In a recent article entitled “Washington-Set Films May Fudge Facts, But Good Ones Speak To Larger Truths,” the Washington Post’s Ann Hornaday discusses how D.C. audiences composed of political insiders scrutinize Hollywood’s D.C.-based historical dramas for fidelity to the facts. “Myth or reality?” she asks. “That’s the question posed by movies based on true events, and it’s a conundrum that Washington officialdom seems to have a perennial problem in reconciling.” As examples, she references such films as Charlie Wilson’s War, Thirteen Days, All the President’s Men, and of course, Oliver Stone’s controversial oeuvre: JFK, Nixon, and W. (I can’t tell you how long I’ve been wanting to use the word “oeuvre” in one of my blogs).

History buffs and D.C. insiders may nitpick about such films, but as Ms. Hornaday writes, “You don’t have to support Stone’s signature brand of revisionism to agree that overweening literalism can sometimes obscure a larger truth.”

Actually, the problem isn’t that adhering to the facts obscures the truth. The problem is that “overweening literalism” bogs down the storytelling. Bringing a fact-based story to the screen necessitates all sorts of manipulation of messy and inconvenient facts in order to compose a compelling, well-ordered tale: compressing time and events, creating composite characters and/or omitting others, putting imagined dialogue in the mouths of historical figures, etc. The trick, and the goal, is to manage all these creative techniques in a way that might “fudge facts,” as Ms. Hornaday says, but stays faithful to the truth.

She quotes The West Wing screenwriter Aaron Sorkin as calling nonfiction drama “a tricky needle to thread. When an audience sits in a theater having been told that ‘The Following is a True Story,’ they should look at it the way they’d look at a painting and not a photograph.” Exactly so, and I believe most audiences do view nonfiction dramas, or docudramas, that way. I believe most people understand that what they’re seeing is not a documentary or an exact record of facts, but an “artist’s rendition” of historical reality. (Even documentaries are not strictly collections of facts, of course; they too are carefully pieced together and shaped to tell an entertaining story from a particular point of view).

About All the President’s Men, which Hornaday says is considered the masterpiece of political drama, she notes that “it barely matters that the film’s most iconic piece of dialogue – ‘Follow the money’ – was never spoken in real life”:

Contrast this with the Left’s response to the 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, which dramatized the chain of events that led to the Islamic attacks of that terrible morning almost exactly nine years ago (a morning the Left would like us to “get over”). As I’ve written about before, and as John Ziegler’s documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11 brilliantly depicts, Democrats hallucinated that the $30+ million miniseries was a hit job on the Clinton administration, concocted by a cabal of conservative filmmakers and somehow financed by a non-profit, Christian (gasp!) relief mission.

Without having seen a frame of The Path to 9/11, Democrat pit bulls like Senators Harry Reid and Louise Slaughter went into pre-emptive attack mode to protect their legacy, claiming that the miniseries was a pack of libelous lies, and threatening to pull ABC’s license if the show aired. Meanwhile an internet-fueled smear campaign spearheaded by the unscrupulous character assassin, blogger Max Blumenthal, ramped up a mob mentality among the lonely and the impotent in the blogosphere. Ultimately, Bill Clinton himself boiled over about it in his infamous interview with Chris Wallace.

They pulled out all the stops not only to censor The Path to 9/11, but to bury it, because the Left knows how critical it is to control the “consensus history,” that “usable past” that Ann Hornaday mentioned. In the end, none of their threatened lawsuits materialized, because the miniseries was faithful to the larger truth and they knew it. But the damage had been done – the show aired only once, and it remains unavailable on DVD.

This is the third time I’ve written about Fair Game for Big Hollywood. Why bother to devote so much space to a movie that’s fated for box-office oblivion anyway? Because it’s important to call out the Left’s persistent efforts to establish their ideologically correct narrative when the historical evidence doesn’t conform to it. Facts may be stubborn things, to paraphrase John Adams, but they don’t stop the Hollywood Left from spinning a “larger truth” out of a lie.

But you will look in vain for a DVD of the extraordinary and controversial Disney/ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11. 

Disney President and CEO Robert Iger

A $30+ million project that aired without sponsors on two September nights in 2006, The Path to 9/11 dramatized the historical thread that connected the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Islamic attacks on American interests throughout the ‘90s, and the terrorism of that fateful morning in 2001. 

Prior to its premiere, the producers at ABC were so proud of the impending project that they had high hopes of airing Path every 9/11 anniversary and showing it in schools across this country as an engaging educational tool – until an accusation of “conservative bias” (horrors!) on the part of the filmmakers quickly spun into liberal hysteria that the project was actually a “well-honed propaganda operation” on the part of a secretive, right-wing network-within-a-network. 

(Honestly, how divorced from reality must one be to believe that a supposed stealth cabal of conservatives could conspire to get a $30+ million miniseries green-lit in Hollywood? That’s damn near impossible for liberals to achieve. The whole outrageous story is narrated in John Ziegler’s inimitable style in his riveting documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11.) 

Clinton administration alumni, fearing the miniseries would highlight their flaccid response to the growing threat of Islamic extremism and tarnish their political legacy, pulled out all the stops to suppress it. The show very nearly wasn’t aired at all – Robert Iger and Disney were pressured by the Senate Democratic leadership, led by Harry Reid – it hasn’t aired since, and today you cannot even obtain it on DVD.

And why not? Disney President and CEO Robert Iger explains without elaboration that it’s a “business decision.” Oh, well then, case closed. Not only does he refuse to re-air The Path to 9/11 or release a DVD, but he has no intention of even selling the DVD rights to another company. I’m no financial wizard, but I can recognize that, as business decisions go, willfully taking a $30+ million bath on your product when there is a vast audience hungry for it and distributors making offers, is not one of the more lucrative marketing strategies I’ve ever heard of. 

Tom Borelli, however, is not baffled by this business plan. Director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project and a Disney shareholder, Borelli knows that this has less to do with a “business decision” and more to do with an ABC television project that drove former President Bill Clinton to near-apoplexy in his infamous interview with Chris Wallace, and which by extension is perceived to be a threat to the political future of Mrs. Clinton. Borelli has pointed out that Iger has been a steady Clinton donor since before the former first lady was elected to the Senate, and has accused Iger of protecting Hillary’s presidential campaign at the expense of shareholders. (Path screenwriter/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh himself was told privately by an ABC executive that “If Hillary weren’t running for President, this wouldn’t be a problem.”)

Borelli has publicly pressured Iger at shareholders’ meetings and twice made formal offers to purchase the DVD rights, only to be ignored. He has become such a thorn in Iger’s side over this apparently touchy issue that, after Borelli finished a presentation at one shareholders’ meeting, the Disney chief responded to Borelli’s outstretched hand with an obscenity that would have set Mickey Mouse’s bow tie spinning. Borelli promptly returned to the podium and announced what had just happened, to the astonishment of the shareholders. A publicly cursing Disney head honcho more closely resembles a South Park parody than the squeaky-clean image Walt’s company has cultivated for many decades. 

And how has this corporate self-sabotage and political favoritism affected Mr. Iger’s standing in the industry? Well, this Saturday night, the Directors Guild of America will honor him with their Honorary Life Member Award at the 62nd Annual DGA Awards. The Award is given “in recognition of outstanding creative achievement, leadership in the industry, contribution to the DGA or to the profession of directing.” Past recipients have included Walt Disney, Darryl F. Zanuck, Barry Diller, and Jack Valenti. 

Tom Borelli

I can’t speak for how Mr. Iger has “contributed” to the DGA or to the profession of directing, but “leadership in the industry”? I would think that the most basic requirement of business leadership in the entertainment industry would be to ensure the highest possible profit for your company and its shareholders, not to suppress a product with significant market potential to protect your political friends. Above and beyond that, real leadership would be to stand behind one of the finest docudramas in television history, and to assert the primacy of free speech in the face of an hysterically politicized campaign for censorship. As Mr. Nowrasteh wrote in the Wall Street Journal: 

Corporate timidity is preventing millions of Americans from finding The Path to 9/11 on DVD – though other politically controversial movies are readily available, such as Loose Change, which argues that the Bush administration targeted American citizens for death in an elaborate and sinister plot; or Michael Moore’s unabashedly biased Fahrenheit 9/11. These highly-charged movies, which don’t even offer a pretense of balance, and others can be found online or in retail outlets and DVD rental stores across the country.

And so they should be – just as The Path to 9/11 should be.

In the weeks following Jackson’s death, the level and scope of coverage was and continues to be mind-numbing. Sure, MJ’s death was tragic, but tragedy doesn’t warrant the widespread disengagement of American media outlets, nor does it permit the dumbing down of pertinent information. To borrow from John Ziegler, the obsessive coverage of Michael Jackson’s death is yet another glaring symptom of the malpractice that is all too common amongst today’s media elite.

It’s no surprise that CNN and others are jumping on the bandwagon. Jackson’s collapse and subsequent death fueled increased viewership and network interest. According to CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld:

“Jackson’s death brought all sorts of new viewers to the cable news networks, and it’s obvious that most of them turned to CNN. CNN is still seen, by most people who are not news junkies, as the place to turn to for news they really care about.”

Schonfeld went on to say the following:

“It’s unfortunate that the news they seem to care about is the death of an entertainer, no matter how great, when there are things happening in the world that will affect them and their children much more significantly.”

So, Schonfeld is hypocritically rejoicing over increased ratings while his network abandons world events to cover the life of a man who has had and will continue to have little viable impact on society. He’s basically saying, “How tragic that people care about such irrelevant information, but hey – our ratings are through the roof!”

Railing against citizen love for the unimportant, while praising the effect such coverage has over CNN’s bankroll is nonsensical (from a journalistic perspective, at least). And this is only one example. CNN surely isn’t the only network at fault, as plenty of others have joined in and reneged on their responsibility to the American people.

In their classic spirit when dollar signs come into focus, the media abandon reporting the news that actually affects Americans in order to capitalize on the revenues they can expect from their self-perpetuated campaigns, with “All Michael Jackson, All the Time” being the most recent narcissistic example.  Frankly, it’s embarrassing and fraudulent. The Fourth Estate has become the court gesture – and that’s being kind.

But, it’s not only the media who are at fault. U.S. citizens – led by members of my own generation – have continued to fuel the fire. Eric Holder was way off base when he called Americans a “nation of cowards.” What he should have called us was a nation of idiots (please note the sarcasm here, as I’d rather watch MSNBC than give Holder’s comment credence — and that’s saying something).

Many young Americans are so blind to the domestic and international issues that will surely impact their world, that they’d rather fawn over a pop legend they never knew, than confront the important issues that directly impact their lives.  Why expend the energy needed to understand the difference between a deficit and the national debt when you can watch the mainstream media slobber over the advertising revenues they receive from exploiting the death of a former super star? It’s shameful.

CNN and other related outlets should have the nerve to report real news, as should the American people crave the information that will lead to greater transparency and personal betterment. Here are some events we missed out on during the MJ hooplah:

• Vice-president Joe “Gaffetastic” Biden said, “”We misread how bad the economy was,” a statement that should have sent the globe spinning. Instead, it quickly faded as the media contemplated which doctor should be blamed for MJ’s death.
• Calls for a second stimulus began to surface (although anyone who was paying attention to Obama’s budget would have noticed billions budgeted for another potential “stimulus” back in April).
• After the unprecedented connection that was established between Americans and Iranians, the media essentially abandoned the Iranian election story as Iranians continued to fight and protest in the streets of Tehran.
• The media showed wreathes and memorials set for MJ, while American soldiers sacrificing their lives overseas went unnoticed. After all, how would the American people know of their sacrifices without a media body committed to relaying such pertinent information? Lt. Brian Bradshaw died the same day as MJ and his aunt had this to say in response to the media’s outlandish coverage: “Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media. Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?” Good question.

Beyond my complaining, it is important to note that the media have a responsibility to serve as a check on our government. Each outlet is intended to add value and context to the democratic process. Whether it be inherent political bias or the abandoning of real news for elevated ratings, the media are continuously abandoning the American people. The only question that remains: Is there any turning back?

First, let me tell you what really happened, and then I can explain what we should all learn from this.  Here’s the timeline… 

Monday, June 8th: Letterman uses Palin’s trip to New York to unleash a torrent of  ”comic” attacks on her and her family. The entire “Top Ten” list is devoted to the Governor and includes cracks about her updating her “slutty” wardrobe and possessing illegal drugs. The monologue includes a “joke” about Palin’s “daughter” getting “knocked up” at a Yankees game by Alex Rodriquez during the 7th inning stretch while her mother and a stadium full of spectators presumably watched.  

Tuesday, June 9th: As I’m getting ready for the second edition of my new Los Angeles radio talk show, I see a story on the Drudge Report about Letterman’s “Top Ten” list. Governor Palin was previously scheduled as a guest on that show because she’s basically the “star” of my documentary. I wanted her as my first guest on my new program and she was gracious enough to make the time for that to happen. When I speak to her off the air just before we go live, I ask if she’s aware of what Letterman had done the night before, she says she’s not. I quickly tell her about the “Top Ten” and the “slutty” comments but say nothing about the “daughter” “joke” because I wasn’t yet aware of it. 

During my extensive interview with Governor Palin I ask her about Letterman’s “slutty” comments and she, as usual, takes the high road and offers only a mild rebuke of Letterman, calling him “pretty pathetic.”  

While that clip from my interview makes the rounds for the rest of the day, the “spat” really doesn’t get that much play at first and Drudge even takes the entire issue off his site. However, it is important to note that there was plenty of information out in the public domain before Letterman’s taping that night which should have given the host and his staff all the facts they needed to realize that the only “daughter” with Palin on her New York trip was a 14-year-old, non-public figure, Willow. There is no apology from Letterman that night. 

Wednesday June 10th: Much to my surprise I’m asked on MSNBC to discuss my interview with Governor Palin and the Letterman comments. I’m particularly stunned when I’m told I’ll be interviewed by Norah O’Donnell, with whom I’ve had on-air tussles in the past. Well, clearly O’Donnell either gets cold feet or simply chickens out when she finds out it’s her job to interview me (I was laughably told by the MSNBC producer that this change of plans – a plan I was given 25 minutes before the show — is due to “breaking news” of the Chrysler Supreme Court decision from the previous evening!).   

Instead I’m “interviewed” by Contessa Brewer, and you can judge for yourself how that went: 

– 

I later find out that what Brewer thought was an analogous situation in her own life was when Don Imus (oh, the irony!) said she had a large ass. Yeah Contessa, that’s pretty much the same as what Letterman said about Palin and her family! 

Rush Limbaugh plays the highlights of what is likely my last MSNBC appearance (twice) on his show, and the video of this exchange is quickly all over the Internet. 

Later, Governor Palin and her husband Todd release scathing statements condemning Letterman for his “rape joke” about Willow.  That night Letteman mocks their statement, lamely claims that the joke was about Bristol not Willow (which, by the way, I think is a valid distinction but one which is not consistent with the facts), invites Governor Palin (while creepily urging Todd to stay home) on his show to further increase his ratings, and proceeds to retell the very same jokes for which he is allegedly “apologizing.” 

Thursday June 11th:  Governor Palin’s spokesperson (contrary to Contessa Brewer’s claims, that is NOT me) says she will not be coming on Letterman’s show and half jokingly says that it would probably be a good idea to keep Willow away from Letterman. This last statement would not (surprise!) be put in the proper context by the news media because they either didn’t know, or didn’t care, that Letterman had been making numerous overt references to his sexual attraction to the Governor for an extended period of time and of course he has just joked (whether he realized it or not) about a public sex act with Willow. 

During most of the day the leftwing media goes into overdrive in their efforts to protect Letterman and even demonize Palin for having the gall to protect her daughter’s dignity. The bogus apology is largely accepted by the media and receives almost none of the scathing criticism it so richly deserved. At this point Don Imus must have been thinking back to his groveling to Al Sharpton after the “nappy headed hoes” outrage and wondered, “What the hell is going on here?!” 

Shockingly, Keith Olbermann (who is both a Letterman sycophant and possessor one of the nastiest cases of Palin Derangement Syndrome in captivity) is one of the worst offenders in this crusade.  He calls the Palins “opportunists” and his guest Margaret Carlson sells out her entire gender for future spots on Olbermann’s show by declaring that Palin should be considered “one of the worst people in the world” for having strongly stood up (in a written statement for heaven’s sake!) for her 14-year-old daughter.  The National Organization for Women of course says nothing and does not call for Letterman’s firing as they did for Imus. 

Friday June 12th: Governor Palin goes on The Today Show to discuss a major development in her efforts to get a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48.  Matt Lauer, like a kid being forced to wait at the top of the steps before being allowed to see what’s under the Christmas tree, barely makes it through the “substance” so he can grill Palin about why she’s so offended by the host of a major show on CBS making rape jokes about her 14-year-old daughter. For some reason Lauer asks her how she found out about the Letterman attacks and she accurately (of course) mentions the events exactly as they happened on my show and gives my program an unnecessary, but still appreciated, mention. 

Later that day I’m made aware of a website (that contrary to numerous allegedly reputable news outlets is NOT mine) www.firedavidletterman.com which is planning some sort of rally outside of Letterman’s theater early the next week. Long story short, I agree to be one of their spokespeople/advisors and promise to speak at the rally if my new radio station can get a studio in New York City in time. 

Monday June 15th:  I make an appearance on Fox News Channel to discuss the rally and why I think what Letterman did was far worse than what Imus was fired for. My radio station (KGIL in Los Angeles) is able to get a studio for me to do my show the next day in NYC, so that afternoon I head to LAX to catch the next flight across the country so I can speak at the rally. 

As I am getting on the plane I get a call from a producer of the CBS Early Show telling me that Letterman had “sincerely” apologized and asking me if the rally is still on with the clear implication that this should be enough to call the whole thing off (the same presumption would dominate nearly every one of the dozens of media inquires I would field after that). The producer books me on the show for the next morning, but I’m pretty sure he’s going to cancel once he puts it up the flag pole and CBS makes it clear from the higher ups that they’re still supporting their guy (one of the obvious signs the Imus MSNBC show was toast was when NBC news spent an entire first segment of the Nightly News obsessing over the “nappy headed hoes” issue). Sure enough, I soon have a message on my voicemail canceling my booking on the CBS Early Show. 

No one involved with the movement/rally/website really gives any thought to canceling because of Letterman’s belated apology. I’m just glad he essentially admitted that we were right. I also wonder what new information or event (other than watching Mark Shields on PBS criticize him; who knew Letterman watches PBS, or that Mark Shields was still alive?!) has suddenly changed the circumstances since Letterman had all the information he needed to apologize a week earlier and did no such thing.  However, knowing the media like I do, I’m sure they’ll use this as the “move on” moment they are desperately searching for and that the environment for Tuesday’s rally is going to be even more difficult than I previously feared.   

Tuesday June 16th: I’m awaken very early with media calls for me to react to Governor Palin “accepting” Letterman’s apology (contrary to the claims of Contessa Brewer and others, I am not part of Sarah Palin’s decision making process nor even in the loop). While I totally understand why she did it (one of the thousands of disadvantages she faces, thanks to the media agenda against her, is no flexibility when it comes to not taking the highest of roads. She would surely have been skewered had she had done anything other than show how classy she really in fully accepting Letterman’s second apology), I must confess that I knew her acceptance of the apology was going to derail our message. The media now had everything they needed to move on from a story that made them very uncomfortable because it forced them to either defend Sarah Palin or expose themselves as blatant hypocrites. Of course, this would mark the first time in recorded history that the national news media has accepted as credible anything Sarah Palin has said. 

In-between numerous radio and television interviews, and in the wildest kind of irony, I was able to do my radio show from, I kid you not, the CBS News building.  This is hilarious not just because Letterman’s show is on CBS, but because I was just arrested at USC for trying to expose Katie Couric’s Walter Cronkite Journalism Award for her Sarah Palin interview as the fraud that it is. For most people this situation would be off the charts on the bizarro meter, but my life is so strange and I was so busy that the whole thing barely fazed me. Sadly, Katie and I didn’t run into each other in the lobby.  

After my show, I take a cab to the Ed Sullivan Theater. My expectations for what is about to transpire are extremely low. None of the heavy hitters in the conservative media (not to mention NOW) had stepped forward to help out the cause, and thus far most of the coverage of the rally was national and not local. The people who were organizing this event (again, contrary to numerous “news” accounts, that was NOT me) did not seem to have their act together and I was very concerned that even the basics for this kind of happening would not be properly in place.  I warned them many times about various aspects of the basic logistics and they assured me it would be taken care of. They also seemed confident that the crowd would be at least a couple hundred people (over 300 had indicated they would be there), which I thought would be fine. To me the size of the crowd had nothing to do with anything. This was about right and wrong. But I also know the way the game is played. 

When I arrived about 10 minutes before the scheduled start time, it was clear this thing would be a disaster. The small crowd was splintered by numerous members of the news media who were clearly dedicated to interviewing the craziest people they could find to represent “all” the protesters. One guy (later determined to be a plant from a satellite radio show) screamed and carried on like a lunatic. Things only get worse from there. 

I immediately recognized that some of the people the owner of fire-david-letterman.com (a guy in Nashville, of all places) had put in charge of organizing the event were the same individuals who had royally screwed me in a NYC screening of my film originally intended for the “PUMA” organization (a pro-Hillary faction that I soon learned was mostly full of complete lunatics with racist and man-hating tendencies who had absolutely no ability to get people to any event of any kind). Now I’m sure we’re doomed. 

Sure enough, no large crowd arrives. Worse than that, the audio set-up lacks a speaker system and there’s no power source (Fox News originally offered to plug the extension cord into their live truck but then apparently decided that might not send the right message; I’m quite sure that CNN and the local stations who were there would have fallen over themselves to help — without fear of repercussion — if Al Sharpton needed electricity). The woman who was supposed to know how to set up the audio system hadn’t yet arrived and the back-up bullhorn could barely outdo a church mouse. 

It is a nightmare. 

Seeking to make the best of a horrible situation and with no other viable options, I call a press conference. About half the media not distracted by the nut-jobs, gather and I proceed to give an address and then take questions. Here’s the video: 

Part 1: 

– 

Part 2:

– 

After I finish up and sign autographs for a few fans of my film, I have a decision to make: Either stay and watch the rest of the ship sink, or make a scheduled appearance on CNN Headline News. I decide on the TV show (some bloggers have charged that I just left, never even spoke, or split early for no reason — neither of which is remotely accurate). But even though I had to endure some jackass faux “independent” on the CNN television panel outrageously claim that this was all an attempt at publicity for Governor Palin and me, it was probably the right call.   

As I fly back to LA that night I’m very depressed. I know the left-wing nuts on the Internet are going to have a field day with what happened and that the true point of all of this is likely to get lost. I get in too late to catch David Letterman do a somewhat humorous “Top Ten” list on the things overheard at the Fire David Letterman rally. He should have added, “Who’s that geeky white guy who wishes he had never spent $1,000 and 14 hours traveling from LA to be here?”  

Wednesday June 17th : Though sure the media will let the story completely  die, I’m shocked when e-mails arrive indicating Olive Garden restaurants has pulled their advertising from the Letterman show. I leak the strongly worded e-mails to Politico.com and they indicate that the story will break as soon as they can verify it. 

Thursday June 18th:  Sure enough, Politico confirms the Olive Garden story and it runs prominently (it gets the most page views that day). Drudge runs it, as well as Big Hollywood and Hotair. Weirdly, the article they run has several inaccuracies about me (once again, I did not organize the rally, and the firedavidletterman.com website is not mine). The reporter promises to correct the errors, but never does. He also never adds to the story our verification that Hellman’s/Whole Foods has pulled online advertising from Letterman.  

The reporter claims this is because he’s too busy dealing with a New York Times report (from a reporter who has written a book largely about Letterman) that indicates Olive Garden is denying the story. Politico does not back off the story, but does let Olive Garden off the hook for their obvious reversal/disingenuousness. The media’s allowing Letterman to dodge another bullet. My guess is that the chamber is now empty. 

In conclusion, I wish to share some general thoughts and observations on this whole saga. 

For a guy who’s received WAY more hate mail in my life than 99.99% of the population, even I’m shocked by the volume and intensity of angry e-mails over this matter.  They’re almost all the same; high on profanity and insults (for some reason “douchebag” is a favorite with this crowd) and extremely low on substance and logic. 

The left-wing blogs have been seemingly obsessed with me — as if anything about me changes the basic facts of the story – but it’s obvious they can’t win this argument on the facts so they’ve chosen to make me the issue. Here’s an incomplete list of reasons they give for why my role in this story is illegitimate. 

1. I’ve been fired many times for saying things on talk shows. (Ah, hello! That’s exactly why I am credible on this issue, and nothing I got fired for was nearly as egregious as what Letterman said. If I had said something as bad or worse and NOT gotten fired, THEN that would be a legitimate issue.) 

2. I wrote a little-noticed book called ‘The Death of Free Speech.” (In which I lay out the “rules” for broadcast speech as determined by the news media, many of which were clearly violated by Letterman. I was simply trying to either get some equity or at least expose the massive double standard when it comes to the arbitrary enforcement of these rules, especially when the target is Sarah Palin.) 

3. In an out of context interview for a reality show (which I doubt ever aired) put together by a left winger trying to make me look bad when I suddenly became someone they cared enough about to attack, I once said that most women are irrational and that the key to dating is to find a woman with a manageable degree of irrationality. (It is a shame they missed the section where I joke about a 14-year-old girl getting raped in public by an adult while her mother watches, because THAT might have been remotely relevant to this matter.) 

4. I’m just a media whore. (So is there another way to get one’s message out when you don’t have a national television talk show? Please let me know if there is, because frankly no one hates the absurdity of appearing as a guest on TV talk shows more than me.)

5. I’m doing this simply to make money from my film. (Really? If anyone knew how much money and work and risk I have put into this film/cause and how little money I’m likely to make when all’s said and done, or how many copies of the film I’ve donated because that’s how strongly I believe in the message, they couldn’t possibly think money is anywhere near my prime motivation. I can also assure you that I have made no profit from this specific episode.) 

6. I personally like Sarah Palin. (Yep. You got me. I guess we should wait for one of the millions who seem to hate her to devote their time, money and reputation to defend her. Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I should just shut up about the truth of the media agenda against her – a mission I’ve devoted my life to exposing — because, after all, I am biased, and even worse, actually know what I’m talking about.) 

7. Other comedians had said things almost as horrible about Palin and her family and there was no outrage. (This might be my favorite bit of liberal “logic.” So, because others got away with verbal manslaughter, we should Letterman get away with comparative murder??) 

Yes, much vitriol has been thrown my direction, but I’m not as bothered by that as I am by what has been once again allowed to happen to the Palin family because — despite what you might read on left-wing blogs — this is obviously NOT ABOUT ME. 

This is about a woman who has seen her character and reputation attacked relentlessly and illegitimately by a news media with a clear agenda. She’s been accused of faking the pregnancy of a down-syndrome baby, had the details of her teenage daughter’s sex life discussed on Larry King Live (well after the election), watched one of her previously unscathed children joked about in the most heinous way imaginable, and then gets accused of trying to get media attention when she releases a statement expressing outrage. Is there another parent in this country who wouldn’t have completely lost it at this point, even if they weren’t also the highly successful governor of our largest state? 

