancel your cable.

We need to hold these people accountable for their treachery.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. There Needs To Be A Boycott of ADVERTISERS

ABC really doesn't care if you watch their shows. All they really care about is if advertisers buy spots.

If we want to put pressure on ABC, then there needs to be an organized effort to boycott ABC advertisers - and to tell them that we're boycotting 'em, and why.

That being said - is it worth going to the mat on this? Bush was awful regarding terror, but Clinton wasn't exactly on the ball either. There were a number of really serious incidents that Clinton responded to perfunctorally.

I'd much rather see a boycott of Exxon, Dunkin' Donuts (owned by the Bush Family and its cronies and Mitt Romney), etc.

[Dinger]

9. Clinton Not On The Ball Regarding Terror?

Behold, Will Pitt's long list of Clinton's extraordinary efforts to fight obl, terrorists & their ilk:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml


". . . The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million. . . ."


Please don't feed me that anti-Clinton shit again. Thank you.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Add It Up

Let's suppose for a moment that spending money equates to getting the job done. All of those sums added together are probably less than the damage inflicted on the USS Cole - not to mention the loss of life.

Al Qaeda inflicted damage on us during Clinton's term. Clinton should have seriously gone after al Qaeda. He may have diverted 0.000002% of the federal budget to the task, but history clearly shows that this was not adequate.

[City Lights]

13. Do you believe the GOP "wag the dog" Congress would have gone

along with whatever you think Clinton should have done to have "seriously gone after al Qaeda?"

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Ever Heard of the Bully Pulpit?

If Clinton wanted to do the right thing, he'd have tried.

[JHB]

34. You mean like stressing countering terrorism in every major policy speech?

Oh, wait, he DID do that.

Try to kill bin Laden? A number of times. Failed or nixed for a variety of reasons (a coup in Pakistan, the presence of half the Dubai royal family, etc.

Cut off Al Queda's money-laundering support sources? Tried to, measures were defeated by Republicans.

It goes on.

[alarimer]

37. Sen Phill "Goober" Gramm helped defeat that bill

Because his wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron board and Enron used those very same funding mechanisms in their illegal operations.

[symbolman]

39. PRESIDENT CLINTON

and it' so NICE to be able to use that term President without wanting to take a shower, DID everything possible, along with Hart-Rudman, slamming missles into where Bin Laden had been 15 minutes before, etc.

As a matter of fact President Clinton's anti terror policies that were implemented actually frightened me at the time, I was worried about my Civil Rights being abridged even THEN..

There's no excuse for ABC's bullshit other than shilling for the right wing, at the very least I refuse to watch ABC and my kid will not watch HERR MAUS under any circumstances..

ABC is dead to me.. too bad we didn't have time to take up this banner, Takebackthemdia.com kicked Limbaugh's ass before, but frankly after the Leopold thing I can't hitch my wagon to anything TO claims to be fact, when they retract that Indictment story, maybe.

That's just me. But I DO know the facts on President Clinton, and what they are pushing on ABC is utter bullshit.

[City Lights]

41. Yeah, I've heard of the bully pulpit.

So what. You didn't answer my question.

If BC shouted from the bully pulpit that the greatest threat facing America was terrorism, how do you think the RW "wag the dog" Congress would have responded?

[MannyGoldstein]

43. The Answer Is...

The answer is "I don't know". Nor do you - because Clinton never took a serious crack at it.

[City Lights]

47. You haven't stated what you think Clinton should have done.

Neither of us can say for sure what would have happened had Clinton did whatever it is you think he should have done, but based on how the puke Congress reacted to everything else he did, I can take an educated guess and say that no matter what Clinton did to go after al Qaeda, the pukes would have accused him of trying to make something out of nothing in order to distract the people from all his "scandals."

[Dinger]

20. Rwers Always Piss & Moan About The Cole

What's the deal?

[MannyGoldstein]

24. So Does This Left Winger

Al Qaeda blew up one of our ships, killing a bunch of people. Other than that, no big deal...

[Dinger]

27. Which One Are You, right winger or Left Winger?

Just asking.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Left Winger

A REAL left-winger - not one of those triangulatin' spine-free DLC types.

