ABC program chief falsely claimed network "didn't backpedal" on Path to 9/11
In a January 15 post on his weblog, Changing Channels, Miami Herald television critic Glenn Garvin wrote that, when "[a]sked during his appearance on the TV critics' tour if he was embarrassed that the network had to 'backpedal' on its Clinton-unfriendly movie The Path To 9/11," ABC Primetime Entertainment President Stephen McPherson rejected the notion, replying: "We didn't backpedal. We aired the movie. We didn't change anything for those guys. We aired it as planned on the dates that were planned." In fact, in the face of widespread criticism regarding the film's factual accuracy, ABC retreated from its original claim that the film was a "dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report" that "get[s] it right" and ultimately conceded that the miniseries "contains fictionalized scenes." Further, while McPherson reportedly claimed that ABC "didn't change anything for those guys," the producers did reportedly edit scenes following criticism from the Clinton administration officials depicted in the film. According to Hollywood Reporter columnist Ray Richmond, McPherson also claimed at the event that "[e]verything in that movie is backed up tenfold." But as Media Matters for America documented, ABC retained several fabricated scenes.
From Garvin's January 15 post on Changing Channels:
Stephen McPherson, the ABC programming chief, doesn't take any fecal material. Asked during his appearance on the TV critics' tour if he was embarrassed that the network had to "backpedal" on its Clinton-unfriendly movie The Path To 9/11, McPherson took no prisoners -- particularly when it came to Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger, one of the film's chief critics. "We didn't backpedal," McPherson said. "We aired the movie. We didn't change anything for those guys. We aired it as planned on the dates that were planned. I mean, it's a little odd to have Sandy Berger telling you about what's truthful or not when he was indicted for stuffing documents into his pants on this very subject."
From Richmond's January 14 post on his weblog, Past Deadline:
For his part, McPherson said the network "loved" the film and stands by it. He also denies that it was irresponsibly fictionalized or at all driven by any campaign to distort the facts.
"Everything in that movie is backed up tenfold," he insists. "We think it was a really important thing to air. And you know, it's unfortunate that, for other agendas, people tried to squash it." When it was pointed out that ABC tried to backpedal with its last-minute alterations on 'Path to 9/11,' McPherson shot back, "We didn't backpedal. We aired the movie. We didn't change anything for those guys. We aired it as planned on the dates that were planned.
The Path to 9/11 aired on ABC for two nights during the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks. ABC received withering criticism from leading congressional Democrats, former President Bill Clinton, former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke, former FBI agents, and others, including Media Matters for America, asserting that the film was rife with fabricated stories and scenes designed to smear the Clinton administration's record on fighting terrorism.
Several months before The Path to 9/11 was scheduled to air, ABC touted the film's sound factual basis, promoting it as an "epic" and "historic" "dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report." ABC further claimed that the film "absolutely ... get[s] it right" and touted the participation of 9-11 Commission chairman and former Gov. Thomas Kean (R-NJ) as "crucial to the project." But contrary to McPherson's recent claim that the controversy did not lead ABC to "backpedal" on the film, the network clearly revised its emphasis on the film's historical accuracy in the weeks leading up to its debut, as Media Matters documented. Indeed, on September 5, 2006, ABC released a statement stressing that the miniseries was "a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 Commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews." And by September 7, 2006, ABC had conceded that the film "contains fictionalized scenes."
McPherson's reported assertion that ABC "didn't change anything" in the film is also false. On September 1, 2006, an ABC spokesperson told National Review Online media blogger Stephen Spruiell that the " 'Path to 9/11' miniseries was 'locked and ready to air.' " But several days later, news outlets, such as The New York Times, reported that ABC was "re-evaluating and in some cases re-editing crucial scenes in its new mini-series 'The Path to 9/11' to soften its portrait of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden." Several scenes were ultimately edited, as USA Today reported:
Former commission chairman Thomas Kean, a movie consultant, said on ABC's This Week that filmmakers have been responsive to criticism by him and others "and have made changes that were necessary." Kean is a former Republican governor of New Jersey.
Changes include rewriting and trimming dialogue tying the Monica Lewinsky scandal to Clinton's inaction against bin Laden. Another controversial scene -- showing aide Samuel Berger in a videoconference with CIA Director George Tenet, stalling and refusing to approve an attack on bin Laden -- was trimmed.
Additionally, McPherson's claim that "[e]verything" in The Path to 9/11 "is backed up tenfold" is false. Indeed, while the producers edited various parts of the film, the final version nonetheless included several fabricated scenes.















I hate this word. Because backpedaling is cast as a symptom of weakness, people are discouraged from changing their minds.
When someone says that they didn't backpedal, I think, "Weakling."
It takes a backbone dipped in titanium to change one's mind in public.
Hail, backpedalers!
you've been teased over at the Pelley/Democrat thread. Don't miss it!
[link to mediamatters.org]
to me that has become one of those phrases that I use without the sense of imagery it should invoke. Picture Bush on his bicycle as he realizes that he is headed to a cliff's edge at full speed ... I can see those pedals churning like Roadrunner's legs were pushing them!
Which is what ABC did, but now denies.
fingers faster than thought is such a disadvantage for us slow thinkers and late proofreaders.
