Posted on 09/08/2006 7:50:00 AM PDT by conservativecorner
ABC has changed its "The Path to 9/11" television special, set for a commercial-free broadcast Sunday and Monday, because of pressure over the message it carries, according to a report on a television blog site.
The network heard from a number of leading political figures, many of them Democrats, who complained of alleged inaccuracies and bias in the production, according to the report in the Los Angeles Times' CalendarLive.com website.
The report said the five-hour docudrama also is in the middle of an information war between a left-wing organization that wants changes made in the film and conservative blogs defending the portrayal.
An advocacy group called The Center for American Progress Action Fund is leading an effort to have ABC cancel or change the show further.
In a statement the group said the production "presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration" but ignores the many failures of the Bush administration.
The movie takes what its makers have judged as intelligence and operational failures of the administrations of both Bill Clinton and President Bush and turns them into a drama portraying the prelude to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.
Fox News reported former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey have written to Walt Disney Co., ABC's parent, making editing demands.
In a New York Times report, Albright said she'd been told the film "depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred."
The CalendarLive report said public records were used in the preparation, but Clinton supporters still were upset.
A Times' source told the newspaper ABC executives and producers have toned down a scene that was generating much of the criticism.
"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source, who told the newspaper he didn't want to be identified, said. "These are very slight alterations."
At issue was a scene shown last week in a screening in Washington, after which audience members complained of the film's depiction of Clinton's pursuit of Osama bin Laden.
The Times said Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser, said the movie suggested the Clinton administration was in a position to capture the confessed terrorist leader in 1998 but canceled the mission.
Reports say that scene showed Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden.
As WorldNetDaily reported at the time Berger was the focus on a Justice Department Investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.
FBI agents searched Berger's home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.
Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket, pants and socks. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
The complaints also allege the film infers Clinton was preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky affair instead of focusing on bin Laden.
The network also decided, the report said, to make the credits say the production was "in part" based on a federal 9/11 commission report.
The network has called the production a "dramatization" of the events.
"The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate," ABC said.
ABC said in a statement today the final version hasn't been viewed yet, editing still is going on and criticisms are "premature and irresponsible."
"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," the network said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."
Program executive producer Marc Platt reportedly told the Washington Post he worked to be "fair."
"If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously a concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view," he said.
You know, this should put the big chill into virtually everyone in this country. On the rare occasion when a network actually tries to air the truth, the 'Rat Mafia shuts it down and forces them to stop.
I've written to some of the addresses at ABC (posted elsewhere), and I will not be watching their Mock-umentary.
This move by Clinton will just remind the public about that time he wagged his finger at us while looking us straight in the eyes and lying.
I suspect the entire Sandy Berger thang, socks and all, will end up on the cutting room floor.
I guess the first question to ask is, what did Sandy Berger steal to protect the Clintons?
Wonder why the MSM is not asking?
No different than the soviet union burning books.
The Clintonistas for bringing the pressure and the weaklings at ABC for folding!
I keep reading the pathetic nonsense in the 9-11 report that they "saw no reason" to disbelieve the Clinton officials saying teh Monica Lewinsky scandal did not affect their decisions. No, no reason but obvious common sense. Clinton came back on a helicopter to announce launching (innefective) missiles within 24 hours of his angry anti- Ken Starr speech bombing out.
Bias? Bias?!
The Democrats are so concerned about BIAS they'll squash free speech to avoid it?!
*Searches for duct tape to wrap head with*
You may recall that he launched the missiles on the very day that Monica began testifying in front of the grand jury. The Lewinsky grand jury testimony was THE press story of the day, until Clinton came on TV to personally announce the attack.
Yes, when leftists talk about a "chill wind" or the "whiff of facism", they are talking about themeselves. People ought to be outraged by this.
We were raped in broad daylight by horrible people and they are arrogantly rubbing it in our faces. That's the reality.
This means that Clinton feels guilty that his open zipper helped kill thousands of Americans.
This is what we can expect if the Democrats win...Censorship, Threats.....and worse.
Lefties are the masters of "self-projection."
They do those things, so they assume everybody else does it too.
That's OK. The fact remains that the "debate" about Clinton's failures during the build-up to 9-11 is now a front burner issue in the news as the election season gears up.
Prior to this bru-ha-ha, that subject was way below the public radar screen.
So all in all, I'd say it's a win for our side, no matter what ABC does.
I'm astounded too and have grown hoarse from shouting at my television whenever I hear how "outraged" Sandy Berger is that he is unfairly vilified in the movie.
Since when does a convicted fellon caught stealing classified documents from the National Archives HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER?!!!!!
Yes, and that is what scares me.
"Fairness Doctrine", anyone? Think McCain-Feingold was bad? You ain't seen nothin' yet!
`ABC Changes 9/11 Show Under Pressure'
or
`ABC Sends Its Blue Dress to the Dry-cleaner'
The democrats just looked us in the eye and did the same. And the republicans will look away.
If this company wants to alter history to assuage Bill Clinton, they are truly no longer trust worthy. Bill Clinton's eight years in office appeased the terrorists - there is no denying it.
Up until now, Slick has been given a virtually FREE PASS!!!
My understanding is that no one who has the clearance and views secret documents from the archives actually gets the original. They will only get copies.
If we can keep it alive.
What scenes that the Dems have demanded be removed is there any evidence for that they ever occured? This is not about whether Clinton was distracted by the whole Lewinsky thing but the House of Representatives shares responsibility for that. This whole episode is beginning to sound like the Reagan movie a few years back.
That's one thing that really bothers me about the Patriot Act. Although I trust the current administration with expanded govt powers, I do NOT share that same feeling when the faces change with some future democratic administration.
True but should ABC fabricate history to communicate that. Isnt the truth powerful enough?
If they can intimidate ABC to remove undesirable scenes in this show, they can intimidate another publication or media outlet to show or tell any story they want.
My only question is, will any future historian be able to uncover the facts, or will all the damning evidence be destroyed by then? Will accounts of this event be backed by unquestionable proof, or will all we have are vague recollections and anecdotes? (For those that didn't react strongly to the story when it was reported, this is exactly why the story about Sandy Berger destroying files was so important.)
Ya know .. I can't help but think there is more to this hoopla then just Sandy Burger
"Our docudrama was too long, anyway.," says ABC. "We only cut by an hour. Now it's just four hours long instead of five. Better for the viewing public that way. Now they can go to sleep earlier."No big deal. Nothing to see here. Lock your doors and windows. Time to move on.
True. But the major media outlets know they have to answer to the conservative blogosphere, and they are not going to want to suffer to many more black eyes like Dan Rather and the Reuters debacle.
That is exactly right.
How ironic. It is alleged that when Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick in her hotel room... he went back for... seconds.
There was also Clinton's bombing of Iraq in December 1998 in an effort to prevent the House of Representatives from voting on the articles of impeachment.
No, Clinton is only afraid of being held responsible for his malfeasance. He couldn't care less about the "little people".
Regardless of ABC does with 'The Path to 911', Clinton's legacy is and will always be a hole in the ground on West Street in lower Manhattan.
not ironic, same perp different rape, same pattern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.