[Dinger]

44. Well, That's A Good Thing

:)

[JHB]

40. Don't forget that's another thing to hold against Bush

The Cole bombing took place just three months before the end of his presidency. Considering that we would actually like to make sure we're hitting the right people responsible (unlike the RWers, who as I recall just wanted bombs dropped, preferably on Saddam). That takes some investigating, and by the time it was done and plans were drawn up, he thought that instead of starting an operation then handing it in progress to a new administration (you may recall he had some experience in such things going bad, like Mogadishu), he thought it was more prudent to hand the plans over to Bush and leave the final desision-making to him.

The Bush administration took no action to avenge the Cole, and they had a lot more time to do so.

[elehhhhna]

54. Then you must lose lots of sleep over Reagans Beirut decisions.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Reagan's Beirut Catastrophe

Was a very, very major cause of our current trouble.

[JHB]

35. Perhaps Clinton's efforts weren't adequate. But consider Bush's ...

...follow-up, which was: zip, nada, nothing, or even worse, the active dismantling of the counter-terrorist infrastructure Clinton was building.

Counterterroism policies were back-burnered and reduced in priority, personnel reassigned elsewhere, budget provisions cut. Cheney's energy task force happened right away with the utmost secrecy, but his counterterrorism review? Given the "we'll get around to that one of these...years"-treatment.

Whatever you think of Clinton's efforts (or lack of them) to fight terrorism, the hard facts are the the Bush adiminstration came in and REDUCED them. If Clinton's actions can be characterized as doing "too little", Bush's can be characterized as doing "jack shit" (if not "worse than jack shit").

There's nothing wrong with pointing out Clinton's shortcomings, but unless you follow up with pointing out Bush's BIGGER shortcomings, you're misrepresenting what happened.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Agreed

I believe that I started by stating that Bush was much worse than Clinton. Bush is a catastrophe in every way, shape, and form. However, this country will only get back on the right path by choosing politicians that do the right thing - not just those who are less awful.

[Patchuli]

48. I personally think

that the GOP controlled Congress managed to hog-tie President Clinton so much with their witch hunt of his personal life that they interefered with his ability to truly serve us as he might have. That's what I think. I also think that * is the worst thing that ever happened to U.S. Why do you bring up Clinton now?

[alarimer]

36. The GOP thwarted him at every turn

By refusing to allocate the necessary funds. In any case, Al Quaeda and others should be treated as CRIMINAL enterprises, not as "enemies" in a phony war. In the first attack on the World Trade Center, the perpetrators were captured, tried and convicted with no invasion of Iraq necessary. Under the Clinton Adminstration. The Bush government IGNORED all the work done under the Clinton administration and ignored the warning signs as well.

[Mr_Spock]

55. Uniformed idiot!

Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden & Al Qaeda! Too bad the Repukes were looking at his cock & Bush TOTALLY ignored his recommendation to go to war with Afghanistan.

[LiberalUprising]

58. Why is Clinton hanging out with poppy

now?

They seem to be pretty good pals after all eh?

[Marr]

12. Exactly- just "not tuning in" isn't going to make a damn bit of difference

We need to send their advertisers the message that this show is going to *cost* them money, not *make* them money.

[TahitiNut]

28. Agreed. (Except for misinformation regarding Clinton efforts.)

It's about the money.

The Clinton/Gore Administration went to the (stone)wall seeking out al Qaeda and were stonewalled by a corrupt, fascist right-wing who preemptively claimed "wag the dog" - 'preemptive' because it's EXACTLY what the Reich-Wing cabal has been doing.

[Dinger]

33. Who Are The Sponsors? I Can't Find Any! Hellllp!

Jeez, is it me, or do they want to keep this "quiet"?

[elehhhhna]

50. Go here for more info

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2038837

[blonndee]

63. True, but the Clinton admin didn't come out as a bunch of fascist

propagandists, either.

[charlottelouise]

10. Nothing surprises me any more....

Have already emailed ABC; tried to cut-and-save my 500 word message, but only this bit made it:

I find it appalling that your network would air a film purporting to be a documentary that has little or no basis in reality.

Obviously the next step is to find out which advertisers are supporting this, although it appears that the film will "be shown with limited interuptions." Is it possible that the advertisers are reluntant to touch this with a 10 foot fork?

An orgainized boycott sounds good...

