Disney's Fake 9-11 propaganda movie aka the Dems sorta growing a pair

http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

Would be nice if it could get shut down.

oh, fucking ewww.

Still, the entire thing is bullshit. They're running the series over two days, with NO ad breaks. They sent out dvd screeners to every batshit rightwing radio show and fuckhead authoritarian blogger you can think of.

If this is the kinda shit they pull when they're scared that something's gunna happen electorally, then 2008's gun' be real fun.

Also, the same night, I wonder how the Giants will outhink Peyton Manning.

Because that's what America will be watching.

seriously, are people outside of Clinton's inner circle (who are worried about his legacy)that concerned about this? any links to a non-party hack (from either side) take on this would be appreciated.

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1157602788.shtml

Dude over at The Moderate Voice posting up a volley of links & newbits about it all.

Just to take the most obvious recent example, despite the 9/11 Commision Report and countless news reports to the contrary, a majority of the American public still think that Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for those attacks. All this because the first version of events to implant itself as the truth in someone's brain becomes very difficult to correct or supplant.

Now, combine this sort of docu-drama, as seen by tens of millions, with the ability of any current administration to implant any message it likes into the American consciousness, and when both sets of distortions reinforce one another, the predictable result will be millions of voters believing that, what can only be objectively described as lies, are actually the truth. This can affect the outcome of close elections, and lately in the USA there have been no other kind of elections.

This is a legitimate cause for concern I should think.

But yesterday, writer and avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh admitted that the films most controversial scene was based on nothing at all. Nowrasteh told a right-wing radio station that the scene was “improvised.” From the New York Times:

Mr. Berger’s character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the mini-series’ screenwriter and one of its producers, said that moment had been improvised.

“Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone,” Mr. Nowrasteh said. “That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you’re making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, ‘You know, maybe we can use that.’ ”

Nowrasteh’s attitude appears completely inconsistent with ABC Entertainment President Steve McPherson. In promotional materials accompanying the film, McPherson said, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

oh yeah, and that extended scene in the show where Clinton skullfucks the body of vince foster while eating a supersized big mac? totally thought up on the spot by folks who were "in the moment", as they say

The hypocrisy on this by Democrats is nothing short of hilarious. The comments by that thieving, incompetent liar Sandy Berger are especially priceless.

xpost

You crack me up, dude.

football, innit? thus the Giants/Peyton Manning comment linked to above

whatevs!

DONT TAKE IT TOM

http://www.computerclubhouse.org/flagship/people/Luigi/pics/luigi-50.jpg Eli.

http://gpclone.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/yoshi.jpg Vinateri.

http://vectorlib.free.fr/MarioBross/jpg/toad.jpg Tiki.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/30/250px-Peach_SPP.jpg Jeremey Shockey.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j294/DrKendalla/Bowser_mp7.jpg Madden.

another thing to note -- the only 9/11 commission member to have this thing ran past was tom kean, former GOP governor of NJ -- whose son, tom kean jr. is currently in the middle of a tight race for the U.S. Senate in NJ. interesting, innit? (note too: the abc affiliates in both NYC and philadelphia are owned directly by disney.)

L-R: TOMBOT, A Liar.

So anyway, dudes, what do we think about this Mon. game anyway? I am kind of thinking Peyton might freak himself out about it and really fuck up, no need to outthink him at all. Too much pressure blahbibbity blaaaah. OTOH Jeremey Shockey: still a Giant, and fuck that.

I really am not bothered when someone of your intellectual capacity insults me TOMBOT. It's funny. I laugh at you. I laugh at your imbecilic demeanor. I laugh thinking that you take yourself seriously. Maybe I'm just easily amused, or maybe I feel sorry for you.

Hey Tad - I'm guessing that part of the reason Kean Senior was a script advisor was because he was Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Not saying that ensured fairness or accuracy, just saying that it was at least somewhat logical.

and who's Bob-Omb?

Hey TOMBOT, you're sinking in your own shit. Do you know anything about Sandy Berger? I didn't think so.

Oh 100% for certain but I still think Peyton is gonna fold up like a pair of ladies' underpants.

don, I wish Michael Strahan would come and rip your hands off so the rest of us don't have to be submerged in your nonsense right now. Alas, Strahan is too much of a teddy bear.

