Media embraced ABC's contradictory defense that critics are "premature and irresponsible"
SUMMARY: Various news media have uncritically reported ABC's statement that criticism of The Path to 9/11 is "premature and irresponsible," because the film has not yet been finalized, even though the network reportedly said the previous week that the film was "locked and ready to air," screened the film at the National Press Club, and has provided preview copies to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and a number of right-wing bloggers.
On September 7, ABC Entertainment responded to the growing controversy over its "docudrama" The Path to 9/11, which is scheduled to air in two parts on September 10 and 11, as follows: "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." But as Media Matters for America noted, the statement illustrates that ABC wants it both ways. Now characterizing criticism as "premature" because "the editing process is not complete," the network previously reportedly said that it was "locked and ready to air. Also, ABC reportedly screened the film at the National Press Club and has reportedly provided preview copies to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and a number of right-wing bloggers. Nonetheless, various news media have uncritically reported ABC's statement that criticism of The Path to 9/11 is "premature and irresponsible" as a response to complaints that the miniseries is rife with falsehoods and inaccuracies.
For example, a September 8 Associated Press article on the controversy surrounding the miniseries reported ABC's statement uncritically to counter criticism from "a group of former Clinton administration officials," without mentioning that The Path to 9/11 has already been screened and partially distributed:
A miniseries about the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, a group of former Clinton administration officials said in letters to the head of the network'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."
Similarly, reporting on the criticism The Path to 9/11 has received, NBC News correspondent Mike Taibbi, on the September 7 edition of NBC's Nightly News, juxtaposed criticism of the miniseries with ABC's claim that such criticism is irresponsible. Taibbi also failed to note that ABC has previously screened the film:
TAIBBI: Former President Bill Clinton, portrayed as being paralyzed into inaction by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said through a spokesman the movie's fictions are despicable and that "no reputable organization should dramatize 9-11 for a profit at the expense of the truth." But controversies over fact-based films are nothing new. Think Oliver Stone's JFK, the CBS Reagan movie killed off by conservative protesters three years ago, or almost all of Michael Moore's films. This happens to be a movie conservatives who reviewed it loved.
RUSH LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: Really well, well done.
TAIBBI: But that some critics call outrageous.
MARTIN KAPLAN (University of Southern California professor) [video clip]: That ABC would use the fig leaf of a docudrama to hide inaccuracies and wild paranoid speculation and say that that's what you can do for the sake of art.
TAIBBI: Late today, the film's executive producer told NBC News he stands by his work.
MARC PLATT [video clip]: It is not our intention to distort. It is not our intention to mislead. We want to tell a story.
TAIBBI: And the network says the movie is still being edited, that criticism now is irresponsible and that the movie will be broadcast as planned. Mike Taibbi, NBC News, New York.
A September 8 Newsday article countered former President Clinton's denunciation of The Path to 9/11, writing: "However, in a statement, the company said criticisms of the film were ill-informed because it is still in production." Newsday reporter J. Jioni Palmer made no mention of ABC's previous screening and distribution of the film.
Finally, on the September 7 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, CNN entertainment correspondent Brooke Anderson uncritically reported ABC's statement. Later in the broadcast, in an interview with P.J. Crowley, director of homeland security and national defense for the Center for American Progress, host Paula Zahn also failed to recognize ABC's contradictory response to criticism of The Path to 9/11. Zahn told Crowley that "ABC is turning around and saying all you folks who are criticizing it aren't being accurate because the final edit hasn't even been done." She then asked: "Isn't it premature for you to be taking a whack at this when you haven't seen the final version of it?" Crowley responded by reminding Zahn that "as you reported ... this went out to media. It went out to some conservative talk show hosts." Crowley added: "It didn't go to some of the key participants in the film."
From the September 7 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now:
ANDERSON: Tom Kean, the head of the 9-11 Commission, who served as a consultant on the film, tells CNN that scene is subject to change -- quote -- "I believe ABC has gone back and looked at their sources. If it's not accurate, according to their sources, they're going to reconsider how they present that scene. So, we'll see what the final version shows."
An attorney for former President Clinton sent a letter to [Walt Disney Co. president and CEO Robert A.] Iger on September 1, saying, "ABC has gotten it terribly wrong," and calling on the network to either fully correct all the errors or pull the drama entirely.
ABC says -- quote -- "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."
People will get a chance to make up their own minds. ABC's miniseries The Path to 9/11 is scheduled to air Sunday, September 10th, and Monday, September 11th.
Brooke Anderson, CNN, Los Angeles.
[...]
ZAHN: My next guest served on the Clinton administration's National Security Council. P.J. Crowley is now director of the national defense and homeland security, the Center for American Progress. Good to see you. Thanks so much for being with us.
CROWLEY: Hi, Paula.
[...]
ZAHN: All right, and ABC is turning around and saying all you folks who are criticizing it aren't being accurate because the final edit hasn't even been done. Isn't it premature for you to be taking a whack at this when you haven't seen the final version of it?
