More "clarification" from the ABC blog.

[tallahasseedem]

It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors.

The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.

The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.

Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.

-David Cunningham


http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/

No shame.

[MrModerate]

1. I was going to go with the "I haven't seen it, so can't comment . . ."

Until I discovered advance copies had been sent to a worldwide collection of wingnuts but not to principles whose actions have (reportedly) been conflated beyond all recognition.

Given their grossly unbalanced release of advance copies -- clearly calculated to generate right-wing buzz -- I say, condemn it now, so that condemnation will BE the buzz when it actually hits the air.

[tallahasseedem]

3. Exactly.

I am still reeling over the fact that they wont give Clinton a copy.

[warrens]

14. A copy was leaked to Editor & Publisher

I'm willing to bet that anyone concerned already has a bootleg copy. These guys are such right wing liars: A variety of political viewpoints, my ass. Oh, yeah, the guy who went to get coffee for us is a Democrat, so therefore, ignore the fact that everyone connected with writing and producing this abortion is a right-wing lunatic.

[City Lights]

2. Fuck you, David Cunningham. eom

[spanone]

4. Propaganda plain and simple. Get it right or get it gone.

[cybildisobedience]

5. if it's only a dramatization....

then why have they prepared educational materials to accompany it, and have it distributed by what used to be a well-respected educational publisher?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

11. Excellent point. nt

[blm]

6. Tell the dumbass if he wanted to know what happened, he'd have accessed

the National Security Archives and examined the funding of terrorism that was going on in BCCI.

He'd have seen all the same 9-11 characters pop up.

And if Usama, himself, said it all started for him in 1991 with Bush1 policies in the region, then why would Cunningham and the Bush2 WH insist on starting with 1993?

Because to start in 93 IS The mother of all cover ups that would ensure the truth never comes out.

[Toots]

7. to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.

LIES..The truth is just not in Republicans is it?

[beyurslf]

8. Why do I have to see it to know that those involved and portrayed

have already said the events didn't occur? Will seeing the movie change that? I wouldn't know if it was true when I see it anyway--and that is the problem. I would have to assume it is true since it allegedly based on facts.

[Coexist]

9. like the conservative's did with "The Reagans" - and it was pulled?

Please.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

10. When you mix truth with fiction you create confusion.

This deliberate act is called disinformation which is used as propaganda. It doesn't matter at all whether it was written by the left or the right, and it doesn't matter if it's called a documentary, docudrama, or piece of crap- because it will confuse, it will blur the truth, and it will be taken as gospel by those who don't have the time to investigate the facts. If ABC is bent on showing this trash, they should have Clarke and others portrayed in the film explain what really happened at opening, at intermission, and at the end. This is an indefensible move by ABC.

[Double T]

12. David Cunningham's blog reeks of plain old BS........

"...docudrama....is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors." Sorry Dave, here is the 'definition of a DOCUDRAMA: A filmed dramatization based on fact that combines documentary and FICTIONAL ELEMENTS. In the production process, "based on" allows the creators of the text WIDE CREATIVE LATITUDE and a docudrama is, at best, a SKILLFUL REPRESENTATION OF A REAL PERSON OR EVENT.' DOCUDRAMA=PROPAGANDA when written, produced and aired by the RW and corporate america, aka ABC.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

13. These partisan pricks really think they've

made the latest "Missles of October," don't they?

[Kierkegaard]

15. Watch it first? Before the election?

Once the damage has been done, then we should 'talk?' Riiight.

Prominent right wingers get a preview copy. 'Liberals' don't.
In what way does employing outright lies to denigrate a former president and shift blame figure into .."present{ing} an accurate and honest account?"

Go fuck yourself, Cunningham.

[tallahasseedem]

17. Dont you like

how he threw that in there? Nice way to try to pump up ratings as well.

[Kierkegaard]

18. He, like many of his brethren, is a POS.

Plain n' simple...

[Hugin]

16. "This is a movie or more specifically a docuganda."

Must I edit EVERYTHING?!?!?!

[complain jane]

19. LOL! I wrote them and said it's EITHER FICTION or a DOCUMENTARY

and it' CAN'T BE BOTH and presenting it as anything other than FICTION is false advertising and I hope they get sued at the very least.

[Hugin]

20. This confusion also emerged when, "Da Vinci Code" was released...

Luckily, when someone's eyes rolled back into their heads and they began to
rant... I'd pull out a copy of the book and point to where it said... "Fiction".

Right there under the publisher's logo.