[msongs]

14. have any of you SEEN this movie? or is this like the right wingers

who complain about so called liberal programming that they have in fact never seen?

some on DU glorify che guevara the well known anti-democracy gay bashing serial pscyhopatic killer and we all know the truth
about him yet there is no protest there.

so what's the big stink about a movie nobody here has seen?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Crabby Appleton]

15. I agree -

watch the show, then criticize it based on what actually is in it.

[never_get_over_it]

18. Apparently some people have seen it....

and we have every right to boycott - complain or whatever we want to do when it is reported that only weeks before a VERY IMPORTANT election ABC is broadcasting SHIT that is far from accurate.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml


"ABC intends to mark the occasion in far more grand a fashion. Starting September 10th and ending September 11th, the network will show a miniseries titled "The Path to 9/11." According to reports from early screenings, the writer/producer of the miniseries, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has crafted a television polemic intended to blame the entire event on President Clinton."

[City Lights]

21. I haven't SEEN it yet because it isn't airing until later this month.

What I do know is that ABC is trying to pass it off an unbiased historical documentary, even though it was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who is a die-hard conservative activist. I also know that Rush Limbaugh has has been getting off on talking about it for awhile, and has expressed his surprise that ABC is airing it. I highly doubt it's unbiased if Limbaugh is getting off on it.

ABC should, at a minimum, let their viewers know that Nowrasteh is an avowed conservative.

[alarimer]

38. Plenty of reviewers have seen it

And they are the ones who say it places the blame primarily on Clinton. Check out today's piece in Salon, for one. How anyone can blame Clinton when it happened on bush's watch just boggles my mind anyway.

[The Gunslinger]

46. Yea I guess I should watch Fox news too

I've only "heard" that it's a Right wing propaganda network. If enough people tell me that this ABC show blames Clinton and Praises Bush ...........Guess What!!! , I ani't watching. And if it turns out to be true, I will boycott ABC and all their affiliates just like I do Fox.

[elehhhhna]

51. Excellent point.

[Common Sense Party]

59. I plan on watching it. I hear it rips both administrations for doing

nothing.

I think it's premature to say that it's "trash" without having seen it.

Of course, if one believes in MIHOP conspiracies, your mind is already made up.

[mp3hound]

16. I'll probably watch it

because it's tough to criticize it without seeing it first. It seems to me that the only way to critique it effectively is to actually see what it gets wrong and then expose the errors.

[Raffi Ella]

17. Welcome to D.U.

When they got the Reagan movie taken down they didn't wait to see what was in it.They could see for themselves by what they read about it and who was involved in the project what was going to be presented.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is the height of wing propaganda right before an extremely important election season.


As for boycotting the program,I certainly won't be watching but I don't know what good that'll do.
I have written to the FCC and to ABC letting them know I am outraged that this is going to be aired uncontested/without a different viewpoint to counter it.

[mp3hound]

19. Thank you.

I have been reading here for a couple of years and finally signed up.

I understand your point about the Reagan movie, but my position would be the same regarding that movie as it is regarding this one. I don't believe in criticizing a movie I haven't seen and I don't like censorship, particularly political censorship. I didn't like it when the repugs did it with the Reagan movie so I'm certainly not going to engage in their tactics.

That said, I have written to ABC as well, inquiring about what other programs they will run that give a different viewpoint than the one it seems that this movie will present. Not suprisingly, the only response I have received is a form letter style email.

[elehhhhna]

53. Me too. & Welcome to DU!

[NashVegas]

22. If People Want to Call for a Boycott, That's Fine

I have a feeling I'm going to watch it, so the next day I'll know exactly what I'm criticizing.

[Poiuyt]

23. An organized boycott of the movie would draw more attention to it

More people would want to see it just to see what all the fuss is about

[dogday]

26. Who Are The Sponsors Of This Movie?

That's who you need to boycott as well.....

[Dinger]

30. I Agree

From what I've read it will he few "breaks," whatever that means. I sort of get the feeling they're not in a hurry to let the sponsors be known before the movie. How did the RWers stop the reagan movie in 2003, and why isn't a similar effort taking place on this propaganda bullshit movie?

[Cha]

32. Here's some email addys of the ads and sales people

who work for Disney, courtesty of a former DUer.

