IglooDude said:
I agree. You wouldn't want to mis-remember something in ten years, due to the movie. Same reason why I didn't watch the Da Vinci Code.
Why do people wish to censor/remove the 9/11 docudrama?
- Thread starter garric
- Start date
I agree. You wouldn't want to mis-remember something in ten years, due to the movie. Same reason why I didn't watch the Da Vinci Code.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
OH NOES! CENSORSHIP!
ABC bows to Clinton pressure and edits 9/11 series
By Sam Knight and agencies
The American television network, ABC, aired its controversial mini-series about the build-up to the September 11 attacks last night, but only after issuing three disclaimers that the drama was fictional and editing scenes that had attracted the wrath of Bill Clinton and members of his administration.
The broadcasting of The Path to 9/11, a five-hour mini-series scheduled to conclude tonight, was described as "despicable" last week by Mr Clinton's office after an early copy of the series portrayed the former president as too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to focus on hunting for Osama bin Laden.
The version of the film given to reviewers emphasised that it was based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report and suggested that the Clinton White House directly interfered with attempts to kill bin Laden, who later went on to direct the attacks.
Last week, the former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, the former National Security Adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, and the head of the Clinton Foundation, Bruce Lindsey, wrote to Robert Iger, the chief of executive of Disney, which owns ABC, asking him to cancel the show. Harvey Keitel, one of the stars of the $40 million production, also said it should be re-edited.
Last night that pressure appeared to have had an effect: several controversial scenes had been edited and some had been removed altogether. A disclaimer reminded viewers three times that they were watching a fictionalised rather than a historical account of the years before the attacks.
"For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression," the disclaimer read.
One scene that had drawn the particular anger of Mr Clinton and former members of his administration had shown the White House's anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, telling John O’Neill, the FBI agent in charge of the hunt for bin Laden, that the Monica Lewinsky affair would prevent any order to kill the leader of al-Qaeda.
But last night, the film showed Clarke telling O'Neill, who was played by Keitel: "The president has assured me this... won’t affect his decision-making."
Another scene showing Mr Berger hanging up on Clarke when he asked permission to attack bin Laden's base was removed from the series completely. Footage of special forces soldiers poised to kill bin Laden before being called off by the White House was also heavily edited.
Although politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have criticised the mini-series, it split the 9/11 Commission, appointed to investigate the run-to the attacks, largely along party lines.
Thomas Kean, the Republican head of the commission, worked as a consultant for ABC and urged Americans to watch the film.
John Lehman, another Republican commission member, said the film was as critical of the administrations of George Bush and his father, George H W Bush, as it was of Mr Clinton.
"If you don’t like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club," he said. "The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."
But Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general under Mr Clinton and a Democratic member of the commission, said the film could undo the work of those who tried to compile an accurate account of the atrocity.
"We laboured for 20 months to get this right. And to have someone come along and rewrite that history... will lead us in the wrong direction," she told ABC.
ABC bows to Clinton pressure and edits 9/11 series
By Sam Knight and agencies
The American television network, ABC, aired its controversial mini-series about the build-up to the September 11 attacks last night, but only after issuing three disclaimers that the drama was fictional and editing scenes that had attracted the wrath of Bill Clinton and members of his administration.
The broadcasting of The Path to 9/11, a five-hour mini-series scheduled to conclude tonight, was described as "despicable" last week by Mr Clinton's office after an early copy of the series portrayed the former president as too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to focus on hunting for Osama bin Laden.
The version of the film given to reviewers emphasised that it was based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report and suggested that the Clinton White House directly interfered with attempts to kill bin Laden, who later went on to direct the attacks.
Last week, the former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, the former National Security Adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, and the head of the Clinton Foundation, Bruce Lindsey, wrote to Robert Iger, the chief of executive of Disney, which owns ABC, asking him to cancel the show. Harvey Keitel, one of the stars of the $40 million production, also said it should be re-edited.
Last night that pressure appeared to have had an effect: several controversial scenes had been edited and some had been removed altogether. A disclaimer reminded viewers three times that they were watching a fictionalised rather than a historical account of the years before the attacks.
"For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression," the disclaimer read.
One scene that had drawn the particular anger of Mr Clinton and former members of his administration had shown the White House's anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, telling John O’Neill, the FBI agent in charge of the hunt for bin Laden, that the Monica Lewinsky affair would prevent any order to kill the leader of al-Qaeda.
But last night, the film showed Clarke telling O'Neill, who was played by Keitel: "The president has assured me this... won’t affect his decision-making."
Another scene showing Mr Berger hanging up on Clarke when he asked permission to attack bin Laden's base was removed from the series completely. Footage of special forces soldiers poised to kill bin Laden before being called off by the White House was also heavily edited.
Although politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have criticised the mini-series, it split the 9/11 Commission, appointed to investigate the run-to the attacks, largely along party lines.
Thomas Kean, the Republican head of the commission, worked as a consultant for ABC and urged Americans to watch the film.
John Lehman, another Republican commission member, said the film was as critical of the administrations of George Bush and his father, George H W Bush, as it was of Mr Clinton.
"If you don’t like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club," he said. "The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."
But Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general under Mr Clinton and a Democratic member of the commission, said the film could undo the work of those who tried to compile an accurate account of the atrocity.
"We laboured for 20 months to get this right. And to have someone come along and rewrite that history... will lead us in the wrong direction," she told ABC.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
I want to pull out this bit in particular -
Yet again, Republicans fail to understand the difference between Fair and Balanced. Yeah, the movie is balanced. It makes fact-based critiques of Presidents HW and GW Bush, and makes shizzit up to criticize President Clinton. So it's definitely "balanced."
Anyway it looks to me as if the story is dead. They edited some of the parts that they made up, and removed others, which is probably as good as we're gonna get out of a news network that possess the integrity and journalistic ethos of ABC.
Yet again, Republicans fail to understand the difference between Fair and Balanced. Yeah, the movie is balanced. It makes fact-based critiques of Presidents HW and GW Bush, and makes shizzit up to criticize President Clinton. So it's definitely "balanced."
Anyway it looks to me as if the story is dead. They edited some of the parts that they made up, and removed others, which is probably as good as we're gonna get out of a news network that possess the integrity and journalistic ethos of ABC.
Firstly, understanding would be better if we didn't always lump people together as "left wingers".
Personally I am against censorship - I would not suggest that broadcasting this film should be *illegal* - but I don't think anyone's suggesting that. People still have a right to complain about things being shown. Also I do not think that bias is good - new/TV companies should strive for non-bias, and people are right to voice their disapproval if they don't. This is even more important in the case of state-funded TV (the BBC also showed this).
As for Fahrenheit 9/11 - didn't Disney try to block its release in the US? In which case, the situation is not the same, and I don't see how one can claim they are just showing both sides; they tried to censor one, but not the other.
Personally I am against censorship - I would not suggest that broadcasting this film should be *illegal* - but I don't think anyone's suggesting that. People still have a right to complain about things being shown. Also I do not think that bias is good - new/TV companies should strive for non-bias, and people are right to voice their disapproval if they don't. This is even more important in the case of state-funded TV (the BBC also showed this).
As for Fahrenheit 9/11 - didn't Disney try to block its release in the US? In which case, the situation is not the same, and I don't see how one can claim they are just showing both sides; they tried to censor one, but not the other.
I just don't get this movie. I thought there were plenty of things to fault Clinton for just by sticking to the 9/11 Commission Report. Why make things up? It just creates the risk that future truthful criticism of Clinton will be lumped with the lies in this mock-u-mentary.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
garric said:
The "docudrama" makes many false claims against the accusation but despite your claim, "left wingers" don't wnat for the government to censor the show; instead, we want the network to not show it, just like how many conservatives didn't want the TV networks to cover the horrors of the Vietnam war (the main differnece being that those horrors were real, unlike the insinuations laid upon Clinton).
Basically there's a difference between the government banning speech and noncoersively attempting to get something removed from the air. The government censoring television, like the FCC does, is censorship, while petitioning a network to not air something is excersising one's right to free speech.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
JollyRoger said:
Which is the opposite of what we want. We don't want to discredit criticism of Clinton. After all he failed to protect this country from the threat of AQ, and he failed to catch Bin Laden. The history books will certainly say that of Bush. Why shouldn't they say it of Slick Willie?
friskymike
Listening to:
I had the opportunity to watch the film, only Sunday night. I have to say that this was a very well put together docudrama. I came here and notice the thread and wanted to see what other people were saying.
I was actually surprised to hear about the edits to the film and had to laugh at what was being edited. This is my impression of Clinton, courtesy of the edited version. TOTALLY INCOMPETENT!!
Had they left it alone, the whole sex scandal causing distraction would have served as a reasonable excuse for not seeing the dangers for what it was. It would have also served as a warning about the dangers of partisan bickering.
Now, instead of gaining some sympathy, Bill Clinton's group are now seen as being prideful, arrogant and not very bright.
I notice that someone has said that the film was equally critical of the Republicans. From this version, I really didn't see this. Then again, I only saw what aired on Sunday. In reality, I strongly believe that both sides have to take responsibility for what was done.
_______________________
Barry
Web: http://www.bethberakah.com
I was actually surprised to hear about the edits to the film and had to laugh at what was being edited. This is my impression of Clinton, courtesy of the edited version. TOTALLY INCOMPETENT!!
Had they left it alone, the whole sex scandal causing distraction would have served as a reasonable excuse for not seeing the dangers for what it was. It would have also served as a warning about the dangers of partisan bickering.
Now, instead of gaining some sympathy, Bill Clinton's group are now seen as being prideful, arrogant and not very bright.
I notice that someone has said that the film was equally critical of the Republicans. From this version, I really didn't see this. Then again, I only saw what aired on Sunday. In reality, I strongly believe that both sides have to take responsibility for what was done.
_______________________
Barry
Web: http://www.bethberakah.com
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
NBarryB said:
The Republican bashing was Monday night. Oh...that portion was unedited btw.
MobBoss said:
Yep. Straight from the 9/11 Commission Report. Not fabricated like Sunday night.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Yeah, and true.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
GASP! Who dyou think you are using language like that!
I thought CFC censored four letter words?
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
Ditto. The censoring splurge that our country is in right now is over-zealous. They are censoring things that I don't think even really need to be censored!John HSOG said:
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Asking someone to edit or remove factual inaccuracies is not censorship. It is a prelude to a suit for libel/slander.
In this country, at least, free speech does not allow you to make up damaging BS about other people without facing the consequences.
In this country, at least, free speech does not allow you to make up damaging BS about other people without facing the consequences.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
JollyRoger said:
brennan said:
There was equal amounts of truth in both Sunday nights and Monday nights offering. If you think otherwise, you are simply too partisan for your own good (not too mention deluded).
I mean come on....so the pro-right producer and director and all the anti-Clinton consultants wanted to put the Bush administration in a bad light because it was true and just totally made stuff up about Clinton? Puh-Leese!
Listen to what you are saying. You people sound like the worst drug-induced conspiracy theorists out there. Next thing you will be pushing is bigfoot and UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster.
The bottom line is that the Bush administration is at least honest enough to state that yes, mistakes have been made. Clinton has far too much pride to acknowledge anything of the sort. Anything marring his godhead MUST be false.
Total crap if you ask me.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Prelude to a suit for libel/slander? Let them try...they would pull back a bloody stump. Such a suit would have no chance in hell of winning - period.
And if what you said about free speech were true, Michael Moore would be penniless on the street.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Gee, well all i've seen is that it made up negative stuff about the Clinton administration. Kindly show us all the bad stuff they made up about the Republicans in there, if you can't then you'll just have to accept that it was biased. And less trolling please. Particularly since you have no idea what my opinion of Mr Clinton is.MobBoss said:
Similar threads
