|
I believe you are correct in your assessment of F9/11, in general. The differences involved are many and myriad, but I suppose the most glaring problems with the ABC show is that they initially indicated that the show was based on the commission report, all the while knowingly altering events and facts under the guise of 'dramatising' some arguably already very dramatic events. They maligned persons living and dead to support a not-so-very veiled agenda, which (despite the commission's Chair Governor Kean's (Rep) asssertions that they also went after Bush where warranted) pretty much slagged everyone in the Clinton admin. They committed outright falsehoods that were withdrawn only after it became public knowledge and the persons who were defamed threatened action. I could go on and on, but it's really a moot point- thankfully, people saw this for what it was and refused to watch this particular peice of propaganda. (Say that three times fast!)
It was presented on network tv, which does have to adhere to certain standards, and presented with minimal commercial backing which makes one wonder how, where and why the money for this event was obtained. It certainly was not an homage to the truth, and many of the principals involved (such as Harvey Keitel) are not real happy to have been involved with such a duplicitous project.
Comparing this to F 9/11 is apples and rocks. I suppose, since this was basically a paid political advertisement, then the equal time rule should come into play and perhaps Mr. Moore should get his film run as well by ABC.
|