SHARKFORUM: OPINION WITH TEETH

Update: TELL THE F.E.C. TO PROSECUTE ABC/DISNEY FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW VIOLATIONS

The perverse obstinance of ABC/Disney in plowing ahead with their political hit piece on the Democratic party, "The Path to 9/11", will likely not only subject them to defamation suits from Bill Clinton himself, and from his cabinet officials that they smeared, they deserve to be prosecuted by the Federal Election Commission (F.E.C.) for campaign finance law violations. And if enough of us raise our voices, we can make it happen.

Although it was previewed only to hard core right wing ideologues (even Clinton was refused a request for an advance copy), enough has leaked out about its gross distortions of fact and malicious bias for there to be a mounting groundswell of condemnation of the planned broadcast, and demands that it be pulled entirely. Especially suspicious is the fact that the production, with a reported cost of $40 million dollars, is to be aired without commercials. And if that weren't bad enough, they are coordinating with the White House to let Bush give a speech right in the middle of the second installment.

In other words, ABC/Disney is providing to their extreme right wing pals a free, prime time, negative campaign commercial of 6 hours intended to influence the upcoming general election with less than 60 days to go. There could not be a more blatant or gross violation of campaign advertising law. The production is so riddled with deliberate partisan bias, it cannot be repaired or redeemed. And most despicably of all, ABC/Disney is promoting their conflation of heinous lies as "the official true story".

ACTION PAGE: http://www.charleswsanders.org/petitions/pnum495.php

Please submit the action page above to send your personal message of complaint to the F.E.C., and all your members of Congress as well. And then if you want to do more, you can file an INDIVIDUAL formal written complaint against ABC/Disney following the instructions at the following link.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/complain.shtml

Mandatory compliance laws regulate every action of all federal candidates seeking membership to the United States House or Senate. Congressional and Senatorial campaigns can be shut down entirely if any improprieties are evidenced through any filing discrepancies. Acquiescence by the Federal Elections Commission with ABC's after the fact coup d'etat on the Clinton Administration can only be overcome by our voices. Let us flood the F.E.C. with complaints, and let THAT be the story.

Some more facts:

The bias of the "docudrama" only became known when ABC began circulating previews recently. Less than two weeks ago, 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste confronted a lead writer of "The Path to 9/11" after watching the first half of the miniseries at a screening, but most of what we know amounts to bits and pieces because ABC chose to screen the miniseries to conservative bloggers and right-wing media outlets exclusively. None of the Democrats portrayed in the film have even been asked for their thoughts.

But we still know enough, thanks to news accounts and crack research, to fact check "The Path to 9/11" as a biased, irresponsible mess. Here's what you need to know:

* Richard Clarke -- the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News -- describes a key scene in "The Path to 9/11" as "180 degrees from what happened." In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone.

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, called the same scene "a total fabrication. It did not happen." And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was "something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong. And that's shameful."

* Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.

* The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton "approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden.
Yet chief "Path to 9/11" scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had "frequent opportunities in the '90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."

* ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of "The Path to 9/11". The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay -- yet bill the miniseries as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report."

Come-on Mark, why did you/are you wasting energy on this? When did any TV show ever give the accurate picture of ANYTHING, even if it was meant to be an actual documentary? Michael Moore has made a whole industry of distorting those of the Republican persuation and I'm sure you think that's all fine, yet cover the ears at the howls when the Demos think they are "getting smeared." Yeah, they are all perfect and never ever did anything stupid, sneaky, underhanded, or criminal either pre- or post-9/11; it is only the other side of the aisle that is filled with bad actors. I am just always amazed at the blinders people wear because of their political affiliations. All the time and energy spent in Washington about "getting the real story out" (read "covering our asses no matter what party we belong to") is frankly the only bipartisan activity going on these days, and THAT'S what makes me sick. The US Congress can pass a bill banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption (which is interestly enough, done on US soil for export to Europe...Switzerland, perhaps?) but can't deal with protecting private property owners from their land being seized by eminent domain to be turned over to other private property owners, tax reform, health care, immigration reform, etc., etc. And don't blame it on the Republicans that nuthin is happenin. It's the whole damn sorry lot.

Lynne,

With all due respect I have to object - I think you're unfarily characterizing Mark as being overtly partisan. Unless I missed it, when and where has he indicated that he holds the Left innocent in perpetuity? The reality is that this does matter, if for no other reason than the fact that the loudest voices in favor of this piece of tripe are also those who were the loudest and most agitated with regard to the Reagan docudrama which was innevitably pulled by CBS and broadcast on Showtime.

Following are some comments on the subject which I initially posted to another board. Since I know how thoughtful you are I need not implore you to consider them.

+++

It's serious stuff, and once again the radical right punditocracy has demonstrated their shameless hypocrisy. Remember the Reagan docudrama?

Like it or not Hillary's "vast Right wing conspiracy" does exist, and they're very smart and well-funded. They've demonstrated a willingness to use the media for purposes of propaganda (Armstrong Williams, anyone? Swift-Boat? Beuller?) and there's no reason to believe that they'd stop just because they've been busted lying so many times.

Why? The simple answer is that they just don't care.

There's a clear connection between the producers of this piece of sh!te and and Right-wing machine - you know that, right? If there are innacuracies which place blame where it doesn't belong then that's something which should be remedied, regardless of who's smeared. Since I've heard nothing by way of whining from the Right I can only assume that they found little to object to, as opposed to the CBS Docudrama on Reagan, which they pitched a fit over.

The sad fact, like it or not, is that the administration and their cohort don't respect objective reality, whcih is part of the reason that they have a hard time negotiating. They respect power, and the ends seem to justify the means to them.

I urge you to have a look at this issue - the gross fabrications (hardly mere innaccuracies) in this which clearly attempt to lay the blame for 9/11 on Clinton's doorstep are nothing short of historical revisionism. There are plenty of things to blame Clinton for (abuse of power, NAFTA, WACO, etc.,) but this is so offensive when you consider that the same group was accusing him of "Wagging the dog" when he actually did something to get bin Laden.

