Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>how much criticism could have been blunted from the outset of the project?<< I think, by sending advance copies of the program mainly to known right-wing talk show hosts and columnists, they intended to build a sympathetic audience. But thankfully, several of those same columnists didn't take the bait and called them on the 'dramatic license' they took in the Berger scene and others. Some of them did the "Well, serves 'em right for what they did with the Reagan TV movie" and other such weak defenses, but several did not. That's called 'having standards' and it's to be applauded. The "well, they did it, so we can to" defense never holds water. That said, I hope folks on the left will be just as dilligent the next time a movie is unfair to Bush & Co. by inventing scenes that never happened.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<But what harm would it have done to consult a primary source?>> The writers of Path to 911 relied on primary sources. The writers relied on the testified sharn oaths of ALL the characters involed. Unless of course you are suggesting that the primary characters LIED under oath to the 911 commission. Needless to say, as repeatedly stated in this thread and other 911 threads the writers also heavily interviewed other characters who were there present in the room at the time when these events transpired. <<And how much criticism could have been blunted from the outset of the project?>> In my opinion NONE!. The Clintonistas have been busily rewriting history ever since they trashed the White House when they lost the Presidential election to George W Bush. The biggest mistake President George W Bush ever made was to pardon former President Bill Clinton.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Look, I have no argument that Clinton and his supporters would have criticized this project no matter what was done. But I still contend that it would have been better to have consulted with these people from the onset, simply to avoid even the appearance of partisanship.
Originally Posted By woody >>I think, by sending advance copies of the program mainly to known right-wing talk show hosts and columnists, they intended to build a sympathetic audience.<< This is a lie. The advance copies were sent to everyone equally. If this is true, then how did Clinton and the Democrats get a copy?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You need to read a little more carefully before you pounce onto your keyboard. I said 'mainly.' Look the word up, if you're still confused by this.
Originally Posted By woody "Mainly" means mostly. I said "The advance copies were sent to everyone equally." You should learn to R-E-A-D.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I said "The advance copies were sent to everyone equally."<< You said it, but you haven't said why you believe that.
Originally Posted By woody >> You said it, but you haven't said why you believe that.<< Oh, I get it. There probably aren't many radio talk show hosts that are liberal except that sending it only to conservative talk show hosts is not necessary for sympathetic audience. Did you realize the Clinton outcry did more to make me curious about the show than anything I might have heard on the radio? Here is something related. --------- <a href="http://patterico.com/2006/09/10/5116/destroying-the-myth-that-right-wing-bloggers-all-received-the-path-to-911/#more-5116" target="_blank">http://patterico.com/2006/09/1 0/5116/destroying-the-myth-that-right-wing-bloggers-all-received-the-path-to-911/#more-5116</a> Destroying the Myth That Right-Wing Bloggers All Received “The Path to 9/11″ This myth that this film was sent to “conservative bloggers†is based on the fact that it was sent to people with talk-radio connections, some of whom are also bloggers — like Hugh Hewitt and my guest blogger Justin. Major conservative bloggers who aren’t in the radio business didn’t get a copy. ------ Just a myth.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Destroying the Myth That Right-Wing Bloggers All Received “The Path to 9/11?<< It's funny that you would tell me I need to learn to R-E-A-D, when you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I didn't say all, I said mainly. You looked up the word now, so we know you understand it now. But you can build all the strawmen you'd like. And while you're building them, maybe you'd like to look here: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060911/cm_thenation/20060925path_to911" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenat ion/20060911/cm_thenation/20060925path_to911</a> >>Did you realize the Clinton outcry did more to make me curious about the show than anything I might have heard on the radio?<< I hadn't given a moment's thought to what got you interested. But his outcry was justified, wasn't it? That's why they had to edit the movie at the last minute. Defend it all you like, but the fact is, the film was heavily marketing to the conservative blogosphere. Which is fine, I have no problem with that. But if they say 'based on the 9/11 commission report' then the film must be held to a different standard. And the next time a movie makes up stuff about George Bush, I'll be griping about that just the same.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...how did Clinton and the Democrats get a copy?<< They didn't, for the most part. They were reacting to what they were hearing from conservative talkers. It was the case that the writer of the project spent a lot of time tub thumping among the conservatives. It's no big deal, really. It was canny marketing. >>The advance copies were sent to everyone equally.<< Well, I certainly didn't get one. And I'm even a conservative.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It was the case that the writer of the project spent a lot of time tub thumping among the conservatives. It's no big deal, really. It was canny marketing.<< Exactly. But Woody will now call you a liar, too.
