dr. elsewhere here
Again. This time, a rant.
In my humblest opinion, this entire Path to 9/11 nightmare is going to backfire in their ruddy, puny little faces. We can already see the ignition sparks.
The mood of this country is NOT happy. The natives are not just restless; they are jaundiced, they are cynical, and they are pissed.
Hell, even southern women, Daughters of the Confederacy, are abandoning this sinking ship!
They all - WE - are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!
And this unapologetic, brazen, craven, slavish piece of profit and propaganda will - ironically enough - be the spark that sets it all aflame.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Something these diabolical idiots (and don't forget that David Horowitz is involved with this project!) don't get is that Lincoln was right; you really cannot fool all the people all the time.
When you fool folks, you do it for selfish reasons. Every time. And the fooled cannot help but notice. Getting fooled does not make anyone an idiot, but insisting that your patsies are idiots makes you one.
How did that go again?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,....er, won't get fooled again.
Er, right?
The real fools here insist on believing that propaganda works, the way it worked in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. But what they forget is that, in Russia at least, over time the people all figured it out to the point that they did not believe a single word that issued from the government's mouthpieces. Not one. They declared their own opposite day for the duration of the dreadful life of Soviet Russia, and went about their business, without their government, setting up their own local governments to survive, because the central government had become so obsessed with being the biggest, baddest dude on the world block that they forgot about their own citizens.
Hm. Ring any bells?
And now Bush is inviting himself to speak in the middle of this slander fest?? The whole thing is spitting contrivance in every direction!
More and more of the American people are getting it, and I'm inclined to believe that very few will bother to watch, and those who do will be mostly curious to see how badly they botch it. And I think what they see will just infuriate them. From most of the reviews (some quite funny; see Christy at FDL for links to these, and another satisfying rant), the film is bad. Bad film-making, bad propaganda, bad writing, bad pace, bad fact-checking, bad, ...just really bad.
Interestingly, the media frontline on this has been a few days behind Joe's incisive inquiries, so I'm just waiting for them to start asking the other good question, namely what's in all this risky neck-on-the-block insistence from ABC/Disney? What has been promised to them? Or is it really that strongly implicit in the fact that the Republicans will kill media ownership rules, give them copyright protection, and run interference for them with China.
But the Republicans must win for them to enjoy the benefits of their risk-taking. And the risk is just becoming insurmountably enormous, on both sides. For Rove, as I pointed out yesterday, these ploys have to make a measurable difference in the polls. In their favor. I can honestly envision how this show could actually make their numbers plummet, so brazen and overt and, well, sick is the whole thing.
And the risk to ABC/Disney is no less catastrophic. Horrible PR, horrible sponsor backlash, horrible network boycotts, not to mention the threat Senator Reid levied about unleashing the Democrats on their license to use our - OUR - airwaves.
And then there are the not-so-subtle lawsuit threats. Clinton sent a letter through his attorney. Now Albright and Berger have sent letters, as well.
John Avarosis (with his law degree) at americablog has pointed out that, within the first ten minutes of the show (he has a copy), they show American Airlines employees letting Atta through to board in Logan, despite finding his name on a no-fly list! John lists the errors here, but is also shouting libel all over the place, especially in the UK, where they have openly advertised this as "the real story and based on the 9/11 Commission reports."
I hope they do it. I hope Clinton and Albright and Berger and families of victims and FBI agents individually and jointly sue the lot of 'em, including Horowitz and both the Cunninghams and that slimey weasel Nowrasteh, not to mention Keane (what is he doing??). And of course the cowardly ABC and Disney leadership. Any lawsuits will actually have all the more punch if the show airs, if the deed is actually done. And then, won't discovery be fun?
Of course, ABC couldn't care less about the agenda of the ideologues who are pushing this slander. That irony of Horowitz using the YWAM folks who hate Jews (and Catholics, too, by the by), really generates a slutty image, does it not? These idiots are insisting the show must go on because they're so invested in the propaganda factor. But it won't work; like I said, this has Hindenburg written all over it.
The entire scheme is going to backfire so huge, it'll make the al-Qaeda blowback look like a baby blowing a kiss.
UPDATE: The widowed husband of a former executive with Disney who was killed on 9/11 has written Iger requesting the show be pulled.
18 comments:
What's the rage man!?
Is 9/11 all a conspiracy?
ABC/Disney has already committed libel by distributing the 900 DVD's to right-wingers. Like Harry says in WHMS, "It's out there now--you can't take it back."
I don't know whether cancelling the show would avoid the wrath (and lawsuits) of those who have been libelled: Clinton and his aides, the FBI, American Airlines, and God knows who else. But you can bet ABC/Disney in-house lawyers have already pointed out that it wouldn't get the network off the hook legally.
unirealist,
Whatever other consequences ABC suffers, it won't be libel suits.
When public figures like Clinton are involved, you need to prove *intent* to defame. Error, negligence, stupidity or bias aren't in themselves grounds for libel.
