WP TV critic Shales: "Clinton...is libeled through abusive editing."

[DeepModem Mom]

ABC's Twisted 'Path to 9/11'
By Tom Shales
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page C01

....Clinton himself is libeled through abusive editing. A first-class U.S. operative played by Donnie Wahlberg argues the case for getting bin Laden while the al-Qaeda leader is openly in view in some sort of compound in Afghanistan. CIA officials haggle over minor details, such as the budget for the operation. The film's director, David L. Cunningham, then cuts abruptly to a TV image of Clinton making his infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" remark with regard to Monica Lewinsky. The impression given is that Clinton was spending time on his sex life while terrorists were gaining ground and planning a nightmare.

It would have made as much sense, and perhaps more, to cut instead to stock footage of a smirking Kenneth Starr, the reckless Republican prosecutor largely responsible for distracting not just the president but the entire nation with the scandal....

***

...aesthetic objections pale in comparison to the legitimate complaints of those who resent the film's being passed off as truth when it apparently is riddled with errors. These are dismissed in a glib disclaimer acknowledging "composite and representative characters and time compression . . . for dramatic purposes." How much drama needs to be added to 9/11?

The film is prominently billed as being based on the report of the 9/11 commission, but one must read the fine print: Also acknowledged, although far less conspicuously in the credits, are three books on the subject.

In a report on "NBC Nightly News" on Thursday, unnamed Clinton administration officials were quoted as saying that some scenes in the film are "pure fiction." Pure fiction doesn't mix well with fact. Executive producer Marc Platt's quoted defense: It was "not our intention to distort." Whatever the intention -- and Democrats have a right to be suspicious of any product of the conservative-minded Walt Disney Co., which produced the film and owns ABC -- distortion unfortunately seems to have been the outcome....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

[MADem]

1. This isn't cinematography; it's vivisection.

..."The Path to 9/11" appears intent on meting out punishment, not only to some of those portrayed in it but also to viewers who try to make it through the whole grueling assault -- an assault on the senses that may also be an assault on the truth.

[nicknameless]

2. ABC claims fairness... but only distributes 100s of copies to rethugs.

Dramatizations are *Generally* based on facts. But this one is apparently wall to wall lies.

:eyes:

I still can't believe that no legal action is being taken.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. I can't believe that ABC participated, I'm assuming...

with eyes wide open, in this outrage. I read in one of the articles that the P.R. was the same as that used for "The Passion of the Christ" -- get your natural audience fired up. I guess I'm naive, but I'm surprised that ABC did this.

[pscot]

4. Given the way the media have behaved

over the last 15 years I'm no longer surprised by anything that turns up on TV or in print. Appalled yes; surpised, no. It's all about the money.

[LostInAnomie]

5. Can you really not

Afterall, they refused to air Ted Koppel's program where he showed the faces of the troops that have died in Iraq. Many of their affiliates showed the John Kerry hit piece, made by the Swiftboaters, during the election. And Disney refused to release F9/11.

They knew what they were doing.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. You're right. I just hadn't focused on it until now. nt

[Occulus]

7. I've been wondering the same thing...

I've come to the conclusion that they may feel they need to allow it to air before they can claim any damages from it. Pity, that.

At least it gets ABC into court.