Page 1 of 2

Clinton officials to ABC: Fix or pull 9/11 miniseries

Posted: Sep 7th, '06, 15:35
by XtremeJibber2001
This morning I heard the headline " Clinton officials to ABC: Fix or pull 9/11 miniseries" and I wondered why Clinton is so hot and bothered, but low and behold, it's what I expected. See bold. Personally, I remember watching a history channel 'documentary' (not a dramatization) and they commented on the first of the two bold portions below. There was at least one chance to grab/bomb bin laden, but clinton refused. When Sudan had him and Clinton refused. I guess it makes sense why Clinton gets hot and bothered, why would he want the public to know he did that!? haha

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... 1-2001Oct2
NEW YORK (AP) -- A miniseries about the events leading to the September 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, former Clinton administration officials demanded in letters to the head of ABC's parent company.

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band all wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11." (Read the letter from Sandy Berger -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat)

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the September 11 commission. ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary.

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

The letter writers said that the miniseries contained factual errors, and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known," Lindsey and Band wrote in their letter.

The letter writers pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries, but which they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, and that she was the one who made the warning.

"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said. (Read Albright's letter -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat)

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

Lindsey and Band objected to advertisements for the miniseries, which they said suggested that Clinton wasn't paying enough attention to the threat of terrorism.

"While ABC is promoting 'The Path to 9/11' as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," they said. "Given your stated obligation to 'get it right,' we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film."

Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada commented on the controversy at a morning news conference.

"I haven't seen it, but from everything I've heard it's not down the middle. It's not fair at all. And to have a film that seems to be biased and take one side put on by a network seems to be the wrong thing to do," said Schumer. "You can't take a film that's supposed to report on something that's so real and so close and make it into fiction. That's beneath ABC's dignity."

"They started off this as being a documentary," added Reid. "They changed it to a docudrama and now it's a work of fiction and that's what it is. And, yes, they should pull it."

The five-hour miniseries is set to run without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. Among the actors in it are Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.

Posted: Sep 7th, '06, 16:00
by BigKahuna13
I believe the crux of the issue is really this:

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

In short ABC has made stuff up and Clinton and Co are worried that people will take it for gospel truth.

The film depicts real people and real events, they should stick to the facts as known and not fictionalize anything. Otherwise they should call it work of fiction.

Posted: Sep 7th, '06, 17:20
by Dr. NO
BigKahuna13 wrote:I believe the crux of the issue is really this:

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

In short ABC has made stuff up and Clinton and Co are worried that people will take it for gospel truth.

The film depicts real people and real events, they should stick to the facts as known and not fictionalize anything. Otherwise they should call it work of fiction.
Per ABC, the film is NOT a documentory or Docu-Drama, but a mini-series DRAMA. It has a disclaimer that events, people and time have been changed to fit the story line. Besides, what does Billy Boy have to worry about. He didn't do anything wrong, he just didn't do much of anything. Now Berger on the other hand stole documents.

I would say show it in its entirety and see if the Clinton Gang really wants the whole and true story to be seen. Bet they don't.

Posted: Sep 7th, '06, 17:37
by Cityskier
Dr. NO wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:I believe the crux of the issue is really this:

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

In short ABC has made stuff up and Clinton and Co are worried that people will take it for gospel truth.

The film depicts real people and real events, they should stick to the facts as known and not fictionalize anything. Otherwise they should call it work of fiction.
Per ABC, the film is NOT a documentory or Docu-Drama, but a mini-series DRAMA. It has a disclaimer that events, people and time have been changed to fit the story line. Besides, what does Billy Boy have to worry about. He didn't do anything wrong, he just didn't do much of anything. Now Berger on the other hand stole documents.

I would say show it in its entirety and see if the Clinton Gang really wants the whole and true story to be seen. Bet they don't.
It pales in comparison to the true story we are living through right now. I could give a crap what Disney's take on the events are. Haven't the events surrounding 9/11 been embellished enough by the Bush administration? I don't think it's necessary in a movie. It was bad enough that they used it as justification for war when billions of dollars could have been used to find the madman who masterminded the attack.

But keep eating up all the BS...I'm sure they'll keep feeding it to you.

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 12:08
by ski_adk
I think it's too soon for a dramatized retelling of the story, since the entire story still hasn't been completely settled. I mean, are they going to ignore the documents that said "Bin Laden Determined to Attack US"? Are they going to show Bush being more concerned about reading to children as opposed to running the country?

Sorry to sound partisan because I do acknowledge that Clinton's administration was horribly neglectful of Bin Ladin as well, but really, what it all comes down to is that the whole thing was and still is a tragic comedy of errors. I still don't hear an solutions being offered except for "stay the course." All I hear is blame being thrown back and forth. My peers and countrymen are bleeding and dying in a foreign land and all that the powers that be want to do is place blame for an event that started as much as 10 - 20 years ago? What a farce!

