Blame Clinton...blame Clinton...blame Clinton...
The producers happily gave advanced copies of the film to right-wing bloggers (and we all know that any writer on that side of the aisle receives enough grease each month to keep Gannon and Mehlman happy for a decade). Yet they refused to allow anyone connected with the Clinton administration to have an advanced peek.
From Variety:
ABC Entertainment prexy Steve McPherson said the commercial-free strategy was the most appropriate route to take with this project.Respectful? Do they really expect us believe that someone plans to take a $30 million bath out of respect?
"We looked at different scenarios (and) talked to possible (advertising) partners, and none of it made sense," McPherson said. "This is the most respectful way to present this."
Yes, PBS broadcasts lots of shows without commercials. Yes, ABC has broadcast Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan ad-free. But PBS programs have much, much lower costs, and the Spielberg films recouped their productions costs theatrically. And all these ventures had sponsors -- well-heeled firms which plaster their names all over the beginning and end, eve if the presentation remains uninterrupted. So far, we've seen no indication that anyone is sponsoring The Path to 9/11.
Folks, this does not happen. This is not how the industry works. There ain't no free lunch. (UPDATE: Below the fold, I will suggest where the lunch money is coming from.)
I would never claim to be a Hollywood insider, but I've lived and worked on the periphery of the industry for a number of years. I have no doubt that anyone who knows the entertainment business will agree: This situation is unprecedented. It makes no sense.
The production company is called UHP Productions. IMDB lists but one project to their credit: The Path to 9/11. IMDB identifies it as a Canadian company; the physical production appears to have taken place in Toronto.
Dig it: The Republicans even outsource their propaganda!
This page for a Toronto-based production services company reveals that the UHP stands for "Untitled History Project," which was how ABC refered to this miniseries before they decided on a title. (Production occurred in secret, although Fox News was granted advanced word.) Apparently, it's one of those "on paper" production companies formed for a single project, since no online telephone directory lists a UHP Productions in Ontario.
We all know that a prime Rovian tactic is to turn a weakness into a strength. Perhap that's why the hoax-peddlers decided to use as a protagonist John O'Neill, the former FBI terror expert turned WTC security chief. O'Neill died in the attack, and thus will not be able to comabt the falsehoods told about him. Here's a taste of the truth -- and you will not get this from ABC:
However, in January 2001, Vice President Cheney allegedly reinstated the intelligence block and expanded it to effectively preclude any investigations whatsoever of Saudi-Taliban-Afghan oil connections. Former FBI counter-terrorism chief John O'Neil resigned from the FBI in disgust, stating that he was ordered not to investigate Saudi-Al Qaida connections because of the Enron pipeline deal.(Emphasis added.) Meanwhile, some "progressives" (and some not-so-progressives) are trying to combat the film's propaganda with their own counter-propaganda about bombs-in-da-buildings. The public is allowed only two versions of reality: The loopy Loose Change version (a.k.a. the Adnan Khashoggi version) and the BushCo version. The truth, as always, is wedged between two large, steaming piles of bullshit.
Update: Disney head honcho Robert Iger donates to both parties, leaning toward Democrats, although lately he has cozied up to Hastert and the GOP. He has given $3,200 to Hillary Clinton this year. I think she could score a few points if she gave the money back -- in a very loud huff. Contact her here.
Y'know how to put some real pressure on Iger? We have a proven-effective approach that no-one else has suggested. Hit PERMALINK to find out what it is.
Write to CalPERS -- the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. They're a pension fund, and they led the stockholder's revolt that destroyed Iger's predecesor, Michael Eisner. They own Disney -- some of it. Actually, they own 9.44 million shares, which is enough to get the Mouse's attention.
I'm really loathe to link to a story by Nikki Finke, but for the best backstory on Iger, Disney and the stockholders, read this March, 2005 expose. Here are some samples:
Sheesh, you’d hardly know from the overwhelmingly obsequious media coverage that, in reality, the Disney board’s promotion of president Robert Iger was a monstrous move. We’re talking here about shamefully rewarding a corporate executive who may be movie-star handsome but whose 10-year track record following in Eisner’s footsteps is downright ugly. And, truth be told, for it to occur at this precise moment looks like mice behaving badly.And:
Iger blathered this week about the importance of “accountability” in his first post-selection interview with The New York Times’ Laura Holson. But he said nothing about his responsibility for the fact that a once-great company is now better known for failing, flailing, firing good executives, freeing better ones to find work elsewhere, and fucking with business partners. There’s been so much trouble at Disney during Iger’s tenure that it’s hard to select just one screwed-up area, but let’s talk about the most costly: ABC.So the course is clear. Iger's position may not be so secure as some think, and his stockholders -- who got rid of his predecessor not long ago -- should force him to explain why company resources are going toward giving free propaganda to an unpopular president.
In charge of the network before Disney bought parent company Capital Cities, Iger oversaw the slip from first to third place in the prime-time pecking order.
Unfortunately, things are not so simple. It seems that after CalPERS engineered the removal of Michael Eisner, strange things started to happen...
Suddenly, CalPERS president Sean Harrigan was under predictably intense scrutiny from Republicans and lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, including party pals of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the pro-GOP U.S. Chamber of Commerce. During his two-year tenure, Harrigan had taken on the high-profile role of spearheading the fund’s corporate campaigns against Disney et al. The attacks on Harrigan escalated when the supermarket union leader also targeted Safeway (Vons, Pavilions, etc.). Still, it was a shock when the activist lost both the CalPERS presidency and his board seat on December 1 after the State Personnel Board voted to replace him as its rep. Harrigan is claiming a conspiracy among business leaders, the California Republican Party and the Schwarzenegger administration."You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale...!"
Since then, Harrigan is hoping his ouster won’t stop CalPERS from using its portfolio power to pressure incorrigible corporations and/or their CEOs. But the problem now centers on the pro-corporate Republican cabal trying to remove other CalPERS board members who favor the fund’s shareholder activism.
The Chinese connection. Question: Why would Iger and other Disney board members give Bush the "kneepads" treatment?
Here's one good reason: The company has been having trouble distributing its product in China, which has passed laws restricting the distribution of foreign animated films. (The Chinese are protecting their domestic animation industry.) Disney also hopes to build a theme park in that country, but faces huge problems with the government.
The Bush administration may be unpopular, but it can still help Disney deal with the Chinese government. The $30 million production cost of The Path to 9/11 is small compared to the potential earnings in China.
Do I know that Disney and the Republicans cut a deal regarding China? No. I'm speculating. But is this outlandish speculation, or does it make sense out of an otherwise-unfathomable business decision?
13 comments:
Clearly, there are people who want us all to relive the days leading up to 9/11 so that we all can experience the pain and the horror all over again...conveniently just 8 weeks before the November elections.
"Let's go back five years, to a time of tranquility and blind innocence...yada, yada, yada." It's time to figure out where we're going, not where we've been, for crying out loud.
ABC has some 'splaining to do on this one. What they're hashing up is nothing short of partisan propaganda. Oh, not to mention LIES!
It's pretty plain to see that the mainstream media, as it were, has no interest in holding people accountable. They're just chugging along so they can stay in the game and keep a seat at the table.
You suppose it's possible this is the only way abc dares to try to pay penance for its years of self-censorship--is to make a lousy
dramatization of a very thin cover story with the intention of exposing the story's essential bankruptcy? That it's a media reverse-psycho op? Never say never!
Joseph, are you associating Khashoggi with Loose Change now, and Hopsicker with Dylan Avery? When did this happen, and why?
I should clarify. I think the film Loose Change was made in good faith. I also think it is 90% crap. Lots of people have made crap in good faith. However, I do beliece when he argues that Khashoggi has been tossing money at the worst aspects of the 911 truthiness movement. Before you toss out the idea, simply read (don't skim: read) what Hopsicker has to say.
I also counter blinkered believers in the gospel according to Loose Change to view the counter-video, "Screw Loose Change," which is here:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
Try to watch with an open mind. The beginning part is not so persuasive. But when the topic turns to scientific matters -- well, the presentation is just devastating. You can scream ad hominem insults all you wish, but the science is what it is.
Yes, ABC has broadcast Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan ad-free.
Gosh, now I wonder what "special interest group" might have a political interest in broadcasting these two movies and a propaganda film on 9/11 ad-free on ABC...
You didn't mention specifically mention it, but the LEGAL raison d'etre of a corporation is to make profits for its shareholders. In fact, class action lawsuits are guaranteed to hit any corporation that fails to make shareholders' profits its first and its ONLY priority.
Anyone who owns ABC/Disney stock should be phoning or writing the CEO and Board of Directors demanding an explanation for why that $30 million was spent as it was.
We appreciate your outrage, Joe.
uni, the stockholder angle has been weighing on my all night. I actually woke up out of a sound sleep thinking about this.
With a little research, I found out about Disney's biggest stockholder. They engineered the removal of Eisner.
I also stumbled across what MAY be the reason why Disney is doing all this.
Please read the updated sections of this story!
Remember when the Repugs screamed about an insufficiently respectful bio of Ronald Reagan, with allegedly invented incidents, just like this current project -- and succeeded in getting it off primetime?
Where are the Democrats here? Asleep, as usual?
folks, i'm linking to joe's piece everywhere i visit today, as it's the best out there on this subject (as on others, as we know).
found this, though, on americablog comments, claiming that clinton is demanding iger either fix the errors or pull the show. reported in the nypost, of all places; this link is to newsmax!!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/7/102122.shtml?s=lh
the important thing, though, is for folks to know about the deeper structure operating here. joe's piece is the only one i've seen that asks these probing questions.
spread the word.
Thanks for your response, Joseph.
I thought you were dissing Hopsicker; I was confused. So I only skimmed Hopsicker's piece. I've never even bothered to see Loose Change 'cause who's got time for crap? Maybe LC3. No question some of the deepest pockets have been associated with some of the goofiest stuff. I'll read Hopsicker carefully. His conflation of the 9/11 plot with the drugs is a vital point. Those who claim this administration is too incompetent to pull off 9/11 should consider the competence of the people behind the drugs--a conspiracy of literally millions, and highly complex.
Joseph, the China angle is good. There has to be a quid pro quo in what Disney is doing. I was thinking in terms of some kind of special treatment with broadcast rights, but your China scenario fits like a glove.
Wonder what Rove is offering the Chinese, in return for their loosening up rules for Disney? Because there's got to be something in it for them, too.
I see Disney is claiming now that the show is a "public interest" vehicle. That way they hope to skirt the requirement that they act in shareholder interest. I don't think it will work, though. With Clinton aides screaming about legal action, and the deliberate early release to right-wingers (to maximize damage to Dems), coupled with the disclaimer now that the show is only a "dramatization", which is a tacit admission that the public is being deceived, Disney could never support that public interest claim in court.
Here we go again. Some good stuff and then right back to bashing on the Controlled Demolition theory like we're talking about UFOs or something.
Same group of guys apparently tried to pull it off in '93 but no... the idea's just too "crazy" to contemplate.
p.s. - re: my statement above....I love this site. But PLEASE be open minded on the CD stuff until someone can knock it out of the water. So far no one has done that. It looks like CD, and you have to acknowledge that people see that and have questions.
One, it's fair to fight fire (Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11) with fire, but an artful rebuttal would be in order now; two, if the third, WTC building indeed headquartered CIA and FBI in NYC, you'd think ordinary strategic planning would include a CD pursuant to a horrifying emergency threat, as (so I've been told) Michelin Tires gave standing orders to fire departments for their rubber factories to be allowed to burn down (to prevent the formulas from being stolen or infringed).
Post a Comment