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.
"Stabenow may lose her election over this."
From your mouth---to God's ears...AMEN
Excellent point! That was the beginning of the Clinton recession, going after Microsoft.
They are the party of feelings, and yet they feel no shame when they blatantly change their official title in this way. They really choke when they say "minority" and of course the reporters who follow them are complicit in this change.
Imagine the howls of outrage, the jokes on Leno, the Daily Show, etc if the situation was reversed and Republicans tried to avoid using the word 'minority' (if pubbies were in the minority.)
They have such contempt for the 'rules' of Congress, that they have changed everything to a 60-vote majority. They are despicable. David Limbaugh's new book is a must read, if we have the stomach for it.
They aren't going to open a link and it's a limited number of characters we can send in that e-mail link for ABC, but I'll try to condense it down and do it.
Off topic, but speaking of the ACLU, I've been seeing Harold Ford (D - Tenn.) running his ads with the phrase that someone should put God first. I wasn't paying attention to the ad, but that phrase, "putting God first," jumped out at me. The ACLU doesn't seem to mind when a democrat invokes the name of God in a campaign ad.
A not unlikely speculation, in my opinion.
I just checked out the thread that Peach linked...that is what Sean was playing today...he has a copy of the audio and maybe the video....
LOL! That depends upon what one's definition of work "IS".
Thanks, Mo1!
BUMP to the list!
You are correct. This is a violation because this is members of Congress threatening an organization with law if they don't change their speech/message.
This is not you or me threatening NOT to listen to the Ditzie Chicks.
"Congress shall make no law" is the point of the 1st amendment, and these congresscritters failed miserably.
Is it possible to have the SCOTUS rule on a "threat" intended to stifle free speech or does it have to be a finished law?
I agree. The people at ABC and Disney didn't just have an epiphany and decide to go more to the right. This could very well be an attempt to shoot down Hitlery's chances in '08
I might be wrong but I think I remember them refusing to watch Moore's Farenheit 9/11 at the Democrat Convention and writing a similar letter to the networks and Direct TV when Moore tried to show it the night before the election in 2004. I'm pretty sure they did.
My guess is clinton administration went into one of their famous *talk/vent/exchange ideas/dialogue/guess/second guess* meetings until OBL was gone. That's how they got around actually DOING anything. They spent so frickin' much time TALKING about what to do. And that was their plan, too.
Hannity on this story now
I agree. Not enough time, and not big enough pants.
Thanks:) Have fun with the little ones!
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.