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 13:11
by Bubba
ski_adk wrote:I think it's too soon for a dramatized retelling of the story, since the entire story still hasn't been completely settled. I mean, are they going to ignore the documents that said "Bin Laden Determined to Attack US"? Are they going to show Bush being more concerned about reading to children as opposed to running the country?

Sorry to sound partisan because I do acknowledge that Clinton's administration was horribly neglectful of Bin Ladin as well, but really, what it all comes down to is that the whole thing was and still is a tragic comedy of errors. I still don't hear an solutions being offered except for "stay the course." All I hear is blame being thrown back and forth. My peers and countrymen are bleeding and dying in a foreign land and all that the powers that be want to do is place blame for an event that started as much as 10 - 20 years ago? What a farce!
I had a long discussion with a very good friend of mine last night - he's dead set against this administration and its policies, can't stand Joe Lieberman, is disappointed in Hillary, etc. and is, to say the least, a die-hard liberal Democrat. He thinks the solution to what's happening in Iraq is to break the country up into its ethnic areas, stabilize those that can be stabilized (everything but the Sunni Triangle is, essentially, reasonably stable already, and leave as quickly as possible thereafter. I don't agree with him (yet) but at least that's one debatable solution to creating an exit for us.

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 13:28
by XtremeJibber2001
Just something interesting to note ... the way the advertisements are being played ... I have to say it does sound like they're running a documentary. I for one am sick of seeing the WTC's collapse and the countless shows being made on the attack.

On the note of politians ... I don't know there is anyone that will run in 2008 that is worthy of my vote. Like 2004, I will vote for the lesser of two evils.

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 13:49
by ski_adk
How about the lesser of 2 weevils.

Image

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 13:51
by SkiDork
I have no idea..... Unfortunately...

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 13:54
by XtremeJibber2001
ski_adk wrote:How about the lesser of 2 weevils.

Image
Now those two have a plan!

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 15:21
by BigKahuna13
Bubba wrote: He thinks the solution to what's happening in Iraq is to break the country up into its ethnic areas, stabilize those that can be stabilized (everything but the Sunni Triangle is, essentially, reasonably stable already, and leave as quickly as possible thereafter. I don't agree with him (yet) but at least that's one debatable solution to creating an exit for us.
Since the longer things go on in Iraq the more it becomes apparent that for whatever reason it takes a dictator to hold the thing together, your friend may just be right.

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 18:53
by Dr. NO
So, now the leading Senate Democrats have issued a THREAT or ultimatum to ABC to "correct" or pull the series. So, who is to determine what is right or wrong on a f'n TV series?

Kahuna, you are the Libertarian. Do you think it is right for the Senate Democrats to write a letter to ABC and Threaten their licenses and such for content of a series? If they don't agree with what you say, they can stop you from broadcasting? WTF is this coming to?

Posted: Sep 8th, '06, 23:04
by BigKahuna13
Dr. NO wrote: Kahuna, you are the Libertarian. Do you think it is right for the Senate Democrats to write a letter to ABC and Threaten their licenses and such for content of a series? If they don't agree with what you say, they can stop you from broadcasting? WTF is this coming to?
Haven't heard that, but if it's as you say - no that's not right. ABC can air pretty much whatever they like, although the right thing to do would be to not call it a documentary (or docu-drama) if it contains fictional elements.

Posted: Sep 9th, '06, 09:46
by Bubba
BigKahuna13 wrote:
Dr. NO wrote: Kahuna, you are the Libertarian. Do you think it is right for the Senate Democrats to write a letter to ABC and Threaten their licenses and such for content of a series? If they don't agree with what you say, they can stop you from broadcasting? WTF is this coming to?
Haven't heard that, but if it's as you say - no that's not right. ABC can air pretty much whatever they like, although the right thing to do would be to not call it a documentary (or docu-drama) if it contains fictional elements.
Gee, Dems didn't get upset about Faranheit 911 and other nonsense like that. Wonder why......

Posted: Sep 9th, '06, 11:44
by BigKahuna13
Bubba wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
Dr. NO wrote: Kahuna, you are the Libertarian. Do you think it is right for the Senate Democrats to write a letter to ABC and Threaten their licenses and such for content of a series? If they don't agree with what you say, they can stop you from broadcasting? WTF is this coming to?
Haven't heard that, but if it's as you say - no that's not right. ABC can air pretty much whatever they like, although the right thing to do would be to not call it a documentary (or docu-drama) if it contains fictional elements.
Gee, Dems didn't get upset about Faranheit 911 and other nonsense like that. Wonder why......
I never saw Fahrenheit 911 so I can't comment, but one radio talking head suggested that comparisons between the two aren't valid because

a Moore didn't invent any footage
b. It was pretty clear that Moore was pushing his point of view

while in this particular film invented footage can conceivably be interpreted as fact.