Those crickets you hear chirping is the sound of silence from every single broadcast TV network, newspaper, magazine, book publisher, E-Zine, blog, tip sheet, gossip rag, author, actor, actress, director, producer, janitor, and 12 year old drama queen who has warned us all over the past 6 years that the President of the United States is trying to stifle a free press and establish de facto censorship over the media.
When confronted with a real attempt by Democrats in the Senate to turn the United States into an authoritarian state by threatening to yank the broadcast license of ABC unless they make political changes to their mini-series The Path to 9/11, the above gaggle of weeping, whining chicken littles either nods their approval or are too intimidated themselves to make a stink.
Where are all the civil libertarians weeping over our lost freedoms because the FBI aimed a Geiger counter at someone’s house? Where are all those heroic fighters for democracy who complained about Republicans stifling free speech because they removed a half crazed woman from the Senate gallery for displaying a political message on a T-Shirt? Where are all the hand wringing, exaggerating, hyperventilating, bed wetting lefties who scream “dictator” every time Bush opens his mouth?
I’ll tell you where they are. They are on the sidelines cheering their heroic mini-Adolf’s in the Senate on as the Democrats issue the bluntest, the most vile, the most open call for political censorship in almost two hundred years:
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.â€
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Lefty John Aravosis raises his arm in slavish salute and gleefully sums up what the Senate Democrats are attempting to do:
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney’s broadcast license. Not the use of the word “trustee” at the beginning of the letter and “trust” at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.
I can remember when any threat to yank the broadcast license of a major media outlet for any reason whatsoever would be met by a solid wall of liberal opposition and outrage. When it came out in the Nixon impeachment hearings that the White House had threatened CBS and the Washington Post over their coverage of Watergate, the condemnations from most of those same sources I listed at the beginning of this post was immediate and passionate.
My, my how times have changed, no?
Hugh Hewitt thinks that this will hurt the Democrats at the polls in November. I’d like to think so. I’d like to believe there is still a sizable segment of the populace so much in love with liberty that they will rise up and smite the Democrats at the polls for their thuggish threats.
I’m afraid Hugh and I are bound to be disappointed. As long as you don’t yank The Sopranos or 24 or American Idol, people will tolerate just about anything these days.
Allah rounds up reaction and adds laconically:
My only question is this: was that letter typed, or did they use letters cut out from magazines?
You can’t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and “composite†scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin’ nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid — who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to — wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC.
Fair enough. Everything is a precedent. There’s nothing anyone can do except remember and use it when Michael Moore’s new movie comes out and someone on the Republican side criticizes it as inaccurate and the droning about dissent-crushing begins. Here’s a post to help memorialize it for future reference. I hope others will do so too.
I fully expect over the next 48 hours the cancellation of The Path to 9/11. No network or media outlet can stand up to the unprecedented bullying of an ex-President and the unprecedented threats of a group of very influential politicians.
And so the netnuts will be able to celebrate their “victory.” Perhaps they should ask exactly what they “won.” Another whitewashing of history? A lovely little taste of what it’s like to be a dictator? Perhaps a fantasy interlude where they can dream of crushing their political enemies as easily as they have now intimidated and crushed ABC?
Welcome to the Brave New World…
7:47 am
you’all forgot about the reagan mini series a couple years back that ya’ll were up in arms about…and undertook massive protest to have it not shown?? And the fact..that distortions in ABC’s 9-11 are all over the place…than ever existed in the reagan mini series..ya’ll forgot didn’t ya. Or was that before you were against the public censorship??
9:11 am
You’all are an incoherent lout. There is absolutely no comparison between the Reagan show and this. None.
Some of the arguments used are the same but the circumstances involving the two dramas are so different that it is laughable you and Lambchop brought it up.
9:17 am
[...] Will their arrogance know no bounds? Rick Moran (as usual) has the whole issue nailed to the wall. [...]
10:00 am
Crooked PATH TO 9/11
(CARTOON) - Safe to say that Bill Clinton won’t be TiVo’ing ABC’s The Path to 9/11 this weekend.
10:32 am
“The Reagans” was aired on the Showtime cable channel so there was no complete cancellation.
However, Rick is on to something when he predicts the “9/11″ show cancellation by ABC. I hope it won’t happen but the Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Bolsheviks and fellow travelers are in full whine so don’t look for this to air.
10:42 am
It’s not about ‘factual errors’
Democrats’ and Clinton-buttkissers’ herculean efforts over the past several days to demonize ABC’s upcoming The Path to 9/11 miniseries are ostensibly about ‘factual errors’ in what ABC has clearly labeled a docu-drama (i…
11:54 am
I’m probably beating my head against the wall to even ask this. If the program supposedly contained an incident that made President Bush look bad, and was not reported by the 9/11 commission, and the primary players with the Bush White House said it was a fabrication, would the author of this site, and the readers let it happen without comment or indignation?
11:59 am
#4:
I don’t Clinton knows how to turn on a TIVO. Of course, he can lie and say that he does.
12:12 pm
I didn’t see any threat of legal action in the quote you posted. You may see an implicit threat, but I think the author of that letter worded it very carefully so nobody could charge them with making an explicit threat.
I don’t see anything wrong with criticising a show or urging its broadcaster to modify it or shelve it. ABC is still free to ignore its critics, be they conservative or liberal.
12:16 pm
I completely agree that these threats are disgusting and stupid behavior. My serious question, however, is how exactly can minority Democrats do anything about a television broadcast license? I may be wrong, but aren’t broadcast licenses the perview of the FCC, under the control of the (Republican) administrative branch? And aren’t the licenses issued to individual stations, not networks?
12:31 pm
We are not looking for truth. We are looking to cover our collective butts. We are a jihadist dream come true. They’ll just wait on the sidelines while we self destruct. There is enough blame to go around.
