Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Viewers Tune Out "Path to 9/11" (libs whining)
eOnline and Yahoo! ^ | Sept 11, 2006 | Josh Grossberg

Posted on 09/11/2006 6:19:03 PM PDT by jdm

ABC went ahead Sunday with its slightly tweaked but still controversial miniseries, The Path to 9/11. And while former Clinton administration officials still seethed at, what former counterterrorism czar and current ABC News consultant Richard Clarke called "an egregious distortion," many of them joined the rest of the country and simply didn't watch.

A week's worth of complaints from the Clintonites and others didn't convince ABC to pull the five-hour, commerical-free $40 million docudrama. Instead, the network recut the movie, deemphasized its reliance on the 9/11 Commission Report as primary source material and urged naysayers to watch the finished product before making any judgments.

"Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention," Bruce Lindsey, the former President's personal attorney and head of the Clinton Foundation, wrote in an open letter to Disney chief Robert Iger.

"The final product was fraught with error and contained contrived scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report. The film has undoubtedly cemented in millions of viewers' minds a false impression of critical historical events."

Clarke, who served under both Clinton and George W. Bush and now works for ABC News, was equally scathing.

"As someone who was directly involved in almost every event depicted in the fictionalized docudrama The Path to 9/11, I believe it is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted," Clarke said in a written statement.

"Although I am not one to easily believe in conspiracy theories and have spent a great deal of time debunking them, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the errors in this screenplay are more than the result of dramatization and time compression [as ABC initially implied]."

Ex-Clinton cabinet members, joined by such news commentators as CNN's Bill Bennett and Fox News' Chris Wallace, noted historians, progressive bloggers and even the miniseries' own star, Harvey Keitel, said that based on review copies of The Path to 9/11, the telefilm unfairly blamed the Clinton administration for the September 11th terrorist attacks.

The critics were especially irked that ABC touted the project as being based on the official 9/11 Commission Report, despite containing scenes that contradicted the report.

ABC ended up cutting about 20 minutes out of the first night's three-hour running time, much of it from the climax in which a team of CIA agents are positioned outside of Osama bin Laden's encampment, seemingly ready to strike.

In the original version, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger seems to balk at ordering an attack by hanging up on CIA boss George Tenet. That's followed by a scene in which an Afghan in the CIA party asks, "Are there no men in Washington, or are they all cowards?" The next scene includes archival footage of Clinton's video testimony in the Lewinsky affair, implying that he was too busy worrying about impeachment to focus on terrorism.

ABC's editors did some tinkering, removing the news footage of Clinton and cutting the shot of Berger.

But the network left intact a scene in which former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright alerts Pakistan to a missile strike, which, in turn, allows bin Laden to escape--despite the 9/11 Commission debunking the story.

Leftie bloggers also decried ABC's choice of director, David L. Cunningham, and screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, both of whom have documented conservative leanings.

Unlike the advanced copies sent out to TV reviewers hyping the production as based solely on the 9/11 Commission Report, ABC issued a disclaimer noting The Path to 9/11 was also based on "other published sources and personal interviews."

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well time compression," read the disclaimer.

Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, the Republican cochair of the 9/11 Commission who acted as a consultant on the project (though has still refused to confirm whether he was paid for those services), stated on ABC's This Week on Sunday that he thought The Path to 9/11 was accurate, though he admitted not having seen the final cut.

"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," Kean said. "That's wrong and it shouldn't happen."

ABC declined further comment Monday.

As for Bill Clinton himself? "He made the choice that most Americans made," Clinton Foundation spokesman Jay Carson told the Associated Press. "Of a fictionalized drama version of Sept. 11 or the Manning brothers playing football against one another, he chose the latter."

Indeed, The Path to 9/11 was crushed by NBC's season premiere of Sunday Night Football, which pitted Peyton Manning and his Indianapolis Colts against brother Eli and his New York Giants. The football game drew an estimated 20.7 million viewers to 13 million for The Path to 9/11, per Nielsen Media Research. ABC did get a small measure of consolation by beating CBS' 9/11 documentary, which attracted 10.6 million in its third airing.

Part two of The Path to 9/11 , which presumably will focus more on the Bush administration's fumbles, airs Monday but faces the possibility of drawing even fewer viewers. ABC plans to split the broadcast in half to accommodate President Bush's speech from the White House.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911; abctv; daklintonkrew; itsallclintonsfault; libs; needbathroombreaks; pathto911; rats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: jdm
My problem with this movie is with the production design and values, what I term the "MTV school of cinematography." I don't like the extreme closeups, the continuous swipes and fades, the "zitterbewegung" or jittery motion of the camera, the fuzzy texture, the dark (sepia?) filtering and the fast cuts. Unfortunately, this appears to be the standard for modern TV and movie making. Whatever happened to the old-fashioned way of making films where the movie field was crystal clear, the colors were vivid and the camera stayed in one spot long enough so that you could gain perspective?
21 posted on 09/11/2006 7:03:34 PM PDT by trane250
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Amen.


22 posted on 09/11/2006 7:05:00 PM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
we just decided to watch some recorded stuff

You're kidding?

23 posted on 09/11/2006 7:08:12 PM PDT by Cobra64 (All we get are lame ideas from Republicans and lame criticism from dems about those lame ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Just thought I drop in a link to the [deleted parts] for anyone who hasn't seen them. I also posted link on AOL boards (both GOP and DNC) early this AM.