If ABC lied about you or me, and we suffered an injury to reputation because of it, we'd have a case (unlike Bill Clinton). Clinton and Sandy Berger might be able to sue in Britain (where I believe the program is going to air), because the legal standard for libel in U.K. is much laxer. However, don't wish that standard on the U.S.: U.K. politicians and public figures routinely use libel laws to silence critics.
actually, anon, i believe we might not have that much trouble showing intent to defame in this case. the pattern is certainly there. and a jury would have to be convinced otherwise.
yeah, the law is as you suggest in the UK, and no, i don't want it that way here. however, it is what it is, and if these folks can file *there* against them, i don't think it will be too much trouble to exact justice enough.
plus, you still get discovery in the UK, and that might provide what plaintiffs need here to get justice.
it is certainly worth pursuing. especially since, for cryin' out loud, it should not be that hard to show that these arch-conservatives like horowitz - who spew venom toward clinton in every other breath - actually inteded to defame the clinton admin in this film. take the converse: can you really imagine horowitz trying to convince a jury with a straight face that he had no intention for the distortions of the truth to in any way harm clinton?
yeah. right.
actually, anon, i believe we might not have that much trouble showing intent to defame in this case. the pattern is certainly there. and a jury would have to be convinced otherwise.
yeah, the law is as you suggest in the UK, and no, i don't want it that way here. however, it is what it is, and if these folks can file *there* against them, i don't think it will be too much trouble to exact justice enough.
plus, you still get discovery in the UK, and that might provide what plaintiffs need here to get justice.
it is certainly worth pursuing. especially since, for cryin' out loud, it should not be that hard to show that these arch-conservatives like horowitz - who spew venom toward clinton in every other breath - actually inteded to defame the clinton admin in this film. take the converse: can you really imagine horowitz trying to convince a jury with a straight face that he had no intention for the distortions of the truth to in any way harm clinton?
yeah. right.
Well, you have to have measureable damages to effect a case, right? If so, those won't accrue until well after the November elections. I say, we argue the case now, in public, in the stock market, etc. Focus on the immorality. The nation as a whole and each and every individual owns the interpretation of this tragedy, not Disney, not ABC.
I hope one aspect of ABC/Dizzney fallout will be that more people read the 9/11 Commission report to see just where the real weaknesses were - not to mention the outright lies and extreme incompetence within the Bush Administration on 9/11.
For chrissakes, no matter what, we should be confident in our ability to protect the U.S. at a moments notice. Isn't this the Republican war cry? Be prepared? Spend the bucks? Where were they? Where the fuck were they? It's not like we should expect to be given a bunch of lead time here. The personnel under Bush, and including Bush, were to blame for the latent (non-existent) response that day. Nothing will ever change that.
And here it is 5 years later. I still won't watch or listen to any msm-generated synopsis of this horrific event. What I see is the people on the towers hanging out of the windows. I see some jumping. That and a failed administration - an administration that has only gone downhill from there - lower than the place that I once though was the lowest we would ever be.
Miss P.
The problem with meeting libel standards against public figures is that you have to address a state of mind; the facts alone won't prove the case. Which is why, in this country, there are virtually no such libel suits brought.
Remember when Dennis Hastert suggested George Soros got his money from drug dealing? Even that didn't prompt a libel suit, given the standard which had to be met for success in court.
In effect, anything goes in the American public square, when public figures are involved. This one has got to be settled with the truth, and not in court. Too bad for us that "the truth" is mediated by ABC and its corporate collaborators up and down the dial.
So forget the courts, it's a pipe dream....
Libel suits against public figures do happen, as the National Enquirer will attest. But the standards for proof are higher.
Anon, Abc/Disney touts The Path to 9/11 as derived from the Commission Report. It is not, and there's no way to argue that it is because of a mistake. Furthermore, the makers of the film were informed early in the filming that their version of events was wrong. And, finally, 900 DVD's were distributed to rightwing reviewers and bloggers.
Don't you think it would be very easy for a jury to consider these three points as prima facie evidence of malicious intent? Certainly they provide sufficient basis for filing suit and getting it to trial. Joseph is right. The Enquirer has been successfully sued for libel of public figures.
But my point was only that the threat of libel suits must have been noticed by ABC/Disney lawyers. And, you can bet that they aren't so hasty to dismiss the possibility of losing such cases as you seem to be.
Anon, FYI...
"WASHINGTON — Former Rep. Gary Condit has settled the multimillion-dollar libel lawsuit he filed against three tabloid newspapers that he claims ruined his reputation.
“My client is satisfied with the settlement,” Condit’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, said Wednesday, adding that “the amount of the settlement and all terms and conditions are confidential.”
Condit’s lawsuit had asked for $209 million from American Media Inc., publisher of the National Enquirer, Star and Globe."
So, it can be done.
Guy, you're dreaming. Nobody is going to sue for libel over this one.