Originally Posted By woody >>I didn't say all, I said mainly. You looked up the word now, so we know you understand it now. But you can build all the strawmen you'd like. And while you're building them, maybe you'd like to look here:<< I know what the headline says, but you missed the message that many Right-Wing Bloggers did not receive copies. As for your reference to strawman... in the linked article is says "This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo--both friends of Nowrasteh-- announced they were "partnering" with Horowitz." Here's the disclaimer from Horowitz himself. ------- <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp" target="_blank">http://www.frontpagemag.com/bl og/index.asp</a> "In fact, I never heard of David Cunningham or his group before reading about them in Max's hilarious column. I didn't know about "Path to 9/11") until after it was made. In the 18 or so years I have been active in the Hollywood community I have never attempted to "discredit mainstream film and TV production" and in fact formed coalitions with liberals in the industry to defend films against censoship attempts like the V-Chip and critics like Joe Lieberman, Tipper Gore and many conservatives along with them." "This is just one of many of attempts by the left to create a right-wing caricature they can attack. Apparently the real David Horowitz -- a free speech liberal, a supporter of artistic freedom in Hollywood and academic freedom in the university -- is too much of a challenge for their feeble minds to handle."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Just got done watching O'Reilly discussing this very topic with Lanny Davis - the author of the current book: Scandal: How Gotcha Politics Is Destroying America. Mr. Davis was in the Clinton White House but lo and behold manages to be fair and say that this brand of politics was praccticed by the Dems in the 80's and GOP inthe 90's and is worse than ever today. Now no conservative on this board is going to say Bill O is a lib, or leans left. Yet Bill agreed with him wholeheartedly that the ABC show should never have used multiple incidents or perceived incidents to create a new one that never happened, just as the Reagan show by CBS depicted what they wanted for their agenda. They both went on to explain how far right and far left bloggers have aided the media in further dividing the populace long before they even hear what a politician may have to say, based solely on party affiliation. Sound familiar ? And when Lanny Davis mentioned Rush Limbaugh as supporting this show but anti Reagan show, Bill politely stepped aside and said since he competes against Rush, he would rather not comment. I know for some O'Reilly is too right on certain topics, but it was refreshing to see 2 people from probably just either side of center from each other, have a solid discourse.
Originally Posted By woody "Exactly. But Woody will now call you a liar, too." Only Liberals use the word "liar". I never call someone like that a liar when ill informed will do. Yet, I don't know the full story so I can't say if DlandDug is telling the truth (different). K2: You're just trying to manufacture a controversy.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Only Liberals use the word "liar". I never call someone like that a liar when ill informed will do.<< Hmmm. Then what should be made of post #185? >>>>I think, by sending advance copies of the program mainly to known right-wing talk show hosts and columnists, they intended to build a sympathetic audience.<< This is a lie.<< Shall I assume that telling someone what they said is a lie is different from calling them a liar? (And just between you and me, I wouldn't have gotten interested in this if your outcry hadn't made me so curious.) >>Yet, I don't know the full story...<< Hold that thought. (And don't rely on self described "obscure right wing bloggers" to provide you with "the full story.")
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>K2: You're just trying to manufacture a controversy.<< Oh, brother. Out of the blue, you respond to a post I made calling me a liar. Now, at last, you admit you don't know the whole story. Next time, avoid the 'fire! ready! aim!' approach.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Next time, avoid the 'fire! ready! aim!' approach." Watching the old 3 Stooges tapes tonight, eh Toonie?
Originally Posted By jonvn Bill O'Reilly actually acted in a reasonable manner? Good for him. I wish people would simply stop with the nonsense, and just started working together. There may be room out there for a commentator that is simply rational and reasonable and not an extremist. I wouldn't think Bill would be it, but it shows that a worthwhile discourse can happen, and that it's beneficial.
