NY Post noted Path producer's claims about stalled release of DVD, but not film's numerous fabrications and falsehoods
SUMMARY: The New York Post asserted that "[t]he writer who penned the script for last year's controversial ABC miniseries 'The Path to 9/11' says pressure from powerful supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton is delaying the mini's DVD release." But the Post article failed to address the inaccuracies in the film and the sharp discrepancies between the film's account of certain events and the findings laid out in the 9-11 Commission's report, upon which ABC said the miniseries was based.
A September 6 article in the New York Post asserted that the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 "kicked up a storm of controversy last summer when former President Clinton wrote a letter to ABC brass complaining about how his administration was portrayed in the semifictional docudrama," and -- citing a September 5 Los Angeles Times article that was noted by Media Matters for America -- stated, "The writer who penned the script for last year's controversial ABC miniseries 'The Path to 9/11' says pressure from powerful supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton is delaying the mini's DVD release." But, like the Times article, the Post article failed to address the inaccuracies in the film and the sharp discrepancies between the film's account of certain events and the findings laid out in the 9-11 Commission's report, upon which ABC said in a July 2006 press release the miniseries was based. These falsehoods and discrepancies have been documented by Media Matters and noted by numerous others.
As Media Matters noted, despite ABC's assertion in the July 2006 press release that the network regarded it as "absolutely critical" to "get it right," The Path to 9/11 contained inaccurate and even fabricated scenes that cast the Clinton administration as insufficiently aggressive in combating terrorism and that showed President Bush taking aggressive action not indicated in the 9-11 Commission report. In addition, the film was sharply criticized by former Clinton administration officials, journalists, and conservatives alike, who noted that significant parts of the "docudrama's" content were not supported by the 9-11 Commission's findings.
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, described one scene in the film as a "total fabrication." Further, Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated in a September 8 letter, "Actors portraying us do contemptible things we never did, and say things we neither said nor believed." Conservative author and journalist Richard Miniter criticized parts of the film as "based on an Internet myth" and having "no factual basis." In addition to Miniter, numerous others criticized the film's accuracy, as Media Matters has noted:
- On the September 8, 2006, edition of CNN's American Morning, conservative radio host and former Reagan administration official Bill Bennett acknowledged that "the Clintons had a point" in pressuring ABC to correct the film and admonished ABC for "falsify[ing] the record," adding, "I think they should correct those inaccuracies."
- On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN Headline News' Showbiz Tonight, Harvey Keitel, the film's star, noted that "[i]t turned out not all the facts were correct" and stated: "Where we have distorted something, we have made a mistake, and that should be corrected. It can be corrected."
- On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz criticized ABC for "putting a movie on a serious, sensitive topic on the fifth-year anniversary of 9-11 that contains fiction."
- On the September 7, 2006, edition of MSNBC's The Most, Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, criticized the film for treating facts "cavalierly," as well as ABC's response to critiques of the film, noting: "[T]hey [ABC] said that complaints about the film are irresponsible because they are still editing the film, yet they were very happy to send out review copies."
- On the September 8, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann interviewed former FBI agent Tom Nicoletti, who said he was hired as a consultant during the film's production but objected to numerous scenes in the film that he said reflected "improper research." In particular, he faulted the film's depiction of former FBI special agent John O'Neill, who was killed in the 9-11 attacks and is portrayed in the film by Keitel. Nicoletti told Olbermann that he resigned as a consultant to the film based on scenes that remained inaccurate despite his input, and that in his opinion The Path to 9/11, "should be reshot and a lot of it corrected."
Moreover, the film's writer and producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has admitted that at least one scene was fabricated. That scene falsely portrayed Berger hanging up on CIA Director George Tenet as he asks for authorization to let CIA officers and Afghani fighters raid an isolated compound in Afghanistan in order to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The New York Times quoted Nowrasteh as saying that "Berger did not slam down the phone. That is not in the report. That was not scripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place."
From the September 6 article in the New York Post:
The writer who penned the script for last year's controversial ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" says pressure from powerful supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton is delaying the mini's DVD release.
The bombshell accusation was reported yesterday by the Los Angeles Times.
