home

Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness"

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

The firestorm over ABC's Path to 9/11 is best exemplified by the right wing Accuracy in Media's review of it:

This is the first Hollywood production I've seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.

Of course, the depiction is actually completely and utterly dishonest:

[S]ome critics -- including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar -- questioned a scene that depicts several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. In it, the officers, working with leaders of the Northern Alliance , the Afghan rebel group, move in to capture Osama bin Laden , only to allow him to escape after the mission is canceled by Clinton officials in Washington.

In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp. "It didn't happen," Mr. Clarke said. "There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It's utterly invented."

Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. "It's 180 degrees from what happened," he said. "So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed."

The defense? Shockingly, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission embraces "truthiness" as a defense:

Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant on the miniseries, defended the program, saying he thought the disputed scene was an honest representation of a number of failed efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden.

"I pointed out the fact that the scene involving Afghanistan and the attempt to get bin Laden is a composite," Mr. Kean said, adding that the miniseries format required some conflation of events. But, he said, "The basic fact is that on a number of occasions, they thought they might have been able to get bin Laden, and on those occasions, the plug was pulled for various reasons." Mr. Kean conceded that some points might have been more drama than documentary. "Some of the people shown there probably weren't there," he said.

Kean shows for all the world he has gone off the rails here. I hope the paycheck was worth it, Mr. Kean.

While ABC seemed to aim for "truthiness" what it actually achieved in my book is outright lying.

< ABC and Hugh Hewitt: "Fake But Accurate" | Senators Seek Hearings Before Amending FISA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    To be honest, if the NYT is against it, there must be more truth than fiction. Just my two cents. Let the flames begin.

    howie kurtz, in his latest column, writes as if the clinton administration officials are the only ones who object to the depiction of events in the abc docu-fantasy "path to 9/11," and also makes it look like they are complaining only to cover their own asses. kurtz totally failed to mention richard clarke's or roger cressey's objections. but don't worry. skippy wrote howie an email correcting this omission.

    Watch as the so-called disclaimers put a right wing slant on this to smear those of us who insist on a little bit of reality with this hit piece. If it goes as I think it will, we need to go after the licenses of all stations that air this Mock-U-Mentary. Although the fairness doctrine was wiped away by Ronnie RayGun, Stations are still supposed to serve the public interest where they broadcast. The one thing every tv station has to face is license renewal. That's the time to file a protest and to fight the application for license renewal. We need to make it clear to ABC that their franchises can be put at risk if they do this right wing hit piece. Enough is enough!

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 05:35:55 AM EST
    Gee, guys. I thought you liked docudramas. I mean you just wiggled over 911 and danced over Gore's little piece of nonsense. Turn about...fair play and all that.

    Ron R... we need to go after the licenses of all stations that air this Mock-U-Mentary. Hold on there dude... I thought the left was all about 'free' speech? Isn't this what you all accuse GW of doing....trashing our civil rights? How dare anybody question Billy boy??? What about that piece of conspiracy trash Micheal Moore put out? Or the recent Gore crap that is touted as being "factual"? That's ok with you huh? Amazing!

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:52:58 AM EST
    I thought you liked docudramas. I mean you just wiggled over 911 and danced over Gore's little piece of nonsense.
    Tell that to your conservative colleagues who ignited the firestorm over the "docudrama" about Ronald Reagan (which I did not care about one way or the other, since I had no plans to see it and since Reagan's legacy as a moron is well established). The two films you mentioned are at the top of the charts for earnings by DOCUMENTARIES. The fact that you do not understand the difference between documentaries and fiction very loosely based on historical events underscores the departure from reality it takes to defend the president. It's like suggesting that "The Red Badge of Courage" is an actual and accurate history of the Civil War. The difference between filming real people and real events, and hiring actors to portray real people is the difference between "Star Wars" and real life. An actor will say anything he is paid to say, and a script does not have to represent reality. Real people, such as those filmed by Gore or Moore, only say what they really say and only do what they really do, and therefore are not in a position to claim that what they have been filmed doing and saying did not really take place. It boggles the mind that anyone needs this explained.

