Media Matters-Perfect account of Disney-ABC duplicity bullshit & obsession

[GreenTea]

Filmmakers have acknowledged basing the film in part on a book by a Bush administration PR official.

They acknowledge making up scenes.

The film's star, Harvey Keitel, said the film has factual errors that should be fixed.

Scholastic, the educational publishing company, has renounced all ties to the film and pulled a discussion guide tied to the movie it had distributed to accompany the film.

ABC News completely disavows the film.

Five members of the 9-11 Commission -- including one who served as a consultant to the film -- said The Path to 9/11 is flawed.

Nine prominent historians have asked ABC to cancel the broadcast.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said of the film: "hen you put somebody on the screen and say that's Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it's slanderous, I think it's defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account."

Everyone, it seems, is getting in on the act. Conservative columnist John Podhoretz wrote that "x-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's anger is unquestionably justified." Former Reagan administration cabinet secretary and right-wing pundit Bill Bennett said, "The Path to 9/11 is strewn with a lot of problems, and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that's no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people. And, you know, it just shouldn't happen." Conservative author Richard Miniter said parts of the film are "based on an Internet myth" and have "no factual basis."

But there are some, as of this writing, who continue to stand by the fake-umentary. ABC and Disney, for starters, still plan to broadcast an account of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that they know to be false.

This despite Disney's 2004 refusal to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, which was highly critical of President Bush, even though it was produced by a Disney subsidiary, Miramax Films. Then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner explained that the company "did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we're such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides."

Disney is not only taking a different approach to a film that is critical of former President Clinton than it took to a film that criticized President Bush -- its stance is also inconsistent with the hard-line Disney took toward a 2005 book about the company. Disney reportedly threatened to sue the publisher of James B. Stewart's DisneyWar (Simon & Schuster, February 2005) if the book contained inaccuracies. Now Disney is allowing its subsidiary to broadcast a film that it knows contains inaccuracies.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean (R), the former chairman of the 9-11 Commission, is also standing by the film, even as he acknowledges that it contains events that simply never occurred. Kean seems to suggest that the film is fake-but-true: "I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters' mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11."

Even more troubling, Kean suggested that he has political motives in standing by the film. Kean's son, Tom Kean Jr. is the Republican Senate nominee in New Jersey. Asked if he had apologized to President Clinton for inaccuracies in the film, Kean responded: "No, he was out campaigning against my son yesterday, so I didn't reach out to him at all!"

Perhaps Kean, ABC, and Disney are just too embarrassed to walk away from the film at this point.

But what's Tucker Carlson's excuse? The MSNBC host argued on the September 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker that the film's inaccuracies are fine because "this docudrama does not purport to be a documentary." According to Carlson, the fact that the film portrays real people doing and saying things they never did is no problem at all, because the filmmakers acknowledge that it is "partially fictionalized."

According to Carlson's logic, it would be fine for ABC to broadcast a miniseries titled "Tucker Carlson beat his wife" in which an actor portraying a character named "Tucker Carlson," complete with bow tie, beats another actor portraying Mrs. Carlson -- as long as ABC called the miniseries a "partially fictionalized docudrama." That wouldn't be fine with us, and we doubt it would really be fine with Tucker Carlson, either.

But at least Carlson is consistent -- or so he said. Carlson said that efforts to persuade ABC to cancel the miniseries constitute "censorship." And he said that he took the same position when conservatives successfully pressured CBS into canceling a planned docudrama about former President Ronald Reagan.

Well, we checked on that -- and it turned out that Carlson wasn't telling the truth. In 2003, during the CBS controversy, Carlson specifically rejected the "censorship" description, saying, "ou devalue the term censorship when you apply to the CBS scenario. CBS admitted this thing was inaccurate. That's why they pulled it."

What's the difference between now and 2003 that would cause Carlson to not only change his position, but deceive his audience about it as well? Two possibilities come to mind. First, Carlson in 2003 was defending conservative critics of CBS. In 2006, he's attacking progressive critics of ABC. And second, Carlson has a relationship with ABC: He has traded in his trademark bow tie for a satin shirt in order to appear on that network's Dancing With the Stars.