CROWLEY: Well, of course, as you reported, you know, this went out to media. It went out to some conservative talk show hosts. It didn't go to some of the key participants in the film. So it remains to be seen what ABC does. But now, they're now on notice. Key aspects of their film are inaccurate. The first question is: Will they correct these before the weekend? Secondly, they've said they're going to distribute this film as an educational product, you know, to schools. They shouldn't do that. So that there are key things that ABC will have to do to make sure this comes out right.
that a major series such as this, that abc has heavily promoted, would still be in the editing stage two days before it is to go on the air. they were obviously going to go with the version that they previewed, until the firestorm of criticism this has rightfully produced. they promoted this as a true version of the 9-11 report when it is obviously not. they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but it is of their own creating. the only shred of credibility they will have left is to say this was a mistake and cancel.
The Sinclair hit piece on Kerry was edited (still ended up being a hit piece and they still did not present both sides) right before air time in response to criticism, and they too tried to claim that it was normal to edit something like this right before air time!
Politicians, influential people, corporations... get away with lying, fudging the truth,... because MSM doesn't challenge them.
ABC is up to their fannies in trouble with this piece of political hackery, and now are frantically trying to cover their tracks.
to make them look like bigger idiots when the aired version does not agree with their RW version. HMMMM? Would a major network be so devious????
is no. Nice try oscar, but your tinfoil hat is on too tight and it's constricting the flow of blood to your brain. There is no liberal media outside of AirAmerica. Really.
if they pulled a stunt like that, though. Oh the price of scrap metal is high enough, I was able to sell the tin hat for quite a profit last week, there are others here that should do the same.
is the biggest.
of the pinheads here, probably so.
There's Democracy Now. Free Speech TV is kicking butt too. Cable companies don't carry them though, ya gotta have a dish to watch them. It's awesome stuff though, really shows the mainstream garbage for the sewer of fascist filth that it is.
Whether or not the campaign to stop ABC from disseminating partisan propaganda in the form of edutainment is successful, I want to know, and the public should know, who it was in the ABC organization that orchestrated this act of smear.
It the malicious intent is clearly evidenced by the act of issuing copies of the film exclusively to right wing shrill, screaming demagogs.
ABC needs to investigate and hold those responsible accountable.
I'm beginning to wonder if MMFA is worried about slow news days or something. Based on the examples they used, the media didn't embrace ANYTHING! They simply reported THE NEWS!!!! if ABC has a statement, the media has a right, no ... a responsibility to air it. They don't have to agree with it, but as SOON as they begin to comment on it, they begin to lose their credibility as news organizations. When there are interviews, its a different story, but even then, such as the Paula Zahn interview, she sounded to me like she was stating the ABC view as a setup to allow the interviewee to state his case, which is right on the mark! MMFA ... please, be careful ... I think most of the news you report is right on, but there are times when you are treading close to that type of journalism you are trying to debunk. Don't give Bill O'Reilly and the others anything to use against you. Keep it to the facts!!! Get back to, and keep up the good work!
"if ABC has a statement, the media has a right, no ... a responsibility to air it. They don't have to agree with it, but as SOON as they begin to comment on it, they begin to lose their credibility as news organizations."
They can report that the film was already sent out for previews and that ABC declared that it was ready to air on september 1st without "commenting" on it. You're talking about subjective opinion, but pointing out documented statements and actions is a matter of objective fact. In itself, it reveals no bias or slant in the least.
Showing that ABC's excuse is inconsistent is what makes media credible, not the opposite. A media that repeats what they are told without holding it to any standards of truth or sense is worse than worthless. As someone who claims to enjoy this site, I would think you would have this understanding already.
So the argument is that they don't investigate anymore, well ... yes ... I think you're right. The media in general has gotten lazy, but I still think that the word 'Embraced' is pretty strong. At least as far as the examples they are using.
For instance ... in the AP article, which is basically about how the Clinton white house objects to the series, the ABC statement is mentioned once and then pretty much the rest of the article is about the objections of Clinton, Albright, Berger ... The LA times used the AP article and this morning they have an article which shows how ABC is backpedalling.
The two middle pieces were just short news items and didn't seem to me to be embracing any one issue, but rather simply reporting the news as it stood at the time, but I didn't feel that that they had 'Embraced' one side of the issue or the other ... however ... the argument that they should have mentioned that the show had been pre-screened by conservatives is probably well founded, but who is to say where the individual networks were in their investigations (if any) on that topic? regardless, it still didn't seem to me that they had 'Embraced' one side or the other, like say, a network like Fox News.
The Paula Zahn interview, to me, seemed to do exactly what everyone is asking ... your agrument perhaps is that she didn't come to the conclusion that ABC was in error but instead seemed to be spouting ABC's talking point, but I'm convinced that she was merely giving a great setup question, that ABC and most of the conservatives were asking, so that Crowley could give an appropriate rebuttal to it. PLUS ... Crowley mentioned, in his response to her question, that she had already reported that the film had already been pre-screened by certain groups (that part wasn't included in MMFA's report .... not exactly fair, now is it?)
Here's the point to my original post:
MMFA needs to be careful that it doesn't crawl into the murky waters of creating sensational headlines, and to me the use of the phrase 'Media Embraced' sounds like ALL media have embraced, and the word Embraced seems pretty strong, in my opinion.
Uncritically reported ABC's statement, and did not also include the clear evidence that it was contradictory and contrary to the facts, then they did, in fact, embrace ABC's distortion of reality.
Too much of our subservient MSM has been conveniently passing on BS, and holding themselves to the low journalistic standard of "we're just passing it on".
You don't need to be the prime mover to be responsible for propaganda.