The paper interviewed the writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, for a story about why the miniseries, which was recently nominated for seven Emmy awards, has not yet been released on DVD, even though it aired nearly a year ago.
In the story, Nowrasteh quoted an executive at ABC as telling him, "If Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem."
The five-hour "Path to 9/11," which traced the history of the U.S. battle against terror from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 until Sept. 11, 2001, kicked up a storm of controversy last summer when former President Clinton wrote a letter to ABC brass complaining about how his administration was portrayed in the semifictional docudrama.
Under the threat of legal action, ABC execs ordered some of the offending material to be removed from the miniseries, which aired without commercials on Sept. 11 of last year.
Now, Nowrasteh is accusing unnamed supporters of Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president of practicing censorship in blocking the DVD release of the miniseries.
"Whatever anyone may think ... of this movie, this is a bad precedent, a dangerous precedent, to allow a movie to be buried," he told the L.A. Times, "because the next time they'll go after another movie."
ABC spokespeople did not return phone calls seeking comment.
His political views say it all, the guy is a right wing hack. The mini-series was a lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Nowrasteh
nowrasteh based much of his information on a lying right winger named buzz patterson.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898
as noted in this link, patterson told different versions of the same event in his book and then on the radio. including a time in "may 1996" when patterson claimed that clinton refused to launch an attack on bin ladin, but in his book he said it was an attack on iraq, not bin ladin.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200609140002
make that "july of 1996" when he made the claim that clinton refused to fire on bin ladin. he was asked: "so, did he know specifically it was about bin ladin, a strike on bin ladin?". answer: "he knew..." but this link shows it was clearly iraq that patterson mentioned in his book.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200609270002
I think the salient point about a lot of this history should be that Clinton was actually pursuing Bin Laden and hadn't let up when his term ended. This we know for a fact. Since there is a clear record of the Clinton team TRYING to pass this along to Bush why wouldn't the criticism from the great patriots on the Right be towards Bush whose administration seems to have completely ended the effort that Clinton had been maintaining? I think it's because of the terrifying implication that 9-11 WAS avoidable and our odds would have been a lot better under a Gore administration. Democrats don't even seem to want to pursue this reasonable speculation because of the depressing implications.
Why did the Bush team so completely reject the Clinton recommendation that they pursue Al-quaida? Isn't it reasonable to believe that the Gore administration would have had more continuity in terms of this pursuit? This is all screaming in our face, but I don't think you're going to have Chris Matthews talking about it any time soon. It may be the facts, but it aint the story line.
i agree. i've posted lots of quotes here from the 9-11 report about how clinton was pursuing bin ladin, and how bush told bob woodward that, before 9-11, he was "not on point" about bin ladin. i don't find it a stretch at all to think it could have been avoided, especially when you had information about the flight school students floating around. bush had an active disinterest in pursuing counterterrorism. the 9-11 report called chapter 8 of the report, about the summer of 2001, "the system was blinking red". bush took no actions in response to those warnings. the 9-11 report says on page 265:
"in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute."
Active disinterest. That's a devastating indictment if you think about it for a half second. And it's also totally, demonstrably true based on the facts on the ground. The free pass Bush is getting on this is the most devastating indictment of the modern media as well and the reason I think a site like this is totally on point.
it's not a stretch to think that the 9-11 plot might just be another footnote to history, as were the plots to hijack airliners over the pacific, the holland tunnel bombing, and the los angeles airport bombing, all stopped during the clinton administration. and one thing that bush's defenders try to excuse are his actions on the morning of 9-11, when he was "gathering his thoughts", as the white house put it. the fact is that well after the 8:45 initial attack, we were woefully lacking in response. the 9-11 commission estimated that flight 93 could have reached washington "probably... before 10:23". these are all quotes from the 9-11 report page 45:
"there was only one set of fighters circling washington during that time frame--the langley f-16s". "the langley pilots were never briefed about the reason they were scrambled. as the lead pilot explained, 'i reverted to the russian threat...i'm thinking cruise missile threat from the sea. you know, you look down and see the pentagon burning and i thought the bastards snuck one by us...' ". "the pilots knew their mission was to divert aircraft, but did not know that the threat came from hijacked airliners". "at 10:10 the pilots over washington were emphatically told, 'negative clearance to shoot'. shootdown authority was first communicated to neads at 10:31."
as the report says, the passengers on flight 93 who brought down the plane "may have saved either the capitol or white house from destruction."
