ABC, DIsney And Bush Take The Low Road

by DemFromCT

What's the political price for crassness? Now that ABC and Disney have apparently decided to go ahead with Path to 9-11, a movie written and directed by people with a strong political agenda, and now that Bush has decided to wrap himself in the controversy, what happens next?

Whatever viewers ultimately see, it's clear that the five-hour $40-million docudrama, highlighting years of intelligence failures and political bickering before the attacks, has detonated an election-year bomb that's reverberating from Hollywood to Capitol Hill.

The movie is also threatening the bipartisan work of the Sept. 11 commission, whose Republican chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean, served as a paid consultant on the project and has played a key role in ABC's public-relations campaign.

At least two other commission members — former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie S. Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general under President Clinton — have vehemently criticized the miniseries project. And two former Clinton officials, Madeleine Albright and Samuel "Sandy" Berger, expressed dismay with Kean's involvement. Clinton spokesman Jay Carson called ABC's actions "despicable" and said the film was "indisputably wrong."

Kean, in an interview Friday, continued to defend the movie as a "first-class project," adding that although the filmmakers took the recent criticisms seriously and made adjustments when warranted, much of the hostile reaction was political grandstanding from partisans who had seen little if any of the film. "That's the blogosphere, frankly," Kean said of the controversy.

The situation was further complicated Friday, when ABC and other networks agreed to carry live a 15-minute speech from President Bush on Monday night, the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. This speech will air at 9 p.m. Eastern time, forcing ABC to interrupt Part 2 of the miniseries in many markets, including New York and Chicago.

The sharp partisan divide over the miniseries has been seized upon in recent days by radio talk show hosts, bloggers, columnists and the like, so much so that the rancor has largely overshadowed the film's critical reception, which has been mixed.

What happens is the further eroding of consensus and bipartisanship by the most partisan President in polling history. Goodbye, Tom Kean, thanks for blowing away the work of the 9/11 Commission in trying to reach bipartisan consensus.

This deliberate move is who and what Bush is, but in doing so, he loses the moral high ground that Presidents need to function. If anything comes out of this (and it'd be hard to ignore this controversy whatever your politics). Bush has tried to be the 9/11 President since 9/14 (he was MIA until the bullhorn speech) and the overwhelming support he got in the aftermath is a testament to the decency of Americans far more than the skills of this President. But Bush has taken that wordwide consensus and support and run it into the ground. By morphing Max Cleland into Osama Bin Laden in 2002, Bush and enabling Republicans travelled the road to the dark side of politics that he always takes at election time (see McCain, South Carolina).

By the aftermath of Katrina, it was clear Bush had squandered his inheritance.

When terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans came together in grief and resolve, rallying behind President Bush in an extraordinary show of national unity. But when Hurricane Katrina hit last week, the opposite occurred, with Americans dividing along sharply partisan lines in their judgment of the president's and the federal government's response.

So let's review what what said then in light of what we see today:

To his critics, Bush is now reaping what he has sown. Their case against him goes as follows: Facing a divided nation, the president has eschewed unity in both his governing strategy and his political blueprint. These opponents argue that he has favored confrontation over conciliation with the Democrats while favoring a set of policies aimed at deepening support among his conservative base at the expense of ideas that might produce bipartisan consensus and broader approval among the voters. His allies and advisers, while acknowledging that polarization has worsened during the past five years, say the opposition party bears the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, by this reckoning, have rebuffed Bush's efforts at bipartisanship, put up a wall to ideas that once enjoyed some support on their side, and, even in the current crisis along the Gulf Coast, are seeking to score political points rather than joining hands with the president to speed the recovery and relief to the victims.

Morphing Cleland and then blaming Democrats and liberals. That's what Republicans and conservatives do. They think it's clever. They think putting Bush up to speak in the middle of the ABC/Disney movie rejected by historians, conservatives, and blogs is going to help them. They think taking away the ability to claim to be above the politics of 9/11 is  a smart move. They think asking the public to trust a disliked and distrusted President at 40% in the polls is a winner. I'd say they couldn't be more wrong, but with their track record of error and incompetence, that'd be tough to prove.

So, wiill this movie do what Kean wanted - invoke the memory of 9/11 for the benefit of the country? Of course not, any more than Bush's speech will.The firestorm reaction to this movie is what I had hoped for in 2004 when Bush showed images of Ground Zero to get relected. Maybe the country (pre-Katrina) wasn't ready to react this way, but it (post-Katrina) certainly is now. The reason Bush evokes such strong negative feelings in people (the polls now routinely show the "strongly disapprove" is double the "strongly approve" Bush; the latest Rasmussen poll has it at 38-22) is that he got there the old-fashioned way - he's earned it. By politicizing 9/11 yet again, he's lost any cover he might have otherwise claimed when he opens his mouth on the topic.

Maybe someday, Americans can look at that day, learn what happened and begin to deal with the reality:

City and federal officials came under withering criticism yesterday from lawmakers who asserted that ground zero workers were not protected as they clambered over a smoking pile of toxic debris -- or properly cared for in the years since.

But don't expect reality in an election year, especiually when we have a President whose agenda is exactly the opposite of reality. I don't know how many people will actually watch this movie, or listen to the President, but I really don't think reinforcing that Bush uses 9/11 for partisan gain will go down in the annals of history as ABC, Disney and Bush's smartest move.

crossposted at the Daily Kos

Comments

[Katie Jensen]

I may be wrong here, but I cannot think of a single time when Bush was able to compromise on one of his "beliefs" or "strategery". It seems every that whenever there has been opportunity to compromise or be diplomatic he has taken the authoritarian road which is the equivalent of saying "I am right, you are wrong." Can anyone think of a time when Bush was willing to compromise (without getting himself clear to the end of a rope...before conceeding). I can't think of an example. I had an old professor who used to say, that when and if you can find something that is invariant, you have one of the strongest forms of a fact. I am not stating that this behavior is invariant with Bush (the inability to give or concede or to "go along to get along") but asking if anyone can think of an example where he was willing to take the compromise for the sake of uniting us?

[Kagro X]

Kean, in an interview Friday, continued to defend the movie as a "first-class project."

Fantastic. Let's take it out on his son.

[art is bread]

My concern is that furor is all that matters because the appearance of a stirred-up Bush Base is all that's needed to cover up vote fraud on election day. It's not whether there are enough Bush Republicans out there to elect Republican/Repub-supported candidates, it's just whether there seems to be . . .

[janinsanfran]

You mean that SOB is going to interrupt football?

[Mimikatz]

Monday Night Football is now on (ABC-owned) ESPN. He will interrupt both that and the miniseries, if ABC shows the speech.

[oldtree]

we are in civil war in this country now. they are trying to deepen the divide. guess they are going to get their way

[hauksdottir]

This is the letter I wrote to the chief honcho at Disney. [robert.a.iger@disney.com] We still have a day to knock sense into somebody there... if they realize that they are risking their bottom line for a long, long time.

More than that, they risk other items in their agenda. As an artist and writer, with many, many works under copyright, I am squeamish about their over-reaching: the backlash might remove copyright protection for all of us. The conglomeration and stifling of innovation or alternative voices is something else to fear when an empire consumes too many other creative outlets and enterprises. I'm really sorry that they bought Pixar. [sigh} In the future, perhaps their M&A activities will be more difficult, once people lose their regard for the Mouse.

I really do have to wonder what they hope to gain. Unless Bush/Cheney declares martial law, the Democrats will take Congress at some point (the mood of the country is like a wave which can only be held back so long), and we'll return to oversight... even of the airwaves.

**********************************
Dear Mr Igor,

Have you no decency?

Is it malice or money that drives Disney to back a multi-million dollar propaganda-twisted five-hour commercial for the neo-cons during election season? ...Complete with Bush speechifying as the final adornment to this travesty!

Have you no respect for the people who died that day? Honoring those who died at work, and who died trying to help would have been the decent thing to do.

Have you no regard for the living who lost friends and relatives? Who were glued to the news outlets for days on end? Who still remember the truth? Fact-checking and balancing accounts would have been the decent thing to do.

