This is the response I received to my complaint
about "The Path to 9/11″from the general
manager of WLS-TV, the ABC afilliate in Chicago.
I am also including my email response.
Are any of you receiving similar responses from
ABC network or ABC affiliates, and if so, is the
language of the emails the same--or similar to--
the wording Ms Barr used?
Just curious.
-----
WLS-TV GeneralManager wrote:
I have watched the entire 5 hour production of The
Path to 9-11 and found it to be extremely thorough,
well crafted and not the least bit biased or
partisan in anyway.
Since it is not yet available to the public, I am
assuming you have not seen it and therefore are
basing your comments on something you may have read
or heard. I can assure you, this docudrama was based
on the 9-11 Commission Report and does not look to
lay blame on any one individual or government or organization.
It is extremely riveting in its presentation of the
facts and will provide substantial context for viewers
who have not yet been able to connect the events of
the first world trade center bombing through to the
9-11 incident and all that occurred here and around
the world in between. I urge you to watch the special
and then judge it for yourself.
Thank you for taking the time to email us with your concerns.
Emily Barr
President & General Manager
ABC 7 Chicago
>
PS: The movie is running commercial-free without interruption.
-----------
Response to Ms Barr:
> To: WLS-TV GeneralManager
> Subject: Path to 9/11 Mini-Series
Dear Ms Barr,
Your reply to my original email contained numerous
inaccuracies.
1. As of this writing, ABC has distributed advanced
copies of the miniseries only to rightwing blogs and
pundits (Rush Limbaugh and others) while not providing
it to progressive blogs and media sources that
requested access to it. This appears to have been
deliberate.
2. You claim the film to be an accurate reflection of
the 9/11 Commission Report and nonpartisan in nature;
yet it was revealed in news today that at least
one key scene of the work was entirely fabricated.
In the scene, the character representing Sandy Berger
freezes when a CIA agent radios in from Afghanistan to
say that he and his band of local tribesmen have Osama
bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to
terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the
line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.
THIS EVENT IS SIMPLY MADE UP!
News reports today stated that during a post-screening
question-and-answer session, Richard Ben-Veniste, a
9/11 Commission member, stood up to say that the
Berger-bashing scene didn't square with the research
he and the other commissioners had conducted.
"There was no incident like that that we came across.
I am disturbed by that aspect of it," Ben-Veniste, a
Democrat, told the panel, which included both the
producer and the commission's GOP chairman, former
Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey. Lee Hamilton, the
Democratic co-chair did not participate in any
capacity with the production of the movie.
Former NSC-head Berger, reached by phone after the
screening, seconded Ben-Veniste's criticism. "It's a
total fabrication," he said tersely. "It did not
happen."
Richard Clarke, who served as head of counterterrorism
under four presidents, also has stated that no such
event took place.
3. In another section of the film, a leak of
classified information regarding OBL's habitual use of
telephone and computer communications is attributed to
the Washington Post. It was, in fact, the rightwing
newspaper the Washington Times that published the
leaked information.
4. The official ABC/Disney defense of the miniseries
is that it has strived for "reasonable accuracy." What
does that mean? It sounds like a slick way of saying that
it isn't really accurate, period. The statement smacks of
PR spin and lawyerly (read, weasely) wording.
5. Notwithstanding the alleged inaccuracies and bias
of its avowedly conservative director and producer,
ABC has undertaken an aggressive marketing program to
distribute the miniseries to the nation's schools
under the guise of the program being historically
valid.
Why?
That ABC and WLS-TV are participating in a highly
controversial portrayal of the events surrounding the
9/11 attack 60 days before the midterm elections is a
misuse of the public airways.
As NYT reporter and bestselling author William Rivers
Pitt wrote in a recent article critical of "The Path
to 9/11″: "At no time should a conservative producer
with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use
public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the
truth, especially on the anniversary of the worst day
in our history."
A fairminded person should be able to agree with
that position.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
----------------
There are no coincidences. This rightwing hit piece
has been well-planned from the get-go, heavily financed
and brilliantly coordinated. It is the swiftboat attack
of 2006.