I have tried to stay out of the fray regarding the upcoming miniseries, "The Path to 9/11" which is due to air over two nights on 10 and 11 September. It is impossible not to know that former President Bill Clinton is ballistic, that Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger are quaking and demanding changes, and that the looney left has lost its collective mind and gone insane with anger.
It is one thing to protest, write letters indicating your anger or concern, and to make as big a stink as you want to. That is free speech and everyone is entitled to exercise it. Republicans certainly spoke up over their own concerns at inaccuricies to be included in the Reagan miniseries of a few years ago. However, it is one thing to yell and scream and pull your hair and even threaten boycotts, it is quite another to threaten government censorship in the form of getting a broadcast license pulled. That is beyond the pale and frankly is extremely frightening to contemplate. And all this over a movie hardly anyone has seen yet and which reports from those who have seen advanced copies is supposed to be relatively fair and balanced. There was plenty of blame to go around on what happened in the lead up to 9/11, plenty on both the Clinton and the Bush watch. Most of what went wrong was systemic and thankfully many of those systemic problems have been corrected or are in the process of being corrected now.
Here is the letter written to ABC/Disney with a blatant threat to their right to freely present this miniseries anyway they want. Is this the way we want our leaders to lead, by using the government to silence those telling it as they see it. I don't think so. And the dumbest part of all ... there are many advance copies in circulation, many to the news media, that do not reflect the cuts being demanded. How long before those are available to anyone who wants to see the original?
Senate Dems Threaten Disney's Broadcast License
09/07 06:45 PM - Media Culture
Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today containing the following passages:We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Who in the press will stick up for ABC's right to air this miniseries?
Many people have pointed out that conservatives protested the factual deficiencies in "The Reagans" three years ago and wonder why they suddenly consider criticism invalid. The Democrats also appear to have completely changed their position as well. This is what they said about conservative criticism of CBS three years ago, and without a Republican threat against their broadcast license:
"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right.
"But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs."
It's certainly easy to imagine it now -- the Democrats have delivered it. Welcome to the Enforced Perspective Party. It's a staggeringly dumb political mistake, and if it's not withdrawn quickly, will do real damage to the Democrats for years.
And MacRanger pulls no punches (He adds in an update: "Looks like Bill is going to need a case of Pepto, email from overseas, guess what “bootleg” movie is showing up? Told you, can’t stop the flood.":
Let’s go back to 2004 and a REAL fictional movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. That is fictional to everyone except Democrats in an election year. Back then Michael Barone wrote of prominent Democrats attending a viewing and even talking the movie up as if it were even loosely based on fact:
“Do the democrats really want to join forces with Michael Moore? It sure looks like it. Last week, Moore’s documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11 opened in Washington with an audience that included Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, Sens. Tom Daschle, Barbara Boxer, and Tom Harkin, Congressmen Henry Waxman, Charles Rangel, and Jim McDermott (who before the war said that he believed Saddam Hussein more than George W. Bush), and the 9/11 commission’s most partisan member, Richard Ben-Veniste. The film received a standing ovation. In Manhattan, Democratic National Committee Treasurer Maureen White hosted a showing of the film for local big contributors. Seldom have leaders of a political party promoted a commercial film so shamelessly.”
Fast forward to 2006 and some of the same Democrats that attended that show are now crying foul, fraud and even threatening FCC licenses over and The Path to 9/11. Again, the simple fact that you see such a push from Clintonistas, Albright and Berger, among others only lends credence to the movie, more than it detracts - they are scared to death, as is the rest of the Democrat Party. And for good reason. In spite of what you heard, the portrayals are more true than false.
Fact is that they are going to get a lot more nervous and crazy. That’s because others were there and know what happened behind the scenes and while some are still on duty and cannot speak, many others can. Two of which I know personally who can refute Clarke, Albright and Sandy right out of their socks (sorry Berger). Point of fact those two WERE interviewed for the movie, as they WERE on the ground in Afghanistan, and which incidently is why ABC is so bold to air pretty much what they had.
Think about it folks, ABC wouldn’t have spent $40 million dollars and two years of production if they hadn’t already vetted the facts they will portray. Regardless of the hysteria, they are on pretty good ground. In fact, the witnesses are all too willing to come forward if needed to give their accounts in person if needed.
AJ is none too happy either:
Senate Dems Demand Elimination Of Free Speech
By AJStrata on All General Discussions
While emotional liberals always miscast any conservative outcries to erroneous claims from the left as censorship, the true meaning of the word is applied when government threatens or punishes speech it doesn’t like or want to hear. So while calls for boycotts, etc are one person’s free speech colliding with another, the calls of censorship have been basically over the top. Until now that is. In an emotional and angry response to a TV Movie the Senate Dems are trying to repeal the First Amendment and destroy our Right to Free Speech by a real true act of censorship:
And anger doesn't quite cover Allahpundit's reaction:
Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″
Via Spruiell. I forget the context, but I remember Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee saying a while back how disappointed he was in the Democrats over something, and I told him there’s an easy fix for that: expect nothing from them, like I do, and you’ll never be disappointed. Turns out I was wrong, though, because even with zero expectations, I can’t quite believe they’d stoop to this. As naked an example of intimidation as you’ll see this side of British Muslims playing good cop/bad cop with Tony Blair. If the GOP pulled this crap, it’d be top of the f’ng fold tomorrow in the Times. As it should be.
......
You can’t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and “composite” scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin’ nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid — who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to — wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC.
Fair enough. Everything is a precedent. There’s nothing anyone can do except remember and use it when Michael Moore’s new movie comes out and someone on the Republican side criticizes it as inaccurate and the droning about dissent-crushing begins. Here’s a post to help memorialize it for future reference. I hope others will do so too.
......
Update: If you’re going to link, don’t link this post. Link Texas Rainmaker’s. That’s another way to stick this incident up Reid’s ass — use it as an opportunity to discuss Clinton’s record as a miserable failure, to borrow another favored left-wing term, on terrorism.
And just in case you missed it in the quote above, be sure to check out Texas Rainmaker for all the juicy details:
Update:
I apologize for insinuating that the Clinton administration didn’t have an approach to dealing with terrorism. I’ve uncovered proof of just how they dealt with it:
And Riehl World View sums it up, in my opinion:
FCC Threats Clinton's Final Folly - A Prediction
However, the ramifications of the current move by Dems to pressure ABC is going to have consequences far beyond a docu-drama. Americans don't like people, especially politicians, messing with their TV. And the other big issue facing Republicans in the run up to the coming elections besides Iraq was firing up their base. I say was because the Dems have just saved the Republicans from having to go to the trouble.
The Democrats shameless maneuvering now going on on behalf of Clinton brings back, not only the animus Republicans have always felt for Clinton, while drawing attention to their general weakness in foreign affairs, it also reminds everyone of the scandal ridden side show that was Democrat Clinton's presidency.
And Newsbusters says that sound you hear is the Constitution weeping.
ABC, Michael Moore, and the Floating Bar Known as the First Amendment
Did you hear that sound Thursday afternoon? That was the Constitution weeping as one of the nation’s major political parties trampled all over the First Amendment. Remember what that is…that right bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers guaranteeing freedom of speech?
Well, if what was reported by NewsBusters here, and the Ostroy Report here (hat tip to Hot Air) are correct, and ABC really has caved into political pressure from Democrats – in particular, former President Clinton – to edit the miniseries “The Path to 9/11,” such rights have changed forever. At the very least, this would demonstrate that these rights – which Jefferson said were inalienable, by the way! – apply differently to Democrats and Republicans.
Topsecret as a new blogger at Seixon has the solution to the whole problem and it's brilliant ... here is a hint:
COMMENTS ENCOURAGED
THE AIM OF EDUCATION IS TO TEACH US HOW TO THINK, NOT WHAT TO THINK.
This site is designed for and best viewed in Firefox with view at 1249x778px
Firefox allows you to resize your font/type size as well as resize the page and/or the resolution for easier reading. This is especially helpful for those still using 800x600 resolution monitor settings.