Just imagine what Mr. Blythe and Mr. Sandy Baggypants must think about the existence of the [deleted parts Clinton doesn't want you to see]. Must be infuriating! The truth will out!

24 posted on 09/11/2006 7:09:37 PM PDT by 1-Eagle ("And on the 8th day.... John Kerry popped up and said "I'd have done it differently.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care
I've watched and I've actually not seen a lot of finger pointing. I guess most of that was cut.

It's what is not said that infers who is at blame.

25 posted on 09/11/2006 7:09:42 PM PDT by Cobra64 (All we get are lame ideas from Republicans and lame criticism from dems about those lame ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

To be honest, I got a little bored with the first half. It's enough for me though that it pisses off slick willy and friends.




I agree. Glad it ran and glad it got some digs in but I was bored through much of it and also thought the scenes were choppy, jiggly and after awhile the short burst of jiggly camera on the run scenes just got to me and I switched to news toggling back and forth. I wouldn't watch it again and will probably toggle again tonight between part II and something else.


26 posted on 09/11/2006 7:09:43 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

There are some here who didn't watch.


27 posted on 09/11/2006 7:10:30 PM PDT by Cobra64 (All we get are lame ideas from Republicans and lame criticism from dems about those lame ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1stMarylandRegiment

Already know everything I need to know about Clinton, Berger, Albright, Gore




You're right. Didn't need to watch unless you needed reinforcement for your views. Wasn't a good movie for me anyway. I doubt if this film is going to change any minds.
Most here already know Clinton kicked the can down the road on his job as commander in chief and left a mess for the next guy. I don't need a film to tell me that, especially one that gave me a headache while watching jiggly scenes that bounced around so quickly.

Thanks ABC for airing it and putting up with the abuse but I'm not impressed with the final cut.


28 posted on 09/11/2006 7:15:38 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
Not me. I'm recording the entire thing....

BTW, Rush said that a total of about 1 minute was cut from the entire 5 hours. I read the posts on redstate.com, and all the scenes they said were cut were in the first night's show....Perhaps ABC said "F this" and ran the show anyway...

29 posted on 09/11/2006 7:16:21 PM PDT by dirtbiker (I've tried to see the liberal point of view, but I couldn't get my head that far up my a$$....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bray
Hard to say what the usual viewership is. The season hasn't really begun yet so we can't compare it to typical shows during that slot. During Labor Day week the most-watched show had about 10.5 million viewers, which makes Path to 9/11 really good. But then again you have to figure that Labor Day marks a low point for viewership. I bet Path to 9/11 ends up being in the top ten for primetime viewership this week. (For comparison American Idol averaged 19 million viewers last year... CSI 15 million... Dancing with the Stars 13 million.... Desperate Housewives 12 million) -- Those were the top shows last year. Overall I'd say 13 million -- even for a special event -- is really good and the headline is just flat wrong.
30 posted on 09/11/2006 7:18:51 PM PDT by okstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jdm

It's the first time I've watched ABC in about 10 years.


31 posted on 09/11/2006 7:19:11 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okstate

And it had pretty stiff competitiion with the Manning Bowl.


32 posted on 09/11/2006 7:20:26 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jdm
This shocked me... not the content of the show, which as a longtime freeper I already knew... but that ABC showed it in the first place.

still shocked...

33 posted on 09/11/2006 7:22:38 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
The critics were especially irked that ABC touted the project as being based on the official 9/11 Commission Report, despite containing scenes that contradicted the report.

What scenes are they saying contradict the report? By an large, it followed it roughly closely. The scene with the fighter jets contradicted the report as it implied we had plenty at our beck and call ready to go; we had four.
34 posted on 09/11/2006 7:24:53 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

The Path to 9-11

was a disaster for Bill Clinton and the lefties.

It showed the muslims as EVIL.


35 posted on 09/11/2006 7:33:03 PM PDT by sandra_789 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
"As someone who was directly involved in almost every event depicted in the fictionalized docudrama The Path to 9/11, I believe it is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted," Clarke said in a written statement.

That's kinda surprising considering that Clarke more or less came out smelling like a rose in the miniseries...

36 posted on 09/11/2006 7:36:33 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey
one that gave me a headache while watching jiggly scenes that bounced around so quickly.

I know that camera technique is supposed to impart excitement and all that...but it makes me reach for the off button. I am glad they ran it....but it sure was a gloss-over.
37 posted on 09/11/2006 7:36:42 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jdm

20 minutes cut? I don't know - Rush estimated it was about a minute. The 20 minute hole at the end is where the commercials will be placed when it's eventually rerun.


38 posted on 09/11/2006 7:36:58 PM PDT by bootless (Never Forget - And Never Again. And Always Act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trane250

Leni Riefenstahl was not available for direction and editing.
However, sources close to PBS say Ken Burns is working on a 25 part version including lots of solo sitar and violin.


39 posted on 09/11/2006 7:38:07 PM PDT by managusta (corruptissima republica plurimae leges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jdm
I thought that Richard Clarke was portrayed heroically in the docudrama. My opinion of Clarke was elevated by his pushing for this country's defense over the bureaucratic sluggishness hampering our response.
40 posted on 09/11/2006 7:39:08 PM PDT by GregoryFul (cheap, immigrant labor built America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson