Apparently the Berger incident really didn't happen
More on ABC's decision to remove a segment Democrats have complained about from a docudrama about the path to 9/11: apparently the incident really never did literally happen- and thus should indeed have been removed from the program.
It's an old- and controversial- technique: inventing scenes which never literally happened in order to illustrate decisions which the individuals portrayed in the scenes did actually make. It provides an opportunity for the makers of those decisions to confuse the factuality of the scene with the factuality of the decisions, and thus get off the hook.
Nevertheless, not content with this, Democrats continue to try to get the program itself pulled on the implausible ground of Republican bias- on the part of ABC!
Purely fictional incidents should not be broadcast, even for the purpose of "dramatizing" decisions actually made and directions actually taken by the Clinton administration. As one commenter has pointed out, that was the direction which resulted in the scandalously libelous TV movie about Ronald Reagan a few years ago. But neither should the Democrats be allowed to get away with whitewashing the Clinton administration's culpability for the events which lead up to 9/11- which is what they are trying to do.
HT: Real Clear Politics, Drudge
It's an old- and controversial- technique: inventing scenes which never literally happened in order to illustrate decisions which the individuals portrayed in the scenes did actually make. It provides an opportunity for the makers of those decisions to confuse the factuality of the scene with the factuality of the decisions, and thus get off the hook.
Nevertheless, not content with this, Democrats continue to try to get the program itself pulled on the implausible ground of Republican bias- on the part of ABC!
Purely fictional incidents should not be broadcast, even for the purpose of "dramatizing" decisions actually made and directions actually taken by the Clinton administration. As one commenter has pointed out, that was the direction which resulted in the scandalously libelous TV movie about Ronald Reagan a few years ago. But neither should the Democrats be allowed to get away with whitewashing the Clinton administration's culpability for the events which lead up to 9/11- which is what they are trying to do.
HT: Real Clear Politics, Drudge
Comments
I'll grant you the scandalous adjective. I'm not aware of any libel claims directly based on the broadcast of that movie. Perhaps because the Showtime presentation was seen by less than a dozen people?
I think that ABC has behaved abysmally. A project of this magnitude should be approached with reverence for the lost and respect for the survivors. By distributing advance copies to the likes of Mr Limbaugh while refusing a request from Secretary Albright for a screening, ABC has certainly opened itself up to charges of bias. It leaves the taint of a cheap political ploy.
Not that I'll be watching anyway. It's football season. Colts v Giants on Sunday, Vikings v Chiefs on Monday.
- Scott H
The bottom line is that ABC quite reverently and respectfully produced a drama which did something you and the Democrats don't like very much: one which details the incompetence and malfeasance of the Clinton Administration in preparing the way for 9/11. While I grant that the technique of inventing incidents isn't playing fair, and that the massive ineptitude involved should have been portrayed in a more literal fashion, the bottom line is that the Clintonians are doing what they do best.
They're whining about having been caught screwing up when the tiny argument they have that they should be running things is based on arguing that it was Dubyah who made their mistakes.
Worth noting, BTW, that the star witness against Dubyah in the 9/11 hearings- a holdover named Richard Clarke, who was in fact a Clinton man- is one of those portrayed as dropping the ball himself by the drama. Yes, I can sure understand why Ben Veniste and the other Democratic partisans are howling.
The way that ABC has publicized this creation in no way indicates that they believe this is a reverent and respectful production.
As an American who believes that a well-informed electorate is crucial for the future of our country, I can't believe that anyone thinks that having the President address the nation in the middle of a muddle mix of fact and fiction will help elucidate any of this.
- Scott H
Those people don't want to be held accountable, and they are screaming like stuck pigs at the prspect that they might be. That- and only that- is what the controversy is all about. How is it, as one who favors an informed public, that you so vehemently disapprove of their being told the truth those who are complaining simply want to conceal?
And who do you see as the victims here? The people in the Clinton administration who made 9/11 possible, and who are now raising such a stink in the hope of getting off the hook?
I think you're well aware that the fictionalized scenes have been long since removed.
Special pleading, Scott. Special pleading.