Saturday 2nd of December 2023

mugged by the medja .....

‘"The United States calls 'terrorists' anybody that it doesn't like or that Israel doesn't like, because people like Hezbollah and Hamas who are fighting a war of resistance against Israeli occupation are labelled as 'terrorists,' while most of the world sees them as legitimate resistance fighters when they're fighting the Israeli army."

Such views are routinely expressed in news media almost everywhere in the world. But in the United States, our media insulation about the "war on terror" is extreme - and dangerously self-deluding.’

As Others See US - The "War On Terror"

meanwhile, the Centre for American Progress details the latest US medja scandal ….

Path to Misinformation

September 8, 2006

‘Scheduled to air the night before the five-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks, ABC's docudrama "The Path to 9/11" has elicited a firestorm of criticism for being an inaccurate and deeply-biased account that blames President Clinton for the 9/11 attacks while praising President Bush's response. Written by avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh, the film claims to be based on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report despite containing numerous factual inaccuracies which have no basis in the Commission's work. Feeling the heat and recognizing its errors, ABC "has in recent days made changes to the film" and is claiming "the editing process is not yet complete." As the Families of September 11 indicate, the events surrounding 9/11 are far too important to play politics. Take action now — join over 69,000 who called on ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.

“Path to 9/11” is heavy on “drama” and light on “documentary.” In recent days, the film's writers and consultants have begun distancing themselves from the factual inaccuracies contained in the film. Nowrasteh has said that a key scene in the movie—which falsely alleges that former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger failed to pull the trigger on a surefire opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden—was "improvised" by the actors on the set. Former 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who acted as a senior consultant and was credited as co-executive producer of the movie, "admitted...some scenes in the film are fictionalized." But in fact, ABC publicized this film as the official rendering of the 9/11 Commission report. For ABC now to suggest that the miniseries was not billed as a documentary is disingenuous. Steve McPherson, president of ABC Entertainment, has ironically explained the project in the following way: "When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right."

Criticism of the film is coming from all directions. While some conservatives have tried to argue that critics of "The Path to 9/11" are simply partisans who are "whining," the truth is that complaints have come in from all circles, including conservatives, former Bush officials, and 9/11 Commission members. Conservative author Richard Miniter, who wrote a book blasting President Clinton's counterterrorism policies, has acknowledged that there is "zero factual basis" for the "idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger." Conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell said ABC should "correct" the scenes that "do not have any bearing on reality." Former counterterrorism officials Richard Clarke and Roger Cressey, who worked for Presidents Clinton and Bush, have blasted the movie and confirm that scenes in the movie are completely made-up.

Scholastic Corporation rightly cut their partnership with the movie. Scholastic Corporation, one of the leading distributors of educational materials for children, announced yesterday that it was ending its partnership with "The Path to 9/11" film. Scholastic and ABC had earlier announced a pact to produce "online study guides" related to the film and to send 100,000 educators a letter from Kean informing them of such materials. As Media Matters documented, the discussion guides were "rife with conservative misinformation" and key omissions which resulted in a distorted account of pre-Iraq war WMD capabilities and misleadingly suggested a tie between Iraq and 9/11. In a press release, Scholastic stated the educational materials "did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues."

To visit the Talking Points archives, please click here.

Who's lying?

On the first anniversary of 9/11, in September 2002, the US President, George W Bush clearly said something to the effect that "the US will prove Saddam's guilt"...

Recently on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, September 2006, the US President, George W Bush clearly said something to the effect that "no-one ever said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11..."

Gus asks which president is lying?