MEFIRST,
Exactly, however, for those of you that want to have a better understanding as to were GWBush truely stands in this regime one only has to read:
VICE by Lou DuBose and Jake Bernstein
Bush may be a sly politician but never was a match for Satan.....er I mean Cheney and his righthand spawns: Paul Wolfowitz and Davis Addington.
When the truth comes out about 9/11, the illegal occupation of a country that did nothing to us and all things foreign policy.......
I have said this before and stand by this:
Dick Cheney is pure evil, enough that I believe he would eat his own grandkids!
nowrasteh based much of his information on a lying right winger named buzz patterson.
Plus it looks like he came up with a few lies of his own...
that's absolutely true. before the movie came out, nowrasteh told frontpagemag.com on 8-16-06 that he had to do his own "research" because the 9-11 report only goes back to "1998". which is absurd on the face of it. it goes back decades.
as the link below also shows, nowrasteh, a solid conservative, did not write a script and peddle it to abc. instead "i was approached by abc". and nowrasteh claims that he was equally critical of bush also. but the fact is, he showed bush as having a level of concern that the record reveals did not exist. in one scene there is a worried looking condi rice reading the august 6, 2001 pdb "bin ladin determined to strike inside u.s.", and then saying something like the president must see this. but the 9-11 report makes it clear that if she did, he paid no attention. page 260: "he [bush] did not recall discussing the august 6 report with the attorney general or whether rice had done so." page 262: "we have found no indication of any further discussion between the president and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al qaeda attack in the united states."
and nowrasteh ignored this very telling line in the 9-11 report [ask yourself who was president during this exact period], page 254:
"there were more than 40 intelligence articles in the presidential daily briefings from january 20 to september 10, 2001 that related to bin ladin."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/091006b.html
No one ever accused the New York Post of displaying journalistic integrity. It's not even suitable for wrapping fish.
Welcome to Right Wing World. Try to release a miniseries on Reagan which is ridiculously complimentary of the man and his myth, making him far more intelligent and in control than he ever was but includes some careful, oblique mention of his failures? No way by god, that offends the little puppies in their beds. Wasn't the man a saint or something with special powers of Love? So make a movie in which you flat-out make stuff up about the Clinton's. Stuff that can be easily refuted by logic and the historic record. What do we get in the media? More criticism of the Clintons for not liking it. "They must be against free speech!" We know that's not true and the people making the implication know it's not true but gosh isn't it fun to pile on? No, there's no double standard in the 'mainstream' media.
Hey SunDog,
I would love for someone out there to make the definitive movie about the lead up to 9/11, warts & all....but accurate. Same goes for a movie about Reagan.
The best movie I've seen thus far about Pearl Harbor was Tora! Tora! Tora!, though I believe some liberties were taken there as well.
I watched The Path to 9/11, I was only gonna check it out during a commercial [I believe I was watching Monday Night Football] and I ended up seeing the whole thing [tuned in for Part2 the following night].
I wrote on a thread here at the time that I didn't think either Bush or Clinton came off as villains or heroes. In fact the best portrayal of all was of John O'Neill of the FBI.
While I don't blame the Clintons for being unhappy with this movie, or it's release on DVD, I doubt it will be flying off the shelves.
Check out this site on PBS [John O'Neill] it's about a documentary called The Man Who Knew. You can watch it on line.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
Hey Jeter, It may fly off the shelves with all the free advertising it's getting. Of course one problem I would have personally with a portrayal where neither Bush or Clinton comes of as villianous is that I actually do see Bush as pretty culpable in all of this. I honestly don't understand how everyone is getting around the fact that we know the Bush team was warned about terrorism in general and Bin Laden specifically but chose to drop the imperative to go after him because they saw it as a 'Clinton thing.' They had already attacked us. Clinton had a powerful group headed by Clark going after them. Bush chose to almost completely gut this effort. So why was he a hero after 9-11? It's more Orwellian than Orwell. And then after the attack, blatantly using the emotions it brought to affect a power grab in government and launch a war against one of the only countries in the Middle East where Al-qaida DIDN'T have much of a foothold. To me, that's all pretty villianous. And Tora Tora Tora WAS good. I grew up seeing it on WGN every couple of years.
Seems like a fair question to ask why a film, with 6 emmy nominations, is being stalled from DVD release when other films that have aired later have aleady been released?
Did someone say otherwise?
This website apparently is not asking the question, their interest is only it's content, not the stalled release date, and why??
so what is wrong with pointing out the content? do you have a problem with the content? or is it ok with you?
I have not seen the film. I would imagine some is accurate, some is not. I am just wondering why the stalled release date, are you not curious as to why?
maybe abc doesn't want to admit they turned over 5 hours of prime time on 9-11 to a lying propagandist? just my guess.
Tommy, that is a good question the film was a "docudrama", never intended to be 100% truthful. Yet many on the left were so outraged at it. I tivoed it , thought most of the film was ok, inaccurate , but the acting was fairly good. Is it a political reason why the DVD is not being
released. (Sorry hit the post button to early)
abc did not portray it as "not 100% truthful". in the beginning they claimed it was based on the 9-11 report. it wasn't.
What does that have to do with the DVD Release?
On Amazon there is a customer call for its release .
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B00005JPHZ/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop/105-7155249-1729262?ie=UTF8&n=130&s=dvd&customer-reviews.start=1#R3PMXKBM627Y4P
big deal. some right wingers demanding release is a national movement? do you see an obligation to tell the truth, which is what abc first presented it as?
How is ABC packaging it as the truth now? A DVD can be marketed differently than a movie one year ago. These actors worked hard on that docudrama, they deserve as does the public the right to buy the DVD. It seems political and it is wrong. Silencing people and movies is un American. But if you support supressing different views be my guest.
"It seems political and it is wrong. Silencing people and movies is un American."
The movie was political and wrong. And please give us a break with the first amendment nonsense. It is not an absolute right. People don't have a right to have their lies sponsored by others, no matter how hard they worked on them.
How many movies are released that are based on lies? They are dramas. The movie "Nixon" and "JFK" were not truthful , yet they were released and are on DVD.
In what sense? Most of the inaccuracies have to do with "composite characters", not completely manufactured events. There's a big difference between combining two or more people for the sake of clarity and saying "this is based on an official report" and then making up incidents that never actually happened.
Besides, who is using "JFK" for political purposes? And is a film about Nixon really going to affect how he's viewed by the public either way? Neither of these examples affect the current political situation as "Path" does, obviously.
So who is using The Path to 9/11 for political purposes? Are any of the candidates running for office using this film ? It is a documentary drama , and no one in our nation has the right to say it can or can not be sold on DVD. Unless ABC feels it will not make them any money at all (which I highly doubt). If you are ok with silencing people fine, but do not hide behind the "propaganda" card.
You must be joking. Smearing Clinton and making Bush look like he was all concerned about the attacks before they happened don't help Republicans who stand by Bush? It doesn't help Bush himself? Good grief.
I do not think it does, maybe you do.
portraying bush as concerned when he was not, does not help bush?
How is Bush being helped? The American people think he is a failure which he is
if you show him to be concerned, then you are giving him credit for something he was not and does not deserve in the historical record. i think that's obvious....well, for some of us...
For a Fictional Drama? Ok then.
it's misrepresented as the truth. scholastic was all set to send it to schools.
But did they ?
no, because there was an outcry. do you disagree with the decision not to distribute it to schools?
Of course I agree, the movie should not be used as a teaching tool, but that is not the issue. Just like I do not want "Sicko" being used as a teaching tool.
it is "the issue" because that is how this propaganda has been presented, then and now. as being so historically accurate, school kids should see it.
Based on an official report? That's not being portrayed as "fictional", sorry.
The usual inaccuracies in movies has to do with dramatization. That's exaggeration for effect, not manufacturing incidents out of whole cloth. There's a tremendous difference.
There is not yet a huge outcry for his execution as a war criminal. That in itself is an indictment of the film, and most of the liars who participated in the production thereof; as well as of the balance of the Croporate Media. Were the truth told, he and about 500 of his Administration would have been in the docks at The Hague a year ago.
Apparently you think that people's impressions of politicians don't have any effect on voting. The public can be hammered with the idea that Republicans are serious about fighting terrorism, and Democrats don't care, and that won't make a difference at all.
OK then.
must have been a big dream we all had last fall when all the conservatives, limbaugh, hannity, everbody else were saying watch this movie, because it tells the truth about clinton.
What they say should not determine what is and is not released on DVD, I hate to give Rush and Hannity that much power.
they already have it.
Amazing that these two men run our democracy. They allow this site though?
hmmm.... i said they run this democracy? i think i said they have a lot of power. if it was up to them though, this site would not be here.
You asked who was using the movie for political purposes. That was the context of mefirst's comments, so your response is meaningless.
I am lost, because this thread is all over the place, what is your point?
You asked who was using the film for political purposes. Mefirst's comment was about right-wingers telling people to watch it because it was the truth.
That answered your question. People have been using it for political purposes, which is the difference between it and "JFK", for instance.
But JFK was released in 1991, however it was inaccurate and yet some in that generation watched it and thought it was true, when even the scenes regarding Jim Garrison and his team .
but there was a lot of talk that it was stone's "conspiracy theory". that's not the case with the path to 9-11. it's been presented as accurate.
I am moving on after this but again I do not like anything being censored. It was a movie . If people in this country are too stupid to realize it is fiction so be it, afterall maybe we need to censor things if we still have FOX as the number one network. I hate the idea of censoring anything.
well damn, the people of this country put bush into office twice. that does not say much. i do not like censorship either. the fact is that a major television network put it's prestige and millions of dollars behind a movie that they portrayed as based on the 9-11 report. when in fact it was a propaganda hit piece by a right winger who claimed he had to do his own research because the 9-11 report did not go before 1998. then he consulted a book by a right winger who contradicted himself over and over. abc was totally irresponsible in this matter.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={8B539A0C-D4E3-46E5-BB50-B635722C8574}
thid link never works.
it's not just abc's position. it's all the conservatives, like limbaugh, who keep pumping this as the truth. who cares what the actors think. hitler worked hard on mein kampf, does that give it credibility? abc put it's prestige behind a bunch of propaganda and they took a beating for it.
so Limbaugh likes Football, should that be banned too? who cares about Limabugh he is a drug addict hasbeen who only reaches people who will never disagree with him anyway.
rush already was "banned" from football, for his stupid remarks about donovan mcnabb playing because he was black. he clearly did not know what he was talking about.
and hopefully someday Advertisers will pull the plug on the rest of the drug addicts show.
Your "drug addict" comment is interesting. You stated previously "who cares what Limbaugh thinks because he is a drug addict". Does this go for all drug addicts or just Rush because you happen to not agree with his viewpoint? Should I discount the opinion of all "drug addicts" in the future and treat them as less of a human being because they have this personal failing?
Also, isn't using the term "drug addict" in a denegrating way, although truthful in this case, a type of hateful remark that you typically distance yourself from? Just curious...
I misquoted you I apologize, you actually said "who cares about Limabugh he is a drug addict hasbeen". My apologies again but I think my questions are still fair.
You just like to argue. You will refuse to see people's points until they are blue in the face. It seems to be the reason you post here...just to get people's goat.
You take up way to much space on this site.
Who gives a sh*t about when they release this. The idea that it is being delay for political reasons is your own theory.
I think it's disingenuous to think that a miniseries about a day as substantial as 9/11 can be classified as a mere "docudramas". 9/11 is one of the most important days in the history of America. A miniseries about the events leading up to 9/11 deserve verification and fact-checking of the highest standard. To do otherwise seems to be irresponsible.
Tommy,
"This website apparently is not asking the question, their interest is only it's content, not the stalled release date, and why??"
Because other than empty accusations from Cyrus Nowrasteh, there is no proof or indication of a Clinton-based conspiracy.
MMFA also links to the LA Times article that also mentions other factors that could be affecting the release decision, such as the PR nightmare that the original broadcast caused, and the fact that they lost money because of the difficulty of selling ad time during the broadcast.
At this point, we simply don't know if there's an evil censorship effort by the Clintons, or if Disney is simply making a business decision of its own accord.
Nowrasteh can and should have the right to get his hack job distributed, but Disney should be under no obligation whatsoever to be the company to do it. Nowrasteh should at least be able to shop his train wreck to other companies to see they are willing to take the risk. If Disney owns the publishing rights, they should relinquish them so someone else can take a chance.
Seems like a fair question to ask why a film, with 6 emmy nominations, is being stalled from DVD release when other films that have aired later have aleady been released?
In the interest of fairness, I went to the Emmy Awards web site, where they list all the Emmy nominations and provide a search tool. I searched the list and located all the categories for which Path to 9/11 received nominations:
Source: http://www.emmys.org/awards/2007pt/nominations.php
In short, Path to 9/11 was nominated in seven technical categories - they were NOT nominated for Best Screenplay, Best Direction, or any of the "Best Acting" categories. So while it may have been technically well-done, it's obvious that those in the TV industry recognized this as pure propaganda crap.
And THAT is why is has not been released on DVD - it's a well-made collosal waste of time.
Oh, so crappy films never get released on DVD? Well, who knew?
But you shouldn't use the Emmy nominations as an indicator of the informational value of this piece of crap. Path to 9/11 is nothing but well-made propaganda. You'd get more intellectual value by renting a Spongebob Squarepants video.
My mentioning of it's Emmy nominations did not go to it's worthiness, but rather to an additional reason why it's stalled release date is curious, and why? Many films make a lot of money from DVD sales, and Emmy nods are trumpeted as part of that marketing campaign, no matter whether they are merely technical awards or not.
But this piece of crap is totally unworthy of viewing. By anyone, at any time, whether over the air on on DVD. Why? Because it's not factual; it's nothing but pure propaganda, and the only ones who are in facor of its release are those (like you, Tommy) who are blindly following a misguided right-wing agenda.
Here's what was posted here at MMFA when this piece of crap was first broadcast:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609060008
Tommy, maybe it's because the film is packed with lies about significant, recent historical events and some people have a problem with that. But in the MEDIA coverage of this story they underplay the content and imply that the Clinton's are against free speech. Hence MEDIA Matter's focus on the content that the MEDIA is overlooking. 'K?
Yes, we all know why MMFA is not at all focusing on it's stalled release date.........it's not their agenda.
That's right Tommy, if we all know that, why did you pose the question?
Glad to see we agree, for once.
Yep - we all agree that once again, Tommy is dead wrong.
Did we? Wow. About what, that you were once again pretending to not know something in order to intentionally confuse the issues which when they are laid out by Media Matters absolutely TERRIFY you because you are a total dittohead who thinks it's clever to pretend to be 'middle of the road' just like Bill O'Reilly does so you agree with people when you think it's harmless, like "yea Bush is a knucklehead" because he's on his way out but god forbid any of his actual legacy be exposed because then we might not get the next rightwing nut in office so you think you're helping the cause by pretending to be 'reasonable objective guy' when you actually demean any real conservatives by being totally dishonest and dont seem to grasp the irony that lying continually doesn't really make your side very noble? Is that what you meant?
Because he is just here to argue and say again and again that MM is flawed in this way or that. Stop responding to this as*hole.
Disney does have a history of backing off from politically controversial releases. They did the same sort of thing when they refused to distibute "Fahrenheit 911." No conspiracy here.
But Fahrenheit 9/11 was worthy of release. This piece of crap isn't.
I agree, but that isn't the argument here. The RW crazies want to convince everyone that Hillary is involved in yet another shadowy conspiracy to protect her image when a simple observation of past Disney behavior regarding this sort of situation shows that they are equally opportunity in what they choose not to distribute.
Ridiculous. Look it up. Fahrenheit 911 was released theatrically in June of 2004, the DVD came out in October.
No delay.
Look it up yourself and read more than the headlines this time.
F911 was not distributed by Disney. Disney used a clause in their contract with Miramax to refuse distribution of the film. It wasn't until the Weinsteins bought the rights away from Miramax/Disney that it was released. Nobody is stopping Path's producers from trying the same routine.
That happens all the time in the industry, look it up.
Besides, if Disney was so concerned about it then ABC wouldn't have run it in the first place, your argument makes no sense.
Well if it happens all the time then why all the fuss?
Distributors decide to back away from projects over concerns of quality or profitability all the time, not so often on purely political grounds. My point is that Disney has been fairly even handed in recent times over making those decisions and there is no evidence of some plot to block Path.
It is likely that they didn't realize the nature of the film until after it was televised. They were originally sold a docudrama that they probably assumed would have enough basis in fact that it wouldn't be controversial. What they got were dramatizations that veered so far from fact as to make the finished product much more fiction than fact.
Yep, it's a fact Disney refused to allow Miramax to distribute F911 even after they paid for it. They paid for it thinking it was a good idea then when they saw the content they backed off.
The excuse was Disney didn't think it appropriate to be involved in politics during an election year.
This isn't an election year, so the comparison to F911 is invalid and irrelvant.
The Path to 9/11 should be released
Let the Public decide the marketplace, they always do.
By the same logic, harmful products should remain on store shelves. Let the marketplace sort it out.
There is a difference between harmful products and a DVD. If we go down this road the Cons will want to silence everything that has happened in the Bush years. Preventing even the great Michael Moore movie Sicko from being released.
Propaganda is harmful. I dare you to disagree.
I do not disagree, but who are we to decide what is propaganda? Someone from the right will say "Sicko" and "F 911" are propaganda.
Then let them make an argument supporting that! I don't imagine you will be able to argue that manufacturing incidents that make Clinton look bad, and telling people it's based on an official report isn't propaganda.
I do not know what it is , I did not think the movie made Clinton look bad, I thought it made the American Government look bad and Bush since it happened on his watch. People however today want to forget that Clinton was infact our President from 93-2000 when bin Laden did declare war on us. He bombed the Cole and Kenya, this happened.
You don't think that bearing those attacks in mind, the image of Clinton refusing to take Osama out doesn't make him look bad? How can you say he declared war on us, and at the same time say the portrayal of Clinton refusing to do something about it paints him in anything but an extremely negative light?
Yes, in December of 2000 the Cole was bombed. What did you expect him to do in the month he had without any sort of investigation?
I think Clinton did everything right, I have no issue with how he handled bin Laden. What was he suppsoed to do , Nuke Afghanistan?
"People however today want to forget that Clinton was infact our President from 93-2000 when bin Laden did declare war on us."
"I have no issue with how he handled bin Laden."
Then why are we supposed to remember that he was in fact our president when bin Laden declared war on us? If he did nothing wrong, why is that relevant?
It is relevant because the movie mentions him, or why else would we have this discussion?
If the movie is the source of the relevance here, and you think Clinton did nothing wrong, then you should have no problem with saying that the portrayal of Clinton refusing to take out someone who declared war on us is propaganda.
The movie shows Clinton being a coward, and 9/11 occuring as a result. You think he did nothing wrong. These are not compatible. If that event has any basis in reality, as it's clearly supposed to, then by your own words he surely did something wrong. If it has no basis in reality, then it's propaganda. You choose.
I have not seen this movie, however: The original outcry over this movie was justified because it was not accurate. Certain scenes were cut out and the movie was renamed a "docudrama", which should tell you that it has been "fictionalized". The movie was successfully debunked at the time of airing so why do we have to debunk it all over again? It's already out there. It's TV.
If the inaccuracies are cut out, then it's all fine. However, the label "docudrama" doesn't really help much:n.<!--EOF_HEAD--> <!--BOF_DEF-->A television or movie dramatization of events based on fact (or a fictionalized drama based primarily on actual events). That's always how it was portrayed anyway, as based on the 9-11 report, so that doesn't really change anything. And as I've mentioned before, the scenes about having Osama in the crosshairs and Bush being so concerned about the potential attack before 9-11 have no legitimate basis in the report. They are not based on fact, as "docudrama" suggests.
