Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions

americablog.blogspot.com ^ | September 07, 2006 | John in DC

[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

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

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.

This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.

[JerseyDvl]

For those who are planning to sit out the election in a temper tantrum:
This is going to happen on a daily basis once you help the Dims get in office.

[Antoninus]

Wow. These people really are commies. There's no two-ways about it.

[Lucky9teen]

All the more reason ABC should air this WITHOUT any edits, whatsoever.

F the Democrats, their lame, empty threats and their stupid ignorant, and completely unrealistic views of 9/11 and what REALLY went down and who REALLY is to blame.

[Howlin]

Not me. Wonder what he's up to.

[LurkedLongEnough]

"ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on the 9/11 Commission report"

Nuff said. BWHAHAHA BUMP!

[weegee]

PARTISAN GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP, no doubt about it.

This "isn't" politically correct. Damned despots.

[Mo1]

Have you are anyone seen the snake Carville? Has he crawled out of his hole to the camera lights yet?

The only one I've seen has been Roemer and the nitwit that was on Hannity & Colmes last night

[Mo1]

oh .. and Kean

[Mo1]

Wonder what he's up to

either they are laying low because this blew up bigger then the thought it would

Or something else is up

Though I did hear a audio clip of Clinton this morning saying this mini series isn't accurate and shouldn't be aired

[bwteim]

The DU-mmies are going (more) nuts
:)

"2. Time to play hardball like they do ...
Lawyer's letters re defamation suits for publishing in reckless disregard of the truth... Lawyer's letters re contesting TV license renewals..."

"10. Good. This is only shameless propaganda to help Republicans win the next election, anyway. And people *who were actually in the Clinton admin.* have said that the film is a bunch of lies. The people behind the film weren't actually there when the events they depict occurred. They are just friends of people like Limbaugh & GWB..."

"35. Yep. That's because largely the media is Republican. Either that, or they are in bed with the $$$ interests supporting the agenda that the Bush cabal is carrying out for the same $$$."

[sappy]

WOW! Incredible!

The Democrats have put more effort into this matter and letter than into the entire War on Terror.

[olde north church]

Sorry for the leap-frog off your post FRitizen Lucky9teen ...

Just contacted Sen. Reid's office to express my displeasure with the Dem's censorship and the "chilling effect" it will have. ... must do it!

[DelphiUser]

>>I agree, but where do we go to prosecute the violation?

Let's start with a Censure of the "Democratic party Leadership" by the house.

If we put it to a vote, the Pro Censorship party will either have to come out into the light, or abandon their "Leadership"

[rockthecasbah]

Are we living in the old Soviet Union? This letter is so over the line that it almost looks made up like its some kind of a joke... Like one of those internet urban legends that gets passed on and eventually written up on Snopes.com

[kilowhskey]

"Let's start with a Censure of the "Democratic party Leadership" by the house.

If we put it to a vote, the Pro Censorship party will either have to come out into the light, or abandon their "Leadership" "

I think that is a very good way to start. I want to see the 'pubs hold their feet to the fire.

[seawolf101]

I JUST SAW SOMETHING REALLY HILLARIOUS ON TV. BILL CLINTON SAYING THAT ABC SHOULD TELL THE TRUTH!!!

I HAVEN'T LAUGHED SO HARD IN YEARS.

I GUESS PINOCCHIO IS UPSET ABOUT PEOPLE LYING.

[FreeKeys]

will ABC fold ..Yes . you know they will. Klinton still holds big influence. This is only the begining if the Dems get in . This is Soviet style censorship and it will only get worse if they return to power.

The editing is still going on and the cover story is already in the works. See THIS column.

[VeniVidiVici]

Chris Wallace, is now sticking up for the Clinton's and said that the same thing happened to his daddy.....ABC made a docudrama about his father.

George Wallace? /s

[FreeKeys]

Here it is:

IT LOOKS LIKE ABC IS GOING TO CAVE

What drama!

ABC has a five-hour miniseries coming up titled "The Path to 9/11."  The first episode airs this coming Sunday night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.  This docu-drama is causing quite a stir in Washington ...  and especially in the Clinton camp. 

                      The problem, you see, is that in this movie the Clinton Administration is portrayed as treating Islamic terrorism as nothing more than a law enforcement problem.  There is one scene in the move where Intelligence officials are discussing an attempt to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.  The Clinton administration is refusing to authorize the action.  Permission denied.  The Clinton aide says that the problem is that Clinton views terrorism as largely a law enforcement problem.  The intelligence official asks "How do you win a law and orderly war?"  The aide responds "You don't." 

                      You can sputter and spin all you want about President Bush and his handling of the war on Islamic fascism, you cannot deny that since 9/11 he has been dedicated to the cause of crushing Islamic terrorism over there before they bring it back over here.  Sounds like a good plan to me.

                      Similarly -- there is no way in hell that any reasonable man can argue that the Clinton administration was dedicated to crushing Islamic terrorism.  Clinton did indeed treat it like a law enforcement program.  After the first Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City to view the damage, talk to survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, or meet with NYC officials and first responders. 

                      And what of the attack on the U.S. Cole?  This was an attack on a U.S. Navy warship.  Clinton was the Commander in Chief.  The response?  At best, lob a few cruise missiles.  That's it.  Nothing more.

                      So ... now the battle is joined.  ABC has this miniseries ready to run.  The producers say that it's largely based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report as well as interviews with the people involved.  Apparently the miniseries shows Clinton to be relatively unconcerned about terrorism, and not dedicated to the cause of bringing in bin Laden.

                      Will  the Democrat pressure work?  My guess is that it will, at least in part.  ABC is already issuing statements to the effect that "The editing process is not yet complete."  The Los Angeles Times is reporting that changes were made in the program this week after the Clintonistas started howling.  Specifically targeted, according to the Times, was the scene where Clinton National Security Adviser  Sandy Berger declines to give an order to kill bin Laden.

                      By the way ... this really makes you wonder just what documents Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives, doesn't it? 

                     Democrats sent a letter to Robert Iger, the President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, the owner of ABC.  That letter contained this interesting paragraph:

                      

     "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 airways 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." 

                      Now what is this paragraph really saying?  Can you read between the lines?   Here ... let me rewrite the paragraph by adding a few words.  Perhaps it will be clearer to you.

                           

     "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 airways 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.  The licenses granted to the television stations you own and operate are not permanent.  They are periodically subject to renewal.  You may wish to remember this fact, and consider the probability that by the time those licenses come up for renewal the Democrats may be in control of both houses of Congress, and the wife of the man your miniseries defames may well be the President of the United States"

Get the message?

-- from THIS column.

[DBrow]

Don't these guys belong to the same party that distributed tens of thousands of Fahrenheit 9/11 DVDs to schools for the 2004 elections?

I mean the Democrats, not the DSUSA.