The typical tabloid suit is another matter altogether, usually involving some preposterously false claim about the victim's personal life.
In this case, you've got that whore Thomas Kean proclaiming that the program is fundamentally accurate. The nature of the falsehoods in the show don't lend themselves to simple fact-finding.
Really, it's a waste of time, hoping for vindication in the courts. If Bill Clinton sued every time he was defamed, he'd spend the next 300 years in court. It's not the way of political or judicial system works. Move on, please.
Ironically, the entity that may get the most traction with lawsuits is a corporation - American Airlines. In this society, it's acceptable to mess with individuals but not corporations. Maybe for a change that will work to the benefit of those (i.e., us) who decry these lies.
How is the plan going to backfire? Looks like the attempt to distract from the fact that 9/11 was actually a false flag carried about by the US and Israeli governments by creating a stupid pseudo-controversy over whether or not Clinton was responsible is working perfectly.
We can add ABC and Disney to the list of 9/11 hijackers.
Full page ad from ABC in the Washington Post: The background is the american flag with a seam ripped along a red and white stripe. 13 whole or part stars are showing. There are two fingers emerging from the tear and there are eyes looking from behind the tear as if peaking. Who's eyes - I'm not sure.
The text reads:
THE PATH TO 9/11
The years that led up to it.
Everything that might have prevented it.
A TELEVISION MOVIE EVEN
PRESENTED WITH NO COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTIONS
To Washington Post credit, there is enough else in print re: bin Laden, Afganistan, the Taliban, Tora Bora, Kerry's speech, CNN's replay of the actual events, etc. etc. to out-balance this ad.
Miss P.
Anonymous 7:51 AM is right -- it hasn't backfired at all.
The show is going to air, relatively few people are even aware of the controversy, places like the NY Times provided misleading and thoroughly inadequate coverage, and the right-wing and religious ties of the producers are known only to people (like us) who read blogs and have the leisure to do so.
Karl Rove doesn't have to be genius to prevail in the national debate, when he can rely on media like ABC, NBC and CBS -- much less the Limbaughs and the Hannitys.
Maybe even worse, the debate is fairly silly one. Clinton was no redeemer -- he governed to the right of Nixon and Eisenhower. The fact that we rush to defend the guy is one measure of the impoverishment of the debate in this country.
The truth is, decent thinking people in this country are fucked. Repugs can't lose this game: corporate media are their natural allies, and when they can't manipulate the national discourse, they just steal the votes.
The American experiment is over. Time to move to France.
Anon 7:20... I've backed up my point nicely. You are wrong about libel suits in the US. Wrong. It is not impossible to sue for libel, even if one is a "public figure." I supported this with a similar case. Your insistence on the impossibility, wherever you got the information, was facile. Now you're angry. Now you just try to shut me up by saying that it ISN'T going to happen. Again, you are missing my point. Which was--I repeat--that ABC/Disney in-house lawyers are WELL FUCKING AWARE that it CAN HAPPEN, and that the libel HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED, and that CANCELLING THE BROADCAST DOESN'T GET ABC/DISNEY OFF THE HOOK.
Move on, please.
Yes, unirealist I'm wrong and you're right: that's why Clinton is suing half the Republican congress, for who charging him with killing Vince Foster, why George Soros is suing Dennis Hastert, why GWB, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are being sued in a dozen courts for libelling the political opposition, why John Kerry is suing the Swiftboat veterans, why Cynthia McKinney is suing the national media for falsely reporting she charged GWB with foreknowledge of 9/11, etc.
Politicians and public figures in the U.S. file and win libel suits everyday of the year. How could I possibly have missed it?
And, of course, we can look forward to a raft of suits over this program, which will prove that it backfired after all! Dream on....
Look, anon. I know as well as you that it's highly unlikely that any lawsuits will be filed over this propaganda film. However, the attorneys I have known don't deal in "probabilities." They think in terms of "possibilities" and "certainties." Anything not certain is a possibility, and has to be considered in terms of how one would respond to it.
Just because all those public figures you cited haven't filed libel suits does not mean it's impossible. It means only that that it's improbable that anyone will file against ABC/Disney. But the improbable does sometimes happen, and good attorneys know that.
There's an interesting article in the new Atlantic magazine about the famous Miranda case, which gave rise to the now taken-for-granted Miranda advisories. The DA prosecuting Miranda was damned sure (like you) that because all previous cases allowed uncoerced confessions to be admissible, the appeal would go his way. But the law is full of precedents, and they all became precedents because they were improbabilities that became real in verdicts.
I strongly believe that any of the libelled parties involved in this could win a libel suit against ABC/Disney. With the exception of AA, I doubt they will file. So please stop insinuating that I'm foolishly hoping for satisfaction in the courts. Believe me when I say that I am even more cynical than you. I was only trying to read into the minds of the ABC/Disney execs while they were conferring with their attorneys, and trying to shed light on the difficulty of their position.
We're on the same side here, eh?
Post a Comment