Remembering September 11, 2001: Newly Released Tape of the WTC Attack

Just-released video taken on 9/11 by neighbors.
Click on the thumbnail.
Not for the faint of heart.

I Got Your True Story Behind 9/11 Right Here

Want truth? Turn off Channel 2 tonight and read it.

09/11/2006, 4:20 p.m. Update: In an editorial in today's NY Times, Paul Krugman leads us out of Disney/ABC's fantasyland mini-series back to the harsh light of truth:

[T]here never was a clear shot at Osama before 9/11, let alone one rejected by Clinton officials. But there was a clear shot in December 2001, when Al Qaeda's leader was trapped in the caves of Tora Bora. He made his escape because the Pentagon refused to use American ground troops to cut him off.

Peddling This Johnny Space Commander Fantasy

This Johnny Space Commander mask here is a pure fantasy toy. I mean, you know, kids can have a lot of fun with a toy like this, you know? Let me show you.. [puts the plastic bag over his head, then wraps the rubber band around it] "Hello, hello, this is Johnny Space Commander. I'm in deep space, I'm gonna land the rocket now!" You see what I mean? [takes off the plastic bag] You see what I mean? It's a pure fantasy toy!

- - Dan Ackroyd's Toy Dealer "Irwin Mainway" of SNL Fame

Disney/ABC, along with Nashville affiliate WKRN, are in business. They are marketing a product in the form of this weekend's controversial "Paths to 9/11" and they are selling it on public airwaves, with a boost from 900 right-wing, pre-screened promoters. They are now taking a lot of heat from center-to-left consumers who expect that product to live up to high standards of truth rather than to generate a fantasia of falsehoods about the causes of 9/11. You use a public medium, you should live up to the public trust by remaining either impartial or balanced.

But rather than attempting to sell a responsible product responsibly, they and their supporters have battened down the hatches, lashed out at a cross-section of their audience as "premature and irresponsible", and thrown around preposterous charges of "censorship" and "prior restraint." Yet, the popular criticism ABC is now catching has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment's guarantee of speech free from government censorship. And "prior restraint" applies to government attempts to prohibit free expression, and no credible consumer is supporting that in the simple phone call to WKRN or letter written to ABC.

When the controversy began, ABC was forced to say that fantasy is exactly what they are selling here. I don't object to selling fantasy. It is what Disney does best.

But I have a couple of qualms. Why did it take a full-blown controversy for them to say that it is a fantasy? And why do they want it both ways? They say it is also based on the 9/11 Commission Report.

And that leads to another issue: is it morally right to use public airwaves to fantasize about 9/11 before most factual 9/11 reports have sunk in and before most 9/11 history has even been written? That is a dangerous mix for a divided country in an election season, because it represents predatory selling of a partisan product to an audience that experienced 9/11 and an audience that is still mostly unnerved and frightened by the hint of vulnerability. As many have already claimed: the truth is compelling enough; why invent events that never happened just to manipulate an emotional audience response?

We have already watched as the Scholastic education service and a NY Times television reviewer--whose business it is to practice research methods and to draw the line between fact and fiction--swallowed whole the mini-series' falsified talking points. We witnessed them convey fantasies-as-fact that were not supported in the 9/11 Commission Report, even as they claimed that they were in the 9/11 Commission Report. If a politicized fantasy can have that much influence over specialists who are supposed to be trained to be factual, then it is either a naive or a cynical faith that holds that the general audience will be able to pan out the propaganda in order to walk away with the facts when no balance is guaranteed by ABC or WKRN.

Supporters of ABC and WKRN, both conservative and liberal, who defend the corporate right to political expression have missed the point. This is not about their freedom. It is about their imaginary product: a partial and fantastic interpretation about national security in insecure times. This is a matter of the propriety of using public airwaves to channel fantasia to a general audience. And here is the kicker: they are tearing the bipartisan spirit of the 9/11 Commission apart in the name of protecting some construed right to truthiness, even as ABC and WKRN want us to believe that we can turn to them as reliable sources of facts. It's a fantasy toy!

Al Gore Weighs In: ABC's 9/11 Concoction "Fundamentally Irresponsible," Updated

He released a statement expressing his concerns.

In other news related to ABC's/WKRN's political infomercial:

• Two F.B.I. agents rejected advisory roles with it because they were concerned about "Path to 9/11's" accuracy.
• Director of "Path to 9/11" has ties to a conservative evangelical film organization with an ulterior political agenda.
• Overseas, ABC is not marketing "Path to 9/11" as a fictionalized account, but as "The story of exactly what happened."
• AMERICAblog is reporting that ABC failed on their worldwide broadcast to edit out their mistaken reference to American Airlines as that which ignored warnings about Mohammad Atta boarding their flight. It was actually US Airways. A mother whose son was on AA Flight 11, which left Boston Logan at 8:30 a.m. on 9/11, has reportedly already written a letter chewing out ABC for defaming AA.
• ABC failed to have a copy editor check important spelling in the worldwide broadcast.
• DC affiliate distances itself from ABC's "Path to 9/11" in light of "some criticism leading up to the September 11, 2001 attack." Did Nashville's WKRN?
• New Zealand audiences had to watch the wetdream falsified scene of Clinton official Sandy Berger missing the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden. So much for ABC's charge that critics were being "premature and irresponsible" while the editing process was still unfinished (after it had already been finished).
• One of the Bob Corker campaign commercials that showed during WKRN's 10:00 news tonight seemed to fit right in with the fabricated point of the commercial below that "one decision changed our world": the narrator in the Corker commercial said, "[Vote for Bob Corker] because we cannot afford to make even one wrong decision." Coincidence or coordination? Do you think that the Corker campaign might have been one of the 900 who originally received one of those advance copies of "Path to 9/11"? Hmm.
• According to preliminary ratings, NBC's Sunday Night Football beat PT9/11 in the ratings going away, and PT9/11 only managed to tie CBS's "9/11" rerun, which was on very late (locally here from 10:30 until around 12:30 or 1:00 this morning; "9/11" was one I did not miss). PT9/11 had one sorry showing for primetime, commercial-free. Kudos to all of you who ignored ABC's fantasy broadcast locally on WKRN. And just think of how badly it would have done had critics across the country not drawn publicity to it the past week; unless, of course, PT9/11 critics were able to convince significant portions of the audience not to watch propaganda.
• 9/11 Commission Vice Chair says that PT9/11 shows that "news and entertainment are getting dangerously intertwined," and that he does not think that it is good for the country.
• From the "And-that-is-precisely-the-problem" file: "How many of us actually took the time, or would bother to take the time even now, to read the whole 9/11 Commission Report. But we're all more than willing to watch a mini-series for a few hours, especially one that's aired uninterrupted." ABC's target audience for PT9/11 must include those for whom fact-checking is too hard. But feed them partial, partisan pablum from the boob tube, and they make up their own mind without ever having to delve farther in to the matter.
• Over at the coffee house, you'll find former Clinton/Bush terrorism czar Richard Clarke's evaluation of PT9/11 as "an egregious distortion" by a "production company and writer who were apparently unqualified to deal with this historically important subject matter." Besides being depicted in PT9/11, Clarke is a consultant for ABC News.
• American Airlines released the following statement regarding PT9/11:

[Fort Worth, Texas, Sept. 11] 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 Sept. 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.

This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11.

09/09/2006, 5:45 p.m. Update: Here is ABC's overseas commercial for "Path to 9/11," which clearly calls the mini-series "the offical true story," and which shows the face of Bill Clinton fading into terrorist activity, with the statement: "How one decision changed our world."



I don't see how you can watch that commercial and not see that it is claiming to be more than just a drama and not see that it is politically motivated rather than focused on the fact.


09/10/2006, 8:16 p.m. Update: Here is one of the scenes from Path to 9/11 that was completely invented and improvised, with some opposing editorial comments superimposed (which is about as close to balance as you can get, given the toxic nature of ABC's fantasy).



The original (sans opposing comments) was shown in New Zealand earlier today, unedited, because they did not receive ABC's "edited" copy.

UPDATE: AMERICAblog is reporting that the fantasy scene above (again, sans opposing editorial comments) was shown in tonight's U.S. "edited" version of PT9/11. It was also shown without any clarifying statements that the scene never happened, so the video you see posted above is actually more factual with the editorial comments than the actual scene that the American audience is seeing tonight!

Now tell us that fairy tale again about all of those edits that you were going to make over the weekend, Grandpa Disney!


09/11/2006, 10:30 a.m. Update: David Bauder has a summary of edits that ABC actually made to the "Path to 9/11" to try to take the original partisan and faked edge off. There is no indication that these edits were made to the overseas versions of the "world-wide broadcast." Interesting to note that ABC disclaimers more aggressively pushed the fact that PT9/11 is a fantasy and that they distanced the production from the 9/11 Commission Report, which they did not do in the original version. It further reinforces the question: why watch a fantasy about 9/11 to commemorate 9/11? Think Progress reports that 100,000 people wrote to Disney President Robert Iger through their "Tell ABC to Tell the Truth" campaign.


09/11/2006, 11:00 p.m. Update: And now for some commentary free from prior restraint, yet necessary for equal time (WARNING: this video contains mature and coarse language not appropriate for children):

ABC Said Editing of "Path to 9/11" Was Complete Before They Said It Was Incomplete

Think Progress researcher found September 1 comment from ABC spokesperson saying that editing process was complete; yesterday ABC was scolding critics as "premature and irresponsible" and they were saying that the editing process was not yet complete.

And What of WKRN?

You can’t sit there as ABC and say, 'Gee, we don’t have any responsibility.'... They should make a good faith effort to get this as close to the facts as possible…They can’t claim it’s just entertainment. This is going to have an impact on the national political scene.

- - Bob Kerrey, 9/11 Commission Member

Josh Marshall is reporting that several ABC affiliates around the country, upon receiving protests about ABC's fiction, "The Path to 9/11," are responding that they do not have a choice but to air the mini-series.

