Wow. According to the letter, they actually *talked* to Iger and he said he was fixing the problems. This wasn't just a bunch of threatening letters.

It makes you wonder what the heck is really going on here. Iger didn't really fix anything, as far as I could tell. Does he really have the guts to lie to Clinton's lawyers?

I just hope an angry letter isn't the end of this. Lawsuits and investigations have to follow. It seems to me that if the film can be shown to contradict the Commission's findings, Disney and Iger become targets for false advertising and misrepresentation of government documents, just for starters.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the thing, and there's remarkably little buzz about the first night. Anybody see estimates of viewership?

Tonight looks to promise some amazing surrealism. According to the schedule, part 2 will run for an hour, then Bush will preempt to for 30 more minutes of mindless babble, after which the movie, which now covers the Bush years, resumes. Talk about mixing fact with fiction. I wonder how many GOP-level minds will believe Bush's yap is part of the movie. And how much the timing of the speech was intended to sow exactly that kind of confusion and distraction.

It is very difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit in the U.S. And the upside in this instance, while real, probably does not outweigh the risk of losing and the very real costs of pursuing a lawsuit, in terms of dollars, energy and time. Bill Clinton, for one, might well feel it best to avoid any more depositions.

It would be fun to win this. But a lawsuit would create a forum for the writers, producers and ABC to argue that it is true that it was all the Clinton adminsitration's fault, and if the suit was lost for any reason, we'd be flooded with arguments it would prove that the movie told the truth.

Its a tough call.

NO ONE, NOT EVEN TPM, HAS MENTIONED THE MOST IMPORTANT DISTORTION.

CLINTON'S DEFEAT OF THE MILLENIUM PLOT.

THE MILLENIUM SUCCESS SHOWS THAT CLINTON'S PROGRAM WAS WORKING.

NINE MONTHS LATER THE SYSTEM WAS OVERWHELMED.

MILLENNIUM IS THE REASON THAT 9/11 IS NOT CLINTON'S FAULT.

TPM, BY NEVER MENTIONING IT, IS PROMOTING THE REWRITING OF HISTORY.

IT IS UP TO US TO REMEMBER.

"Anybody see estimates of viewership?"

Nielsen overnight rating was 8.3, which translates into about 8% of U.S. households. Barely topped the rating of CBS's competing 9/11 actual documentary. NBC's Sunday Night Football almost matched ABC and CBS combined. Sorry, don't know how the season premiere of The Simpsons did . . .

"Clinton has to sue these people for libel." This would run in to problems based on the disclaimer about it being fictionalized - maybe not insurmountable.

Damages would be hard to prove, since a lot has been said by bloggers, etc. about the lack of factual basis for some parts.

Berger would be an impeachable plaintiff, as would WJC (based on prior bad acts).

Albright might be the best plaintiff, if suit were to be brought.

It might be best to write to ABC in CA, asking for a correction, as opposed to damages. ABC could then, per a CA statute, broadcast corrections/clarifications.

Dems do not want to look like they are seeking censorship.

It might be best to hire someone like Speilberg to prepare a "corrections" video. Such a "set the record straight" video might get higher ratings than the hackumentary.

There are lots of problems with defamation suits, many of which are nailed by cwanda. In addition, as public figures, the burden for defamation increases significantly, and there are potential privileges that the filmmakers could assert for artistic expressions such as movies as opposed to purely factual statements and/or reporting.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we're seeing all of the outrage we're going to see over this unless and until the press starts standing up and debunking the movie in the open and expressing the outrage they did at things like "Farenheit 9/11" (remember the furor over Moore's statement that the Saudis were shuttled out of the country before air traffic was reopened?).

Here's what I saw on the changes. Pretty weak if you ask me.

From http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060911/D8K2LASO0.html

One scene, in a copy of the movie given to television critics a few weeks ago, indicated President Clinton's preoccupation with his potential impeachment may have hurt the effort to go after Osama bin Laden.

In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.

But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."

O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."

Another scene in the critics' cut showed O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"

Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."

This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.

Another scene in the movie that depicted a team of CIA operatives poised outside of bin Laden's fortress in Afghanistan, ready to attack, was substantially shortened from the original. Pictures of the waiting Afghanistan operatives are interspersed with those of officials in Washington, who had to approve the mission.

The original version depicted national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on CIA chief George Tenet as Tenet sought permission to attack bin Laden. The movie aired Sunday did not include Berger hanging up.

