# Senate Dems To Disney CEO: Cancel 9/11 Docudrama (or else?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 8, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873 "2006-09-08T03:05:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/101 "2006-09-08T17:21:25Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > That’s a chilling precedent. If we continue down this road we’ll have politicians intimidating networks whenever a news story or dramatic show portrays them or their party in a bad light. Do you really want that? As I noted above in post #63, and as **Little Nemo** pointed out before me, the “chilling precedent” already occurred back in 2003, when pressure from conservative politicians persuaded (or “intimidated”, as you put it) the network CBS not to show a TV movie about the Reagans which the conservatives accused of liberal bias. If you were willing to put up with that, it seems to me you’ve got to put up with this. No, I don’t particularly like such behavior in either case, but as I said, there’s no denying that politicians have the legal right to exert pressure in this way. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/102 "2006-09-08T17:22:20Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] What is false is your claim that I have called for any censorship of this particular broadcast. I’ve said it was a bad idea. That’s different issue, though, from whether they would have the right. They DO have the legal right, but I still think it would be abd idea. [/QUOTE] I understand that is false and I apologize. In our discussions about the legality of any FCC censorship actions, I assumed you were speaking in favor of such actions in this case. However, as it stands the FCC does not have the authority to censor news based on misinformation. You can claim it does based on a 1934 law, but unless that law specifically says this or the FCC has regulations that say this, then the FCC can’t do so. Since you think the FCC has this authority, I would like to see the regulations that spell out how far this authority goes and in what circumstances they can use it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/103 "2006-09-08T17:24:22Z")
**Renob** , sorry, I was a little brisque in that respones. My answer is yes, that’s an accurate summation of my views. While I would oppose an attempt to cancel the broadcast in this case, I can’t say it would be illegal. I was annoyed by all the sanctions for the Janet Jackson nipplegate incident too, but the FCC had the right to do it. If anything, I think the FCC has too much power and not enough accountability but they have it legally. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/104 "2006-09-08T17:24:35Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] As I noted above in post #63, and as **Little Nemo** pointed out before me, the “chilling precedent” already occurred back in 2003, when pressure from conservative politicians persuaded (or “intimidated”, as you put it) the network CBS not to show a TV movie about the Reagans which the conservatives accused of liberal bias. [/quote] As I understand it, that was not the result of government pressure. That was the result of pressure by the viewing public. Basically people were saying that if CBS showed it then they would boycott advertisers. That is a lot different than intimidation by the government. > [@](#): > > If you were willing to put up with that, it seems to me you’ve got to put up with this. No, I don’t particularly like such behavior in either case, but as I said, there’s no denying that politicians have the legal right to exert pressure in this way. Yes, there is a debate over whether public officials have the legal authority to demand that networks censor shows or face legal or regulatory action. Threatening those things is completely improper for elected officials and is censorship. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/105 "2006-09-08T17:25:17Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] I wouldn’t even begin to try… [/QUOTE] Because my interpretation is substantially correct, or because you despair of bringing any objectivity to a blinkered partisan, such as myself? ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/106 "2006-09-08T17:29:57Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I was annoyed by all the sanctions for the Janet Jackson nipplegate incident too, but the FCC had the right to do it. If anything, I think the FCC has too much power and not enough accountability but they have it legally. [/QUOTE] I, too, am annoyed at the Janet Jackson incident and other incidents of indecency fines. However, indecency is a different matter than innacurrate newscasts. The FCC has been given specific authority to police indencency. I don’t think it has been given specific authority to police inaccuracy. As far as any sort of brisqueness, no big deal. Things get a little heated here. ---
**Author:** ![Rachm\_Qoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Rachm\_Qoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachm_Qoch)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/107 "2006-09-08T17:30:03Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] The only contribution I can find by Eisner is one to Arlen Specter, who is barely a Republican. I looked through the list and saw who was listed as an executive, and most other Disney executives listed by [opensecrets.org](http://opensecrets.org) gave to Democrats. [/QUOTE] 😕 Eisner gave a nice chunk to the National Republican Congressional Committee, as did CEO Bob Iger and incoming exec John Popper. Not to mention Republicans Ted Stevens, Buck McKeon, Mike DeWine… and then there’s Joe Barton’s Texas Freedom Fund. Disney/ABC Group Pres Anne Sweeney gave only to Republican Ted Stevens. Not that there’s anything sinister about it – the Dems are getting their fair share too. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/108 "2006-09-08T17:31:49Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] Who, other than you, is going to read it that way? [/QUOTE] I’d say a good portion of people not of a liberal bent. Seriously. That’s what it seems like to me. That’s not to say that there aren’t legitimate points being made. For instance, I find it odd that they would attempt to make it into an educational tool. They’re trying to have it both ways: “Oh, it’s just a movie.” and “This is what factually happened.” I don’t think they can do that. My point is that the respsonse was dumb, they should’ve sought to simply dismissit as partisan fiction rather than get into a debate as to what two or three of the facts aren’t exactly right. [QUOTE=Marley23] Dramatizing things is necessary, and I understand there are plenty of scenes that dramatize the Clinton failures. I am told that there are plenty of scenes where John O’Neill (Harvey Keitel) complains about the red tape that is preventing him from effectively fighting terrorism. That’s realistic, even if the specific conversations weren’t real. We know John O’Neill felt that way. A scene that shows the Clinton White House telling agents not to kill Osama bin Laden when he’s in the crosshairs isn’t even a composite or realistic, it’s just inflammatory. [/QUOTE] Dick Morris, who was involved in the discussions has been blasting Clinton for this for years. I doubt the accusation is pure fiction. [QUOTE=Marley23] The problem is not just that there’s fiction in this movie (everybody ought to expect that), it’s that the fiction seems to be inserted with a deliberately partisan purpose. ABC’s choices in promoting it raise further suspicions. [/QUOTE] The only aspect of this that seems inappropriate is the marketing it as an educational tool. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/109 "2006-09-08T17:33:12Z")
**Renob** , I don’t think we’re actually talking about censorship in the sense of preventing material going on the air but whether the FCC could theoretically fine somebody or revoke their broadcast license for lying about the news and I think they could under the argument that the network has abused its public trust. There’s no issue of prior restraint here (or actually even a threat of sanctions after the fact. Just a request. Such a request has precedent. The Reagan movie was moved to cable on much weaker grounds. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/110 "2006-09-08T17:35:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Renob > The only contribution I can find by Eisner is one to Arlen Specter, who is barely a Republican. Come on. He’s a Republican even if he’s pro-choice-- he’s not the only one. If Eisner wanted to give to a Democrat there are plenty to choose from. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/111 "2006-09-08T17:42:35Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] No, they’re not. The buzzwords “Based on” have always meant that they would be playing fast and loose with some of the facts. Never has there been a 100% authentic movie with the byline “based on the events of… whatever”. Everybody knows this. [/QUOTE] There is based on and based on. A movie about the JFK assassination “based on” the Warren Commission Report hat combined characters would be fine. One that said LBJ was behind the assassination would not be - especially if presented as accurate. The latter is what this movie claims to be doing. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/112 "2006-09-08T17:48:18Z")
To clarify on the Disney giving: As far as Eisner’s contributions, I looked further on him and did indeed find he’s quite the prolific giver: Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Howard Berman, Jean Carnahan, Bill Nelson, Pat Leahy, Fritz Hollings, Max Baucus, Chris Dod, Rahm Emanuel, Ed Markey, and Barbara Boxer for the Democrats. On the other hand, he gave to Republicans Scott McInnis, the NRCC, Arlen Specter, and Bill Thomas. I’d say Eisner’s contributions lean left. Of the $97,400 given by Iger, I could only see $8,500 given to the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/113 "2006-09-08T17:49:15Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] He is a decidely partisan documentarian. And most people who see a Michael Moore film know that before they even buy the ticket. I daresay _all_ such persons are, by now, entirely aware of the partisan nature of his work. After all the publicity, it could hardly be otherwise. There is a clear element of stealth in this instance. If this is not so, perhaps you can explain why copies are available to Rush Limpbaugh and Hugh Hewitt, but none are available to Bill Clinton, Madeliene Allbright,\* et. al.\* Doesn’t strike you as rather odd that 900 copies were made available, and yet, somehow, none were available save for those whose reaction was predictable, and dependable? [/QUOTE] Moore claimed to be accurate, but never claimed to be objective. He specifically said that one goal of the movie was to hurt Bush’s chances of re-election. If ABC was honest, they’d admit that the purpose of this movie was to keep a Republican Congress. As for attacks on Bush - given the reactions of the right wingers who see it, if they’ve got a major scene of Bush being presented with the news that there were attack plans, and then went to cut brush, I’ll soon be reporting on monkeys flying from my butt. All ABC would have to do to circumvent the controversy would be to release that scene. We’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/114 "2006-09-08T17:51:52Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Come on. He’s a Republican even if he’s pro-choice-- he’s not the only one. [/quote] Now probably isn’t the place to get into why Specter is barely a Republican, but his environmental stance, his pro-gun control stance, his love of government spending, and a variety of other things makes him probably the most liberal Republican in the Senate next to Lincoln Chaffee. > [@](#): > > If Eisner wanted to give to a Democrat there are plenty to choose from. On further searching, Eisner did indeed give to a large number of Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/115 "2006-09-08T18:01:00Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Moore claimed to be accurate, but never claimed to be objective. He specifically said that one goal of the movie was to hurt Bush’s chances of re-election. If ABC was honest, they’d admit that the purpose of this movie was to keep a Republican Congress. [/quote] I think they’re purpose was to make money. Don’t be fooled by the philanthropic guise of “no commercial interruptions”. It looks like they wanted to drum up the drama by showing our government asleep at the switch-- and that means both Clinton and Bush. If Clinton gets more air time (and I don’t know that he does), that’s probably because he was in office longer in the pre-9/11 days. We Americans have short memories, and I doubt anyone will remember this film in November. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/116 "2006-09-08T18:01:47Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Just because the thing has a few questionable scenes doesn’t make it “fiction”, btw. You’re acting as if the entire movie were made up. Frankly, just marketing it as a movie as opposed to a documentary should be enough. No movie ever gets all the facts right. [/QUOTE] Enough of the key elements of the movie are made up, that gross mischaracterizations of fact will inevitably become so embedded in the minds of some viewers as to be believed to be true. And when an audience isn’t told _which_ elements are factual and which are blatantly made up crap, they’re more likely to believe as true all the elements they _want_ to believe are true. The evidence that gross lies as portrayed in the movie become believed and reported as fact can be found as close as [the New York Times’ review of the film](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/arts/television/08path.html?_r=1&ref=television&oref=slogin). . . > [@](#): > > As the terrorist threat mounts, one of the more jarring moments is a real-life clip of President Bill Clinton addressing the nation about Monica Lewinsky. > > The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat. The _truth_ of the matter is precisely the opposite – the 9/11 Commission concluded that the Lewinsky sex scandal **did NOT** distract Clinton or his administration from their attention to terrorism or terrorist threats, including capturing and/or killing bin Laden. But people who watch this piece of trash, but haven’t read the actual 9/11 Commission report, won’t know that. _Particularly_ because that’s one part of this propaganda piece that’s actually inserted with real-life footage! [QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I don’t see republicans claiming this “docudrama” is provably false, so there must be some uncertainty there. Or is just blatant partisanship, one side says it’s false, the other says it’s true, do we just let the side that’s in power flex it’s muscles over what get’s broadcast? [/quote] Then you aren’t looking hard enough, or too few Republicans are being truthful about the nature of the content. Here are two examples of Republicans calling this lie a lie (bolding mine). . . [ > [@](#): > > On CNN American Morning, **conservative talk radio host Bill Bennett** told Soledad O’Brien that there is “no reason to falsify the record” or “falsify conversations” in ABC’s “Path to 9/11.” “When ABC comes out and has conversations taking place among cabinet members on recent history,” Bennet said, **“I think they should correct those inaccuracies.”** > > Transcript: > > BENNETT: Well, maybe having been a cabinet member you know you have some heightened concern about being quoted accurately and correctly. **Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people** and you know it just shouldn’t happen. ]([http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/video-bill-bennett-says-abc-should-correct-those-inaccuracies-in-path-to-911/](http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/video-bill-bennett-says-abc-should-correct-those-inaccuracies-in-path-to-911/)) [ > [@](#): > > Today on CNN’s Situation Room, **Richard Miniter — conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror” — confirmed that scenes in ABC’s Path to 9/11 are based on “Internet myth.”** > > Miniter singled out **a key scene in the film** involving former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger as having **“zero factual basis”** : “If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.” ]([http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/](http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/)) And while some here disagree with, or are embarassed by, the actions by the Democratic leadership, I’m thrilled that they’re finally showing a damn backbone and coming out fighting _hard_ against the Republican smear machine. It gives me great hope that we won’t be having the kind of piss-poor campaign for President that Kerry gave us by not putting on the gloves and fighting the lies, but rather rolling over and hoping the truth would win on its own. It won’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/117 "2006-09-08T18:08:38Z")
Well, it’s just silly to claim that Clinton wasn’t distracted by the Lewinski scandal. Of course he was-- it took up some of his time, of which there is a finite amount. The problem is, **the whole freakin’ country was distracted** by that scandal, and it was the Republicans who fanned the flames. That’s what I get out of that scene. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/118 "2006-09-08T18:11:24Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > As I understand it, that was not the result of government pressure. That was the result of pressure by the viewing public. Basically people were saying that if CBS showed it then they would boycott advertisers. That is a lot different than intimidation by the government. No, that distinction doesn’t hold up. In the 2003 case CBS was pressured by a number of groups, including the Republican National Committee; and in this case ABC is being pressured by a number of groups, including five Democratic Senators. In neither case has there been any official censorship, prior restraint, or other attempt at legal action by the government actually to prevent or punish the airing of the movie. > [@Renob](#): > > Yes, there is a debate over whether public officials have the legal authority to demand that networks censor shows or face legal or regulatory action. Threatening those things is completely improper for elected officials and is censorship. What “debate” are you referring to? It seems to me that we’re all agreed here that (1) yes, the government does have the right in principle to regulate the use of the public airwaves; and (2) no, there is no specific law or FCC regulation currently in existence under which a particular group of legislators can censor or penalize a network for showing a docudrama that they consider misleading or unfair. The Senators in their letter simply pointed out that the broadcaster has a responsibility as a public trustee of the airwaves not to misinform the public. What you are interpreting as “threats of legal or regulatory action” is what you’re reading into that statement. But you are assuming that there exists at present some legal mechanism for putting such “threats” into effect, and I don’t know of any. Yes, when politicians admonish broadcasters that they are being irresponsible, it does sound potentially threatening. But that’s true whether it’s Republican or Democratic politicians doing the admonishing, and it doesn’t necessarily imply in either case a serious possibility or likelihood of actual censorship by the government. (But it’s interesting to see how many people are suddenly assuming that five Democratic Senators somehow have the power to censor a network broadcast or to “intimidate” a network into self-censorship! I wish there had been more of this vigilant awareness of the chilling potential of political pressure back in 2003!) ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/119 "2006-09-08T18:19:51Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] No, that distinction doesn’t hold up. In the 2003 case CBS was pressured by a number of groups, including the Republican National Committee; and in this case ABC is being pressured by a number of groups, including five Democratic Senators. In neither case has there been any official censorship, prior restraint, or other attempt at legal action by the government actually to prevent or punish the airing of the movie. [/quote] I don’t recall any Republican elected officials (the RNC is not elected by anyone) using official Senate letterhead to castigate CBS and subtly threaten them by invoking the communications act. If I missed such a letter, please point that out to me. At that point, I’ll be willing to call the GOP hypocrites in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873/120 "2006-09-08T18:22:13Z")
How did any Senators threaten ABC? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-dems-to-disney-ceo-cancel-9-11-docudrama-or-else/371873.md?page=7)