And what of Nashville affiliate, WKRN? It would be understandable that WKRN (Channel 2) might not be able to refuse if it were owned and operated by ABC, but it is merely an affiliate and it would seem to have the choice whether to air the program. I e-mailed WKRN's General Manager last night and requested that the local station not air "The Path to 9/11" so that Channel 2 might avoid the appearance of helping to politicize 9/11 during an election cycle.

He has already said that Channel 2 intends to air this potentially divisive program and he encourages us just to change the channel if we don't want to watch. He compares a politically biased portrayal of the greatest terrorist attack on American soil to Ellen DeGeneres' sympathetic portrayal of a personal decision to come out-of-the-closet. I think that such a comparison is false. The contrast between a deadly catastrophe politicized to score ratings points (and influence an election?) and a public expression of personal identity could not be more stark. And yet, GM Mike Sechrist refuses to distinguish between the outcry now and the outcry then.

I encourage readers of Enclave to contact WKRN at phone numbers: 615.369.7266 (programming) or 615.259.2200 (main) or 615.369.7222 (main). Ask politely, but firmly that it not air "The Path to 9/11" mini-series to be shown by ABC on September 10 & 11. WKRN recently disappointed me with their slant to the right in the hiring of Steve Gill as the exclusive source of political commentary on the station. Passing along right-wing propaganda in the form of a network "docudrama" would only further erode WKRN's credibility as an impartial media source for some of us in its viewing audience; for what it's worth.

09/10/2006, 12:10 a.m. "No Savvy There, Either" Update: No Silence Here's Michael Silence linked my post and charged that I favored censorship for encouraging people to call WKRN and ask them not to air the mini-series. It is ridiculous to conflate organizing citizens to call with government crackdowns on free speech. Calling public pressure on media "censorship" basically invalidates any power citizens might claim while trying to influence the media at all. He's trivializing the seriousness of true censorship by defining it so broadly. We'll just refer to it as "playing the censorship card" from here on out. And that goes for Glenn Reynolds' own rubber stamp, too; I prefer "non-idiot" rubber stamps.

ABC Intends to Go Political with Fictionalized 9/11 Series This Weekend

ABC/Disney stands on the brink of this election season prepared to show a controversial mini-series about 9/11 on the 5th anniversary of the event that producers admit is fictionalized for dramatic effect. Many of us wonder whether "dramatic" is synonymous with "partisan" in this case, since the inaccuracies in "The Path to 9/11" suggest that Democratic leaders were responsible for 9/11.

While all sorts of questions were raised in the mainstream media about whether the country "was ready" when Oliver Stone's movie about 9/11 was released, no questions--other than those riding the waves of popular protest in the last 48 hours--have been raised in the mainstream media about whether the country is ready to watch a 9/11 account that basically deviates from the 9/11 Commission Report and that makes up history that did not happen. In fact, the New York Times review of "The Path to 9/11" essentially supported the movie's partisan bite by perpetuating the Republican talking point--unsubstantiated in the 9/11 Commission's Report--that former President Bill Clinton was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to deal with terrorism (even though he was criticized by Republicans when he did fight terrorists for playing "Wag the Dog.")

A Scholastic Review Guide to be sent out to 25,000 teachers to help high school students discuss 9/11 after watching ABC's fiction was also exposed by Media Matters for America as being skewed by conservative bias including: suggesting a connection between 9/11 terror attacks and Iraq and indicating that the Clinton administration "hindered" the U.S. stance on the war on terror (which is not supported by the 9/11 Commission Report). In the face of withering criticism, Scholastic has scrapped plans to provide "The Path to 9/11" Guide and will come up with new material.

Please contact ABC via Think Progress and protest their decision to air the propaganda called, "The Path to 9/11." I have also put a banner in the right hand column of this blog that you can click on to send the letter. It is really very simple. The last tally Think Progress reported was 50,000 letters to ABC.

Thanks to Pakistan, the Afghan Front of the War on Terror Seems to be History. Looks Like We Lost.

In a Chamberlainesque move of appeasement and peace in our time, Pakistan has made a deal with the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists connected to the 9/11 World Trade Center tragedy. Volunteer Voters has the ABC report and links about Pakistan's deal to let the Taliban and bin Laden live in Pakistan unimpeded. This is a big blow to the Bush Administration's insistence that they are going to fight rather than appease terrorists.

9/11 Commissioners Post Katrina: Communities "Not As Safe" As Previously Thought

An article in the Christian Science Monitor last week is a cause of concern for those of us at the local level. Former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice-chairman Lee Hamilton told the CSM that some victims of Katrina died needlessly because several 9/11 Commission reforms were not adopted including:

1. Make clear who the person in charge in national emergencies is. Katrina response had the same problems as 9/11 response; no one knew who was in charge.
   
2. Require states to develop a detailed command-and-control plan, linking those developments to receiving federal funds.
   
3. Allocate Homeland Security funds on the basis of priority rather than dispensing funds to all states regardless of risk.
   

If "everything has changed after 9/11," as we are often told, how is it that we still have not adopted the Commission recommendations that would help make our local communities safer in response to the change?