I haven’t been blogging about the ongoing kerfuffle regarding ABC’s “Path to 9/11″ miniseries, because frankly I find the whole thing somewhat boring. But if you want to get up to speed, just visit Drudge; it’s his top story, and he’s linking a whole ton of articles about it — including this one, which quotes Variety as reporting that “sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini [series] altogether.”
On a tangentially related note, just a friendly reminder that the Discovery Channel’s excellent documentary Inside the Twin Towers will air again tomorrow night at 9pm and 1am Eastern and Pacific. If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend it! Also, Ted Koppel’s The Price of Security, which looked quite good in the commercials during Inside the Twin Towers, debuts Sunday at 8pm (and airs again at midnight that night). Other relevant Discovery Channel shows in the coming days: The Flight That Fought Back, tonight at 9pm and 1am; Anatomy of a Collapse: Learning From 9/11, tonight at 11pm; and W.T.C. 9-11: Stories From the Ruins, tomorrow night at 11pm and Monday at noon.
Another interesting 9/11-related programming note: CNN’s online broadcast stream, “CNN Pipeline,” will air CNN’s 9/11/01 broadcast in real time, as the events unfolded, starting Monday at 8:30 AM EDT.
Oh, and locally:
The Notre Dame ROTC units would like to invite the Notre Dame community to a September 11 Memorial Service to be held Monday, September 11 at 7:00 AM. The service will be located at the reflecting pool in front of Hesburgh Library. All are welcome to attend.
And President Bush will address the nation at 9pm Monday.
|
Categories: Terrorism & Homeland Security, TV, Movies & Entertainment
|
September 8th, 2006 at 2:06:57 pm
Heh. Funny how Bush has scheduled a prime time speech for Monday - pre-empting that part of “The Path to 9/11″ that might focus on the shortcomings of his Administration. Just saying…
September 8th, 2006 at 2:41:40 pm
Dude, one word:
Football. Its on all these nights.
Actually, I probably won’t watch it that much, except the Penn State game on TiVo. I do want to see Inside the Twin Towers. Also, Frontline has an interesting looking documentary on Monday about Faith and Doubt on 9/11. I’ll be most likely to attempt to see that one.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:41:56 pm
Angrier -
Heh. Funny how Democratic Leadership is threatening ABC’s broadcasting license if they broadcast the program as it is.
Which seems more like censorship to you? 20 minutes of Bush addressing the nation, causing the broadcast to be pushed back 20 minutes? Or congressmen threatening to take a network off the air if it broadcasts the program?
September 8th, 2006 at 2:45:21 pm
Lojo - yeah, I’m not liking the whole “Democrats threaten ABC’s right to free speech” bit they are pulling. Object, threaten boycotts, whatever . . . just don’t resort to censorship - that’s bad. I agree that if the film is inacurate that it should be changed, but it is not worth revoking the broadcast liscence over it. That starts us down the path of all sorts of ugliness.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:05:21 pm
B. -
I’m of the same opinion. I am of agreement with a minority of conservatives in that the program is pointless. The real failure was, as the 9-11 Commission specifically put it, “A failure of imagination.” The movie apparently makes the missed opportunities and the lack of concern to be blindingly obviously leading us to disaster when that was simply NOT the case.
The intelligence memo depicted in the movie saying Bin Laden was planning to hijack airplanes in the fall was never that specific.
Sandy Berger was not the one or confirmed as the one who cancelled the attempt to nab Bin Laden.
Albright was not the one who called Pakistan to warn them of the incoming missile strike. Hell, even Comission Report SAYS this explictly and say it was a military official.
I am of agreement with a minority of conservatives in that the program is pointless. The real failure was, as the 9-11 Commission specifically put it, “A failure of imagination.”
The movie apparently makes the missed opportunities and the lack of concern to be blindingly obviously leading us to disaster when that was simply NOT the case. It is obvious only in hindsight with the events having happened.
From James Lileks:
“Just so you know: 9/11 reset the clock for me. All hands went to midnight. I’m interested in what people did after that date, and if the movie shows that before the attack one side lacked feck and the other was feck-deficient, I don’t worry about it. It’s like revisiting Congressional debates about Hawaiian harbor security in November 1941. Y’all get a pass. The Etch-A-Sketch’s turned over. Now: what have you said lately?”
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/06/0906/090806.html
Here is also, John Podhoretz:
“The real truth about the failures of the U.S. government under both Clinton and Bush is not, as “The Path to 9/11″ would have it, that the diabolical nature of the al Qaeda threat was obvious and unmistakable and that it was ignored by fools, charlatans and other downright unpleasant people who refused to listen to the Few Who Knew the Truth (meaning the late FBI official John O’Neill and that legend in his own mind, former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke).
The simple fact of the matter is that, with a million other things going on all at once - all of which seemed more pressing at the time, the threat went uncomprehended.”
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/path_missed_real_9_11_story_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm
September 8th, 2006 at 4:23:01 pm
Lojo-
Where were you when the RNC got CBS to pull the Reagan bio-pic? I think one reason so many Conservatives are agreeing with the Dems on this one is that they realize that inflammatory hatchet jobs suck, regardless of which party you belong to.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:31:46 pm
Angry: I agree that hatchet jobs stink. However, the Dems have taken this way too far. Threatening boycotts and threatening broadcast liscences are two very different things. Lets avoid the broadcast lisence threatening while following through on boycotts if you disagree.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:55:07 pm
Angrier -
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA334711.html
“The attacks from political leaders, including Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, caused many to question whether CBS faced an implied threat of government retribution unless it axed the show. If so, such a cave-in carries troubling implications for programmers hoping to air controversial takes on highly charged political issues.”
ED Gillespie was NOT an elected public official. Harry Reid is. Dick Durbin is. Charles Schumer is. These are democratic congressional leadership. These are the guys who actually could revoke the network’s license. All Gillespie could do is yell into a camera.
Not to mention the fact that virtually all of the protests towards CBS at the time were in the form of protests and boycotts. Where exactly did Gillespie threaten the existence of CBS?
Now Reid?
“Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.”
http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&&year=2006&
That Angry, is an implicit threat bordering on the explicit.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:15:15 pm
Lojo-
You’re an idiot. This fucking threat thing is being spun out of whole cloth by the fucking RNC. Reid hasn’t threatened anyone with anything. He’s pointing out the responsibility of broadcasters to act in the public good. Quit conjuring up threats where none exist.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:16:45 pm
B. Minich-
Point out where the Dems are threatening Disney licenses. You and Lojo are full of shit.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:05:30 pm
Max -
Oh you have gotten to be fucking kidding. He only brought that up in his letter as a reminder, huh? And you accuse OTHER people of acting in lockstep.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:46:20 pm
Implied Threat: May I remind you that your stations are coming up for re-licensing…blah, blah, blah
Non-Threat: Under the law you have a responsibility..blah, blah, blah.
Big difference.