Terrible 9/11 Movie

Wow, this movie sucks.  It's boring and badly shot.

Update: I figure it's good to lay out some strategic thoughts. This story will die in two days or so. I would hope Disney/ABC apologizes, but I don't think they will. This whole episode has been thoroughly embarrassing for them, from the shoddy quality of the movie to the libeling of various Clinton officials. They really threw away their brand.

Still, we have to face the fact that Disney/ABC decided that they are now a right-wing propaganda outlet. That's fine. It's also fine to let our representatives and candidates know that Disney is no longer competent as a trustee of the public airwaves, that the broadcast flag is a terrible idea, that copyright extremism is a problem, that allowing media consolidation is no longer appropriate, and that Disney needs to allow reality show writers to become part of the writers' guild and cut writers in on internet and DVD royalties. Those are all fine things to do.

Moving forward, the issue is Bush and Bush alone. Though allies in what passes for our wretched media may cover for him, he is a weak coward who rules through fear. It's the job of every honorable American to stand up to the fearmongering dishonesty of the right-wing.

Update again: Man this really is a piece of shit.

Tags: 911smear, Disney, Path to 9/11 (all tags)



Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Ya...it was campy bad! I can't believe ABC put this on like it was a serious film. It was as if Rush Limbaugh decided to write a 9/11 movie.

I'm no longer angry, i'm embarrassed for them at this point.

The camera shakes gave me a headache. It was grossly overacted. I kept waiting for someone to say, "wait until George Bush becomes President." The dialogue was THAT BAD and contrived.

Someone definitely needs to be fired over this.

by JackBourassa 2006-09-10 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

You're watching it?

by Reece 2006-09-10 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

I watched the Colts-Giants and played with my two-year old son.  My son obsesses over Thomas the Tank Engine and loves Elmo and Ernie and Bert, does not even recognize the rat, you know, Mickey the GOP Mouse.

by freedc 2006-09-11 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

well at least they give  bad entertainment- that means hopefully the ratings will suck- plus they had competition from all the other 9/11 porn fest

by bruh21 2006-09-10 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

oh and according to rawstory - their ratings did suck. the thing about entertainment- sometimes the best revenge is low ratings.

by bruh21 2006-09-11 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

time. going. by. so. slow. ly.


and why is everything green?

by Todd Beeton 2006-09-10 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Here in Seattle, I: (1) locked all ABC/Disney/ESPN channels out of my house; (2) watched Sunday nite football on NBC, then (3) The Simpsons to round out my viewing pleasure.  Why should I let this pornographic movie sully - to quote Babs Bush - "my beautiful mind"?  It sounds like that handheld jerking motion is going to leave viewers with a headache...I bet Monday's show won't even get the first nite's audience total.  I think NBC was the sweeps winner tonight with a good football game to start off the NFL season.  That's how you beat ABC/Disney - low household ratings.

by Aurona 2006-09-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

(2) watched Sunday nite football on NBC, then (3) The Simpsons to round out my viewing pleasure.

Of course, The Simpsons are on Rupert Murdoch's network and NBC is as pro-GOP as they come.

Whichever channel we watch, we're helping the Republican'ts -- or those Democrats whom the corporate media owns.

by Sitkah 2006-09-10 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

You have to love quotes about fascism from a fascist.

by Classical Liberal 2006-09-11 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Probably the only true words to ever pass Mussolini's lips.

by Sitkah 2006-09-11 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

The way I see it, we're not helping them unless we're paying for it, or unless their advertisers know we're watching. Without a cable/satellite box or a Nielson's rating box, "they" don't know.  

by misscee 2006-09-11 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Why not steal a cookie if you won't get caught?

by Sitkah 2006-09-11 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

You know what "they" can do with "their" cookies.

by misscee 2006-09-11 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

I could touch that one, but I won't!

by Sitkah 2006-09-11 12:08PM | 0 recs

Are equating watching the program to some moral failing like theft? Why not go burn some books.

by delmoi 2006-09-11 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Wtf?

When you read between the lines, all you find is what you put there yourself.

by Sitkah 2006-09-11 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Wow, that was a really horrible film, a really big disconnected mess of scenes that wasn't a "path" at all.  It was also chock full of bad actors and copy that was no unnaturally delivered that I think it'd be hard to mistake the film for anything but a fictional drama.

Besides, tomorrow the show is competing with football, and everytime Americans have a choice between sports and politics, sports wins.

by David Grossman 2006-09-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

You can't re-educate the public if you're putting them all to sleep.  Unless you're trying to do it subliminably.

Enjoy these new Disney logos:

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n260/ captnjaq/Disinformation.jpg

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n260/ captnjaq/Disgusted.jpg

by Village Jenius 2006-09-10 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Man this really is a piece of shit.