...and i've written this several times. the writer of this piece of fiction, cyrus nowrasteh, told frontpagemag in an interview that he had to do his "own research" because the 9-11 report "only goes back to 1998". a complete lie. it goes back well before that. and it praises clinton in many areas, and on the other hand, notes the complete lack of reaction of the bush administration to the summer of 2001, when the commission said "the system was blinking red".
page 265 : " [acting fbi director thomas] pickard told us that after two such briefings [in the summer of 2001] ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore." page 259: " one senior official at the counterterrorist center told us that he and a colleague were considering resigning in order to go public with their concerns." in his book "the clinton wars" sidney blumenthal quotes three star general donald kerrick, who was deputy national security adviser under clinton and served in the first four months of the bush administration. he described a classified memo he sent to his replacement steven hadley: " i said they needed to pay attention to al qaida and counterterrorism...they never once asked me a question nor did i see them having a serious dicussion about it. they didn't feel it was the imminent threat the way the clinton administration did. hadley did not respond to my memo. i knew he had it." in one of his interviews with bob woodward, bush made these statements about bin ladin: " i was not on point about him, but i knew he was a menace." " there was a significant difference in my attitude after sept. 11". so for all the claims of all the solid research abc did on this, it is more than obvious that they had to ignore a mountain of evidence to come to their portrayal of bush as the concerned president. bush's only concern was his endless vacation.
carries over to 260.
The fact that this was labeled a docudrama tells you all you need to know about the accuracy of the film. It's like saying a movie was "inspired by true events". But I never saw the movie either. They (ABC) did win an award for it, though, so they've got that going for them, which is nice. (Misinformer of the year) ;-)
from some conservative organization? i hear limbaugh liked it too. in fact, he liked it both ways. first he said it was worthy because it was based on the 9-11 report. and then when it turned out it wasn't, his comments became why is the 9-11 commission to be trusted as the last word. to which his listeners said: ditto, rush, whaever you say, today, tomorrow. how high, rush?
I was referring to ABC getting the Misinformer of the Year award by MMFA due in large part to that movie.
But your comments about Limbaugh don't surprise me, I haven't listened to him for years.
but they did win some award for it. it was on here about a month ago.
it was for creating strawmen, avoiding the point, and repeating the same argument ad nauseum. it's called......the tommy.
"It's like saying a movie was "inspired by true events"."
Exactly. Ever since I saw "Murder in the First" I've been extremely wary of that phrase. To me, it translates to "This is almost, but not quite, entirely a heaping sack of B.S.".
A great place to be "tough," because the idiot thinks there is no fallout as long as he "sticks with the story." What is sadly ironic is that like the famous kiddle show host blooper, I'm sure he thought in his bureaucratic head, "that ought to satisfy the little b*stards."
the smartest people I've ever met backpedaled publicly and with stunning grace. People who can't change their minds repeat their mistakes.
Who said consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds. If we are unwilling to admit our mistakes as new information appears we are lost. We should aspire to BE right not to maintain the illusion we WERE right
We should aspire to BE right not to maintain the illusion we WERE right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to use that one, thanks!
one of my fav quotes ... "Consistency is the last resort of the unimaginative" Oscar Wilde
who wrote, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by statesmen, philosophers, and divines."
And nobody has ever said it better. It's from a wonderful essay entitled "Self-Reliance."
wasn't it the republicans to recently remind us that fanaticism is trying the same thing over again expecting a different result? Seems they have dropped common sense for "craps".
Einstein: insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Churchill: a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Among the "true-blue" Bushbots, that POS "docudrama" got high ratings.
But in RL, Even re-runs on other networks and football got better ratings.
I watched about 10 minutes of it. That's all I could stand, the OVER-use of the wobbly hand-held camera was making me nauseous.
About 20 years ago, TV Guide ran a article called "Docudramas: A License To Lie?" that showed how docudramas twisted facts, fabricated them, and left out important details.
How true it was with that "Road To 9-11" garbage.
"Path To 9-11."
Once upon a time . . . Clinton was elected President. He got a hummer, so we know he was no good. After many, many years . . . Bungle got into office. Things went to Hell in a hurry, but Bungle was such a Christian, and anyway, he was on vacation at the time, so it had to be Clinton's fault.
Gee, that storyline is soooo . . . grim(m)?. . . nah, truthy! Now we must live happily ever after!
Actually the neo-cons have used this many times before.
Repeat a lie often and with enough passion, coupled with media spokespeople/robots who say "believe the lie, the enemy does not want you to believe the lie", and with time the lie becomes truth.
Don't believe me, compare a U.S. history book from 10 years ago and one today. Especially the parts about Lincoln. Southern neo-cons (i.e. racists in suits) have been yelling since the early 70's, "Lincoln, was not the hero you think he is, the south was within its rights to leave the union and slavery played no part in the Civil War." "Nope not even an issue."
Most intelligent people at the time said, "your full of it."
But now the latest text books all say the same thing and the issue of slavery is maybe mentioned once or twice, maybe. And if it is mentioned it is in reference to the arguement that it did not have anything to do with the Civil War. i.e. the Civil War was only about state's rights and economics in the south (slavery).
Don't belive me? Go take a history class at your local Community College. (which I had to do, since I'm working on my next degree) It will be like entering an alternative universe of U.S. history.