Lastly, I implore anyone who's interested to pick up a copy of Steve Coll's excellent (and well-balanced) "Ghost Wars." The reality is that the Clinton Administration did a lot in the way of al Qa'ida interdiction and mitigation, with varying results. The Bush administration, on the other hand, clearly dropped the ball. Coll is hardly a cheerleader for Clinton, and he's not a Bush-basher either. The image which is rendered in this book is one of ever-increasing complexity, and the real bad guys (aside from AQ) in the end are the Pakistanis, who clearly interfered with a Clinton effort to take our "The Tall One."

The big problem is that the analysis won't fit on a bumper sticker.

I think the question (who actually watches this stuff?) is worth asking, but only if it's followed by "and do they believe what they see?" Look, I don't want revisionism from anyone - not Michael Moore, not Oliver Stone, not the Swift Boaters, and not the religious zealots who made this thing.

The Conservative think-tanks who have crafted and reinforced the NeoCon message understood a long time ago that you only need to convince a small percentage of the electorate, and that barring that you really only need sew the seeds of doubt.

My objection to this is the same problem I had with "JFK," when Stone first said "people need to hear the truth," and then when challenged on the obvious innacuracies and fabrications he fell back on "hey - it's entertainment!"

The real issue, as I see it, is that there's a rapidly eroding adherence to a respect for objective reality (remember "fuzzy math"?), and even last weekend we had the VP, the Press Sec., and the Sec. of State suggesting that there WAS a connection between Saddam and al Qa'ida. This just after the Senate Intell. Committee released its report (known as "Phase 2") stating clearly that there were, in fact, no ties at all. I'm telling you - they don't care if they get called on the lies.

Let's say, just for sake of discussion, that the viewership of "The Path to 9/11" was 80,000 households. I don't know if that figure is even in the ball park, but just roll with it. What do you think happens when a subset of that viewership comes to the conclusion that this thing is factual? If you don't think that's possible then just consider the number of Fox News viewers who think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and that we in fact DID find WMD there.

It's an astonishingly dangerous precedent we're seeing set here, and it's not acceptable to just say "anyone who believes that is stupid." If there's one thing we should agree on it's the primacy of a respect for objective truth when it can be apprehended. The White House has been suggesting that its detractors are confused, and I think confusion is precisely what they're after.

Dave, I agree with many your points, except your last on "objective reality," where you wonder how many of the viewers of "Path to 9/ll" might think it is the truth. WHAT?! Have you ever listened to Coast to Coast AM? People apparently believe there are alien hybrids among us, so worrying about whether viewers are believing a political "docudrama" is "the truth" is pretty ludicrous. My point is that I think it’s a cryin’ shame to waste time and energy howling about a TV show that is better spent sifting through the "information" we get and figuring out our best guess at what is "the truth" (as frankly, there is no such thing as objective truth that will appear as such to more than one individual at a time) so that each of us can be smart when living our lives (including casting our ballots). I don't know what happened when Reagan did X or Sandy Berger did Y, and I don't think I will ever know, as most important, I wasn't there, and beyond that, I don't think I'll EVER be given enough information to even approximate what went on, as those guys are professional politicians, and they are surrounded by, like you point out, huge apparatuses, friends, enemies, whatever, that work really hard to ensure we never ever do know “the truth” (and that's only if you believe there can be an objective truth in the first place). So to "take action" on the level of protesting a TV show or sending around letters to get your friends to protest a TV show I feel is an unconscionable waste of energy. VOTE 'EM OUT OF OFFICE. Work to get honest politicians (there are some) in office. Work to bring people together, instead of working to point out that this side is lying or that side is lying. What good does that ultimately do, really? Establish that there is bitter disagreement? (I guess I do react poorly to the strident tone in "calls to action"; Mark's posting seems typical of that tone to me.) That's the only way to get at the truth. And even then, it will just be some people’s truth, ‘cause there are those who are going to believe alien hybrids live among us no matter what. Sorry to be so cynical.

PS I'm against the Campaign Finance Laws that restrict political speech regardless of what form it might take, even snuck in a purported "docudrama." Even when broadcast on TV. Even if there were only the "Big Three" with their lock on the airwaves, which of course hasn't existed for years and years now. Come on, what about shows like "The West Wing?" You want that people should go after the often thinly fictionalized content of many TV shows and movies and expect "equal time." Or any other show "ripped from the headlines" that deals with political content and might be seen as slanted one way or the other, especially in an election season? I guess I'd actually rather hear all the howling....

It is never a waste of time to attack organized corporate lies --- especially at such an ungodly level. It in no way means that anyone else is not also a liar, but that attack is a common right wing defense of "priviledged" lying. It is indeed far beyond "spin," which I think you at-home Americans have difficulty seeing due to the prevalence of far right wing control of your media. You yourself Lynne pointed out that one should look at a variety of sources. America hardly has it, I must add, no matter what you think. The only viable alternatives to right-wing owned corporate media are smaller further right media screamers like Rash Bimbo. I watch and read reports from many lands in several languages, which ain't gonna make me no saint, but I believe allows me to see the trained right-wing response in the U.S. public's acceptance of such vicious lies. There is not and never was a viable left for any period of time in the U.S. for about 50 years. Only people who live exclusively in the artworld experience such a slant, and that is a rarified, tiny world. "The Left" is a strawman used to set up reactionaryism as revolution, another Goebbels tactic.

Yes, voting is more important, but it seems nowadays to be highly based on acceptance of rightwing propaganda. A call to express your awareness that such propganda is unacceptable can have very great affects. The right wing does it all the time as a kind of scare tactic, which works quite well, for example. Expressing your beliefs is part of free speech and helps --- to a tiny bit --- to keep the assholes on their toes. I have seen it work well, I have seen it fail. Even a tiny bit is important right now. I find ideas like "they all do it" rather typical, a bit of a Pavlovian rightwing response even.

Lynne,

There's an awful lot I could (and probably will) say in response to your post, but I guess my short response is that it appears we may have differing ideas about what it takes to have a successful republic which is built upon the consent of the public.

relax you guys Lynne and I have had a discussion and figured it all out for you-

The human race: evolve or, dissolve.

Now, don't you feel better?