I'll have to take your word for it since I didn't watch it (and wouldn't have anyway even without the Clinton BS in it). I'm so sick of 9/11 and its constant exploitation for commercial and political gain that I've tuned it out almost completely. Tomorrow is going to be so maudlin and revolting that I'll just take the entire day off from news.

by Sitkah 2006-09-10 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

I kind of liked it. I thought the cinematography and acting were pretty good for a network TV miniseries. (Which isn't saying much.) But my jaw dropped at all of the unjustified Clinton-bashing. I thought it was going to play a minor role. But it was basically the point of it all.

The part about search warrants really pissed me off, too.

by nstrauss 2006-09-10 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Yeah, a pretty lousy movie, which is not a surprise.  Very weak story-telling, dreadful pacing, and lots of confusing, moody patches that left me thinking the filmmakers really had to stretch to fill the allotted time.

What's worse, of course, are the many fabrications.  Some have been documented, and many more will probably be noted in the next few days.

The Nightline special tonight was very odd.  Cynthia MacFadden and Brian Ross had a segment that seemed highly rehearsed.  Well, what do you know, they came up with the brilliant idea that U.S. during the Clinton years did have several opportunities to take out Bin Laden, and didn't.  (So why complain about this movie, you silly liberals?)

There was of course no mention of the Aug 6 PDB that Bush received in Texas.  And there was no questioning of Bush's resolve to get Bin Laden; about Tora Bora, all Ross said was "Bin Laden slipped away."

Which proves that ABC News doesn't need to make things up to be shilling for the right wing.  It just has to be selective about what facts it wants to tell, or not.

The completely unspoken assumption through all this propaganda, saying that Clinton should have taken out Bin Laden and he's to blame for 9/11, is that the country was willing to go to war to get Bin Laden.  That's probably what it would have taken if you really wanted to get him.  The attempts to get him on the cheap were either very iffy, or were tried and failed.  But before the attack on the WTC, the country would not have supported the idea of going to war.  It just wasn't a possibility.

So war is what we got after 9/11.  And five years later, what have we got?  Nothing.  The trail is cold.  Bush has even said he doesn't think much about Bin Laden any more.  That would have been an impeachable offense, if Clinton had said it.

Somehow they'll blame Clinton for the last five years too.  I don't see how, but it'll probably be in tomorrow night's show.

by JJF 2006-09-10 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

This swiftboat hit peace is right out of KARL ROVES play book,ROVE and the truith parted company years ago. It is sad to see ABC parting COMPANY with the TRUITH just as ROVE did but as they say if you run with a pack of LIARS you become one. Now lets see if we can make LIFE very bleak for ABC,and DISNEY. THEY are now just ROVES swiftboat hit COMPANY.

by blackjack 2006-09-11 12:16AM | 0 recs
What liberal media?

I didn't watch it, either. However, it sounds like "Path" completes the second pillar of GOP-TV: FOX and ABC. Notably, the assimilation of MSNBC and CNN/CNN-HN from "mainstream" into GOP-TV is nearly complete.

by fafnir 2006-09-11 12:44AM | 0 recs
The movie is worse then you think.

The obviously fictutious scenes slamming Clintoin officials have garbered all the attentiion. And with good reason.

But there were far more insidious bits of propganda all throughout the thing.

Like the offhanded comments about how a laptop seized in a raid from Ramzi Yousef couldn't be used in the US because of that poesjy ole due process of law.

Or that suggestion that only pre 9/11 ninnies have a problem with the Gvt spying on their phone calls.

This was nothing but sick, twisted agitprop that could have been written by the White House or the RNC.

No wonder all those conservatives said the "innacuracies" we attacked should be fixed. They wanted this top run. Because they knew that the real propaganda was embedded in the film. It validated every single Bush and GOP talking point for the fall campaign.

It was disgusting.

Watch these video excerpts from the film for examples of what I am talking about.

I'm telling you all, we got taken to the cleaners. We focused on the anti-Clinton administration stuff and missed the REALLY bad, Goebbelsesque, pro GOP agitprop.

We must refocus on the distortions and lies in this proram with renewed effort, now that it's been broadcast.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-09-11 02:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie
I fell asleep, but I'm copying yours & Matt's suggestions for furure reference.
 I have no doubt what you say is true, then it would've been a set-up to help pass the legislation through this week that will make legal some of the most unamerican, unethical, and immoral practices I am aware of this administratrion doing.
by Rabbit 2006-09-11 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie




by benji 2006-09-11 04:16AM | 0 recs
Watched Ted Koppel Instead

I watched Ted Koppel's piece on Discovery about security and civil liberties.    It was really good with a solid balance of opinions although Ted couldn't resist a zinger against the Bush Admin policies here and there.  I like the type of indepth stuff Koppel does which is very rare on TV today.  I miss the old Nightline.  Yes I am a bit of a nerd.

He had a fantastic ending noting that the only country that was completely secure from terrorism was North Korea and they had achieved it through complete domestic repression and cutting themselves off from the rest of the world which really isn't a viable solution for the US or the rest of the world.  