The effect of the editing in that scene is to deflect specific blame. It ends with actor Donnie Wahlberg, portraying the head of the CIA team in Afghanistan, saying: "Are there no men in Washington, or are they all cowards?"

In the critics' version, Wahlberg's statement is followed directly by archival footage of Clinton's video testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Sunday, that footage was not included.

Twice, the network de-emphasized the role of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks in its film.

The critics' version contained a note in the opening credits that the film is "based on the 9/11 commission report." That was omitted Sunday.

Since ABC/Disney went forward with this docudrama in spite of justified outrage outside of ABC and, I would expect, within the ABC news division, I think there must be a reason other than ignorance, incompetence or just a generalized desire to lean with the current political wind (particularly since the direction of that wind may soon change).

Two things come to mind. First, Disney has been under pressure from some conservatives for some time, notably because of their HR policies toward gays. This could have been an attempt to offset that pressure. Second, Disney has aspirations to build theme parks. One of their efforts in the DC area was blocked a few years ago. This show's rightward leaning could have been an effort to build up connections with the conservatives in local and regional governments who affect land use decisions

I don't find either of those reasons very satisfying, though attempting to smooth political opposition to the development of large theme parks does seem almost traditional in the ways of currying political favor. On the other hand, political leanings change, and there is always the danger that politicians and activists may have long memories that will undercut such a plan.

Perhaps there weren't political calculations involved. Disney and ABC might have been snookered by the right to start the project, deaf to concerns as it went forward, and too stubborn to correct their mistake at the end. I expect that they will find that was a bad decision - the right won't stand with them in the long term without repeated shows of this kind, the left will eventually extract some measure of revenge, and the people of quality within the news division know that their reputation can be stained by their colleagues in other parts of ABC and by their owners. It just seems like such a bad decision that someone, somewhere in the organizaiton, must have been driven by thoughts of financial benefit.

I've done the same thing (my daughter is 18 months). Lifetime boycotts of all things Disney, that's what we need. It's about making an example out of them. This is the Bhopal of TV travesties. It is the Exxon Valdez of cultural pollution. It is in a class by itself. To take a tragedy that is the personal tragedy of 3,000 families as well as a raw wound for the nation and the create a tissue of lies that defames dedicated public officials in order to make a 40-million-dollar in-kind contribution to a political party is willfully despicable.

At least Union Carbide and Exxon were only careless.

If successful, a boycott and a concerted effort to destroy the Disney brand by keeping this wrapped around Mickey Rat's neck might make a lot of corporations change their conduct. But what we need to do is lay a hurt on them that's bigger than anything the right wing has ever done to anyone else.

there must be a reason other than ignorance, incompetence or just a generalized desire to lean with the current political wind

Seriously.

What does Lehman's comment have to do with anything? I'm ashamed to say he went to the same college (Saint Joseph's) that I did.

Tom

remember the furor over Moore's statement that the Saudis were shuttled out of the country before air traffic was reopened?

Because Moore never made such a statement. It's not hard to see how viewers were left with that impression. Perhaps Moore may even be guilty of deliberately creating that impression to mislead. But it's not what he said.

Wonder if Bill Clinton is second-guessing his support of The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed the insane amount of media conglomeration with which we now live.

Back then, some of us were screaming that passage of that horrific "Act" could lead to situations described in the above letter, but unfortunately our warnings fell on Mr. Clinton's deaf ears. Just another case of DLC-centrist pandering coming back to bite you in the arse, methinks.

We can only hope that one positive out of this ABC debacle is that light is once again shining on the dark evils of extreme media consolidation. Let's make sure these innerworkings of big media stay in the spotlight this time, and not get ignored again by future "centrist" Democrats.

BTW, Director David Cunningham is an extreme Christian so we can assume he feels God speaks to him. Apparently God is a big fan of "NYPD Blue" circa 1993 (the shakey-cam was making me sick), although He probably didn't like the episode where Dennis Franz bares his backside.

Oh! And Keith Olbermann deserves as much support as we can give him. I hear his book is great, so order up a few copies if you feel he speaks for you.

Yeah, you got to think about the absurdity of it. The 60 Minutes guy asked Clinton point blank if he had been offered and refused Bin Laden, to which Clinton replied: "There is no evidence that ever happened". I mean, the red-nosed s.o.b. KNOWS if he did it or not, then says some legalese crap about 'no evidence'...and worse, the 60 minutes guy let him get away with it.