What about courtesy? If you are going to slander members of the past Administration, including the President of the United States, surely granting Clinton an advance copy in time to correct factual errors would have been the decent thing to do. If you are going to show a guard yawning, are you also going to show Bush sitting blankly like a toy with no batteries? For how many long minutes?

Why are you packaging up a parcel of lies and shilling it to the teachers as educational materials???

If you are risking Disney's brand, and ABC's brand, as well as spending $40,000,000, you must be gaining something... but what? What is worth the public's trust and the company's reputation?

"And so for you: You have shook hands with Reputation, And made him invisible. So, fare you well: I will never see you more."
(The Duchess of Malfi, by John Webster)

Considering the ads that are already running, you have already reopened wounds, and fomented anger, merely for a partisan hack job.

Why???

Sincerely,

Carolly Hauksdottir

[Archana]

I saw Ben-Viniste and PJ Crowley on CNN and they made good points - that the movie may have a lot of power despite its known fabrications and propoganda. That's why it's so important that we speak out against it. The American people believe what they see in the media, for example 30% of Americans still believe Saddam Husein had something to do with 9/11 based on Bush's speeches and right-wing spin.

I hope DemFromCT is right in saying that it's a bad move to combine Bush with this movie; I'm just afraid it'll play right into a culture of fear before the elections...

[DemFromCT]

they might continue to get 30% of Americans to agree with them. I have small hope for the 30%. I'll settle for the 70%.

[jwest]

“…………a movie written and directed by people with a strong political agenda…..”

There should be laws against this type of thing.

[DemFromCT]

jwest, passing it off as history on a TV channel noted for having a news division makes this very different than paying to see F9/11 by choice.

[Mimikatz]

Lost in all the hubbub and media hype is the simple fact that terrorists thrive on notoreity and the ability to increase fear in a population. This writer was correct: The most fitting memorial to the dead would hyave been silence.

But we are not commemorating the dead, but our own (or rather Bush's and various GOP figure's) "heroic" response to 9/11.

[Jodi]

Ok, my pet peeve is when I am watching something on TV which I don't do a lot, and the damn weather banner comes across. I can stand the banner and even the beep because I mainly listen to TV, but some stations actually then have the foreign immigrant's (I assume legal since they aren't hispanic.) almost nonunderstandable voice come over the show wiping away the sound and giving the weather at the most inopportune time. And then the cretins repeat it!!!!!!!!!!!

DRAT!

But politics on TV, is that so very new? Almost like every news show and broadcast out there seems to have an angle. Most are democratic so I guess you are upset at any change to the status quo. "Not supposed to be this way, supposed to be my way!"

That is why Fox was invented and does 2 to 3 times the business of CNN.

jodi

[demtom]

Jodi, I agree with you about the weather beeps; they always seem to coincide with crucial moments in a broadcast.

But I think you're mouthing a wingnut talking point when you suggest so much of TV has a "Democratic" point of view. In fact there are stringent standards and practices divsions at networks that take great care to ensure shows are as balanced as possible; bland is more the word for most of TV. Unless, of course, you take the view of the right, that there's their viewpoint, and everything that doesn't support it is "liberal" or "Democratic".

I read somewhere today a perfect What if? about this film: imagine a TV movie about 9/11 where the planes hit the Towers, and there's a scene of Rumsfeld and Cheney going "Hot dog! We can use this to persuade the country to invade Iraq". Many of us may believe such a thought ran right through their minds (Richard Clarke reports conversations with both Rumsfeld and Bush on much that topic on 9/11). But no network would EVER broadcast a movie containing such a scene. Why the double-standard?

I don't believe ABC knowingly set out to defame the Clintons and deceive the public; I think they were blindsided by agenda-bearing right-wingers. ABC's failing is in going into defensive mode, staying with the people who decived them, instead of facing up to how they were gulled, admitting it, and taking appropriate steps.

[ab initio]

The Dems have shown remarkable unity and coherence in their response - from Clinton to Senate Dem leadership to the talking points on TV and the blogs.

Disney acted as they have no fear of the Dems. The Dems have built a reputation of being whiners and not those that take "revenge".