I happen to be leery of anything that's "based on a true story", especially since seeing "Murder in the First". 99% of people who watched that had no idea just how much of that was completely wrong, but I know people who believed the general sentiment of the film was justified (and it wasn't). Even if they know it's not purely fact, the thrust of the movie can be believed to be fair.
I think the bottom line is that impact is a major factor here. When there's no consequences, and something is purely for entertainment value, then nobody minds a few liberties with the facts. But when we're talking about the actions that make up the "path" to the worst terrorist attack on American soil, then accuracy is more important than the entertainment factor. Nothing of this sort should ever need to be debunked in the first place.
Do you think there should be some kind of disclaimer stating that The Path to 9/11 is not factual?
Were any conservatives this mad when the Reagen mini-series was pulled?
I felt the same then as now - meh.
Good to know.
So who's coming up with this conspiracy theory surrounding the release of this dvd anyway?
Cyrus Nowrasteh that beacon of integrity that's who. Forgive me for waiting to hear the other side of the story.
Can you believe the right wing nuts almost scored a coup when Disney tried to pair up with Scholastic to place workbooks in our schools so this series could be taught as fact?
Fortunately saner heads prevailed.
"Let the Public decide the marketplace, they always do."
Absolutely false.
The New York Post hasn't turned a profit since Murdoch bought it and bleeds red ink to this day.
It will continue to publish it's trash as long as Murdoch wants it to, not when the market decides it's had enough.
If it hasn't turned a profit then apparently not enough people are buying or reading it, so that should make you happy.......what's your complaint?
Exactly, I do not get your point? Unless you want censorship. That is scary and wrong. Who are we to decide what can and can not be published or turned to a DVD?
"This isn't an election year, so the comparison to F911 is invalid and irrelvant."
It's not?
Maybe you can explain what all these debates I'm seeing on tv are about then?
Check your election schedule, 2008 is next.
"If it hasn't turned a profit then apparently not enough people are buying or reading it, so that should make you happy.......what's your complaint?
Let me make this simple for you ok?
If it were true "the market decides" then a newspaper that hasn't turned a profit as long as anybody can remember would close down due to market rejecting it.
However since Murdoch is content to take the losses (the man was willing to lose half a billion bucks to start up Fox News) clearly the market has nothing to do with the NY Post staying open.
It's a vanity publication for Murdoch. The man feels he needs the presence of a daily newspaper in NYC for credibility and also for Fox and the other members of the right wing echo chamber to quote, market be damned.
"Check your election schedule, 2008 is next."
You want to deny we've been in the 2008 election for quite some time now you go right ahead.
Your prize is a gift subscription to the NY Post.
Oh, so now it's the election year cycle......nice goal post moving there.
Let it go.......2007 is not an election year.
Tommy: the master of distinctions without a difference.
Next up for Tommy: Some say "to-may-to", others say "to-mah-to". Which is the proper pronounciation?
The fact remains Disney refused to let Miramax distribute l F911 but let this piece of trash to go forward.
They even went so far as to try to get it taught as fact in our schools.
That's the facts , Jack.
Censorship? Where?
Frankly, I don't see where there is actual censorship taking place here. JLyons and johnrtorres638 are asserting a claim with no basis. The DVD could be distributed tomorrow and its critics could do nothing about it. There is no legal action preventing it. There is no government action preventing it.
As I understand it, its critics are urging that it not be released in its present form on the basis of its many inaccuracies. So far, that request is being honored.
Where's the censorship?
The movie was a work of fiction that claims to be a work of historical importance. My favorite is this quote. "Whatever anyone may think ... of this movie, this is a bad precedent, a dangerous precedent, to allow a movie to be buried," he told the L.A. Times, "because the next time they'll go after another movie." What the hell does that mean? It was shown after multple people saw it and complained about it distortions of historical facts. Corrections were promised and never made. Better movies have been made and never shown on TV or the the movie theaters, but went right to DVD.