The ABC of lies about 911

Ivan Seeking

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...respondent.htm

I saw Kean on CNN yesterday. In the same breath he said that this is not a documentary but that people should watch in order to learn about the events of 911.

What are these guys trying to pull here?

In addition to CNN, I normally watch the news on all four networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. Lately I have noticed a pattern in which ABC fails to report bad news about Bush. For example, when a federal judge shot down Bush's spy program and stated that Bush is not a king, the only network that failed to carry the story was ABC.

Perhaps it wasn't newsworthy.

edward

Ivan:

I have been noticing the same strange almost subliminal changes about ABC. As for the so called documentary, it looks as if someone has influenced Disney. They first called it a documentary now they are claiming it to be a partially fictional dramatization. Gimme a break.

The real story that led up to 9/11 began when the Taliban and al Qaeda, drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. The USA provided plenty of support.

This was the first time in modern history that a radical Islamic movement had used terrorist tactics to force a major world power out of an Islamic nation.
This success more than anything emboldened them to coninue using the same tactics against others, and encouraged other radical Islamic to support them.

Gokul43201

Is that the understatement of the month or what!

Manchot

The worst part about it is that certain scenes have no basis in fact whatsoever. I've read about one wherein a Clinton official was told that a strike force was in place to take bin Laden out, and was asking for permission to do so. Of course, in the film, the permission was denied. By intermingling fact and fiction, ABC is deliberately mixing the two in peoples' minds.

turbo

CBS has been no better. Bob Schieffer has been a Bush family crony for many years, and has soft-balled them shamelessly. Couric will probably be worse, with her "how does that make you feel?" sham journalism. CBS should have given Trish Regan the anchor position and told her to always ask the tough questions and don't quit until she has a straight answer - she has the discipline and the edge, if not the experience. The news divisions of today's media are absolutely gutless. If CBS had the intelligence to switch to an attractive young female anchor with a hard-nosed attitude, they would see ratings soar.

scott1

I think they should make into more of a documentry then a movie based on a ture story.

Doesn't seem like you can make a good movie about 9/11 and have everthing be ture in it.

kyleb

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609060008

The lesson plan would have taught our kids to that Saddam was out to get us, things are going well for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the media threatens our national security; did they leave anything important to the Administration's agenda out?

scott1

I thought Fox was the Pro-Republican channel.

Ivan Seeking

Oh yes, are they still around? That's more of a video blog.

Ivan Seeking

That would explain a discussion that Tsu and I had this morning. Dan Rather was certainly no Bush lover.

This was my intial expectation, but we will see. I thought that she was nothing but fluff TV, however a google reveals that her origins are in journalism.

DaveC426913

Yeah, it's not good source material. You want to start with something with more drama and tragedy.

edward

Tell ABC what you think.
http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

SOS2008

I was at a family reunion over Labor Day weekend, and several issues were brought to mind during political discussions. Some have been ongoing debates here in PF, such as claims that the media leans to the left. My response is that if people think Joe Scarbourough or Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, or even Lou Dobbs on CNN who is against illegal immigration and outsourcing of American jobs (oh wait, that would be liberal because it is pro-labor, albeit American) or Pat Buchanan (and Tony Blankley of the Mclaughlin Group) on PBS is to the left, than I don't want to know how far to the right these people are.

The best rules of thumbs are 1) if you can't guess the party affiliation of a journalist, that's a good sign; 2) news forums with guests who debate different points of view are best, as long as the guests are credible (an area where Faux News fails miserably), and 3) obtain your news from multiple sources, not just one.

Not to digress, another ongoing matter is in regard to the Rule of Reason. Whether it was about Bush misleading Americans in the invasion of Iraq, or Bush's announcement of a guest worker program and path to citizenship (A.K.A. amnesty), the ever enduring response is that all previous administrations did the same.

First of all, Clinton may have initiated amnesty, but rather than learn from this, Bush is repeating the error. In my mind, that is worse. Clinton may have lied about having sex "with that woman" but lying to take our nation into a costly war of attrition is worse. But ultimately it is the same that your mother said to you when you were a child: "So if your friends jump off a cliff does that mean you should too?" It is the faulty logic (or lack of it) in such mentality that since all politicians are bad, the bad behavior is somehow okay.

I left the reunion asking myself why my right-wing family, like all Bush supporters, continually excuse Bush's misdeeds. If Clinton supporters can admit that he lied about having sex, and that lying is wrong, why can't Bush supporters do the same? No, they continue to cling to conspiracy theories that there were WMD, and that the invasion was a necessary strategy, and since the American people (or rest of the world) wouldn't buy into this, it was okay for Bush to...well they won't admit he lied. You can't get them to---JUST SAY IT!

And then I get home and hear about ABC's little problem with facts in their mini-series based on 9-11. It is a reflection of the mentality of the right-wing -- To blame Clinton for everything so as to excuse Bush. They can't even blame them both. They certainly can't blame Bush more, though in reality his misdeeds are far worse. No, they can't admit they voted for an idiot, and take responsibility for the mess that has ensued.

At least they are blaming incumbents in Congress it seems. But will they bring themselves to oust the GOP idiots by voting for Dems? Do they understand the need for balance of power in order to maintain accountability? Or will they remain prideful and entrenched (i.e., stay the course)? We'll soon find out.

In the meantime, when I hear Bush supporters churn out their delusional garbage, I'm going to ask them: If your friends jumps off a cliff does that mean you should too? And maybe they'll see how much they lack the Rule of Reason.

End of rant...carry on...

edward

There was a "Discussion Guide" produced for teachers to use in conjunction with the viewing of the "MOVIE"

Yesterday it was announced that the "Discussion Guide" has supposedly been rewritten to a more realistic version. The problem is; how many teachers down loaded the wrong version?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609060008

edward

Here is the new version of the Discussion Guide. It still leaves students dependent on the truthfullness and accuracy of the ABC "MOVIE"

http://www.scholastic.com/
http://content.scholastic.com/browse...lan.jsp?id=175

kyleb

If the people in power had any integrity they would have the whole idea of getting this film into schools canned quicker than they had "The Reagans" shuffled off CBS.