Oh please tell me you didn't mean to write that. Roffle.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/europe/hero/images/bono.jpg

Still roffling at "as for the topic at hand, I don't really see this movie as the Dems growing a pair at all."

xpost: Wow, this is a thread full of love.

they sent out DVDs to Democrats and held a screening in DC where Democrats were invited (and attended.)

fact.

The hypocrisy on this by Democrats is nothing short of hilarious.

As an example, Republicans wanted to keep the revisionist Fahrenheit 9/11 out of theaters, especially given the release was explicitly timed to affect the election, Democrats snickered and charges of censorship were bandied about. Here we go again, gooses and ganders.

The comments by that thieving, incompetent liar Sandy Berger are especially priceless.

I'm not going to force anyone to read Berger's criminal record or relieve the embarassment of someone of his stature stealing documents from the National Archive and shoving them down his pants and in his socks, but his perspective on Al Qaeda and what the Clinton Administration has shifted from time to time.

And FWIW, I'm astounding underpaid.

http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/_borders/34428.jpg

fact.

can you actually back that up with some sourcing, please?

if it is true, then why are the creators currently denying early copies to the Clintons?

they sent out DVDs to Democrats and held a screening in DC where Democrats were invited (and attended.)

I don't know what or who you are quoting here, but that quote first appears on this thread when you quoted it, just above. Jeez, don, take a few moments to make sense, will you? You call that a "fact" and speak of an "original" post. What is your source for this quote?

If it isn't a quote, then don't make it look like one, ok? Thx.

I've watched the entire ABC miniseries, which is more than a lot of its critics can probably say, and "a pox on everybody" is not an inaccurate description of how it views the pre-9/11 years. Yes, the Clinton administration comes in for some water torture. It was in charge of the executive branch for much of that time, after all. But Republicans don't fare especially well, either. Condi Rice gets knocked around. Congressional Republicans aren't depicted as a bunch of Cassandras: The film suggests that impeachment-obsessed Republicans did their nation a disservice because they distracted the Clinton administration at a time when it should have been more focused on terrorism. The movie's heroes are the late FBI agent John O'Neill and, to a lesser extent, former counter-terror official Richard Clarke.

logical, yes -- but ABC also apparently overlooked the equally logical fact that kean has a conflict of interest here. namely, and as i said above, that his son is running as the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in a closely-contested election in NJ. and that the ABC stations in both NYC and Philly -- from which NJ viewers get their news b/c there is no ABC station at all in NJ itself -- are directly owned by ABC and therefore they cannot pre-empt the movie (unless ABC itself pulls the plug).

key phrase from above: 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.

conflicting with this bit from the NRO blog entry to which ned linked:

I've watched the entire ABC miniseries, which is more than a lot of its critics can probably say, and "a pox on everybody" is not an inaccurate description of how it views the pre-9/11 years.

someone is being very cute here -- the NRO dude says he's see the "entire ABC miniseries" while ABC says that no-one has seen the "final version". talking about clintonian parsing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_to_9/11

ABC insists that their movie is non-partisan and currently has no plans to make changes or corrections[11].

Which takes you to ABC's official statement:

"Offical ABC Statement on The Path to 9/11"

"The Path to 9/11 is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews.

"The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate.

"The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."—ABC Television, September 7, 2006.

xpost

I'm not going to take your word for it just because you say so, Don.

What's your source on this? Can we see some numbers to back this up?

If they have screened it for comment, as they clearly have, then it is totally disingenuous to state that the resulting comments are premature - and it is worse than disingenuous to state that such comments are "irresponsible" when they appear to be wholly factually based and merited criticisms of what was shown.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0473404/

As for one party being involved in the editing, well, we knew ABC would veer rightward once that crazed socialist Peter Jennings expired.

If this one doesn't stick, I expect an ABC-Disney PR flak issues "mea culpa" statement of synthetic remorse for public consumption shockah!

What's your source on this? Can we see some numbers to back this up?

Well, Don's getting paid for something, ergo TOMBOT thinks Don is overpaid.

first,
-Stephen Root as counter-terror guy Richard Clarke,
-HARVEY KEITEL as the hero FBI guy,
-Death from Bill & Ted(and TRESPASS!!) plays another agent guy,
-the chick from Field of Dreams is an analyst type

and DONNIE WALHBERG as "Kirk"!

holy shit and and AND! the collected wisdom of the IMDB board

bush	justinvanvoorhis
• BOEING 757-200 @ 125' x 155' x 44' @ PENTAGON HOLE 16' x 8' ? NOT!	directedby
Canadians	marco782_
Unusual Evacuations + Power-Downs in the WTC Prior To 9/11	supermasti
Why is the Bad Lieutenant in this thing?	18092460nine
Based on the 9/11 Whitewash Commission 	roninf5-1
**A LIAR, ADULTERER, + MURDERER -- A TRIPLE THREAT!! 	Red-Channels 	0 	1 minute ago
If this is anti-Clinton... 	tdaugherty2005 	1 	1 minute ago
Is this Movie made with a Conservative bias? 	healthguru 	7 	1 minute ago
Why do people even bother arguing over politics? 	nihilist29 	4 	1 minute ago
divided state 	juliawhathaveyoudone 	3 	4 minutes ago
THAT CLINTON BASTARD IS RESPONESIBLE FOR 9/11 	blackmanwithbigsteel 	1 	4 minutes ago
Bush was asleep on watch before 911 	gatoboat 	11 	7 minutes ago
No 9/11 if Clinton was President. 	afs1-1 	13 	8 minutes ago
ABC WILL EDIT FILM FOR DEMOCRATS!!!! 	moistenedbink 	7 	27 minutes ago
bush

Recent Posts (updated daily)

bush

• BOEING 757-200 @ 125' x 155' x 44' @ PENTAGON HOLE 16' x 8' ? NOT!

Canadians

Unusual Evacuations + Power-Downs in the WTC Prior To 9/11

Why is the Bad Lieutenant in this thing?

Based on the 9/11 Whitewash Commission

divided state

Totally Inaccurate Re-Write of 9/11

**A LIAR, ADULTERER, + MURDERER -- A TRIPLE THREAT!!

If this is anti-Clinton...

Is this Movie made with a Conservative bias?

Pentagon / 757 wreckage photos

Enough all ready

Why do people even bother arguing over politics?

THAT CLINTON BASTARD IS RESPONESIBLE FOR 9/11

Bush was asleep on watch before 911

Oh, and the CLINTON BASTARD thread was started by "blackmanwithbigsteel", so, you know, watch out

Seriously, I'd love to play all day long but at times I am very busy being astoundingly underpaid.

anyway: from the Washington Post:

"ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate."

I have seen this event (the screening) depicted as one for (or hosted) by the National Press Club. Sorry, I don't remember where I read that. As for the veracity of what ABC says about who they sent DVDs to, well, I have no idea. I simply posted what I read in the WaPo, which seems pretty fair game. Even on this thread. But thanks anyway for presuming I was lying or making shit up.

that one's funny Allyzay. similar coloring actually, but I have more hair and am thinner.

i got the dawn weiner thing like 18 months ago, but I wasn't sure if it was intentional

ABC ALTERS 9/11 FILM DUE TO POLITICAL PRESSURE

(except that the actual article doesn't include "political" in the actual headline, but whatevs)

"The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.

See? See?! it relies heavily on public records! shit MUST be legit, then!

"'The Path to 9/11' Study Guide: You Didn't Fall For That Shit, Did You?"

not bad, if these actually get out

(Also, FWIW, I've made specific references to the dawn weiner thing on several threads)

Leaving aside that only one participant in this thread spoke of your having "probably" made shit up, I should like to point out the fact ("fact"!) that you posted as a quotation a sentence that you had most certainly 'made up', since you were the author of the sentence in question.

So, to put this as delicately as possible, that single poster appears to have been more than justified in his assumption than you seem to realize or acknowlege, don. But, no doubt it was an innocent mistake on your part to have set your own conclusions within the requisite HTML tags for italics, or possibly you were unaware that this is widely used as a convention for quoting not yourself, but others, who when properly identified one may decide to credit or not, after considering the source.

So, don, please take your urge to feel hurt and aggrieved in this instance and... stifle it. Thank you.

Was it?

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/07/reagans_script/index.html

and did he?