Did anyone else watch Koppel?  Thoughts?

by John Mills 2006-09-11 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Watched Ted Koppel Instead

I taped the movie to see what the hubub was all about (so I could watch the game), but I did watch Koppel in a Charlie Rose interview talking about his special.  Even then he was pretty balanced when it came to interrogating suspects.

ShakeyCam is great for directors who think they're cutting edge.  So is too close close ups, fast cutting etc.  This guy used them all.  The problem with all the visual flash is it gets very distracting after about 10 minutes, and can often induce viewer fatigue.

The Millenium arrests were a fairly good sequence of scenes, and I liked the totally fabricated scene of the Taliban attack on the Northern Alliance guys with Walhburg.  Past that it was pretty boring because of the cinema verite stylings.

by markt 2006-09-11 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Watched Ted Koppel Instead

Koppel's program was great, from what I saw - I only caught the end of it.  Even the Bush apologists bent over backwards to say that the administration took civil liberties seriously, which was heartening because although it is a lie, they at least felt the need to lie to avoid offending the public.

by rfahey22 2006-09-11 06:44AM | 0 recs
Disney won

Unless lawsuits follow then "The Path to 9/11" will have been a coup for the right wing. They got their message out to some millions of people, most of which won't know fact from fiction. For many of those viewers the movie will be the basis for their beliefs about 9/11.

The blogs bitched, politicians bitched, even President Clinton bitched. That's nothing to be proud of unless Disney learns there is a steep cost to airing right-wing propaganda. So far, I don't see there will be much of a price to pay. The furor will die down, Democratic leaders will not follow-up, and blog interest will soon disappear. This is what Disney counts on and unless recent patterns change Disney will be correct. Their share price won't suffer and their investors won't notice this event.

What lesson will Disney learn? Ignore the pressure and forge ahead because no effective boycotts will materialize and Democratic politicians won't follow through.

This cynical view isn't certain to come to pass. Some of the libeled "characters" in Disney's drama may file lawsuits and keep alive the bad publicity for Disney. Liberals may organize an effective boycott of Disney. Democratic politicans may take every opportunity to interfere with Disney's vision of a consolidated media landscape where they only need compete against a few, often like-minded megacorops.

My own money won't be coming Disney's way in the future but it won't be missed. I won't visit Disneyworld and won't be buying Disney DVD's or other Disney merchandise but the losses from my puny personal boycott can't possibly register on their bottom line. So absent follow-up action it's hard to see how you can score this any other way.

Disney won.

by Curt Matlock 2006-09-11 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Disney won

I agree.  They were smart and adopted the Reagan/Bush strategy -- that is never admit you did anything wrong.

It works.  The press moves on.  The critics move on. The stupidest thing many corps/executives do is to give up because that news hook (X company admits they did it!) makes the story blow up.  That's when the heads roll and the rest of the press piles on (the Knight Ridders of the world). And, that's when the fatasses (the real "American People") living in the souless, treeless developments (Peachtree Phase II) outside of Atlanta finally look up and say "wow Disney did something bad."

It is understandable why many companies fold -- the pressure is intense and scary.  But, orgs that have experienced strategic counsel (like Disney with Zenia Mucha) know how to weather the storm and understand that they are better off just sticking it out.  They've lived through the Eisner/Ovitz trial, Eisner and Stanley Gold proxy fight and many others.  They are hardened tough people (this is not Sinclair Communications).

So, the challenge, now, is how does the blogosphere make this live on for Disney? Can the blogosphere make a company like Disney think that the stonewall Reagan/Bush strategy doesn't work?

I like Matt's idea to get Dems to agree to go after their copyrights, etc. but I don't think this is a realistic near term approach.  It could work but -- in the best case -- it'll take years to push anything through the system and would be dependent on many pieces of a puzzle falling together (in terms of the right committee chairs, right adminstrative heads, etc.).

I think the best thing would for someone/some people to keep on digging and get the real story behind the Path to 9/11.  This can happen as a book, film and blog entries. I'm sure it is an ugly tale. The end result won't be the blow up we had been hoping for -- which would have happened if Iger had cancelled the series -- but it will keep the story around and make the f...ers who got this thing through the Disney machine sweat and hopefully get fired so it doesn't happen again.  

Remember, Iger is not the enemy.  He's the empty suite who listened to advisors who said "we need to go conversative and spend $40M to reach out to the Fox audience."  Make those advisors pay and make Iger think "I'm never listening to those idiots again).  End the ability of the conversative Hollywood movement to push this kind of agitprop through mainstream media.

by lojo 2006-09-11 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Disney won

Iger may not be the person who pushed this but he has become the enemy.  Once the word gets out that CEOs lose their jobs over this stuff, networks will become lots more cautious about airing propaganda.  He put Disney in a no-win situation.  Air it as scheduled and piss off half the population of the country or pull the propaganda piece (even re-schedule it) and piss off the other half of the country.

The obvious solution, of course, was to air it with a few strategic changes some time after the elections: next spring or next September 11.  Disney needed to do that months ago, howeveer, before the 900 copies of this turkey went out to right-wing propaganda jerks like Limbaugh.  The Reagans, lest we forget, went out in 2003, a non-election year.  

Disney management missed a major profit opportunity by refusing to distribute Fahrenheit 911, a film that cost $3 million and made $200 million in total receipts (including cable and rentals).  They also spent $40 million on this turkey.  Someone in upper management has a hard right fixation.  Besides the oft-mentioned Mucha, another candidate is Preston Padden, the Executive VP for Government Relations.  Padden served a long-time ast Fox and was promoted to Murdoch's parent News Corporation.  We know that the F911 fiasco was a calculated move to get Florida state tax breaks for Disney (can't piss off Jeb).

If any head rolls on this, look for Disnry to offer it at a lower level, perhaps Steve McPherson, the VP of programming at ABC.  Heads rolled at studios due to such famous bombs as Ishtar and Heavens Gate (which like PT911 featured novel and confusing camers work).  This turkey ids far worse.

by David Kowalski 2006-09-11 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Disney won

Just a thought - One way to influence Disney decisions would be for progressive orgs/union pension funds to buy a ton of Disney stock and then demand a seat on the board or Iger's head.  It would not be easy to organize but it would send a strong message.

by John Mills 2006-09-11 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Disney won

One of them actually does have this power already.  CalPers, the California pension fund, was a major pusher in ousting the last Disney CEO, Michael Eisner.  No reason that they can't do it again.

Lots of people were either complicit or asleep to let this one happen.  The timing may have seemed a natural but given the importance of these elections (the House likely to change for the first time in 12 years and the second time in 50 years) this should have never been slated to appear 60 days before the election.  The Reagans, a far less controversial piece, was a 2003 effort.

Sending the review copies to the hard right and avoiding the Clintons and Clinton officials as well as parts of the traditional media makes it clear that Disney's PR machine (Zenia Mucha) knew exactly what was happening.  Once that happened, it was going to be hard to yank this silly propaganda from the September 10 and September 11 release dates.  The film's author, Cyrus Nowrasteh, claims that key scenes were adlibbed.  While this may not be the case, it presents the very real possibility that Disney execs were given a less controversial script.

The story about the film has become more interesting than the movie itself.  But then again, stories about Disasters are boffo box office.  Titanic anyone?  


by David Kowalski 2006-09-11 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Disney won


by John Mills 2006-09-11 07:59AM | 0 recs
This is defeatist

I dont agree that Disney won, not in any long-term sense.

the ratings for ths how are not in yet - but I doubt if they are huge. Who watched? Fanatics for and fanatics against. few minds will have been changed.

ABC will remain a mere #3 in the TV ratings and their news-hour also #3.

The Dems will still almost certainly take the House in 06. And in 08 quite possibly both the Senate and presidency.

With Dems regulating and holding the corporate welfare purse-strings, Disney will either fade or  
rethink itself as a political presence.

And attempted stock hits probably wont work. Calpers is headed by a right-winger now, you may recall. And the Disney stock price has risen over each of the past five days.

Win the House and we win. Simple.

by Fast Pete 2006-09-11 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: This is defeatist

Disney/ABC is the top rated network now (thanks to Lost and Desperate Housewives).  Iger is well loved by investors as a result.

by lojo 2006-09-11 02:36PM | 0 recs

What was up with all "music" the shots during the action scenes.  Like the kid playing the drums as one of the guys is captured in Kenya, and the guy singing karaoke in the Philippines? (Not to mention the new-years scene)  Really annoying.

by delmoi 2006-09-11 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Craptacular

Annoying?   That's putting it mildly.  Those were two of the most stupid parts of that inane movie.  What small child would sit and play drums while all this crap was going on around him?  Likewise with the singer.

People runing, being tackled, guns, shooting and they keep on playing & singing?  Damn, this is more and more like the lala land of George Bush.


by Magginkat 2006-09-11 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

I agree with Matt Stoller, the author of this thread.  This thing was so boring and so bad that I had to fight to stay awake.  This smelly excuse for a movie zig-zagged back and forth from officials in the U.S. to one or the other terrorist outfit in different countries that it would make one dizzy trying to figure out what the hell story they are trying to tell.

Honestly, at less than an hour into this mess I wondered if they used George Bush speeches as inspiration!  

Those dumbed down supporters of Bush will need someone to explain it to them!   I am guessing that this is the reason they released this pile of crap to all the right wing blogs, etc., to publicize.

by Magginkat 2006-09-11 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Wait, this movie already aired?  I had no idea.  I was watching football.

by beeswax49 2006-09-11 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

To sum up this article:

Let's just forget about blatant right wing propaganda being broadcast over the public airwaves by a commercial television network. Because it was boring and stupid.

The same thing Dems did with Iran/Contra.
The same thing Dems did with Nixon.

