Conservative Media Watchdog Says ABC Should Correct Inaccuracies In Path to 9/11
Conservative Media Watchdog Says ABC Should Correct Inaccuracies In Path to 9/11
Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center, appeared on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country last night to discuss “The Path to 9/11.” Although Bozell has praised the miniseries as a “forceful, compelling docudrama,” he said ABC should “correct” the scenes “that do not have any bearing on reality.” Watch it:
Transcript:
BOZELL: Let me say this, I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them.
[Snip]
SCARBOROUGH: And Brent, that seems very fair, right, if they are factually inaccurate here, you’d be calling for them to take it off the air too, right?
BOZELL: Yeah, yeah. I think where, if they are factually inaccurate and they can correct it, they ought to.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
31 Responses to “Conservative Media Watchdog Says ABC Should Correct Inaccuracies In Path to 9/11”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE! For Bozell, the guy at the Hugh Hewitt site, and others to start turning on ABC, this is big. And, hey, the BIG DOG with a veiled threat of legal action. They will almost certainly pull back in a major way.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmIf Berger never did hang up the phone on the CIA agent and the neither the CIA agent nor Masoud were ever really that close to UBL how are they going to edit around that?
September 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmRedo it and vet it to the whole 9/11 commision and bring it back for the sixth anniversary!
BOZELL: “Yeah, yeah. I think where, if they are factually inaccurate and they can correct it, they ought to.” - - That little word “if” can be so huge, eh?
September 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmHow now, Republicans?
Bozell, at least, hasn’t forgotten he said, ““There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people. I don’t care who you are. You don’t have that right.â€
September 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmAlthough Bozell has praised the miniseries as a “forceful, compelling docudrama,†he said ABC should “correct†the scenes “that do not have any bearing on reality.â€
Well, duh!
Though I’m a little surprised conservatives might be capable of seeing “inaccuracies” that lean in their favor.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:39 pmBozell can smell th eblood in the water. He’s scrambling to throw ABC under the bus before he gets dragged under himself.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pmPersonally, I’m OK with the ABC movie “Path to 9/11. All ABC has to do is to put a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie stating that this movie is piece of fiction (y’know, a big, fat lie) in big fat and bold letters. And make sure this disclaimer remind on the screen for at least 8 seconds. Also, repeat the disclaimer at the end of the movie.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pmBozell should know, aftr the role he played in getting CBS to bump its 2003 mini-series, “The Reagans.”
For the history and comparison to ABC’s handling of “The Path to 9/11,” see:
September 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pm“The Right Wins Again: ABC’s ‘9/11′ and CBS’s ‘Reagans.’”
Why are we discussing these minor details. The fact still remains that Clinton had at least 3 opportunites to kill or detain OBL and decided not to. While this ABC special doesn’t portray it correctly, they are still correct when they point out that Clinton could have captured OBL and prevented 9/11. It saddens me that this crap always comes back to politics instead of people simply looking how to make sure this never happens again.
Clinton wasn’t a bad president, but he simply made a mistake in not killing OBL when he had the chance. If anything, it would have prevented 9/11 and 2 wars.
Oh Well.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:58 pmRoger_Roger
No one’s buying that here. So you might as well stop selling it. The facts are that the rest of the date ‘9/11′ is ‘2001′. Do you debate that Bush was Commander In Chief when 9/11/2001 happened?
You should also ask Condi about what that document that stated there were definite forces ‘determined’ to attack. She’ll tell you all about it. And, you know, how it got ignored. By the current administration.
No one argues with you that Clinton *could* have captured OBL. No one here has any proof to assert or deny that. Nor is any of that relevant. The people who should have been responsible are the ones still ducking responsibility, and this whole ABC thing was another step in that direction.
Peddle your strawmen elsewhere.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pmRoger, there is a strawman laying on the floor with your name on it.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pmABC statement — they will air the film — we must double our efforts NOW
September 7th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#9: Given that OBL was never anywhere near Iraq, the more expensive, brutal and ugly of the Bush wars would’ve still gone on as planned — they’d have just found a different catalyst or had to wait for OBL’s 2nd in command to launch an attack — because part of the difficulty with combating terror is that it is formed by a network of cells, not so much nations and governments (per the new White House report which also notes that some people just plain don’t want freedom the way President Bush thought they would).
That said, regardless of how many opportunities Clinton may have missed to thwart terrorism (while the Republican congress was aggressively… impeaching his phallus?), the simple fact of the matter is that Bush has had almost 6 full years with a few years’ worth of Clinton-era intelligence work to start from… and has delivered justice to who, exactly?
September 7th, 2006 at 2:15 pmRoger Rabbit,
Go back to Disneyworld & hide in your hole.
Fantasy is fine, just don’t try to mix it with reality like
your buddies in the current administration do.
For starters, didn’t Bush just dismantlethe
Osama Bin Laden group at the CIA? Didn’t he?
You shouldn’t drink kool aide & drive, you cwazy wabbit!
September 7th, 2006 at 2:17 pmHey, Im asking a real question here: Is there any solid proof that OBL planned 9/11? If thats so, please provide links. Thanks.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:22 pmATTENTION! ANYONE ELSE HERE IN MANHATTAN/NY TODAY?
I WANT YOU TO JOIN ME IN FRONT OF ABC’S “Good Morning America” TIMES SQUARE (43RD ST.) STUDIOS TODAY AROUND 4:30 AND TOMORROW AROUND 7:00AM. I will be holdling a sign saying:
Anti
Bill
Clinton
Ask me why…
To draw initial attention and then handing out leaflets describing the current situation. I’m not the bravest soul in the world so anyone willing to join me would be most appreciated.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:23 pmOh, I don’t deny that Bush failed. He certainly could have done much much more to prevent 9/11. Clinton had 8 years to catch OBL and failed. Bush had serious warnings and threats poured on his desk leading up to 9/11 and didn’t do a thing. Both men failed the American people horribly.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:30 pmRoger_Roger sez:
RR, it is disingenuous for you to attempt to insinuate that the death of Osama at Clinton’s hands would have prevented Dubya’s subsequent invasion of Iraq, as plans for the invasion were already drawn up pre-2001.
Had 9/11 not happened, the administration would have manufactured another excuse. Indeed, 9/11 by itself was insufficient…the threat of noexistent weapons of mass destruction had to be tossed into the mix as well.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pmIf Dan Rathers paper were counterfit but factual on Bushits militery career raised such a stink why does path to 911 that is false but presented as factual smell like a Rose or should it be Rove.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:46 pmIf Clinton had a chance to take out OBL — and I’ve never been convinced that he had a real chance — he certainly should have, and I think would have. What seems to be lost in all this bruhaha is context. Clinton couldn’t lift a finger without the right jumping all over him. And even after the 93 WTC bombing, there was nothing close to public support to invade another country to get al Quada. It took 9/11 to bring the public to the point where they’d support invading Afghanistan.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:54 pmWait…I kinda sorta agree with Bozell?
Excuse me, I have to look out the window. Pigs may, indeed, be flying.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:53 pmRoger Roger, The Bush Administration has had 5 going 6 years to kill or capture UBL and they have not done it.
Give you a hint which President of the United States said UBL does not matter?
September 7th, 2006 at 4:27 pmClinton, Gave the order to take out OBL anytime we could. He missed yes, TENET would not try it on a single source info and Clinton took his advice.
Bush had him at Tora Bora and let him go. I see a differance!
September 7th, 2006 at 5:10 pmRoger_roger, which president said this about Osama Bin Laden only six months after 9/11:
September 7th, 2006 at 7:45 pmI think Brent Bozell and Chris Matthews go to the same bad hair stylist.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:06 pmShowdown…
Congressional Democrats are now directly confronting Disney over its political hit piece, “The Path to 9/11″….
September 8th, 2006 at 7:35 am[…] Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center: I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06] […]
September 8th, 2006 at 5:43 pm[…] This is not a partisan issue. Numerous conservatives – including Brent Bozell, former Reagan aide Bill Bennett, author Richard Miniter, and others – have said that ABC should correct the factual errors in the series. […]
September 8th, 2006 at 7:56 pm[…] This is not a partisan issue. Numerous conservatives – including Brent Bozell, former Reagan aide Bill Bennett, author Richard Miniter, and others – have said that ABC should correct the factual errors in the series. […]
September 8th, 2006 at 7:56 pm[…] It isn’t as though they’re airing inaccuracies so grevious that experts and historians who’s viewed the film has called it wrong, that it was produced by a right-wing propaganda firm, it’s not like an insider told a blogger It was meant to attack Clinton, written by a guy who wants to transform Hollywood for Conservatives, it’s not like conservatives are calling it “Defamatory” and “zero factual basis”, or that a conservative media watchdog group is saying that ABC shouldn’t air it, or even A Fox Anchor, even Bush’s own terror expert says it’s fantasyland. It’s not that ABC is falsely claiming that the docudrama is based on the 9/11 report, and it has nothing to do with the fact that ABC were trying to send out this show to Children with error-filled booklets. […]
September 9th, 2006 at 12:08 am[…] If ABC pulls the movie it won’t only be because of the actions of the left wing but also because of the actions of these folks. We didn’t support them when they needed it. Thanks to ThinkProgress. John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost, 9/8/06] James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.†[OpinionJournal, 9/7/06] Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06] Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06] Captain’s Quarters blog:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06] Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:Look, “The Path to 9/11? is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen. [CNN, 9/8/06] Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show: I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06] Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terrorâ€:If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06] Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06] Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now — and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06] […]
September 9th, 2006 at 8:08 pm