Dear President Trump,
as you go, or as the DOGE's Elon Musk goes, through government to find evidence of waste, kickbacks, and corruption within its hallowed walls, and as you indeed find a protection racket related to mainstream media outlets as varied as Politico, CBS, the BBC, and the New York Times, maybe your next step should be to target Disney and ABC — both in general and regarding one specific event.
The event occurred almost 20 years ago and it, or rather its ensuing wake, is described in the Breitbart article, To Protect Clintons, ABC Censored and Buried ‘Path to 9/11’ Miniseries.
After reminding us of the "length to which ABC, its news division, and its parent company (Disney) have gone to protect and curry favor with the Clintons" — "in 1996, ABC News hired George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton campaign and White House official" and said "symbol of ABC News has an ongoing relationship (involving large sums of money) with Bill and Hillary Clinton, a relationship that he and ABC News attempted to cover up from viewers" — John Nolte gets to the gist of the matter and reminds us of what befell the mini-series after it was broadcast 19 years ago.
Back in September of 2006, for the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Touchstone Television (a division of ABC) produced a two-part miniseries, The Path to 9/11, that looked, in great detail, at the events that led up to that tragic September morning.
The 240 minute series was meticulously researched by award-winning screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh (who has worked on similar historical dramass with the likes of Oliver Stone) and focused, in part, on what the Clinton administration did right and wrong in their attempt to capture or kill 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.
Nevertheless, once the Clintons got wind that a network miniseries might commit the sin of accurately dramatizing some of their mistakes, all hell broke loose. The Clintons complained publicly and privately to their Disney/ABC pals.
And in an act out of outright McCarthyism, Senate Democrats threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast license if the miniseries wasn’t censored to benefit the Clintons.
Not only did ABC happily comply, after its initial broadcast, ABC went even further in burying forever its $40 million investment.
Rather than risk upsetting the Clintons, Disney/ABC instead chose to cave to government threats and lose tens of millions of dollars in the revenue that almost certainly would have come from a “Path to 9/11” home video release and re-broadcasts, not just on ABC, but its other cable networks.
I remember an article that Cyrus Nowrasteh wrote (in none other than, I believe, the Wall Street Journal), in which the screenwriter acknowledged that fairness is a matter of the utmost importance and that ABC should therefore release a DVD which would feature, among its bonuses, a carte blanche reply from the Clinton camp that could contain as much information and ripostes as Bill Clinton desired, and be however long he desired. Obviously, that came to naught.
President Trump: Lean onto Disney as only you know how and have the ABC channel release The Path to 9/11 on DVD (with or without the Clintons' reply) while honoring its initial decision to re-broadcast the two-part miniseries every year in early September, as initially planned.
Update: Let's not forget , who chose Mediate (of all places) to publish his piece about his own documentary about the 9/11 docudrama, which he calls
one of the most damning films ever made about the Clintons. Blocking “The Path to 9/11” told the remarkable and infuriating story of how The Path to 9/11 was somehow transformed from a extraordinary piece of art which tried to educate the public about what led to those terrorist attacks, into a “conservative” political hit piece.
A personal note: I cannot find any mention of the movie on No Pasarán (which is probably because none of the NP bloggers never had the chance to see it on a European screen). But what I do remember is some of my first forays into Wikipedia, along with my first personal experience of Wikipedia censorship. Most of the section I created, Responses from the right, was deleted, if I remember correctly, down to a single paragraph or so. And back in those days, Wikipedia had not yet (or had barely) started its numbered References section; instead there would be a section (sometimes sparse, sometimes long) towards the very end called Further Reading. All this would consist of was a list of hyperlinked article titles regarding the subject, plus perhaps the author and the media of origin.
Noticing that every one of the Wikipedia page's two dozen or so articles were leftist and critical, I added some 7 or 8 conservative articles to balance out the point of view. Pretty soon (perhaps within a day or so), I noticed they had been deleted. I protested in the Talk section but was met with a rebuttal that my sources weren't serious enough for Wikipedia. Note: one of these articles that was not serious enough for Wikipedia's readers was one regarding the controversy authored by … the screenwriter himself, Cyrus Nowrasteh — surely of some interest in the debate. As noted above, the source that it came from that was not serious enough for Wikipedia (contrary to, say, the… Colbert Report) was the… Wall Street Journal.
No comments:
Post a Comment