It is ridiculous to compare the impact of the Reagan docu-drama to this.
1:07 pm
Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed Yet Again
Bill Clinton and other members of his administration demanded ABC alter their upcoming show “The Path To 9/11″ specifically portions that show Clinton’s administration in a very bad light. Funny, they cry out against conservative objections over…
1:48 pm
I’m probably beating my head against the wall to even ask this. If the program supposedly contained an incident that made President Bush look bad, and was not reported by the 9/11 commission, and the primary players with the Bush White House said it was a fabrication, would the author of this site, and the readers let it happen without comment or indignation?
Probably not but, following the precedent set by the Republican outrage over the Reagan mini-series, they would refrain from references to “the Communications Act of 1934″ or “trustees of the public airwaves”. Edward G. Robinson could have learned something from this crew. And the lefties go 0-2 on this thread as Beachbum Bob was unable to make this distinction, either.
3:53 pm
Rick: You state “There is absolutely no comparison between the Reagan show and this.â€
Do you mean by this the following? Docudramas must construct dialogue that perhaps never actually took place but that still communicates a state of existing facts, opinions, or policy. The difference is therefore that the current drama accurately conveys such things as Clinton’s view that terrorism should be treated as a law-enforcement matter, but the Reagan drama inaccurately portrayed Reagan as a homophobe, etc. Or am I missing other points?
Also, I don’t see the Democrat’s threat to ABC’s broadcasting license as terribly serious. To me, a subtle left-wing campaign to silence talk radio is what we should be looking out for.
4:13 pm
“Probably not but, following the precedent set by the Republican outrage over the Reagan mini-series, they would refrain from references to “the Communications Act of 1934†or “trustees of the public airwavesâ€.
I think it is alot paranoid to suggest the Democrats are threatening to pull anyone’s license.
First, they didn’t say that in the letter, just reminded the broadcasters that they have a public responsibility for accuracy that goes along with their use of public airwaves.
Second, as previously pointed out, they do not have the power to accomplish a license denial.
And tongueboy, if you’re going to label me, make it “critically thinking US citizen”. Not everyone who questions the fights the Right chooses to engage, or the tactics they use, is a Leftie. If a team member says to the coach “This play doesn’t work.” it does not make him a member of the other team.
I question whether capital should be expended for the right to tell a story as fact, that is highly controversial if it even happened (I speak now of the we have OBL surrounded and Clinton won’t let us kill him portion of the broadcast).
What does it say about the Right’s message that we have to fight to use possible lies to tell it?
6:29 pm
CLINTON HAD 8 YEARS TO NAIL BINLADEN AND DIDN’T, WAS TOO BUSY WITH MONICA TO WORRY WITH THAT LITTLE PROBLEM AND TELL US ALL GENTLE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT, WHAT WAS SANDY BURGLER STUFFING IN HIS PANTS WHEN THE 9/11 COMMISSION WAS INVESTIGATING THIS, PERHAPS SOMETHING WE MIGHT SEE IN THIS ” DOCU-DRAMA” AS ABC IS CALLING IT, THE TITLE IS NOT “CLINTON SCREWED UP SO WE HAD 9/11, ITS TO SHOW US HOW THINGS MAY NEED TO BE CHANGED AND IMPROVED AND I’D APPRECIATE IT NEXT TIME michael moore MAKES A FAKE DOCU-DRAMA AS ALL HIS HAVE BEEN FAKE, I EXPECT TO HEAR WHINNING FOR YOU ALL.
THANKS.
2:14 am
Links and Minifeatures 09 09 Saturday late
Clinton blasts 9/11 film, amid report of changes
Spin, spin, spin, you worthless gladhanding used car salesman. Your accomodationist, anything to …
3:19 am
“I’m probably beating my head against the wall to even ask this. If the program supposedly contained an incident that made President Bush look bad, and was not reported by the 9/11 commission, and the primary players with the Bush White House said it was a fabrication, would the author of this site, and the readers let it happen without comment or indignation?”
The current administration has already had it happen to them, with “Fahrenheit 9/11″ and Rathergate coming immediately to mind. The current Bush assasination-fantasy movie doesn’t help things. It’s interesting that Bush has to put up with this crap on a daily basis, I haven’t heard him complain. St. Bill and his cohorts, on the other hand, is whining over what is essentially a factual criticism. I’m finding his reaction over-the-top, to say the least.
From what I’ve read, the Bush administration is hardly treated with kid gloves in “Path”. I’d like to see the film and make my own judgement.
12:27 am
I’m new to your site and I only read about ABC’s proposed airing of Path to 9/11. I had concluded that I didn’t want to watch a fictionalized account that linked Saddam in Iraq to the 9/11 event in New York or the suggestion that Iraq had WMD, both of which were false.
Also, somewhere on this site I saw someone making reference to the US of A’s “cultural domination” amongst other dominating characteristics. Do you ever wonder how this kind of hubris is received by the rest of the world?
4:28 am
Nowhere in the film is there any reference whatsoever to Saddam being involved in 9/11.
Nowhere in the film is there any reference whatsoever to Saddam having WMD.
You are an ignoramous. It is laughably obvious you never saw the film. Please never come here again. I’m the only one who is allowed to make a fool of themselves here.
As for the “cultural domination” quote…you’re kidding right? Do you live under a rock?
9:14 am
[...] Yet, let’s take a good, jaundiced look at the alternative, as amply assaulted here, here, here, and here, just for starters. [...]
11:01 pm
Links and Minifeatures 09 09 Saturday late…
Clinton blasts 9/11 film, amid report of changes Spin, spin, spin, you worthless gladhanding used car salesman. Your accomodationist, anything to avoid confrontation policy are more responsible for 9/11 than any other single cause. Your unwillingness …