I hope if they win the House the play hardball (just like the Repubs) and rework the media consolidation legislation and reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine.

Make paybacks a bitch!

[DemFromCT]

jodi, reality really does has a liberal bias.

[Mimikatz]

Seems the reviews are not so hot. Shales in the WaPO, the Hollywood Reporter's movie reviewer and LA Times media critic.

And see how it is marketed in Europe, called "The Official Truth" and using the defamatory Sandy Berger scene, which Hunter says is the key scene of the 1st two hours.

[orionATL]

the "9/11 commission" finished its work last year. the report has been published and will stand whatever kean does or whatever his critics say.

he knows that.

in fact, the report and the commission's efforts were a lot weaker and less valuable to the nation than the p.r. it received would indicate.

he knows that.

the commission's effort really was not a great analytical job; but it was a great political con act, a "bipartisan" p.r. job.

keane knows that, too.

keane owes no one anything for what he did with the commission.

he knows that too.

politicians understand one thing only - the power to cause them harm, and only the power to cause them harm.

(yes, there are occasional exceptions).

they also understand their critics' lack of power.

people criticizing tom kean at present have no power over him -no power to cause him harm, other than his son's candidacy.

"shame" won't do the job.trying to shame a politician into changing his behavior is like trying to shame a cat for hunting down a chipmunk.

right now, keane's son is running for the senate in new jersey. it seems reasonable to assume he wants his son to win

when keane was asked if he had talked to bill clinton about the "path to 9/11" on thursday or friday (9/7-8/6), he responded

"no, he was out campaigning against my son."

this sentence tells you all you need to know about why keane supports a historically dishonest, prime-time, sept 11-memorial-movie.

the value of the kean side-show is that it demonstrates the necessity of a long memory and a lot of patience in politics - if you don't have the do-re-mi at the time, boys and girls, applying political force (aka punishing political enemies)must wait and requires lots of patience and a sustained memory.

i think it was eli weisel who said something along the lines of, "it is o.k. to forgive, but it is folly to forget."

i like that approach to injustice.

[TheOtherWA]

Everything the gop does is planned to the last detail. What is happening during PT9/11 at exactly one hour into part two, when Bush does his grandstanding speech?

And why no "freedom walk" this year? Remember the big public spectacle last year? Odd.

[Jodi]

demton, DemFromCT
If I correct a kids jump shot or their spin to the basket, or tell a runner that they are over irrigating or too tense, that doesn't mean I don't want them to do well. I am trying to improve their performance which is judged by an impartial counter or clock.
There is a real perception in main stream America (not just the so called vast right wind conspiracy) that most of the TV broadcasters are very liberal and lean to the left, particularly when the elections come near. If you don't see it, it is because when they do it, it seems so correct to you.

I see it on both sides but more to the left. I listen to both sides and see if I see what the other side is talking about. I generally do though of course there is a lot of nitpicking.

The counter or clock for this discussion is the number of viewers Fox now has.

\\\

demton, that was a glimmer of a cheap shot not quite followed through on.

DemFromCT, well spoken as usual, but I could make a case that it is evidence for my point or I could refer you to "string theory" as concerns multiple realities.

DemFromCT I would appreciate it if you bring up the Ted Koppel's Discovery Channel's "Price of Security." My mom who watches TV a lot with all her family scattered to the winds, sent me an email last night, and a friend sent me a video clip of him on Charlie Rose within the last few nights. Ted said something not only amazing but utterly scary.
Ted alluded to "40,000" as an acceptable number of losses per year to avoid being on a data base.

jodi

[DemFromCT]

jodi, I didn't see it, but I'll try to catch up based on your recommendation.

The problem I have with your thesis about liberal bias is that it's been too often proved wrong by facts. For example, the number of people who think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even now, or that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 is heavily weighted to Fox watchers. iirc, the study was done by Pew.

That should send chills up your spine because both propositions are completely false, not backed by reality, yet influenced by conservative media bias. And the implications of believeing false information is proffound in this case.

You should try watching BBC to get American news. It's very enlightening.