Wake the fuck up. This is appeasement. If we can't walk (elect Dems in November) and chew gum (punish Disney until they fire/scapegoat the right-wing operatives) at the same time, progressives are not going to get anywhere.

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-09-11 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Disney/ABC put out a crappy made for TV movie?  I'm shocked shocked I say!

by klyde 2006-09-11 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

"the issue is Bush and Bush alone."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The issue is Republicans and Republicans alone.  Bush is gone in two years.  We have to damage the Republican brand, as well as the conservative movement just like the way Republicans damaged the "liberal" and "Democrat" brand.

by exLogCabin 2006-09-11 06:45AM | 0 recs
The issue is putting the breaks on Bush

and holding him accountable. Something the Republican Congress will NEVER do. Voting for Republicans is voting for an unfettered Bush Administration for 2 more years.

When I canvas for Dan Seals in IL-10, I ask undecided voters if they'd like to know what happened to the $9 billion that was "lost" in Iraq. I then remind them they'll never find out as long as the Republicans control both Houses of Congress....

by Jim in Chicago 2006-09-11 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

    The movie, the events of 911, and the uses the Bush Administration have made of those events illustrates the extent to which America has become a Corporatocracy.  

    The qualities of the corporation have become the qualities of government.  

    The issue is not the Republicans, and it is also not the Democrats.  The issue is not Iger or Eisner.  These parties and these people have succumbed to the ideals and operating principles of the corporation.  

    All the commentators act as if persons should experience shame or guilt at their atrocious lying.  If these were persons and not corporate lickspittles, we might reasonably expect admissions of responsibility and displays of shame.  You will not ever see Cheney's face redden with the shame-display or his eyes look down and his shoulders hunch.  

    "The Path to 9/11" and the events it was based on illustrate principles of corporatism.  Only individuals who are true human beings can feel shame.  The elegance of the corporation and its relative the bureaucracy is that they create a fictional entity that does not feel disgust, shame, or guilt.  When Cheney speaks for the Corporatocracy he feels no revulsion over his role in murdering tens of thousands of human beings.

    I urge you commentators to widen your perspective.  Democrats won't help the nation, because Democrats (Lamont is a perfect example) are Corporatocrats.  I want a political party that celebrates people, not corporations.  Our Constitution says only human beings have inalienable rights, not corporations and bureaucracies.  Among the rights of human beings are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  These rights have been seized by corporations, and they're being denied to us human beings.        

by Shaman Omaha 2006-09-11 07:41AM | 0 recs
Lamont is a "Corporatocrat"?????

WTF are you smoking? It must be really good; can I have some?

by Jim in Chicago 2006-09-11 09:23AM | 0 recs
Lamont the "Corporatocrat"?

sure, Lamont is a"Corporatocrat" -

That is why Ned Lamont's platform calls for complete government campaign financing, which will be the best (and only) way to cleanse our govt from the current way that the corporations get our congressional representatives like Joe Lieberman to whore for the corporations in exchange for corporate campaign contributions -

surely you can't be thinking that Ned Lamont's little 60-person cable TV company is some sort of evil corporate behemoth, so, as the poster asks, exactly what ARE you smoking?

either you are very high, or you are a Green who loves losing on principle.

yeah, that's it, you are a Green Naderite; you are the kind of space cadet that self-righteously allowed, on principle, for the cheney/bush crime family in 2000 to sneak in and rape this country for the benefit of the corporations that you so despise.

you stupid chump; you disgust me. you are as responsible for the crimes of cheney/bush as bush and cheney themselves.

by hartford for lamont 2006-09-11 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Whichever channel we watch, we're helping the Republican'ts -- or those Democrats whom the corporate media owns.

Three words:

Turner Classic Movies.

It is the only reason we still have cable.

McCain is sponsoring a bill to allow people to pick their cable channels a la carte.  I predict it is a winner with the voters.  Why isn't a Democrat sponsoring this legislation?

by Taylor26 2006-09-11 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Why isn't a Democrat sponsoring this legislation?

Someone answer this question please. I haven't had cable since 2000 and I sure would like my fix of HGTV again.

by misscee 2006-09-11 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Well, as usual, it's not that simple to break up your cable lineup so that you can pick and choose what you want, and only pay for that.

This will probably result in less choices overall.

The cable fees that you pay go towards

a) the cable companies' operating costs (repair material and equipment, servicing, payroll, etc.), and

b)towards licensing fees they pay to the media content companies for the channels they offer, and

c) into profit to pay their owners and/or shareholders dividends.  

These companies can't reduce their operating costs, since that's about the same whether you watch three channels or 200.  They can't very well reduce their shareholder dividends, as that means they'll go out of business when no one wants to invest in their stocks anymore.  So the only portion of your fees that could be reduced would be the portion that goes towards licensing fees.

It is the aggregate of all the licensing fees collected by cable companies that pays for all the content offered by those myriads of cable channels.  Thus, Time-Warner negotiates with Cox, and with Adelphia, and with all the other cable companies out there to provide channels for their entire family of Time-Warner cable channels (HBO, CNN, Court TV, WTBS, TNT, Turner Clasic Movies, and the Cartoon Network).  Note that they probably don't have to do this with their own cable company, but let's leave that complication aside for now.   Same with Disney, who has ABC Family, ESPN, Disney Channel, Toon, and SoapNET in their stable of cable channels. Same with Viacom (MTV, BET, Nickolodeon, Spike, Comedy Central, TV Land, Nick at Nite, Showtime, and Sundance, just to name a few), Fox (F/X, Speed, Fox News, and a plethora of Fox sports channels), and with NBC-Universal (USA, SciFi, Bravo).  Then there are a few very small cable channel players, such as BBC America, or the Tribune Company (WGN) who have trouble getting into a majority of cable households, because they can't leverage the power of a large stable of cable channels to help pay for the smaller ones.  

Note that I'm leaving out the six broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, the combined WB and UPN) and PBS.  Your cable company negotiates with your local television station to carry their programming, not with those networks.  Everyone who understands the television industry understands the difference between the BROADCAST networks and the CABLE channels.  (And they're really just channels, not actual networks.)

Our collective cable subscriptions effectively subsidize the occasional off-beat viewing choices for the few.  IF everyone were to only pay for the cable channels they thought they needed, then the choices for all cable viewers would shrink.  You may not find the Golf Channel, or Animal Planet all that interesting, but someone out there does, and under this proposed scheme, these small channels would inevitably have to fold.  

Oh, how unfair this is, you may say.  I damn well don't want to help subsidize any Fox cable channel, and those weeners who want to watch EW should pay for it on their own.  Besides, what about all that advertising money that these cable channels collect on top of the cable licensing fees they get (which is where part of our cable fees go)?  Well, the advertising money that comes to any basic cable channel is puny.  Advertising money is based solely on eyeballs that watch, and some of these cable channels can barely scratch up a million viewers for their most popular shows.  (Compare that to the broadcast networks, which get AT A MINIMUM, about 3 or 4 million viewers for their lowest rated shows.  The shows that usually always get canceled.)  Without both advertising revenue AND cable licensing fees, a small cable channel really would be unable to offer much original programming -- and they really don't offer all that much now.  Most only can offer two or three original shows as it is, and few offer even as much as 10.  

I would also argue that even if you don't realize it, you probably watch a larger variety of cable channels than you think you do. Take me, for example, I may not watch Bravo very much, but I do watch Project Runway.  I never watch EW, but when it's time for the Oscars and the Emmys, I tune in for the pre-show snark.  I never watched SciFi except when Farscape was on.  I don't watch ESPN, but every now and then I want to see what the sports pundits are saying about my favorite team, so I tune in.  If I really examine my ANNUAL viewing habits, I find that there's one little show on most of the cable channels that I find entertaing or enriching.  (A DVR is an amazing resource for finding that little gem of a show on at some obscure time of day on some obscure cable channel.)  

In the end, I doubt I would actually lower the choices I have for watching -- and furthermore, I bet that even if I could choose, the savings would not be that much.  

But looking at the bigger picture, since only a portion of your cable fees goes towards cable channel licenses, I don't think you'd find your basic cable bill to be reduced by much.  And for that little bit of reduction, I think in the end all of us collectively would find our viewing choices to have shrunk, and I don't think our lives will be better for it.

But, since you can't put all this into an easy little slogan, and most Americans have little clue about how the television and cable industry works, people will continue to go around complaining about how high their cable costs are, for very little, and eventually one day this not very good idea will come into practice.  (Hopefully, by then, those of us who really love finding that hidden gem of a television show will have all learned how to download them off the interenet.  We'd damn well better, because there'll be a WHOLE LOT LESS of them around.)

by grapeshot 2006-09-11 06:32PM | 0 recs

Sorry I didn't catch this sooner.  I learned so much. I guess I'll never be able to pay for cable again, since the news channels will still get some of those advertising revenues.

As an aside, the Miami Herald just fired a couple of their salaried reporters for taking money (and a more than decent salary at that) from Radio Marti (government run propaganda beamed toward Cuba.) The line between conflict of interest between the government and the fourth estate, is unacceptable to me, especially considering that my tax dollars are being freely dispersed amonst these so called reporters. Couple that with WH memos being passed along as news. It boggles the mind.

I just don't understand how anyone can pay for cable that I believe perpetuates this outrage and at the same time complain about Tweety and other members of the press. A pundit's only legitimacy is the feedback (and more importantly money) that s/he gets from the public and employer support. How anyone can bellyache about media coverage and at the same time pay for it, is laughable.

That's just my opinion of course.  As my favorite group, They Might Be Giants, says, "I laugh and make a fortune off the sames on that I torture...."  A Sinclair action against Disney/ABC would have made a difference ... we go after Sinclair for swiftboating a candidate and then support a major network who similarly lied about a former president. Go figure.

I hope I didn't offend you with my rant.

by misscee 2006-09-19 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

They've sure hoodwinked you -- with just one program.

by Sitkah 2006-09-11 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

NBC, who employs Olbermann, is as pro-GOP as Fox and Murdoch? Really?
by Lucas O'Connor

Yes...but just a bit less so. The Simpsons are Fox Entertainment division which is quite a bit different than the "Faux News" division. NBC is a General Electric company, "Infotainment" at it's best. Is NBC pro-GOP? Sure! Do I watch their "News"? Hell no! Do I watch Olbermann? Yes when I can.

by rondea 2006-09-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

NBC is owned by GE.

Why would you take the fact that they employ Olberman for one hour of programming on the many networks they owncontrol as some sort of "get out of jail free pass" for the rest of the stuff they do.

I remember seeing analysis of news stories on the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Faux, CNN) during the last Presidential campaign.  Just basic analysis of number of stories aired that were favorable or critical of a candidate (Bush or Kerry).

NBC was the second worst after Faux news of providing overall very slanted coverage in that they ran more favorable Bush stories and more critical Kerry stories than any other network than Faux.

But NBC is an easy one to remember.  Just remember they are the corporate media arm of one of the biggest defense contractors in the nation.  

by COBear 2006-09-11 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Alterman fired today by MSNBC.com.

by Taylor26 2006-09-11 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Fox is more virulent, but NBC is no less GOP. They do demonstrate however that they will allow dissent when ratings and profit permit.

by Sitkah 2006-09-11 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Fox or NBC?

by Sitkah 2006-09-11 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

I'll go with Gen. Patton's only standing order ... "Attack!"

We need to bloody ABC'sDisney's nose on this one.   We need to make it visibly obvious that siding with one half of the electorate against the other half of the electorate COSTS a media outlet half their viewers.

We need to bombard both ABC and the affiliates with our disgust that this movie was created and aired.

We need to make it clear to both ABC and the affiliates that this isn't going away. That we intend to boycott all ABC local and national news because its obvious that there's a severe right-wing slant to ANYTHING associated with Disney.

There's a great scene in an old West Wing episode, where they are talking about Bill Russell and the NBA, and how if he threw one big elbow on national tv, then everyone would know he could throw that elbow and they'd leave him alone.

This should be our chance to throw a big massive elbow not only on national tv but against national tv.  All the media is concerned these days with attracting right-wing viewers.  We need to make it painfully obvious there's a cost to this in that the other half of the electorate gets mad and leaves.

Lets see the ratings of every ABC show and every ABC affiliate start to head into the tank.  Lets make this a major crisis for ABC.  This needs to be at least as big a deal for ABC as the Dan Rather/Bush Nat. Gd story was for CBS.  We need to put a lot of heat on ABC.  We need for there to be big protest crowds again and again outside every ABC affiliate.  We need to let ABC see their ratings tank right at the start of the fall season because half the nation is @#$@# po'd at them.  

If we put heat on the affiliates and could tank ABC's ratings right at the launch of the season, then we'd be throwing that elbow on national tv.

BTW, while I love the Disney mouse ears stuff on the internet, we need to be attacking the ABC brand directly.

by COBear 2006-09-11 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Ratings:  "Sunday Night Football" got a 12.7 rating and a 20 share.  In the 18-49 demo, it got a 7.9 rating and 19 share.  "The Path to 9/11": 7.9 rating/12 share; in the young adult demo, 4.0/10.  So, half what football got.  CBS's own 9/11 docu got 6.9/10 and 3.5/8.  Fox finished second among young adults and third overall...with cartoons.

I was busy early in the evening and then watched football; I'm told the ABC show was a lot like "24," with the plot revolving around a hyped-up, fictitious, blow-'em-all-away agent.  It sure sounds like a remake of one of those Red Scare films like "Red Dawn," with everything black-and-white and the virtuous American hero standing tall.

This show was not targeted to change the mind of the typical American.  It was intended to enervate the Republicans' conservative hard-core.  They are very depressed about the way things are going; like the rest of us, they can't pay their bills, and they know people who know people who've lost friends and relatives in Iraq.  They may not bother voting in November.  It was important to vilify the Clinton Administration, to remind those voters even though we could all pay out bills in the 90's and the US did not stage military occupations, how WEAK we were back then.  How other countries LAUGHED at us.  How they WEREN'T TERRIFIED of us.  Do you want to go back to those days?  Of course not.  Now, be sure to vote.

by gjdodger 2006-09-11 10:46AM | 0 recs
A cheesy "24"...

is what I kept thinking from the little I watched.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-09-11 10:56AM | 0 recs
As a Republican...

I wonder how you all square this "How dare they make such a film" away with Freedom of Speech.  Can someone make that argument?  Or the 1st going the way of the Second and 10th amendments?

by DanFM 2006-09-11 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: As a Republican...

Dan, it really is not that hard to square it.

First, 100 years of jurisprudence backs up the proposition that deliberate defamation of repute and fraud do not enjoy general 1st Amendment protection, but AT MOST reluctant sufferance.  American Airlines was said to have been defamed in this movie and they may well sue, though that defamation may have been scrubbed (was not scrubbed in the copies distributed to the conservative media.)

Second, decent people get offended at offensive material regardless of whether the courts can ban it or punish its publication, and a historical fraud is offensive.  A movie purporting to portray historical truth is offensive (and this movie did and does do, regardless of the attorney-written fig leaves; if you sell urine and label it "Budweiser," urine it remains.)  A Hustler cartoon portraying Jerry Falwell's engaged in sodomy and incest in an outhouse has also been ruled protected speech (Falwell case), but decent people   would find that extremely offensive.

Third, unlike film, print and other media, the airwaves are held in trust by Congress for the benefit of the public at large.  You may disagree with this legal principle but law it remains, just as the First Amendment (and all of the Constitution) is also law.  A gross historical fraud regarding a national tragedy is against the interest of the people of the United States.  A made-for-TV movie claiming that Reagan died in a skydiving accident or that Eisenhower lost the 1952 presidential election and retired to Gettysburg would also be fraudulent and against the interest of the people of the United States.  Add the fact that this movie is being broadcast on  the weekend before many nationwide primary elections, and slanders Democrats on the anniversary of the arguably the greatest tragedy in the history of the Republic, and a fair-minded person - Republican or Democrat - would question its propriety.

Dan, if you are a Republican first, then Republicans and their allies can do no wrong.  But if you are a fair-minded person, an American and a patriot first who chooses to register, vote and donate along Republican lines, you will love your country more than your party and you fight this historical fraud and libel.

by Bruce Godfrey 2006-09-11 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: As a Republican...

The 1st Amendment protects the individual from the U.S. Government.  It does not protect speech in any other circumstance.  Nobody is suggesting that the Government ban "Path to 9/11," therefore there is no 1st Amendment issue.  

I know Bush has never read the Constitution...but trolls should really read stuff before they stick there noses out.


by pkeeler 2006-09-11 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Dear Repub DanFM: I don't remember your concern for the Freedom of Speech when Dan Rather was running his Bush AWOL from TANG story in 04.  I also don't remember your concern when Repubs killed the Saint Ronnie docudrama on CBS.  Why is only when Repubs are trying to get lies on the air that you concern yourself with Freedom of Speech?

by cosmosis 2006-09-11 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

From: "Frizzell, Roger" <Roger.Frizzell@aa.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:11:12 -0500

Ms. Robinson,
I think it is important for you to know that the Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of September 11, 2001. A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.

Please know this was a tragic event in our company's history and we hope you will be sympathetic to our employees and our airline on this day. Again, we are outraged by this situation, and we alerted ABC about its gross error. It is very unfortunate.
Roger Frizzell
Vice President, Corporate Communications & Advertising
American Airlines


by mrobinsong 2006-09-11 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

Well that was a well reasoned and thoughtful response Crablaw...but this:

"Claiming that Reagan died in a skydiving accident or that Eisenhower lost the 1952 presidential election and retired to Gettysburg would also be fraudulent"  

...is a long way from what was shown in PT911.  Numerous documentations show that yes Clinton did avoid taking down OBL.  That is true.  It certainly is more accurate than FH 9-11, not to mention that a docudrama is much less defamating than a news broadcast or a Mooreumentary.  

And more accurate than the forged Rathergate documents...

And certainly in better taste than the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant shit, or this snuff film your people are putting out, or piss Christ

....and incidently, the party actually in power, which actually can revoke a license does not raise near the ruckus your party has.  

We are all about the 1st amendement.  Hate speech, bash the President, make a movie where he is assassinated...fine do it all, thats what America is all about.

Let me finish with this:  I do recall the Islamofacists having stong feelings about the defamation of their top dog as well.  And it caused a week of riots and outrage in the civilized world.  Defamation is a bitch.

by DanFM 2006-09-11 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

..."Defamation" is a bitch but it doesnt make it any less true that Islamofascism's god is a murderous god.  

by DanFM 2006-09-11 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

NBC plays the same game FOX and the others do. They virtually never let "liberal" opinions sully their airwaves (or cable lines) at all and make sure Republicans are represented by a 2-1 ratio over conservative Democrats -- sometimes even putting 2 repos and a conservative moderator on their panels to debate one Democrat.

You could do the math and find slightly different ratios for the different networks, but the differences would be negligible.

And finally, I really don't why we're debating whether NBC is only slightly less biased than FOX or not.


by Sitkah 2006-09-11 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

I didn't think it was possible.....

The second half was worse than the first!!

by Magginkat 2006-09-11 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible 9/11 Movie

by misscee 2006-09-19 06:49AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads