Posted on 09/07/2006 4:12:34 PM PDT by Mo1
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:September 7, 2006
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.
Listening to KFI.
PING!
In the process of making this criticism, they always ignore the genius of a strategy that allowed us to invade Afghanistan without getting run out by the jealous Afghans that expelled the British and the Russians. I guess they never understand why we backed up Afghans instead of doing everything ourselves.
Yeah the former CIA analyst's name is Michael Scheuer.
He had this to say about Clinton's admin: " Clearly during the Clinton years at least, we were very eager to conduct military activities as long as we didn’t suffer casualties.
We had a chance to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998, and the government decided not to do it because we might risk the lives of several of our intelligence officers."
PING
They don't care if Mitchell is on the BOD. The liberals of Mitchell's era are principled idealists--more suited to the New Frontier of JFK than the Decade of Fraud and Deceit. All Dingy Harry cares about is his hold on power, increasing it, and obstructing the Presidents agenda.
Harry Reid is dangerous for America... I don't think this kind of stuff would have come from Dasshole..
What exactly was it that Sandy Berger stole from the national Archives.. Maybe the movie hints at this... My opinion it is something that directly implicates Clinton in 9/11.... This movie is based on FACT... Let it be heard.
Thanks. More evidence of Clinton buffoonery...
Very old Gore/Disney link. Didn't I read not long ago that there is a Gore/Clinton rift?
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nleudfSKmzoJ:www.corpwatch.org/article.php%3Fid%3D465+al+gore+disney&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Multi-media provider Disney has also been a big supporter of Gore. Responding to a request from Tipper, the company provided the Vice President and his wife with free Holloween costumes worth $8,600, in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. When the costumes were reported in the Washington Post, Disney was repaid by the Democratic National Committee. Later Gore and Disney chairman Michael Eisner were regularly seen chumming it up in Washington while the company was seeking Interior Department approval for a new theme park. "Disney's America," was set to open next to the Bull Run battlefield in Manassas Virginia, but the plan was nixed by Disney as it became clear the community wouldn't stand for it.
But the oddest part of the Disney/Gore alliance was yet to come. Disney-known for it's "family" image -- enlisted the Vice President's help fighting the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, designed to limit children's access to pornographic websites. Gore, who called for censoring rock lyrics in the 1980's, dispatched domestic policy advisor David Bier, to kill the legislation. After the beating Disney and Gore took in the press when the story finally emerged, the Vice President tried to help the company's p.r. situation by inviting Disney executives to the White House for "a summit on Internet pornography."
Sorry. The size is annoying.
if ABC said, we'll just air a 24 hr repeat of 9/11 commercial free, the libs would hate that too. basically anything that draws attn to al quaida instead of Bush lied, they hate.
Masoud: "Are there any men left in Washington? Or are they all cowards?"
"Both Hastert and Frist should open their sessions tomorrow by reading this letter into the record. They then should refer it to the respective ethics committees for an investigation."
That's the ticket, that answers the question of what legal recourse is possible.
This is just going to draw more attention to what's left of the film after it's cut up.
Frist needs a pair, for that to happen. Hastert, maybe.
I wonder if what Sandy stole was Iraq/Al Quaida connection info
I would actually turn that around after Hastert's insane reaction to the search of Jefferson's office. He showed himself to be very "flexible" when it comes to constitutional issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.