The ABC film's most vicious smear is its reported depiction of the Clinton administration as unwilling and unable to take Osama bin Laden seriously because it was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky matter. According to Editor & Publisher, the film "explores the terrorist threat starting with the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, and there is little question that President Clinton is dealt with severely, almost mockingly, with the Lewinsky scandal closely tied to his failure to cripple al-Qaeda." E&P went on to describe one scene in which former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke is depicted telling then-FBI special agent John O'Neill, who died on 9-11, that Clinton won't order a strike against bin Laden because of the Lewinsky investigation:

Mr. Clinton was, in fact, ready and willing to undertake a special forces or other paramilitary assault on bin Laden, particularly after our missile attacks on bin Laden in the summer of 1998, and often pressed his senior military advisers for options. But Mr. Clinton's top military and intelligence advisers concluded that a commando raid was likely to be a failure, given the potential for detection, in the absence of reliable, predictive intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts.

Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda.

There is so much more to this- Please check out the excellent - Media Matters
http://mediamatters.org/

[patrice]

1. With all of those Conservatives saying it shouldn't be shown,

I'm thinking, now, that it should.

It will create an extended opportunity to talk about what the facts REALLY are *AND* we get to air our 9/11 questions.

[KoKo]

5. With the MSM all corporate owned how would "we" get a chance to

start a dialog about the errors in this fakeumentary, though? We all know the Media Bias for the Repugs. There would be NO Discussion, ever.

[jab105]

8. No, it wont be "talked" about except for around here, and w/political

junkies...

Most AMericans will take it at face value, and that means that American history (literally) of the most tragic day in AMerican histroy will be based on a lie...this is so serious...I am flabbergasted that Disney isn't pulling it...

This is going to hurt Democrats A LOT!
This is going to hurt AMERICA a LOT!!

And that is the main reason why its being pushed so hard by conservatives...

Disney doesn't mind pissing off democrats...this would be completely different if the political tables are turned...

[TwentyFive]

2. If the 'film' shows - we should all BOYCOTT Disney forever and evermore!

Disney has stooped to the level of Goebbels and the Nazis. Making a 5 hour, $40,000,000 propaganda hit piece 8 weeks before a national election is a sin I will never forget or forgive.

Even if the Democrats still win - or the motivations behind making it are exposed - this film will cut their margin of victory. A private company throwing its weight behind altering the political landscape is a unpardonable sin.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. If a *FOX News* host says the film is defamatory...

>>>>Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said of the film: "hen you put somebody on the screen and say that's Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it's slanderous, I think it's defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.">>>>>


... then the film is *defamatory*.

[LaPera]

4. Take Action!

Tell Disney and ABC to stop playing partisan politics with 9-11

Disney reveals clear double standard on inaccurate, pro-conservative "docudrama"

How do I contact ABCNEWS.com?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Reference/story?id=54216

How do I contact ABC Entertainment?
http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html

As Media Matters for America has pointed out -- and nearly everyone from 9-11 Commission members and members of Congress to prominent conservative pundits and executives at ABC has already acknowledged -- Disney-owned ABC's upcoming "docudrama" The Path to 9/11 is a fabricated, inaccurate, and misleading portrayal of the events leading up to 9-11, one which Disney and ABC deceptively marketed as a documentary-style film based on the 9-11 Commission report.

It has become apparent in recent days that Disney's production is rife with factual errors, inaccuracies, and omissions, and it relies on scenes that even those involved in its production readily admit are fabricated. The movie's premise, reportedly, joins the cause of right-wing conservatives in blaming former President Bill Clinton for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks while simultaneously letting President Bush off the hook.

But ABC's corporate parent, The Walt Disney Co., appears to be employing a double standard. It refused to distribute Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was highly critical of President Bush, even though it was produced by a Disney subsidiary, Miramax Films. Disney representatives also reportedly threatened to sue the publisher of James Stewart's book DisneyWar if it contained inaccuracies.

It does not speak well of Disney's credibility when it refuses to distribute a progressive movie and threatens legal action against some inaccuracies, and yet will stand silent while its ABC subsidiary spends millions of dollars making a miniseries that distorts history to falsely blame President Clinton for the 9-11 attacks.

Please contact Disney and urge it not to broadcast this false attack on President Clinton -- and remind it of its refusal to distribute a film critical of President Bush.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609080005?src=weekly200609090003

[cspanlovr]

6. I hope they show it and everyone sues them, big time..

Isn't that they way we found out Gen. Westmorland was making up all those enemy casualty figures? Time Mag. reported it, Westmorland sued, and the truth came out in court. There might be a silver lining in all of this. I hope so.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

7. kick.

:kick: