Scarborough hosted Brent Bozell, but no progressive to talk about ABC "docudrama"
SUMMARY: On Scarborough Country, Joe Scarborough invited Media Research Center president Brent Bozell to comment on the controversy surrounding ABC's planned "docudrama," The Path to 9/11, and address claims that the miniseries is slanted one way or the other. Bozell has also regularly appeared on Scarborough Country when conservatives voice displeasure at the media.
L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center, appeared on the September 6 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country to discuss ABC's planned "docudrama," The Path to 9/11 -- a two-part miniseries written and produced by a conservative activist that uses twisted and invented facts and storylines to create a false picture of the Clinton administration's role in failing to prevent the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while largely ignoring Bush administration failures. Host Joe Scarborough invited Bozell, a conservative media critic, to comment on the controversy surrounding the film and address claims that The Path to 9/11 is slanted one way or the other, despite the fact that progressive media watchdogs such as Media Matters for America and the weblog Think Progress have noted numerous reported examples of misinformation in the film and led the campaign to ask ABC to address the film's factual problems. Bozell also regularly appears on Scarborough Country when conservatives voice displeasure at the media. It appears, then, that when conservatives have a particular problem with the media, Scarborough turns to Bozell for analysis. But in a segment to discuss a media event with which progressives have strongly taken issue, Scarborough turns not to a progressive media critic, but to ... Bozell. Again.
A Nexis search revealed that Bozell appeared on Scarborough on February 17, 2005, to criticize the Public Broadcasting Service's alleged "liberal" bias; on April 26, 2005, to criticize polling Bozell claimed was biased against Republican efforts to change Senate rules to prevent the filibuster of judicial nominees; on May 16, 2005, to attack Newsweek for its retracted story on U.S. interrogators flushing a Quran down the toilet at the Pentagon's detention facility at Guantánamo Bay; and on November 28, 2005, to criticize the media's reporting on the Bush administration's secret CIA prisons. Bozell has appeared on Scarborough Country at least four times this year to criticize "bias" in the media.
Bozell was one of several media conservatives identified by Media Matters using essentially identical language to defend the film as "non-partisan." He appeared on the September 6 edition of Scarborough Country opposite former Bush counterterrorism official Roger Cressey:
SCARBOROUGH: Brent Bozell, are you suffering from vertigo tonight? I mean, for years, we've been hearing about how ABC, NBC, CBS is slanted, has a bias against conservatives, but now a lot of people are believing that this docudrama intentionally distorts the facts regarding the Clinton administration.
BOZELL: Well, look, you know, as opposed to President Clinton, I have seen this. And, OK, I don't know where that puts me on the pecking order, but let's be clear about something: The 9/11 Commission Report is not an infallible truth. There are plenty of people who have disputed elements therein. I'm not taking sides, one side or the other. I'm just saying that it is a disputed document by some people. One wishes -- I agree with Roger -- I wish that this had stuck to being a documentary and not gone the way of docudramas, but it did. There will be some things that people on the Clinton side disagree with, as do the Bush people, as well. But I don't think, from what I saw, I didn't see any deliberate attempt to bash either the Clinton side or the Bush side. Look, both -- both administrations do bear a degree of responsibility with all the warning signals that we had that were overlooked.
and he reiterated the serious falsehoods put forth by this film, which out and out does not adhere to the "9-11Commission Report"'s findings. That Bozo got to see the Disney fabrication before Clinton gives him no privilege other than to peck at the truth in the name of political propaganda. It speaks volumes that this ABC mockumentary is being promoted by right-wingers.
progressives to appear on his show.
;-)
When the likes of Hell Bent Bozo is brought on to review an article, a book, a movie, or anything else critical of the Clinton Administration, you can bet your ass you'll hear "I zee nussing, nussing vatsoeffer."
Pudding.
Proof.
I agree, at least Cressy was on. He gave an accurate portrayal of the distorted facts of this 'docudrama' as it's called. He called the FACTS and HISTORY of this film misrepresentative to both Clinton and Bush administrations. While Bozell was obviously there to champion that he had seen it and so forth you have failed to mention that no progressive or left leaning critics were given any opportunity to view film so it might be hard to have them on to give the other side. Cressy's obvious background and familiarity with the events portrayed gave a not only fair rebuttal to Bozell but an indisputable account of certain events that were portrayed as fiction.
BUT remember it's NOT in the Constitution...so they don't have to ;-)
Seriously though, while it is ALWAYS preferable to hear BOTH sides of any issue, I don't think Bozell was particularly biased here. He actually sounded pretty Fair & Balanced.
He gives the illusion of being "fair & balanced" in the same way that Bill O'Reilly does. Here, Bozell claims that both sides will take issue with certain aspects of the portrayal, but fails to note that there are outright fabrications that are clearly intended to put only one side in a poor light. I'd love to hear what parts of the movie he thinks the Bush administration will take issue with.
I don't DISPUTE your suggestion that what Bozell was doing was "lip service" HOWEVER I do give him SOME credit for not using this particular forum to offer a totally BIASED viewpoint. Which of course he could have done very easily.
He didn't come off OVERTLY biased [like a Hannity] That was basically my point.
Sorry J2, I do respect your opinion, but Bozell was there to promote the film and they are trying to sell this fabricated video as bi-partisan.
Roger Cressey: "So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that's fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong. And that's shameful. "
I agree with the stated opinions above that Cressey's rebuttal to this inaccurate historical portrayal is worth even more than the standard political balance and also that "progressive" or Democratic reviewers had no advanced screening in which to have an opinion. I trust Cressey's point of view, Bozell's motivations are not trustworthy.
I'm not sure whether or not any progressive or democratic viewers were able to preview the film, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with you on that point - but it begs the question, if this is true, what does that say about ABC, Disney, and their motivation behind this film? Also, apparently they are planning on showing the film without commercial interupptions from what I'm hearing. This seems like a very, very odd thing to do - spend $40MM on a "docudrama" and sell no advertising??
does not mean that there won't be sponsors (they just bookend the programs). I believe others have posted some sponsor links in another commentary forum on this subject.
Sure Bozell & others [on the Right] appear to be promoting THIS film probably because the Democrats are SO up in arms over it. AND of course because Bill Clinton is being potrayed in a bad light... My POINT was only that Bozell did not come off as a heavy handed partisan which is his USUAL M.O.
As far as Roger Cressy goes, well he's buds with Richard Clarke and they MAY have their own motivations for their OPINIONS concerning the Bush administration's part in all this. While I'm MORE inclined to believe Cressy than anyone in the Bush administration, for now I'll reserve judgment UNTIL I've read/heard more AND seen the film.
I wasn't planning on even watching this film...BUT definitely will now because of all the controversy.
Maybe controversy is a marketer's dream, but I've seen way more than enough evidence to rule out this film's merits. Falsely portrayed history is a disservice to the American public, and broadcasting such an insiduous propagandist attempt is a misuse of the public airwaves, imo. I hope that if petitions and boycotts won't dissuade ABC from airing this revisionist history, then persons with conscience will continue to publicly condemn this film as false and inaccurate. The makers of the video deserve scrutiny for their motivations. ABC cannot truthfully claim that their video is based on the "9-11 Commission Report" 's findings.
I'm heading home-- BUT incase you haven't seen the latest on the ABC controversy [I'll leave the link] for ya.
Here's a snippet from the article:
ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure
ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.
The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.
[link to www.calendarlive.com]
any deliberate attempt to bash either clinton or bush? so lying about clinton is not an attempt to bash him, and of course it didn't bash bush because it attempted to falsely portray him as on the ball when it came to terrorism. he wasn't.