Depends on the definition of sloppy.
It was a sloppy work and a waste of $40 million. ABC hasn't recovered the cost from ads, and never will.
I am not saying the Disney/ABC effort was perfect. Far from it. But, if you combine that project with the many other documentaries and films made about 911 (United 93, World Trade Center, etc.) it kindles food for thought. Slowly the American people are learning the nitty griddy details. There is much more to come, and I can assure you Bill Clinton is not going to look good at all at the end of the day. The real truth always opts, sooner or later. The proof in the pudding is that Bob Iger the Disney CEO has basically told the Democrat Party, Bill Clinton and the Clintonites to take a hike. That means one of America's major Democrat, Jewish power brokers has come to the conclusion that Bill Clinton is passe. I think he is right. Time will tell.
What, in particular, was "sloppy?"
A film gets locked into their minds a lot harder than a newspaper account.
Depends on the definition of sloppy.
Your post was nonsense through and through. BTW ABC never even attempted to recover the costs through ads. IF you had seen the show you would be aware that there were NO ads at all.
The film was not "sloppy" but used standard dramatic devices for telling a story. The story is TRUE. Believing an audience views a film like a jury a judicial proceeding is silly.
What an incredible statement! "Middle roaders seem always focused on refutations of specific details". What evidence have you to support this? Have you done a study? Has it been published? I ask you the same question about your claim that "...they conclude the whole thing was false"