No. I believe in actively having the right to express my opinions, even when rich friends of my Daddy don't own the media. (Well, actually there are no friends of MY dad who are rich, but that's another problem.)

And I like to huckster for attempts to tell the truth. And don't go getting all Derridadablabal on me about attempts to tell the truth. In fact, I feel about politic-politics like Wesley does about artworld-politics. And like I do about artworld politics.

Have you ever listened to Coast to Coast AM?

I have, and I find it pretty hilarious. What disturbs me about Coast to Coast is that only about 1% of that shit is true, but the fact that even that much is true is the scary part. And no, I don't think that the paranoid ramblings of David Ickes fall into that 1% category.

People apparently believe there are alien hybrids among us, so worrying about whether viewers are believing a political "docudrama" is "the truth" is pretty ludicrous.

I could not disagree more, Lynne. Look, take a fer'instance. Let's say, God forbid, that 5 years from now there's a fire which destroys most of the MCA and 3 people are killed. Let's also say that in the intervening years you've moved on to a well-deserved post as the chief curator at, say, the Whitney. Someone here in Chicago decides to make a "docudrama" about the disaster, and surprise! you're blamed for the fire because it started in what was your office. Think you might take umbrage? Now multiply by a factor of one thousand.

Furthermore, I disagree with the premise of your comparison. There is no reason to equate, conflate or otherwise confuse the demographics of Coast to Coast with that of ABC or the Disney Corporation. Some people choose to believe that President Clinton had Ron Brown killed, but that doesn't mean that they by necessity fall into this other demographic.

But you did ask "why does it matter?" and I suppose I should address that question directly. Just as you and I might agree that people who buy into David Ickes' reptillian fantasies are probably missing some meds, I don't agree wiht the notion that anyone who buys the "Clinton's fault" premise of "Path to 9/11" is by necessity stupid, gullible or biased.

For proof consider the ever-so-popular urban mythology surrounding the end-of-life proclivities of your garden variety lemming. Legen has it that lemmings throw themselves wantonly off cliffs en masse, thereby providing a perfect explitive for all blind followers. But wait - it's B.S., because lemmings do not, in fact, commit mass suicide. Just where did this urban myth originate? I quote the following from snopes.com:

Claim: During the filming of the 1958 Disney nature documentary White Wilderness, the film crew induced lemmings into jumping off a cliff and into the sea in order to document their supposedly suicidal behavior.

Status: True.

Origins: Lemming suicide is fiction. Contrary to popular belief, lemmings do not periodically hurl themselves off of cliffs and into the sea. Cyclical explosions in population do occasionally induce lemmings to attempt to migrate to areas of lesser population density. When such a migration occurs, some lemmings die by falling over cliffs or drowning in lakes or rivers. These deaths are not deliberate "suicide" attempts, however, but accidental deaths resulting from the lemmings' venturing into unfamiliar territories and being crowded and pushed over dangerous ledges. In fact, when the competition for food, space, or mates becomes too intense, lemmings are much more likely to kill each other than to kill themselves...

Does this mean that I think the ghost of Walt Disney hates america and has a virulent antipathy toward objective truth? Nope. And I'm not citing this example for any other reason than to demonstrate how insidious such myths can be.

My point is that I think it’s a cryin’ shame to waste time and energy howling about a TV show that is better spent sifting through the "information" we get and figuring out our best guess at what is "the truth"

I totally disagree. Informed dissent and dialog are the very process which allows for the intelligent stewardship of the electoral process by the electorate. You sound as though you'd rather people just keep their objections to themselves and allow the sausage-machine to operate as it pleases. Why am I having a hard time believing that you felt that way about Whitewater, and Waco, and "Travelgate," and Vince Foster, etc.? Perhaps your calculus ought to apply to the professional polemicists out there, like Stone, and O'Reilly, and Moore and Limbaugh. Should they have raised a stink over the CBS "docudrama" on President Reagan?

What about Native Americans who may have an objection to Westerns which portrayed "Injuns" as bloodthirsty savages, or African Americans who object to films which regularly portrayed "Negroes" as indigent and stupid? How do you feel about films made in the Muslim world which deny that the Holocaust ever occurred, or that Jews use the blood of Gentile babies to make matzoh? The truth is that cultural messages are important, and the negotiation of fact v. fiction is a delicate balance to strike. This is why there's a vast difference between a drama which is clearly an invention, and a "docudrama" in which actually people are portrayed.

A waste of time and energy? Compared to what?

(as frankly, there is no such thing as objective truth that will appear as such to more than one individual at a time)

Lynne, I think you know that I respect you, and I'm quite fond of you, but this comment is really disturbing to me. First of all, in case I was unclear, I was not and am not referring to some sort of "Platonic Essence" of reality. I'm not nearly well-read enough to carry on a serious discussion on The Republic, nor am I of a mind to veer off in that direction.

My comment was that there's a hostility toward the respect for object reality, which can also be referred to as empirical fact. How are people of good conscience meant to negotiate their differences if they cannot even agree on the facts? When you're dealing with people who refuse to concede legitimate points under any circumstances then you've got an utter and complete abdication of the process of critical thinking, a process which leads intelligent people to real solutions. We'll never get everyone to agree completely, but over the last couple centuries we've been able to come to consensus on an awful lot.

Yet we now have an administration, like it or not, which insists upon bending the details to fit a pre-determined outcome (see the intelligence "analysis" which preceded the war in Iraq, as well as the Medicare bill (the chief actuary was fired when he attempted to inform Congressional members that the "estimates" were grossly under-reported), the EPA (Ground Zero air assessments immediately following 9/11), and on and on.

While I acknowledge that there is no "objective truth" I think the point is something of a red herring. The process of intelligent analysis which has served this country so well in the effort to fight disease, promote technological innovation, and advance the most progressive and forward-thinking set of laws on the planet is central to this discussion. It's about the process Lynne - the process which allows us to utilize the big brains we've been given to weigh all of the myriad factors which confront us with something as close to intellectual honesty as we can muster and move on. Why? So that we can devise laws and systems of governance which represent the best odds at delivering the best quality of life to the largest number. America was founded as a country of ideas, and those ideas were arrived at through a process of intellectual analysis which held as it's fulcrum a repect for the truth. Perhaps this is a result of the prevailing notions abounding during the Enlightenment, but the concept was and is revolutionary, no pun intended.

I don't know what happened when Reagan did X or Sandy Berger did Y, and I don't think I will ever know, as most important, I wasn't there,

Awfully convenient, but utterly unacceptable. Upon what, then, shall we base our conclusions? We are not judging "The Path to 9/11" on the assumption of prescience, but rather on the eyewitness accounts of those who were there, and these accounts directly contradict the assertions being put forth in this piece. And we're not talking about disagreements with wardrobe, we're talking about elements of the narrative which are central to the issue at hand.

The administration has gotten far by offering us paternalistic bromides which exhort us to just trust in Poppy, because Daddy Knows Best. We are sold a twist on the populist theme which asserts that our guts will lead us, and that anything we don't understand isn't our concern. Well excuse me for taking some interest and ownership in this country, but this thing ain't working! Shall we conduct the business of the nation as if it were a New York mugging? The other problem I have with this embracing of ignorance (we weren't there, so what do we know?) is that it results in a de facto intellectual disenfranchisement.

(and that's only if you believe there can be an objective truth in the first place).

I don't have to be a philosophy grad student to know that we all operate under the calculus of believing that some things are "true," and that life would be near to impossible otherwise. By way of example, I would direct your attention to the concept that "We find these truths to be self-evident..."

The real power of this statement, which appeared near the front of the document for a very specific reason, is that it asserts that all individuals are naturally endowed with the requisite powers of reason to determine right from wrong, provided they employ honest analysis. And what shall we use as a governing doctrine in the employment of this analysis? Why of course it's that darling of the Enlightenment, empirical observation and data.

So to "take action" on the level of protesting a TV show or sending around letters to get your friends to protest a TV show I feel is an unconscionable waste of energy.

And how would you suggest people advocate for their sense of justice and political fairness? Bumper stickers? Yard signs?

VOTE 'EM OUT OF OFFICE. Work to get honest politicians (there are some) in office. Work to bring people together, instead of working to point out that this side is lying or that side is lying.

That's precisely what he's doing, Lynne. That and calling bullshit instead of ceding to the cynicism which believes that "they all do it." I'm sorry, but lying is fucking wrong, especially when those lies are getting people killed.

What good does that ultimately do, really?

Well, I suppose the real question here is "can any of us really make a difference?" But I don't think you'd get very far trying to convince the Abolishionists, or the Suffragettes, or those who railed against Apartheid, of those who risked their lives in the Labor Movement. Need I go on? Shall we have a Bill of Rights, provided we don't demonstrate the poor taste to actually use it? Can you honestly tell me that you didn't voice your concerns about Clinton, and the "liberal media"?

And even then, it will just be some people’s truth, ‘cause there are those who are going to believe alien hybrids live among us no matter what. Sorry to be so cynical.

I'm sorry - this comment makes me quite sad.

PS I'm against the Campaign Finance Laws that restrict political speech regardless of what form it might take, even snuck in a purported "docudrama." Even when broadcast on TV.

another discussion altogether, but a fruitful and fascinating one to be sure.

Even if there were only the "Big Three" with their lock on the airwaves, which of course hasn't existed for years and years now.

and, oh yea - WE own those airwaves.

Come on, what about shows like "The West Wing?"

Oh, you mean a fictional drama? Are you serious? We're talking about a program made for television about real people and events.

You want that people should go after the often thinly fictionalized content of many TV shows and movies and expect "equal time."

Look, the equal time clause was a great thing, but it pertained specifically to news and opinion, not drama. I don't complain about "24," or MSNBC "Lockup," or any of the other shows that do little more than divide and sow fear. If you don't see that there's a difference then we should have that discussion as well, but the real salient point, in my opinion, is that the Bush Administration has demonstrated nothing short of contempt of an adherence to empirical fact, and I find that disturbing to say the least.

Dave, thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal, but you still seem to completely misunderstand me. Back in the old days, it was important to protest various civic and political situations. It was a very different world. Wake up, those days have passed. Our "protests" now are grist for the exact mill that I think you find repugnant. Why play into the hands of those you oppose? I think a new twist on Gandhi's passive resistance is in order. DON'T respond to the inflammatory media culture. It just wants to suck you dry. I have more to say on this later on.

But to respond to your previous commentary, I might be being presumptuous, but I don’t think we do have very differing ideas on what it takes to have a successful republic. I’m sure you’d agree that we need to have an educated citizenry that understands the responsibilities inherent in a being a citizen of a democratic republic. I’m sure we’d agree that the citizenry needs to be actively involved, speaking up, and taking responsibility for ensuring the continuance of the republic and all that implies. Where I think we diverge is how to do that. I fear that the modern media environment has programmed most people to think we have all these “rights” and the “rights” include mouthing off in abject ignorance about things we should study up on and realize the entire length and breadth of before we speak. Sure, you might find corporate behavior repugnant, but is using campaign finance laws to shut down the messages they are broadcasting through their media arms or sponsorship the right way to deal with it? I’m not a big “slippery slope” proponent, but I do feel what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Would you wish a program you agree with (let's say for the sake of argument that it is a "docudrama") to be gone after by people who oppose it using indirect means, such as campaign finance laws, to shut down what I’m sure you would perceive as the constitutional right of free speech? I would hope that if the real individuals depicted in “Path to 9/ll” found the fictional words put in their mouths so egregious, they would, as individuals, sue the production company, network, and anyone else involved for libel, rather than use “cries for action” or campaign finance laws as a way to shut down the program (I know it aired, but there was that movement to “force” ABC to not air the program, including outcries from many of the people depicted in the program. And yes I know libel suits are very rarely won.) If a docudrama was made about me saying I was a murderer (if even in some tangental, indirect way), I'm sure I would employ a lawyer and explore my options. And yes, I would be distressed, but I'm not so sure I would try to shut down the airing of such a program, ESPECIALLY if it did not claim to be a documentary. Life ain't easy, and it would be a real bitch to have to deal with stuff like that. I would be real mad. But I wouldn't try to suppress free speech. It’s the burden of responsibility I must take on to have the right to free speech myself.

Or yes, get all my friends to participate in a boycott of the advertisers of such a program. But don’t try to shut people up or make them say the words I think are the correct words, even if they are the “correct” words. Again, although I personally don't see much difference in "news" and "entertainment" these days, "The Path to 9/ll” did not claim to be a hard-hitting documentary, but a “docudrama.”

While I’m distressed there are intelligent-seeming citizens who regularly cast their ballots and thus affect the course of our republic who believe alien hybrids walk amongst us, leading me to think they are unqualified to be casting a ballot, I am frankly glad I live in a country where my own opinion doesn’t prevail. Your thinking that "those people" who believe alien hybrids walk amongst us are somehow not the "same people" who might be influencing anything else with their opinions is terrifying naive. (And I have to say I am very confused by two conflicting statements in Mark’s original posting, viz. “Although it was previewed only to hard core right wing ideologues (even Clinton was refused a request for an advance copy)...” and “The bias of the "docudrama only became known when ABC began circulating previews recently. Less than two weeks ago, 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste confronted a lead writer of ‘The Path to 9/11’ after watching the first half of the miniseries at a screening, but most of what we know amounts to bits and pieces because ABC chose to screen the miniseries to conservative bloggers and right-wing media outlets exclusively. None of the Democrats portrayed in the film have even been asked for their thoughts.” So Richard Ben-Veniste, hardly a hard core right wing ideologue, got to see the show before it aired after all? How can I absorb a sentence that says no one except hard-core right wing ideologues got to preview the program that also states Richard Ben-Veniste watched the first half of it at a screening! I thought only hard-core right wing ideologues got to see it. And that “we” knew “only bits and pieces” from conservative bloggers and right-wing media outlets.” As Ensign Chekov would say in fond acknowledgement of Mr. Spock, “Something does not compute.” And was anyone asked for their thoughts” [as distinct from people freely voicing their thoughts whether asked or not]? Should I assume from the posting that a missive went out from ABC/Disney to “hard core right wing ideologues” saying “Please give us feedback?” …What I am saying is I don’t have enough facts to go on to know what was going on one way or another, and I’m as suspicious of the motives of those who are howling as I am about those who produced “Path to 9/11.”)

If you are worried about people’s minds being twisted by propaganda, which I know is a reality, I don’t think the way to combat that is mounting an outraged e-mail campaign on the internet. It is by educating children to be critical thinkers and enlightened citizens who are not swayed by forceful speakers, eloquent but specious arguments, fame, celebrity, or sex appeal in making political judgments. Citizens who can listen to all viewpoints without thinking they need to shout down opposing views. Citizens who can mount constructive solutions or at least support leaders who do come up with constructive solutions rather than merely seeking out those they agree with in order to have more people shouting down other people. I agree that protests/political actions of various sorts (sit-ins, letter writing campaigns) were essential in the past in redressing issues of social justice; I would argue these are no longer viable models and that are merely exploited by those in power these days to placate the true political passions of the people, ultimately manipulating the people to their own ends.

A bit of an aside, but something “ripped from the current headlines”—are you outraged by the corporate behavior displayed by the fact that Bill Maher was invited to appear on the “freeSpeech” segment of the new CBS evening news with Katie Couric and was told he could not speak on the topic of his choice, religion? I merely thought it was ironic that people are screaming about ABC’s behavior in producing/broadcasting “Path to 9/11” but seem to (at this date anyway) be ignoring CBS’s expression/protection of their corporate culture by having forbidden topics on a segment titled “freeSpeech.” And once again felt fortunate that I have broken my habit of staring into the tube, whether to watch hastily produced docudramas “ripped from the headlines” or the evening news.

And frankly I find it quaint that you still differentiate between "news" and "fictional dramas."

Yet you so wisely said, the big problem is that the analysis won't fit on a bumper sticker. Nothing really, fits on bumper stickers, tho’ some things fit better than others or we wouldn’t have had to suffer through decades now of “I [heart]” messages. My position is I know humans have a great capacity for evolution and rising above our baser qualities, which in my mind include parochialism, short-sightedness, and knee-jerk, emotional reactions. For example, I understand why I shudder at the sight of the Great White Shark, and realize I am having a knee-jerk, emotional reaction, but I also know there is no reason for me to want to slaughter all Great Whites so that I don’t have to ever feel that awful feeling again. I want human beings to continue to evolve, not the dissolve (thanks to The Shark for this catchy saying, which would make a nice bumper sticker, wouldn’t it—“Evolve, don’t dissolve!”)

PS I find your comment about the lack of a “viable left” revealing. You decry the right-wing “screamers” yet you imply (I might be reading too much between the lines) that conservative folk support these “screamers” as their spokesmen. To put the shoe on the other foot, I know many conservative folk believe there is a “viable left,” (which of course obviously is defined very differently than you would) and it is MoveOn.org and their ilk. (And could you clarify, you think “the left” is a strawman? And set up by whom?) But to get back to my point, neither is really true, is it? There are conservatives who can’t stomach Mark Levine (and on a more serious level, vehemently disagree with Bush’s foreign policy) and there are liberals who are sickened by Al Franken (and on a more serious level, are really upset about attacks on the constitution in the form of campaign finance laws). So once again, it is all a matter of perception, and what one is wont to see is based on one’s proclivities, predilections and training. I have been suggesting all along in my blogs that constant self-examination is a good thing, at the same time I recognize that seeing “outside the box” of one’s proclivities, predilections and training is a damn hard thing to do.

And Mark, I am hardly saying you/we/anyone should not express an opinion! I'm saying express it in a way that is fruitful rather than wasteful!

PPS. Dave, I remember that Rush Limbaugh et al. did "raise a stink" about the Reagan docudrama. But I remember that the stink was mainly about that it was unseemly to be airing such a program while the man lay stricken with Alzheimer's. Really. Or perhaps I heard it all wrong....

It is NEVER wasteful and always fruitful to express your opinion and to denounce cynical, manipulative behavior. "Those days" are not over. That is the "fashion lie" feed SO well by the media to US Americans.

Yes CBS, Fox and various others are also assholes, but you take it one thing at a time. I was not screaming, I was delivering information as best as I could glean it. I have studied the US and Euro Media very closely. And, I in NO way have to simultaneously, then, search around for some example of anti-right propaganda. That was not my point. That "illusion" of balance is what leads to such despair as your statement that "they all do it thus why bother." (Not a real quote from Lynne, I might add to readers, just my rhetorical paraphrase.)

I'm not adding much, because I am very busy at the moment, and, frankly and happily, becaus Dave expressed a response extremely close to mine so eloquentyl and so well thought-out.

The Path to 9/11 is a calculated, propagandistioc lie by a screaming reactionary (Iger). I'm attacking that. And it worked. We can take on other jerks like Murdoch, Rushy boy, etc. later. To say nothing of the art media! (Which we should get back to here soon, I think, as that is more our area. I am just highly political as well, in both countries, thus I work on more than art, thus these posts which WILL continue as long as I am here.)

Well Mark, The Shark wants to know when other members uhmmm.... of the Sharkpack will show similar courage and forthrightness when it comes to addressing the manipulated artworld...starting right here in good ol' Chicago....

the courage to change what can be changed.......

"...when it comes to addressing the manipulated artworld...starting right here in good ol' Chicago...." Yes! AND in the rest of the artworld too --- which, it has often been pointed out, is really an art village.

Dave, thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal, but you still seem to completely misunderstand me.

How so? I've responded to specific comments, i.e.; "there is no objective truth" and "this is a waste of time."

Back in the old days, it was important to protest various civic and political situations.

And it's no longer important to protest in that manner? If not, then why not?

Wake up, those days have passed.

I'm not sleeping, and I know that times have changed.

Our "protests" now are grist for the exact mill that I think you find repugnant. Why play into the hands of those you oppose?

You'll have to explain this one.

I’m sure you’d agree that we need to have an educated citizenry that understands the responsibilities inherent in a being a citizen of a democratic republic.

Yes.

I’m sure we’d agree that the citizenry needs to be actively involved, speaking up, and taking responsibility for ensuring the continuance of the republic and all that implies.

Yes yes.

Where I think we diverge is how to do that.

OK.

I fear that the modern media environment has programmed most people to think we have all these “rights” and the “rights” include mouthing off in abject ignorance about things we should study up on and realize the entire length and breadth of before we speak.

Ah, I thought this was coming - you're right, we disagree. We absolutely have a right to mouth off on anything we choose - it's a right articulated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Citizens who are under the impression that their right to speech equals a right to be heard or a right to have what they want are certainly confused, though.

Sure, you might find corporate behavior repugnant, but is using campaign finance laws to shut down the messages they are broadcasting through their media arms or sponsorship the right way to deal with it?

You're using a pretty broad brush there Lynne. I don't find all corporate behavior repugnant. but answer this question - why do you think it costs so damn much to run for national office? Politicians have become full-time fundraisers, and a very big reason why is that they are pretty much required to buy TV and radio time to get their message out.

Think about this for a second Lynne - the airwaves are held in trust by the Federal governement ostensibly charged with the responsibility of safeguarding them for the U.S. public, who represent ownership. How is that ok? I don't know if campaign finance reform is the proper method here (it most certainly was in the case of Sinclair during the last election), but the group who funded and produced this thing were very well-connected Bush donors, with a publicly stated ambition to modify Hollywood from the inside out. That's fine and dandy, but let's call a spade a spade - this was a political comb-over for the President who is really responsible for 9/11.

Still, it really seems as though you're changing the subject. Reading on in hopes that I'm wrong, but I still fail to see where I've misunderstood you...

I’m not a big “slippery slope” proponent, but I do feel what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Exactly - I'm for one standard which applies to everyone.

Would you wish a program you agree with (let's say for the sake of argument that it is a "docudrama") to be gone after by people who oppose it using indirect means, such as campaign finance laws, to shut down what I’m sure you would perceive as the constitutional right of free speech?

The right of free speech does not equal a right of slander and libel. And I can't even answer the question in such a hypothetical framework. Yes I'm for free speech, but I'm also anti-propaganda and pro corporate responsibility.

I would hope that if the real individuals depicted in “Path to 9/ll” found the fictional words put in their mouths so egregious, they would, as individuals, sue the production company, network, and anyone else involved for libel, rather than use “cries for action”

What, precisely, is so offensive about the "cries for action?"

or campaign finance laws as a way to shut down the program (I know it aired, but there was that movement to “force” ABC to not air the program, including outcries from many of the people depicted in the program.

Those people happen to also be the individuals most vulnerable to smears, and coincidence of coincidences the most knowledgable on the subject. You know, what's so hard to take about you defense is that we've ALREADY seen the ill effects of this nonsense - just today on Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room" I heard Bay Buchanan state (as if it were fact) that Clinton had a shot at bin Laden and he said "don't do it, which was SPECIFICALLY the thing in this piece of fecal matter which people were objecting to!

And yes I know libel suits are very rarely won.)

Huh? Isn't the Right always complaining about all the law suits? I believe psychotherapists refer to this as a "double bind."

And yes, I would be distressed, but I'm not so sure I would try to shut down the airing of such a program,

as is your right.

ESPECIALLY if it did not claim to be a documentary.

That's your choice to make, but I'm sorry if I find it hard to believe that you'd sit idly by while a TV was broadcast in which a character meant to be you was unfairly tagged with responsibility for the worst attack this country's seen. Just out of curiousity - what do you suppose the "docu" in "docudrama" is supposed to mean?

Life ain't easy, and it would be a real bitch to have to deal with stuff like that.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you seriously asking me to believe that you don't care about your reputation? You'd be forced to deal with it either way - don't you see that? We're not talking about trying to prevent your coleagues from saying anything negative about your curratorial skills Lynne - we're talking about life and death!

I would be real mad. But I wouldn't try to suppress free speech.

Gimme a frickin' break - this isn't a free speech issue. It's about accountability and the public trust.

It’s the burden of responsibility I must take on to have the right to free speech myself.

I don't understnad this one - please articulate.

But don’t try to shut people up or make them say the words I think are the correct words, even if they are the “correct” words.

I see, so it's OK for people in positions of great power to lie. OK. As far as "correct" is concerned (and I'm already hearing that old GOP whipping boy Political Correctness) we're talking about historical events which are corroberated by a very large group of people. We're also talking about (perhaps) the most important event in modern American history, and I think it's unconscionable to use that event as a wedge to score cheap political points. It's sickening.

Again, although I personally don't see much difference in "news" and "entertainment" these days, "The Path to 9/ll” did not claim to be a hard-hitting documentary, but a “docudrama.”

Granted there's little value in the nightly or cable news, the fact that this thing did or did not claim to be a "hard-hitting documentary" is kind of ansilary. They grossly misrepresented the facts, and all evidence suggests that this distortion was intentional.

Your thinking that "those people" who believe alien hybrids walk amongst us are somehow not the "same people" who might be influencing anything else with their opinions is terrifying naive.

Please, Lynne - before you make characterizations about my sophistication and/or naivete you could ask for a little clarification. The suggestion is off-putting, and I see no reason why we should allow this to become a hostile discussion.

Now - you're the one who is confused, becuase I never said that the alien hybrid believers have no other effect on society. What I DID say is that they are NOT by necessity the SAME people. See the difference? Sorry to scare you but you sorta did it to yourself on that one.

So Richard Ben-Veniste, hardly a hard core right wing ideologue, got to see the show before it aired after all?

Why don't you take your own advice and Google it? Isn't it possible that there's a legitimate explaination?

What I am saying is I don’t have enough facts to go on to know what was going on one way or another, and I’m as suspicious of the motives of those who are howling as I am about those who produced “Path to 9/11.”)

Then why in the world are you suggesting that Mark is committing and "unconscionable waste of time and energy?"

If you are worried about people’s minds being twisted by propaganda, which I know is a reality, I don’t think the way to combat that is mounting an outraged e-mail campaign on the internet.

Why not? It's been proven to work.

It is by educating children to be critical thinkers and enlightened citizens who are not swayed by forceful speakers, eloquent but specious arguments, fame, celebrity, or sex appeal in making political judgments.

OK, that's sweet music to these ears, but what are us grown-ups supposed to do in the meantime? I'm sick and tired of the bullshit being pulled by the NeoCons - Armstrong Williams comes to mind. Enough is enough, and please don't give that tired old line about how "they all do it," because these guys are in a league of their own.

Citizens who can listen to all viewpoints without thinking they need to shout down opposing views.

Who says they're being shouted down? And please, Lynne - these are not "opposing views," they're lies. And speaking of citizens tolerating dissent, how about the Citizen-in-Chief?

Citizens who can mount constructive solutions or at least support leaders who do come up with constructive solutions rather than merely seeking out those they agree with in order to have more people shouting down other people.

It's a false dichotomy. I'm for dialogue, but we've had very little of that, Lynne, and it's the Right's fault this time. They've made it publicly known that they have no interest in negotiating with those they disagree with.

I agree that protests/political actions of various sorts (sit-ins, letter writing campaigns) were essential in the past in redressing issues of social justice; I would argue these are no longer viable models and that are merely exploited by those in power these days to placate the true political passions of the people, ultimately manipulating the people to their own ends.

I don't get it. There will always be politicians on both sides you game the system, but the Founders gave us the right to peacably assemble and to have a redress of grievences for a reason. The public needs to make itself heard.

are you outraged by the corporate behavior displayed by the fact that Bill Maher was invited to appear on the “freeSpeech” segment of the new CBS evening news..?"

Outraged? no. I do think it's pathetic, stupid and wrong, and that CBS looks really bad as a result, but it's absurd to equate that with the 9/11 thing.

I merely thought it was ironic that people are screaming about ABC’s behavior in producing/broadcasting “Path to 9/11”

first of all, I doubt that ABC produced the thing, but that's secondary. It might seem inconsistent, but I don't see how it's ironic.

but seem to (at this date anyway) be ignoring CBS’s expression/protection of their corporate culture by having forbidden topics on a segment titled “freeSpeech.”

Perhaps some can recognize the vast difference in the two issues. I certainly can.

And frankly I find it quaint that you still differentiate between "news" and "fictional dramas."

Please don't patronize. I could write volumes on the differences and similarities, but really, Lynne - this is a bit provocational.

Nothing really, fits on bumper stickers,

You wouldn't know that by the preponderance of those idiotic yellow ribbon magnets, but you're right. I happen to love stickers, but I limit myself almost exclusively to skateboard art - that's an unrecognized art form.

My position is I know humans have a great capacity for evolution and rising above our baser qualities, which in my mind include parochialism, short-sightedness, and knee-jerk, emotional reactions.

And part of that is holding ourselves, our media and our elected officials to a higher standard.

PS I find your comment about the lack of a “viable left” revealing.

I'm trying to find that - did I say that? Found it - it was Mark who said that. You'll have to ask him for articulation

You decry the right-wing “screamers” yet you imply (I might be reading too much between the lines) that conservative folk support these “screamers” as their spokesmen.

I don't know if this is for me or not. Some support them as spokesmen (dittoheads) and spokeswomen (Kool-Aid drinkers for Coulter), and some don't.

And could you clarify, you think “the left” is a strawman?

Hmm, as used by the Right? I dunno. I do think all polemicists utilize the strawman arguement a ton these days, but I'm not sure I get the question. Perhaps it's for Mark.

PPS. Dave, I remember that Rush Limbaugh et al. did "raise a stink" about the Reagan docudrama. But I remember that the stink was mainly about that it was unseemly to be airing such a program while the man lay stricken with Alzheimer's. Really. Or perhaps I heard it all wrong....

It hardly matters why, and I haven't a clue at this point what their specific objection was, except perhaps that he wasn't portayed as a deity. Many conservatives utterly worship Ronald Reagan (seen any airports in D.C. name for Clinton? How about Carter? What about air craft carriers?) and give him credit for the sun while utterly ignoring the rain (like selling arms to IRAN, our currently arch-nemesis.)

But look, this has perhaps gone to far. I am hardly a mouth-foaming liberal, and I'm not opposed to all things conservative. I do think we've got a rotten bunch in office right now who are deceitful and incompetent, in addition to being shameless hypocrites (Frist just threatened a philibuster today! Man is he hoping that americans have a short attention span.), and you seem to think they're doing a bang-up job. We can agree to disagree, because while I'm not a big fan of the Dems on Capitol Hill, I honestly can't imagine how anyone actively support the current administration.

What bothers me about all this Lynne is that the conversation doesn't really seem to be tracking, and in many ways I think we may be talking past each other. Perhaps we should change the subject to art - I'd rather be friends.

))smiley face here((

Dave, I think we are talking past each other. I think it boils down to in this current example that you characterize the material on "Path to 9/ll" as "lies" and I characterize it as "I don't have enough information to know whether it is lies or not (and I don't think I ever will)." I guess I am just having more difficulty than you in believing ANYTHING these days in the contemporary media environment (even those things I do see with my own eyes), and will be as skeptical of anything Bill Clinton said/says as I will be of anything George Bush said/says. I guess I am assuming you are able to so unequivocally state, for example, the material on "Path to 9/ll" is "lies" only because you trust those who are claiming they are lies, not because you really have any more information than I do. (If I am making an incorrect assumption, I apologize.) I guess I don't trust the people who are “claiming to set the record straight,” even if they were eyewitnesses to the events, to not lie (or less harshly, to not be interpreting events in a different light than another might). However, to reassure you that I am not "actively supporting the current administration" in my comments taking off from the docudrama "Path to 9/ll", I am sure most of what was “dramatized” on this particular program probably really is a lie, simply because I believe most things of a, let’s say “current events nature,” that end up on TV in whatever form are either outright lies or lies by omission or lies by lack of context (although I would prefer to characterize them as "untruths").

If you agree with this as a premise (whether or not you think it actually applies to our current situation), perhaps you can see why we might be "talking past one another." If I am of the nature to think, let's just for the sake of brevity call it "most contemporary political speech" consists of, on some level, lies, then I will probably behave differently than someone who believes he/she can identify one thing as a lie and another thing as a not-lie. Otherwise I think we actually agree on most basic principles.

Here's what I do. I talk about what I've “heard” with friends/colleagues, and deconstruct the way in which it is reported (which includes the “content” of the report/information, of course). I never assume anything is "true" or even accurate (even my own apprehending of the material). And yes, try to learn as much about that which I am consuming, especially in following the money trail, as this is very important information (like such-and-such broadcasting company being an subsidiary of such and such larger corporation which also owns this other corporation which has published X or Y and so on). I feel very empowered by this, and feel I am increasingly impervious to manipulation of all sorts. And I use my charged-up energy to create truth and beauty in what I do (because I know I can't really control anyone else). Gee, I sound like some New Ager, don’t I?

PS. And yes, my sincere apology for being confused and attributing what Mark said (about the left being a strawman) to you. It was a mistake arising from the nature of scrolling.

I guess I am assuming you are able to so unequivocally state, for example, the material on "Path to 9/ll" is "lies" only because you trust those who are claiming they are lies, not because you really have any more information than I do.

Look Lynne, I don't claim to be an expert, not by a long shot, but in this case I'm placing my trust in the 9/11 Commission Report. When people knowingly include factual innacuracies they are lying. what other word could we use for it? I guess I'd encourage you to ask for clarification - just because you feel that you've got inadequate information with which to draw a conclusion ought not lead you to assume that the same is true for others. The fact that I don't know the ins and outs of the Chicago art scene in no way by extension means that you don't know the ins and outs, for example.

While I agree that it can be really tricky to ascribe veracity to things which were said (part of the reason perjury is so hard to prove, as I understand it), we can know on a factual level if things did or did not happen. In the case of the really offending scene in "The Path to 9/11" President Clinton is portrayed as having "waved off" a CIA team which had bin Laden in their cross-hairs. Neither of these events ever took place according to the 9/11 Commission.

I have one doctrine when it comes to political analysis - make no assumptions and inform myself to the best of my ability. And I only see one "enemy," and that is the abuse of power. As I said to you during our lunch at the MCA, that was just one of the reasons I felt that President Clinton was due some serious criticism.

I agree with you that intelligent people are required out of a fealty to honesty to remain circumspect when consuming "news." I watch Keith Olberman every night, and I'm constantly made aware of his bias. What's more important to me is the quality of his reasoning and the fairness of his calculus. Aside from his shameless attacks on Suri Cruise I'd have to say that the man is pretty fair.

And oh yea - there's no reason to apologize - I get confused in scrolling as well.

And I stand by my statement, Lynne, which was however NOT clear enough by far, since I type as (too) fast as I scroll! That is, from my experience seeing the presentation of any left ideas in the vast majority of the US media, the image of the "Liberal" is used as a straw man to knock down in order to portray the right as the only "clear" thinking option.

This operation appeared first in the media blitz after the (Republican) Congress (under Clinton) passed laws allowing them to bypass earlier laws and regulations which were intended to assist in securing a variety of opinions and owners of media. It worked. They bought it up, they frame the discussion, and implement a "straw man" version of history, which a large number of Americans appear to believe at this point, according to what I can glean from Polls (granted, a very questionable place to try to glean info from)! As best as I can ascertain, though, that seems to be true. I just tossed it in the mix though while typing, thinking what I said was clear. Obviously not!

I, however, do think we have milked this discussion RATHER dry. I don't think we will come to an agreement about the basics, it is clear we have very different goals, politics and values in this area. We can take it up again in the future sometime when I --- very unapologetically -- trump for my perception of reality, which you would, I suppose, condemn as left.

I laughed as I read Wesley's comment about the artworld, though. Not because it was silly or even amusing, but because it was true and I had the fleeting vision of creating an image like the one I used here, but which directs to Sharkforum and a form there where we could all send our complaints, about the untruths of the Academy in the artworld, to our local pundits or curators (we'll leave you out of the assault Lynne! I promise!) An amusing action.