ABC's Path to 9/11 partly based on information from Bush administration PR official

Many items submitted don't really show any bias to observers that don't presuppose one exists (E.D. Hill flailing for instance) but MM has done a good job with this series. Very clear connection.

...it's hard to say whether the material in it is slanted against Clinton or not. Based on just the customer reviews, it looks like there may have been some unflattering portrayals of two or three administrations (including this one). However, since he is a Public Affairs pro for the FBI under the present administration and a reporter, it does raise some questions.

Katz' book doesn't look like it's much more than a non-fiction spy story, but I haven't read that one either.

It's still possible that Platt & Co. colored the information they had with their own political agenda, or they felt that pushing a few buttons (Clinton, governmental inaction, etc.) would help generate controversy. Controversy is always good for marketing.

"Assistant Director of Public Affairs for the FBI"...

Just perfect!

The FBI, perhaps the single most culpable agency of the bush administration regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001...

The FBI, who had one of their paid informants hosting two of the 9-11 hijackers, living in his San Diego home (True!)...

Assistant Director of Public Affairs for the FBI

Perfect!

Aren't there enough issues with "The Path to 9/11" without having to engage in fallacious innuendo? If the item referenced a critique of the book showing its flaws, that would be relevant. However, as written, this item makes a poor argument.

- the book was written several year before Miller went to work for the FBI.

- is the FBI position really a "Bush administration" position, the implication being that he's simply and administration pundit? (I don't know the answer to this...but my point is that not necessarily every FBI employee supports Bush.)

- is the book itself flawed? (I don't know the answer to that, but that should be the question.)

Interesting how they manipulate the time frame to omit the fact that it was Reagan & Bush 1 who CREATED and TRAINED and FUNDED al Quaida via the CIA and Pakistani ISI...

Based on the 9/11 Commission Report and President Bush's Public Relations Department.

I saw an interview with Kean the other day where he attempted to weasel around whether the informantion was accurate or not. He suggested that, although not verbatim, the enough they did have on the 9/11 Commission, could come to the conclusion of the movie potrays it. It was sickening. His co-chair, Richard Ben-Veniste said, he respects Kean very much, but he is absolutely wrong on this issue. He's never been that forceful in disagreement with Kean. I've seen them on many shows together over the years. Roger Cressey, who was directly involved in the Clinton Administration, in this situation, was livid. He was on the show with the Books' author and the writer of the movie. He was all over them. Usually he's very calm and measured, not this time.

This article attempts to answer the question of whether or not there is bias in the finished fictional account of the history leading up to 9-11. The problem is that none of us have been allowed to view the final product, so we can not judge. We can only speculate from bits and pieces of information gleaned.

The most damning piece of evidence so far is this: ABC made the mini-series available to right wingers to preview, but not to Democrat or Clinton, despite their requests. There is bias here, but what is its purpose? Is there a conspiracy to slander the Clinton administration?

Or was there fear that the Bush administration (and the RNC) might object to the current administration being called negligent? I suggest that this scenerio is at least as likely as the former, especially since it is the Republican Party and the current president that has its political future on the line in two months.

I am curious why so few people consider the possibility that this program was run by right wingers to see whether or not they would object to its portrayal of Bush culpability in 9-11. I also advise people to consider the possibility that the OUTRAGE over scenes of Clinton incompetence that only right wingers have witnessed might actually be the right wing's attempt to censor a program which they want squashed for the political reason that they do not want their own leader's failings to be discussed with the midterms coming up. Better to let the Democrats look like the enemies of free speech than the Republicans.

I think Clinton's popularity is such that the nation will see the lies about his administration and quickly learn for itself that they are just that--lies. I would be interested in seeing if the truths about the Bush administration are covered. This much Mainstream Media attention to an issue critical of a big network suggests that the story is being propelled from behind the scenes and that there are forces at work that would like to ensure that we do not see this work of fiction.

Abc was also responsible for another propaganda series called "The Threat Matrix" starring little known actors and writing right out of the speeches of Bush and Cheney. The last few episodes I saw involved a detainee being interrogated and dying on the table as a human rights observer witnesed it. The next part was a trial to determine if the detainee was "tortured" using the "Noriega" treatment of 24-7 hard rock, allergen laced food, and sleep and water deprivation. Of course, as he lay dying on the table, he reveals an obscure clue to the thwarting of a plot. Should we assume from this that torture works? Should we assume that because Disney stock is owned by Saudis that there won't be a bias toward a favorable administration?

9/11 ... Series ... should be dropped ... have you forgotten all the moral lessons of the fantasies I made? Walt would be angry at media corporate.

ABC better cancel the 9/11 movie or put it on cable, or I'll tell bin Laden to lob a big one into the network's corporate headquarters.