ESPN.com
John Zaccario
Vice President of Integrated Sales
ESPN.com
19 East 34th Street
New York, NY 10016
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

ABC.com
Internet Sales
ABC.com
77 West 66th Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10023
[e-mail]

DisneyChannel.com
Brad Davis
VP of Advertising Sales & Marketing
Disney Online
5161 Lankershim Blvd., 4th Floor
North Hollywood, CA 91601
[e-mail]


http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:hRIQND0DOCsJ:mediak ...

Thank you, Jara! We can contact these gentlemen and let them know "we are not pleased with ABC"!

I'm spamming this around on all the "The Path to 9/11" threads.

[AtomicKitten]

29. yep ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2031564

[Initech]

31. I dont watch network TV anyways, and ABC is no exception

[Patchuli]

49. I agree and don't either

but I think I'll write ABC to tell them I am boycotting their sponsors and informing their sponsors of said boycott!

[Taoschick]

61. I turned off the cable

Three years ago.

If I want "truth", television is the last place I'll look.

I won't boycott over this though. I hate the "do what I want and say what I want or I'll punish you" mentality. We've got too much of that shit coming from this administration.

[Patchuli]

68. Perhaps, but it works

and the media has been "punishing" us for six years now by slanting GOP. Hitting them in the profit margin is the only thing they listen to.

[RagAss]

52. I'll be watching football that night anyway....

[Catchawave]

56. dKos has declared "war" :)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/2/115926/2629
"DAMN IT, Stir Up a Firestorm Against ABC"

[Common Sense Party]

60. Oh, good grief. That just makes us look silly.

The American people are NOT stupid. If this is a complete whitewash program, they will call B.S. on it--once it airs.

[farmboxer]

62. I will not watch it.

No way.

[bilgewaterbill]

64. I hadn't heard of this until now.

I must tell you that I'm curious to see what the uproar is about. Boycotts backfire, IMHO.

[Time for change]

65. It seems to me that ABC won't give a damn if we boycott it or not

I believe that their sole purpose in airing this piece of trash is to influence the November election.

No matter how many DUers see it or boycott it, that won't have any effect on the election.

As a matter of fact, it would probably be a good idea IMO for DUers to see it, so that they are in a better position to write responses to it.

[terrya]

66. I certainly won't watch it.

Right-wing swill AND Patricia Heaton in it? Big :puke:

I'll rent a DVD or something that night.

[chat_noir]

67. ABC blog entry

I have seen this miniseries, in its entirety. I am also neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I would appreciate it if all people who preface their blog with "From the advertisement" or "From what I've heard, read, seen in the blogs, divined in my crystal ball, etc." would just admit they have no idea whether the miniseries is slanted or not. Anyway, back to the miniseries which I HAVE seen.

I can understand if you have only seen Night 1 and are personally in love with Bill and/or Hilary Clinton why you would be a little put out. The political turmoil of the latter part of Clinton's administration (Monica's stained dress and all) is portrayed as having been part of a generally distracted atmosphere that made it hard to focus on the problem of terrorism, but this is shown as much the Republicans' fault as Clinton’s. The Republicans shouting "wag the dog" is directly referenced as having been detrimental to our resolve in the time directly following the missile strikes ordered by Clinton. I don't see anyone being demonized here, but then again I admit that I am not in love with President Clinton. I guess if I were a Muslim and saw a TV show that portrayed Mohammed in anything but a perfect light, I'd be blogging my furious little brains out too.

Also, in Night 2 there are several elements, including the brief sent to Condi Rice warning of "Bin Ladin determined to strike inside the US," that paint the Bush administration in a very poor light. There are also probably more unflattering news footage shots of Bush than there were of Clinton in Night 1. Finally, aggrieved Clinton fans, the entire show is capped off with a terrifying epigraph that is very much aimed at the Bush administration and not at all at any Clinton of any persuasion. It's a good thing I'm not in love with any Bushes (neither George, George W., nor even Barbara ). Anyway, I won't spill anymore details about the show or none of you angry people will have any reason to watch. Just remember, until you have seen both nights you will have no moral soapbox to stand on. So, come back here on September 12 and blog yourself silly. Until then, I respectfully submit that you are all full of . . . yourselves.

P.S. To all those screaming about the biased ABC "documentary," you’re obviously not even informed about what the show IS much less what it is ABOUT. Isn't that embarrassing? I don’t know, I’d be pretty embarrassed if I were you, but that’s just me.

http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/2006/08/september_11_20.html#comments


Take it for what it's worth...