The LA times this morning has a story about ABC "altering" this project:

> --------------------
> ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure
> --------------------
>
> By Scott Collins
> Times Staff Writer
>
> September 7 2006
>
> ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause celebre.
>
> The complete article can be viewed at:
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,7848445.story
>
> Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com

Doesn't look like they're doing much, yet, but it does look they're a bit rattled.

Good.

Curious - would it have been good if Michael Moore had given into pressure and modified Fahrenheit 911 because of pressure from the Republicans? Or if the new movie (a British film, if I recall) that depicts the assassination of Bush were yanked because of pressure from government sources?

If ABC is rattled by pressure from their viewers, that's great. If ABC is rattled because of pressure from Nancy Pelosi, that's not great.

I understand you are saying that because you want this modified or pulled. Again, no problem with that. I just can't help but think that the reaction would be different if it were pressure coming from officials in the government on the other side of the political spectrum regarding a movie or some such thing that you did not find to be dishonest or that fit in with what you believed.

I am saying this over and over again because I don't want to be misunderstood. I think the consumer raising their voices about what they don't like is wonderful. I do it all the time.

A quote from NY Times critic Alessandra Stanley:
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's miniseries so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."

"It's gray Jack. The world is gray".

If the ABC special is as inaccurate and bias as people are saying, then what does it matter who was involved in getting it changed? It's still the right thing to do. People with political connections are still free to espouse their opinions. Did anyone call in the FCC? Were they forced to change the show under a subpoena? No? Then I say it's gray.

The thing about Michael Moore is - his movies don't debut on network TV over 2 nights with study guides for teachers on how to use the "information" provided in the film for educational purposes.

Moore's agenda is right out there in plain sight and doesn't have the reek of state-sponsored propaganda.

This movie is a ploy to get people down on Democrats before a mid-term election by painting the previous administration as do-nothings (an opinion not backed up by the actual 9-11 commission).

It's a shame that they have to do so by exploting our nations worst tragedy.

I would say that impressionable Americans might be swayed by this tactic, but I doubt that many are still "on the fence" about the current Administration. I think that we are all either disappointed & embittered by our government's actions over the past 6 years or are "drinking the Kool-Aid". God knows we already have a 24 hour propaganda "News" channel brought to you by the good folks at FOX to keep us hyp-mo-tized. Why would a 4 hour Crock-U-Drama make any difference?

Moonliner, while I can respect that, are you suggesting that should Republican leaders have put intense pressure on anyone involved with Fahrenheit 911 to pull it that you would be OK with it?

Opinions by political leaders are certainly fine. Do you suppose it might influence their policy? I ask that only because whenever a poitical leader has strong religious convictions, often times just having them is said to influence their decision making.

Maybe you would be fine with that. Without talking about bias or facts, I would suggest, however, that if republican leadership in government had been so vocally adament about their opposition to Fahrenheit 911 they would be accused of attempts at censorship, using their political influence to have the movie eliminated from various venues, and/or attempting to hide something.

So if some unpaid republican political operative sponsored this you would be OK with it? It's just because it's going on ABC? What's the difference between the guy who's producing it and Michael Moore?

I will, however, agree that that the angle of getting schools into it is wrong.

It's gray. If the ABC film was about Monica and the Democratic power brokers leaned on broadcasters that would be one thing but since the subject matter is 9/11 I feel differently. This is a subject that calls for the highest respect and historical accuracy. So in this case I say, yes bring all the pressure you can. In other cases? I say keep your dirty fingers off artistic integrity. It's gray.

Well, you're honest Moonliner. You are willing to accept government influence and pressure on broadcast companies when you think the subject matter calls for it. Who defines what the subject matter is that the government should be allowed to censor?

I still don't see what has happened in this case (unless I'm missing something) that counts as government influence. There was a lot of the same type of "influence" used against fahrenheit 911 and it was ignored. Can you be more specific about what happened in this case that you feel constitutes undue influence? Was the FCC involved? Did the FBI raid ABC? What am I missing? All I see is ABC being guilted into doing the right thing.