Blog Records:annuncio incontriComments…

Where was the outcry over dramatizing when in was shown for the 4 billionth time last Friday?

Some of the sharpest criticism came from conservative Republicans. The reason being, at the end of the day, the film just made some stuff up, important stuff.

Maybe when you’re dealing with anything else, you can get away with being a “docudrama” but when you’re dealing with 9-11, you better have your facts straight, and that standard should exist outside of political considerations or anything else for that matter.

So..

“And this brings us to the real villain in all of this; ABC and their over-hyping this project as more of a documentary than a drama. Some of this controversy could have been avoided if the network hadn’t left themselves wide open to criticism for inventing scenes out of whole cloth and putting words in people’s mouths they didn’t say. Their promotion of the film as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report” was also inaccurate. When I first saw the advertising for the program, I actually thought it would be a dramatization of what was in the Commission’s report. What it turned out to be was a mish mash of stuff pulled directly from the report (“Everything is blinking red!”), composite scenes that give the gist of what policy makers were thinking, and invented drama used to illustrate certain themes and to suggest how characters may have acted in real life.”

We can agree here.

And based upon what we have learned about the script, Platt could not have been more wrong.

Remember: one man’s “mainstream religious group” is another man’s delusional freak show.

Your upset with the style Blumenthal used to tell his story, but your not disputing the basic facts that the evangelical religious group, David Horowitz and other conservative types networked together to make this production, Designed to air on the five year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which coincided with the political Bush address in an election year where Republicans are on the ropes politically. Additionally the only thing they have going for themselves is ’strong on terror.’ If you don’t think that adds up to a political ploy, your being disingenuous.

Blumenthal’s intent was to posit a conspiracy that right wingers made P29/11 to smear Clinton.

Wyatt’s article in the Times makes total hash of that nonsense.

As for scare words, when Blumenthal uses idiotic adjectives like “mysterious” to describe a script title used 10,000 times in TV history, he is being deliberately provocative.

And no, he did NOT use Nowrasteh’s quote “word for word” - something I proved conclusively if you could read. Blumenthal wanted to leave the impression that Nowrasteh said that the Administration did nothing about terrorism when it is absolutely clear from the interview that Nowrasteh was talking ONLY about the Cole bombing - a fact that you don’t even bother to address.

It IS calumnious for Blumenthal to try and tar mainstream religious groups like YWAM with being a radical right wing organization. It is a false impression that if he had taken the time to read about the group and read what others say about it, he would have seen how patently ridiculous his charges were.

In short, Blumenthal’s piece was a dishonest attack using strawmen, misquotes, scare mongering, and deliberate falsehoods.

As for that scene, I have made it clear I found it ridiculously inaccurate - as were several other scenes I’ve pointed out on other posts. As soon as you acknowledge the truth of other scenes involving Clinton, I’ll give you leave to criticize. Until then, keep your mouth shut.