Anyway aside from that this miniseries thing probably ISN'T as bad as some of the former admin players are calling it, the differences may be largely trivial, but I find it kind of ridiculous to have some scene where a CLINTON official is denying somebody the opportunity to blow up anything in one of the -istans, I mean soap factories, people.

NO SHIT

Aimless, do we REALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS??? Jeezus. Here is what that post you refer to started with:

"Original post (actually, it was three lines):"

I then break down my post into three lines, italicized so that I can elaborate on those three lines, per request. See the colon? That's how you should have figured out that I was quoting my original post. How could I have made that clearer? If those were someone else's quotes from a source, don't you think I would have put quote marks around them? Or is the problem here that you just didn't read it right the first time, and are now backtracking and sidestepping?

Leaving aside that only one participant in this thread spoke of your having "probably" made shit up

Danny and Mickey both questioned my source; you, because you were confused, ultimately made a similar allegation. Don't worry, I'm not hurt about this Aimless. I'm just right about it.

plame indictments shortlist
Plamegate countdown for the final week...
I resent the assumption that I am excited about "Fitzmas"

And my point was that the method of distribution is entirely why your now-admitted-by-you terrible comparison was, well, terrible. If you utterly cannot figure out why something like this*, which, if as bad as said, you might very well call political propaganda and advertising for a very specific political party and agenda, on network television is very different from the exact same thing being put into a movie theatre or on cable television, then I don't know what to tell you. You're an idiot if you need this spelled out for you, but you've done utterly nothing on this thread but prove that you're an idiot anyway so whatever.

* (or what I presume "this" to be like--I haven't seen it and, if it is as bad as people say, I can't figure out what deal in Hell someone at Disney lost that convinced them to put it on the air, so I'm not sure I buy it)

(I think the reasons for Disney/ABC for doing this are more obvious than one would think, and is the same reason many Republican candidates are tremblingly accosting Bush today for support. If they don't, and they lose, they're cut off forever, but if they succeed, they get to keep and profit from all the great lack of social responsibilities they've enjoyed for a while.)

..."The Path to 9/11" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision.

[...]

At FrontPageMag, Horowitz singled out [the screenwriter]as the victim. "The attacks by former president Bill Clinton, former Clinton Administration officials and Democratic US senators on Cyrus Nowrasteh's ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" are easily the gravest and most brazen and damaging governmental attacks on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans since 9/11," Horowitz declared.

Meanwhile, Rush is saying that the only people aginst the movie are Stalinists in the Democratic Party.

Man--2008 is gonna be zany.

Of course, the question obsessing everyone today is: Does the movie misrepresent events, conversations and policies of the Clinton administration?

Yes and no.

Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's anger is unquestionably justified. The version that I saw has her self-righteously owning up to actions that effectively tipped off Osama bin Laden to a strike against his Afghan training camp. "We had to inform the Pakistanis," the movie's Albright insists.

The real Albright says she neither did nor said such a thing and that the meeting we see in the movie never took place. The 9/11 Commission report, on which the film is partly based, says it was a senior military official who told the Pakistanis.

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn't deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden.

Samuel Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. The version of the film I saw portrays him as having ruined the CIA's one clear shot at bin Laden himself.

"Do we have clearance" to shoot, the CIA asks Berger, with Osama in their sights, and Berger responds, "I don't have that authority." That scene never took place in real life. The imputation that an actual living person named Sandy Berger refused to give a specific OK to an operation that would have put an end to Osama bin Laden three years before 9/11 is a libel.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/path_missed_real_9_11_story_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm

recent scene from show:

"the government believes the citizens have a right to be protected from domestic spying"
"don't the citizens also deserve protection from terrorists?"

am turning it off now

Madeleine Albright succeeded in forcing its makers to re-edit the film so it's as lethally dull as her speeches.

Everyone got this form letter reply:

"Thank you for your e-mail.

'The Path to 9/11', to be transmitted over September 10 & 11 is a drama based on real events and, as with any drama, the writer's perspective will be brought to bear on those events. A statement at the beginning of the programme is clear about the sources and methods which have been used:

"The following dramatization is based on the 9/11 Commission Report and other published sources and personal interviews. Composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compression have been used for dramatic purposes".

It is not our practice to engage in public debate about the contents of programmes before they've been transmitted, but what we will say is that this subject matter is always going to be politically controversial. Most of the events take place when the Clinton administration was in power so naturally it will feature heavily.

The programme has been reviewed by the Editorial Policy team and we are confident it lives up to high standards of fairness and accuracy.

With this in mind, we hope you will enjoy the drama.

Regards

BBC Information"

Well, they do have John Stossel, who is a libertarian, and therefore tends to side with the conservative side of things. I saw a news special he did on ABC once where he examined lots of "myths" such as the "myth" that guns are dangerous, or that recycling is necessary, or that the environment is really in danger, etc.. It was pretty outrageous.

COURIC: If you've been with us this week, you probably know we have a new segment we're trying called "Free Speech," where newsmakers, opinion makers, and just plain folks tell us what's on their minds. With the fifth anniversary of 9-11 coming up, the topic tonight is the war on terror, and there may be no one more opinionated on the subject than radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh...

I don't think anyone doubts that. Supposedly, ABC ended up cutting a bunch of stuff at the last minute to stave off lawsuits. I'm just saying that, you know, ABC doesn't have any sort of history as the broadcast version of Fox News.

Or you could just read my first post to the thread, Alan

You're right. You beat me to the obvious by a few days.

Well, they do have John Stossel, who is a libertarian, and therefore tends to side with the conservative side of things. I saw a news special he did on ABC once where he examined lots of "myths" such as the "myth" that guns are dangerous, or that recycling is necessary, or that the environment is really in danger, etc.. It was pretty outrageous.

I honestly don't think John Stossel's segments are any more indicative of the mindset of the network or its news department any more than Andy Rooney or Charles Grodin are of CBS and their respective departments.

I'm not going to try to guess the "mindset of the network" - if such a thing can be assessed - but the fact that Stossel is given prominent prime-time slots to do hour-long specials promulgating his slanted views as news shows something about the lack of journalistic responsibility there.

Are the Dems hopelessly screwed (moreso) now?

To the extent this could do any damage the dems, the damage will be done. However, with Bush as party leader and his approval ratings at about 35%, the Republicans are not likely to see a groundswell of adoration out of this - it will only drive the negative ratings of the Dems a bit lower. It's the usual ploy.

The collective snooze heard nationwide last night indicated the damage the film's airing did to the Democratic party.

And even that may have only been because of the publicity stirred up by the controversy. I'm mildly concerned about this getting shown in schools, but not losing any sleep over it.

I still hope ABC gets sued for libel. And I hope they pay more in damages than they made on this crap series.

Thinking about all this makes me unhappy, so the obvious and correct solution is to "chill out" a bit and just stop thinking so much. We should learn a thing or two from our president. You don't see him getting all balled up by thinking all the time, especially if they are unpleasant things. What a relief.

Hey! How about that Peyton Manning?!

There were no ads, right? They didn't make ANY money off this, aside from the value of publicity or whatnot. Which is kinda what makes its alleged historical inaccuracy so creepy.

Thinking about all this makes me unhappy, so the obvious and correct solution is to "chill out" a bit and just stop thinking so much. We should learn a thing or two from our president

No, I think we ought to all shrink back into a corner together and tremble at the awesome propaganda machine that is the Republican Party. They're at it again, and there's nothing we can do to stop them! They're so much better at this than us! That's going to help the Democrats win elections.

They make money off the ads running for shows after it. Having a big number like that gives you a shot at a big lead in for following shows.

The vertigo shot of Harvey Keitel walking down the stairs of the WTC could've been lifted from the "Rubber Biscuit"/dolly scene of Mean Streets.

Anyway. Tora Tora Tora was much better.

I'm going out on a limb and say that, of all companies possible, it probably wasn't that one. Still, if you're doing a full-on hitpiece chocked with 7 different flavors of bullshit, why not take all the pissant shots you can get?

WHAT THE FUCK. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE PEOPPLE CAME FROM CANADAQ THOSE FUCKING DISNEY DOUCHE BAGS

the hilarious thing about this is that clinton and his appointees are portrayed as cowardly, quivering, and indecisive, and ultimately almost more responsible for 9/11 than the terrorists themselves. there's this awesome scene with a psychotic (and real-life right winger i think) patricia heaton playing the u.s. ambassador to yemen who apparently singlehandedly ruined our shot at getting some terrorists because she was politically correct. and anyone who watched this and thought it was an equal-opportunity basher of both parties is dead wrong. the worst thing that's said about the bush administration is sherry pal...er, condoleeza rice shifted richard clarke's role in an awkward manner. otherwise they were apparently super-decisive in the days leading up to 9/11.

clinton is seen only through the eyes of his underlings calling him "pathetic", or through the eyes of the terrorists, to whom he is "satan". bush is never mentioned by the terrorists at all, but clinton is, over and over again. i felt as if we were meant to empathize with the terrorists at the expense of the sleazy asshole clinton.

also, this was really dull and choppy and poorly made and the climactic 9/11 scenes were not chilling, haunting, shaking, moving, or anything other than perfunctory.

yeah she is a real-life wingnut. politics aside everyone should hate her for "everybody loves raymond," tho.

Now will you hysterical people stop going on and on about your mad conspiracies? It's been days since this controversy started, and frankly, I think that a conservative hit piece on the last Democratic administration, based on the outright fabrication of major events leading up to one of our nations greatest tragedies, presented as an historical “docudrama” on network television, is just not that big a deal.

OH. WELL THAT'S OPKAY THEN.

i agree, but the article insinuated that the mere presence of right-wingers in the film industry was somehow deeply troubling and wrong.

What school boards have approved "The Path to 9-11" as a truthful visualization of the 9-11 commission.

DUDE SRSLY NOW EW

this is the set-up with Scholastic to send out copies of related shit to high schools across the land, with a letter-writing campaign to get teachers to recommend students watch it.

When one considers the consistent actions over the past decade of the right wing leadership, such as Tom Delay and Dick Armey, and examines such power-grabbing initiatives as the 'K' Street Project, or the sleaziness of the Paula Jones litigation and the Clinton impeachment, or the multi-billion dollar graft-circus that took place in Iraq under the guise of rebuilding, and when one comes to understand the willingness of the highest officers in the Bush administration to lie and manuipulate the public for the sake of getting their way, then, yes, I'd say suspicion of the methods and motives of right wingers is well-merited until they show us a better record.

yes, we are the majority party and/or compliant Hollywood execs rather than citizens objecting to obscenity

http://www.harrywalker.com/photos/Gore_Tipper.jpg

Exactly.

Why don't we put them on a blacklist and prevent them from seeking work in Hollywood too.

Who's screaming out for censorship? What I am witnessing is a group of people objecting to politically motivated slander masquerading as "docudrama".

Ditto gabbneb.

the article insinuated that the mere presence of right-wingers in the film industry was somehow deeply troubling and wrong.

Here’s as link to the article that Amateur(ist) is talking about. Blumenthal’s rhetoric is shrill (as always), but I disagree with Amateur(ist)’s analysis.

Is Blumenthal saying that conservatives and Republicans shouldn’t be allowed to make movies or TV programs, or is he saying (right or wrong) that there is a concerted political effort by some on the right to enact their political agenda. There’s a difference between an artist with a point of view and a political activist, or, if you will a propagandist.

Here’s the pertinent quote (“working” not “worming”):

Iger now bears ultimate responsibility for authorizing the product of a well-honed propaganda operation--a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far-right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, a secretive evangelical religious right group long associated with Horowitz, founded by The Path to 9/11's director, David Cunningham, that aims to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision, has taken the lead.

I still don't see what's the problem, gabbneb – as long as there's a disclaimer.

This movie seems to fit into that gray area quite comfortably. It is hard to believe that the many distortions were not orchestrated and intentional, but they still fall well within the province of plausible deniability -- and the makers have denied any intent to deceive. If you disbelieve their denial, then you are a conspiracy theorist.

and who is the "studio" in this instance?

With or without comment?

Condemn what? What is the "it" that "people we all hate" do that we are doing?

Side note: Alfred, I never thought you were a Republican.

I think that (predominately) the left's reaction to Pt9/11 is qualitatively and categorically different than the right's usual intimidation tactics and their cries of bias.

think, for example, that Clinton has a legitimate beef with the folks responsible for Pt9/11 for slanderous material contained within that is complete fiction.

I think so too, but then consider the scene in JFK in which mean ol' LBJ barks, "Just git me elected and I'll git ya yer damn war." I suppose Johnson's relatives could have sued Oliver Stone for slander too.

xpost - lbj's dead soto - according to the courts you can say whatever the fuck you want about dead folx (proposal for sequel to abc #1 rated docudrama - hillary murdered vince foster cuz he tried to prevent 9/11!)(if you say you wouldn't watch this you are as bad as stalin).

I agree with your criticism of Stone. There's also a lot of unfounded material in Nixon.

However, Johnson was a Democrat and I don't think the Democrats were running on Watergate or Vietnam when those movies came out.

i thought it was totally fucked-up what stone did in 'jfk' with clay shaw, actually, since this dude was just some poor sap who got into jim garrison's crosshairs because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, sleeping with the wrong people. legally, ollie is fine. morally, he's suspect.

i am boycotting any show i've ever watched on ABC (which group includes the oscars, the CMAs, Stephanopoulos and Grey's, but not Lost). not sure i get the marching orders comment, but dean and rahm have nothing to do with that.

I say:

http://members.tripod.com/~besmirched/GIGO25.JPG

i get more pissed off at batshit conspiracy theorists getting airtime, claiming to know the complex, scary truth when all they are is a bunch of sad, deluded types who wish their lives were like 'the x-files', so they contribute to a large, pulsating meta-fiction about 9/11 and pass it off as truth. the truth is more terrifying and complex and--perhaps--unsolvable.

Because a bunch of people made noise about it.

i get more pissed off at batshit conspiracy theorists getting airtime

I totally agree. One of the side-effects of this is that people tend not to believe genuine stories of corruption, coverup, deceit, collusion, etc.

For example, When this story first aired, many people responded immediately with "crazy conspiracy theory" before listening to perfectly sane people who were presenting perfectly verifyable facts about the creators of Pt9/11 and the innacuracies and fabrications contained within their work.

The problem is that the narrative of the real world (the majority of which is unknown to any individual)is messy, full of distortions and hard to explain simply and efficiently, and the kooks who fumble the real stories make it dificult for the rest of us to trust more reasonable narratives.

Well, it took a bit of doing.

yeah, there's also the problem that this things aren't necessarily obvious. You need to have enough of a background to understand what's going on.

"My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism."

also, it's funny when rightwingers adopt the use of McCarthyism as a weapon.

NEW YORK — I have watched more Disney princess films in the past few weeks than in the entirety of my first five decades on the planet. As a citizen of American popular culture, I enjoy their grace and charm. But as a citizen of this thing called the American republic, with its roots in revolution and its rhetoric of equality, I find them often surreal. Isn’t it odd — and perhaps even wrong, in some deeper ethical sense — that Americans are addicted to these gilded fantasies of privilege?

A fascinating exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art explores something that is hiding in plain sight if you watch Disney cartoons closely: the curious affinity for all things French, especially the trappings of French aristocracy.

The curators of “Inspiring Walt Disney: The Animation of French Decorative Arts” are upfront about one basic fact: Walt Disney made his movies for a very different audience than that for which the artisans of the French rococo produced their dazzling luxury objects.

Disney catered to popular taste, during a democratic era, and his films reached eager viewers around the globe. The clockmakers, figurine designers, vase painters and furniture makers of 18th-century Europe served a wealthy, often aristocratic clientele, and though their designs were widely influential, the things they made were bought and cherished by the elite.

With that caveat, this fascinating exhibition then proceeds to register the astonishing points of contact between these two very different creative worlds. At least three of the Disney company’s most popular and admired films — “Cinderella” (1950), “Sleeping Beauty” (1959) and “Beauty and the Beast” (1991) — borrow heavily from the design and architectural aesthetics of France and other European courts under the sway of Versailles’ cultural hegemony. Luxury, in films like “Cinderella,” is denoted by gold-gilded mirrors, encrusted with the vine and shell motifs that defined the rococo style. When Belle dances with the beast in the famous 1991 “Beauty and the Beast” ballroom scene, it is framed by architecture modeled largely on the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. Early Disney cartoons featured animated porcelain figurines, complete with 18th-century dress, wigs and courtly manners.

...

The dark side of Disney’s unexpected love affair with frothy French rococo