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 08:07:04 AM EST
    Ron: we need to go after the licenses of all stations that air this Mock-U-Mentary. BB: Hold on there dude... I thought the left was all about 'free' speech? You are correct. And the proper response is to use our own freedom of speech to expose the collusion between the government and those who distribute propaganda over wavelengths that are supposed to be public property and subject to public review. Let's make these people defend their propaganda before congress and on the record, in connection with the issuing of the licenses to use publicly owned wavelengths. Let's force them to provide the public with all their communications between the broadcasters and the administration concerning this film. Freedom of speech is not a license to lie about people, and the public has remedies. Sunlight has a cleansing effect.

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:23:39 AM EST
    I thought you liked docudramas. I mean you just wiggled over 911 and danced over Gore's little piece of nonsense.
    Link to the lies in either of those movies or stfu. It also escapes ppj the difference between complete RNC propaganda being put out on the public airwaves and privately financed movies in privately owned theatres.

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    Anonymous - After scanning the website I saw no lies, only phrases like "left one with the impression that ..." Even Koppel admits he didn't find any lies, just 'deceits.' Deceit is not a synonym for lie. And the difference between a movie theatre that is private and the use of public airwaves for proven lies continues to escape you guys. Flat out proven lies intended to influence an election USING OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES! ABC should have its license yanked if it shows this crap.

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 02:21:31 PM EST
    Moore is being sued
    So what? Anyone can sue anyone, doesn't mean they have a case or that they will win. You are the same guys saying the plame civil suit doesn't matter, really, you should try for just a little consistency. Once again, there were no proven lies in Moore's or Gore's films, otherwise the rethugs would be all over it. One person resented the way he is portrayed. Biut aside from your stupid distractions, the key difference is between PUBLIC airwaves and PRIVATE theatres.

    Sailor... ABC should have its license yanked if it shows this crap. LOL.... if it was about Bush it would be ok? Right? So much for free speach aye Sailor? It's free as long as it agrees with you? What a bunch of freakin hypocrits! Hey all you 'so called" freedom loving people on the left... your true stripes (insert whatever term you like here) are showing!!

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    Yeah, the First Amendment doesn't give carte blanche to lie. That's why we have slander and libel laws. The 1st does bar disproportionate response to lies, as does common sense. If ABC defames Clinton & Friends, the proper remedy is a fine and maybe the airing of a court-ordered clarification. Yanking their license would be a gross overreaction. And consider that a sizeable portion of ABC viewers get their TV via cable. This suggests that talking about airwaves is a transparent excuse to punish speech, not a realistic claim to a right to control the content of the broadcast. CBS claims that forged documents show that Bush was AWOL: people delude themselves into thinking the docs are real. ABC considers airing a false dramatization of a former politician: people look for an excuse to yank their license. Nice.

    Repack... An actor will say anything he is paid to say, and a script does not have to represent reality. And so will an unsuspecting 'civilian' if you lead them on with your 'questions'! (As has been documented to have happened in Moore's POS!) But then again, you believe what you want to believe! are not in a position to claim that what they have been filmed doing and saying did not really take place. That's just not true! Moore twisted several people's statements (and is being sued for it)to get them to say what he wanted them to say. Nice try though. It boggles the mind that anyone needs this explained. Yes indeed! Freedom of speech is not a license to lie about people, I wish you'd all remeber that when talking out of both sides of your mouths! Sailor.... Link to the lies in either of those movies or stfu. The links (and lies) have been well documented...you just refuse to believe! Moore is being sued. You do know that don't you! difference between complete RNC propaganda being put out on the public airwaves and privately financed movies This cracks me up! You're kind (and the DNC) can spew all the crap they want about Repubs, but now that the truth is finally being put out there... (Billy boy actually sholders much of the blame for 9/11) and is something many of us have been saying for years, you all get your panties in a wad. Too bad! Truth hurts don't it? Your guy wasn't the great savior you all thought huh?

    OK, here the names, titles and email addresses for a number of key senior Disney decision makers I found, starting at the top with the CEO and board of directors are at the bottom. Let's make our voices heard and see if we can get these guy to pull this blatantly obvious Bush propaganda. ABC may profit from the predictable controversy but airing a film designed to obfuscate Bush's responsibility for 9/11 will cause ABC to suffer greatly in the estimation of serious people. Disney and ABC should leave the RNC propaganda to Fox, it's not ABC's demographic. Robert Iger - CEO - robert.a.iger@disney.com Rich Ross - President of Disney Channel Worldwide - rich.ross@disney.com Sean Cocchia - VP/Business Development, Disney Channel Worldwide- sean.cocchia@disney.com Gary Marsh - Disney Channel Worldwide President of Entertainment - gary.marsh@disney.com Sarah Shelton - Assistant to Gary Marshsarah - shelton@disney.com Scott Garner - SVP/Programming, Disney Channel - scott.garner@disney.com Karen Myer - Assistant to Scott Garner - karen.myer@disney.com Meredith Metz - Senior Vice President, Creative Affairs, Walt Disney Television Animation - meredith.metz@disney.com Lisa Salamone - The Head of Animation Production, Disney Channel - lisa.salamone@disney.com Joanna Spak - The Head of Finance, Planning, etc., Disney Channel - joanna.spak@disney.com Mark Kenchelian - The Head of Business and Legal Affairs, Disney Channel -mark.kenchelian@disney.com Jewell Engstrom - CFO and Executive VP for Disney-ABC Cable Group - jewell.engstrom@disney.com Olivia Stafford - Assistant to Jewell Engstrom - olivia.stafford@disney.com Albert Cheng - EVP/Digital Media, Disney-ABC Television Group - albert.cheng@disney.com Karen Hobson - Digital Media Communications Office, Disney-ABC Television Group - karen.hobson@disney.com George Bodenheimer - Co-Chairman Media Networks Group - george.bodenheimer@disney.com Nicole Nichols - Senior VP of Entertainment Communications, Disney-ABC Television Group - nicole.nichols@disney.com Aime Wolfe - Assistant to Nicole Nichols - aime.wolfe@disney.com Patti McTeague - VP of Kids Communications - patti.mcteague@disney.com Siobhan Kenny - Acting Head of International Communications - siobhan.kenny@disney.com Paul Lee - ABC Family Channel - paul.lee@disney.com Annie Fort - ABC Family Media Relations - annie.fort@disney.com Alex Wallau - President of Network Operations & Administration - alex.wallau@disney.com David Westin - ABC News President - david.westin@disney.com Mike Shaw - ABC Sales and Marketing President - mike.shaw@disney.com Fred Kuperberg - Disney/ABC Executive VP of Business and Legal Affairs - fred.kuperberg@disney.com Kara Rousseau - VP of Ad Sales Marketing for Disney/ABC Kids Networks - kara.rousseau@disney.com Kim Harbin - Buena Vista Media Relations - kim.harbin@disney.com Anne Gates - Disney Consumer Products Executive VP & CFO - anne.gates@disney.com James Fielding - Senior VP, Retail Sales and Marketing for DCP - james.fielding@disney.com Deborah Dugan - President of Disney Publishing - deborah.dugan@disney.com Graham Hopper - Senior VP and General Manager of Buena Vista Games - graham.hopper@disney.com Angela Emery - Director of Public Relations, Buena Vista Games - angela.emery@disney.com Chris Bess - Buena Vista Home Entertainment - chris.bess@disney.com Peter Murphy - Senior Adviser to Mr. Iger - peter.murphy@disney.com Judy Estrin - Board of Directors - jestrin@packetdesign.com John Bryson - Board of Directors - john.bryson@edisonintl.com Monica Lozano - Board of Directors - monica.lozano@laopinion.com John Chen - Board of Directors - john.chen@sybase.com Gary Wilson - Board of Directors - gary.wilson@nwa.com Leo Odonova - Board of Directors - leo.odonovan@mbna.com Thomas Staggs - CFO/Senior V.P. - tom.staggs@disney.com David K. Thompson - Senior Vice President - David.K.Thompson@disney.com

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    And consider that a sizeable portion of ABC viewers get their TV via cable. This suggests that talking about airwaves is a transparent excuse to punish speech
    They can do anything they want on cable, (within the law), the airwaves belong to the people. It isn't free speech to air a 5 hour RNC campaign ad before an election. ABC claims it is 'based on the 9/11 Hearings' but it contradicts the 9/11 hearings. The suckumentary was written by an avowed wrongwinger and ABC only gave advance copies to Rush Limbaugh et al, they refused to give advance copies to the Dems actually pictured in the movie. Roy, I have respect for you and your viewpoints, but I think you're wrong on this one. (If you want links to my above statements I'd be happy to provide them when I get a chance.)

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 08:31:20 PM EST
    Sailor, Don't worry about the links, I'm not disputing the basic facts, only the proper response. I'm not claiming that airing the program as described is "free speech" as in immune to punishment. I'm worried about the chilling effects of an overreaction. If airwaves are reserved for programming that serves the public good, that includes speculation and alternative interpretations of data. Not Path style libel, but content which network execs might rightly fear will be wrongly declared as Path style libel. If we overreact to damaging programming, we chill that useful borderline programming. Consider the hand wringing over how the FCC's post-nipple crackdown on indecency might chill other programming. I have the same worry if we let them crack down too hard on libelous programming, especially close to an election when we need the most free press, not the most cowed. If lying about an ex-politician evokes a virtual death sentence for a network, how will it affect the willingness of the remaining networks to air less-than-iron-clad criticism about current leaders? Would a network air a program like The Uncounted Enemy, accusing officials of lying about progress in a controversial war, in a post-ban atmosphere? Allegations that George Allen used a racial epithet, when the audio's a little hard to make out and the origins of the word are ambiguous? How about That's My Bush, a darned funny show lampooning a sitting president? And if statements about an ex-president can result in a revocation, surely so must statements about a sitting president. The FCC answers to that president, who appoints the head of the organization. I don't want anybody to have that much power over his own critics, but do you really want Bush to? Were you pissed when some stations refused to air the ad in which Cindy Sheehan accused Bush of lying about WMD's? They'll have still more reason to refuse to air controversial statements about politicians if the FCC -- controlled by those same politicians -- has a policy of banishing them to cable if they air allegations which are later deemed irresponsible.

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 08:48:48 PM EST
    Roy I see your point, and I agree to a certain extent, but I'd like to point out: JJ's nipple was not a lie. CBS fired folks (to appease wrongwingers) for the AWOL story. There was nothing subtle or confusing about Allen's use of a racial epithet, he said it twice. (His mom is from Fr Guiana and it's a well known slur there.)
    If lying about an ex-politician
    That's not the point, the point is that Path is trying to rewrite history in order to influence an election. If they said clinton f**ked sheep I wouldn't care, but they are deliberately distorting the most important event in recent history to influence an election.

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:24:32 PM EST
    Sailor, Fair points. I didn't expect us to see eye-to-eye, but I've said my piece so I'm done. And, btw, ...
    I have respect for you and your viewpoints, but I think you're wrong on this one.
    Likewise, and thanks for bringing a little class to a contentious issue.

    Re: Accuracy In Media? ABC's Path to "Truthiness" (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:07:06 AM EST
    Always a pleasure Roy.

    >> (from BB:) >>, but now that the truth is finally being put out there... Not even the makers of this turd are claiming that this drama is the truth (see truthiness above) >>(Billy boy actually sholders much of the blame for 9/11) ... If Rush says so... over and over... it must be true, rigth B? Nevermind the facts, which have debunked this argument thoroughly, but don't let that stop you... >>...and is something many of us have been saying for years, yes, you have been saying it, and I've been waiting for the proof, and this phony "drama" is not that. But somehow this turd IS enough for folks like you to jump up and yell "See! Us ditto-heads was right, and this here fake drama proves it!" >> ...you all get your panties in a wad... My panties are indeed quite wadded, and it's because this drama will present (as fact) events that did not occur, misleading people into reaching the wrong conclusions, and possibly making the same mistakes again. That should wad the panties of anyone who gives a damn about this country. Dude, don't even people like you want to know what really happened? or is it more important to beat Clinton's carcass some more? >>Too bad! Truth hurts don't it? How would you ever know from this drama which goes nowhere near the truth? And by making ridiculous comparisons, you don't seem interested in the truth but rather in tit-for-tat, my guy vs. your guy nonsense. And you love this movie because, even though it's a lie, it smears the guy Rush tells you is the right guy to smear. >>Your guy wasn't the great savior you all thought huh? boy, you got us there, B ... a phony non-documentary with ficticious scenes sure does prove that Clinton was not Christ, and that's got my panties all wadded ...