Regardless of your political persuasion, what happened to the Palins should be of grave concern. What should sadden and frighten all of us is that we are now in the process of clearly setting a precedent that there are no rules or standards when it comes to attacking a particular public person (and their private family). Sarah Palin and her family have done absolutely nothing to deserve this treatment. The media simply decided they don’t like them. 

Thankfully, my sense is that the Palins are probably uniquely suited to survive and prosper through an unprecedented firestorm that has gone on for almost a year now. But just because they are tough enough to take it, doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be stopped or at least condemned.

Directed and co-written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, “The Stoning of Soraya M.“ is based on Freidoune Sahebjam’s novel and stars Jim Caviezel and Shohreh Aghdashloo. According to a press release, it opens June 26th “in New York, Los Angeles and other key markets, with a national roll out to follow.”

More information is available at the official website.

Now, for there to even be such a thing as an prize for “Excellence in Television Journalism” in an age where a desperate thirst for ratings has caused most TV “news” to become little more than glorified infotainment, is a bit like passing out awards for fiscal responsibility to members of Congress.  But for Katie Couric, the poster child of this “infotainmentification” of news, to be the recipient of such an oxymoronic honor is much like if that aforementioned trophy for frugal spending in Congress went to John Murtha or Barney Frank. 

But what makes this situation so particularly galling is the specific reason why Couric is being honored for her “excellence in journalism.”  Couric is being presented with the award for “Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign.” 

What was it that Couric did that was so “special?” The judges singled her out solely for “her extraordinary, persistent and detailed multi-part interviews with Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.” 

Of course there is no disputing that the perception created by that interview and the ensuing media and entertainment coverage of it clearly had enormous impact on how Barack Obama got elected, but is this the kind of “achievement” that journalism is supposed to be honoring? (If it is, shouldn’t the award really go to Tina Fey?)  And is there any doubt whatsoever that had Couric asked the exact same questions and Palin had been perceived as having performed well (or if one of her softball interviews with Barack Obama had brought down his candidacy) that there would be no awards for her from USC or anyone else of note? 

So it’s obvious Couric is being rewarded for the political result of her interview (the shooting down of a conservative superstar just in time to save the Obama campaign) and not the “journalism” of it, but that truth is not even the most outrageous aspect of this absurdity. That lies in the reality that not only shouldn’t Couric be getting rewarded for that Palin interview, in a world where journalism still mattered at all she would have been roundly condemned for it. 

How do I know this? Because I have devoted most of the last eight months of my life to telling the real story behind the media coverage of the 2008 election with my documentary “Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” The focal point of my film is the exclusive interview I did with Governor Palin from her home in Wasilla where she reveals more than enough evidence to completely discredit Couric’s USC award.     

Even though my Palin interview has gotten a ridiculous amount of media coverage, nearly every TV “journalist” has somehow missed the most important revelation regarding the Couric/Palin showdown. That dealt with how Couric’s agenda-driven obsession with trapping the Governor on the abortion issue convinced Palin that she was in enemy territory and that nothing Couric asked was to be trusted or taken on face value. 

Here are two clips on this specific topic from my interview with Palin.

Palin on Couric’s questioning on abortion issue

Palin on disagreement with Couric over abortion

Abortion was not the only issue where Couric’s intentions were clearly not “journalistic” in nature. Here, Katie bizarrely asked Palin for an example of when John McCain had ever been in favor of tighter regulation in the financial realm other than his outspoken efforts with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is was kind of like inquiring, “other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?” 

Couric’s question to Palin

But it wasn’t just the very odd tactic of taking by far the most important answer off the table (rendering the question meaningless except for its “gotcha” quality) that put this episode into the level of “Media Malpractice.” The way that the exchange was played on the air made it seem to many (including at least one prominent Fox News reporter), that Palin could not answer the question at all and was only able to meekly respond, “I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” 

Here, Palin says the false notion that she hadn’t cited the obvious “Fannie and Freddy” example wasn’t the only misimpression left by the editing of the CBS interview. 

Palin on how the Couric interview was edited

Selective editing also left the impression (thanks to an in-artful Palin attempt to actually answer the question the way Couric asked it) that the Governor mistakenly thought that the Wall Street bailout bill was actually about “health-care.” 

Here’s what really happened there. 

Palin on being taken out of context

The most infamous moment of the Couric/Palin interview was the unforgettable, “What do you read?” question (and the very quick and not nearly as innocent as it might appear, “but which ones specifically, I’m curious…” Couric follow up). Here is Palin’s perspective on why her non-answer was so misunderstood. 

Palin on the “what do you read” issue

Other than the abortion answer which is the key to unlocking the context of the Couric interview, the two Palin clips from my interview that have been vastly under-reported (obviously because they couldn’t possibly compete with the “substance” of the “catfight” clips involving Plain taking on Couric, Fey and Caroline Kennedy) deal with the overall magnitude of what transpired here and why anyone who cares about the truth or the nature of our news media should be open to the overwhelming evidence in my film, regardless of their political persuasion.

Palin on the media’s “seek and destroy” mission against her candidacy

Palin on the state of the media

USC and Walter Cronkite should be embarrassed giving this award to Katie Couric. Of course, it is quite possible they just don’t know the facts of why that is so obviously the case. I hope to take care of that ignorance (the corresponding liberal agenda I can’t do anything about) on the day of the awards ceremony. While I was not able to get a ticket, I plan to be at the event handing out copies of “Media Malpractice” to any of the attendees who want to know the facts.   

I am sure I will be received warmly. After all, isn’t getting the facts what journalism is supposed to be all about? 

John Ziegler can be reached at talktozig@aol.com and you can find out more about the film at www.HowObamaGotElected.com

The reason I felt that way initially, was that after several days of the news media cherry picking snippets from my interview with her in an out of context way that appeared designed to make Palin seem whiny and weak (the exact opposite of what she actually was during the interview), she had a couple of choices. Basically she could try to pretend the interview and the issue of how the media lied to destroy her candidacy didn’t really exist, lick her wounds, mitigate whatever perceived political damage there might have been (though with her base the interview was CLEARLY a huge hit) and never speak of the topic again, or she could continue the fight for the truth regardless of the potential consequences.  

The vast majority of politicians (like George W. Bush) would curl up into the fetal position and concede defeat to the media in such situations, and I have to confess that I feared Palin may wilt under the same pressure that shattered the previous administration. But when the Governor called me that weekend and I mentioned learning the lessons of George Bush not fighting back against the news media, it was immediately obvious to me that Palin “got it.” 

Well, that was clearly confirmed by a stem winder of a speech she gave this week at a Lincoln Day Dinner in Alaska. If there was any doubt about Palin standing strong in her desire to correct the historical record about her, her family and her VP candidacy, it now appears to have vanished.  As reported prominently today by AOL/CNN (it took a shocking long time for the speech to be reported on at all in the “lower 48,” and if you go through the photo gallery most of the quotes are from my interview, and a “Big Hollywood” column of mine regarding Keith Olbermann is misreported), Palin continued to express many of the themes that she outlined in my documentary.  

Governor Palin plainly stated the obvious reality (as proven beyond a doubt in “Media Malpractice”) that there was an “unprecedented level of media slant” against her during the campaign. She also verified a personal theory of mine as to why Palin, in her own words, was “naïve” about how the news media would treat her.  

She declared, “Some in the media actually participated in not so much the ‘who-what-where-when-why’ objective reporting on candidates and positions, those five W’s that I learned when I had a journalism degree so many years ago in college, when the world of journalism was quite different than it is today.”    

Who could blame someone who graduated in the 80’s during a year in journalism when there was at least some self restraint on the inherent liberal agenda (I always find it amusing that Sam Donaldson, the scourge of conservatives during the Reagan years, now seems downright fair in retrospect) for being more than a bit shocked that the rules had been completely changed without anyone officially doing so. 

“No, things have changed,” she said. “But complaining? Or whining? Absolutely not. But I am going to call it like I see it. It doesn’t do any good to whine about any of this. But I can call it like I see it. Sometimes it gets me in a lot of trouble when I speak candidly, and I speak from the heart and I do such a thing. But I am going to.”

No, Sarah Palin has clearly learned the lessons of George W. Bush, and anyone who cares about fairness and justice in the media should be thankful for that reality.

Whether anyone chooses to notice or not, President Obama put himself out on the very edge of a very long and fragile limb on the issue of how to handle terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.  For a guy who is a master at not taking any real position at all (or, when he is really at his “best” taking all possible sides to an issue simultaneously) , Obama showed an absolutely unbelievable recklessness in his response to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of his closing of the prison camp.

In fact, if it turns out that we do have another 9/11 and there is even a shred of evidence that the closing of Guantanamo had anything to do with our inability to prevent it,  I don’t think that Obama could have closed off any more of his plausible escape hatches if he had actually tried to do so.

Let’s go through just some of the highlights of what could end up one day serving as Obama’s political obituary (one so strong that even his many cheerleaders in the news media may have a tough time dismissing it).

Obama told Steve Kroft, “I mean, the fact of the matter is, after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many– how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn’t made us safer.”

Was this really the President of the United States speaking?

Since Guantanamo was opened we have a 100% record in fending off terrorist attacks in this country. Do we know that the way we have dealt with terror suspects is the reason for this success rate, or even a main cause for it? No.  But would you really wager your entire Presidency (not to mention the safety of the American people) that it isn’t, especially when the only people who will benefit are likely to be dregs of humanity who have evil intent towards the United States?

Of course this is the same Obama who made a heavy bet against the surge in Iraq and was never forced by the media or the McCain campaign to pay up on that, so perhaps he is not irrational to think he could get away with such a risky and ill-conceived gambit.

Then Obama dropped this little number on the nation, “What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of– Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.”

Did Obama really just correlate being Arab and Muslim with being a terrorist? I thought that was the exact kind of politically incorrect Bush-ism that supposedly got Arabs and Muslims to hate us in the first place and which, rather ironically, Obama was decrying while making that statement. It should also be pointed out that Mr. “Citizen of the World” doesn’t seem to know or care that many who belong to Al Qaeda consider themselves Asian or African and not Arab.

But then, in typical Obama style, when confronted on what to actually do about the problem that some terror suspects who have been let go even by the draconian Bush Administration have gone right back to the battlefield, the President immediately took refuge in a position that is only possible in the utopia that is Obamaland.

Obama pontificated, “Well there is no doubt that– we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we’ve got to– make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up.”

Really? So if we were already being way too hard on these suspects (many of whom obviously just found themselves in Guantanamo by mere accident) before the Messiah got to call the shots, how exactly is it that we are going to finally do a “particularly effective job” of weeding out the truly bad guys when the holes in the filter are going to get demonstratively larger?  

Obama continued, “Do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter– down the block? Of course not.”

Kroft, suddenly remembering for a moment that he is supposed to play the role of a “journalist” (a vocation now usually only seen in museums), asked the obvious question, “What do you do with those people?” Obama responded, “Well, I think we’re going to have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they’re not released and do us harm.”

You mean like the one we already had before you took office?

In case you are one of those who just has faith that Obama simply knows what he’s doing because he’s so smart, knowledgeable and well-spoken, let me let you in on a little secret. He doesn’t even understand the basic facts of the situation.

No one noticed during the campaign, but just after he secured the nomination Obama revealed how incredibly ignorant he really is on this issue of the history leading up to 9/11 and the terror camp at Guantanamo.  

I know this because I produced a film called “Blocking the Path to 9/11″ which detailed Obama’s massive factual blunder on this issue in the scene below.

–

So, instead of any of this “trivia,” the only thing negative most Americans got out of Obama’s “60 Minutes” interview was about his laughter over the economy. Well, if this wasn’t so serious it certainly would be funny. Right now I guess it still is. Let’s hope Obama’s incredible luck helps keeps it that way. Before long, we may not have much more on which to rely to keep us safe.

This week’s Washington Times column:

Pretty much everyone I respect in media and politics recommended I not go on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.” But on Friday night, I defied that wisdom and had the time of my life.

I sparred with Mr. Maher, Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson and a MoveOn.org audience from hell that booed my sentences before they were completed. Unfortunately, my wife and in-laws, who watched from the green room, were not as enamored with the experience as I was.

Since the salad days of ABC’s “Politically Incorrect,” which minted countless right-wing pundits and best-selling authors, conservatives have rightly assessed the HBO version of the Maher show as R-rated and shockingly hostile to their worldview. So most opt out.

I totally see why. But I think that’s exactly the wrong strategy.

The problem with the withdrawal approach is that it cedes the popular culture debate to the other side. We figure talk radio, a certain cable news network and some independent Internet venues will allow for us to get our ideas out to the masses. Well, those few outlets are greatly outnumbered. They are also isolated and targeted for destruction by the activist left. The sitting president (using taxpayer money) is now leading the charge.

In my neighborhood at least, this strategy of avoiding engagement with the other side isn’t working out so well.

People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. “Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?”

This army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing. Groupthink happens, and we must take it on head-on.

One must get a copy of John Ziegler’s “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted” to understand the extent to which the traditional media have become an organized enemy aimed at conservatism, its leaders and its institutions. It was the tag team of entertainment (Tina Fey) and news (Katie Couric) that worked to take Sarah Palin down.

We can’t win the political war until we take on the Hollywood and mainstream media battles.

You can read the column in full here.

–

As we’ve seen with John Ziegler’s important and well-made “Media Malpractice,” there’s a place and need for the political documentary, both on the left and right, but when it comes to the art of telling a story through film, that’s not the end game, it’s merely the opening kickoff. Though a documentary, “Brothers at War” is a reminder of what the goal line looks like.

Change, if I may use that term, will only come when fresh, talented filmmakers use their passion to seek truth through the art of telling a story. Whether that’s done through documentary or narrative doesn’t matter. “Truth” is what matters. “Story” is what matters. Exposing and deconstructing liberal Hollywood serves a purpose, but it’s playing defense. We need artists.

Jake Rademacher is an artist – a first time filmmaker who used the art of film to find the truth and tell the story of three brothers who loved each other but had a hard time being friends.  His story may be set in Iraq, but the power of it is that it could have been set anywhere. The themes and ideas that drive Rademacher transcend war and politics and agenda.

But what comes from an unflinching look at the story of three brothers is a stirring truth about the extraordinary men and women who serve this country and offer their lives for those they’ve never met. And no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how honorable, no matter how professionally crafted, no filmmaker who set out to document the valor of the United States Military could do it as well as Rademacher because that’s not what he set out to do, but it is what he found.

Those of you who believe in what this site and our contributors stand for can relate to the idea that constantly opposing something is frustrating and exhausting, with “Brothers at War” something has come along that we can and should support.

–

For information on how to bring ”Brothers at War” to a theatre near you, please visit the website. 

–

Gabe Ledeen’s insightful review is here. And here are the links to a Politico story and a Ain’t It Cool News interview with Rademacher and producer Gary Sinise.

–

Below is the film’s current release schedule:

3/13/2009

• Columbus, GA (near Fort Benning), Carmike 15 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Fayetteville, NC (near Fort Bragg), Carmike 12 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Jacksonville, NC (near Camp LeJeune), Carmike 16 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Chicago, IL AMC River East – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Washington DC Landmark E Street Cinema – Landmark Theatres – http://landmarktheatres.com/
• Arlington, VA AMC Shirlington – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/

3/20/2009

• Akron (Ohio National Guard), Regal Interstate Park 18 – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/

3/27/2009

• Augusta, GA (near Fort Gordon, US Army)
• Savannah, GA (near Fort Stewart, US Army), Coming Soon
• Shreveport, LA (near Barksdale AFB, US Air Force) Cinemark Tinseltown 17 – http://www.cinemark.com/
• Clarksville, TN (near Fort Campbell, US Army) Carmike Governor’s Square 10 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Hampton, VA (near Langley AFB, US Air Force), AMC Hampton Towne Center 24 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Newport News, VA (near Fort Eustis, US Army), AMC Kiln Creek 20 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Norfolk, VA (near Norfolk Naval Station, US Navy), Coming Soon
• Killeen, TX (near Fort Hood), Hollywood Stadium 14 – Hollywood Theaters – http://gohollywood.com/
• San Antonio, TX – Bijou at the Crossroads – Santikos – http://www.santikos.com/
• Cleveland Heights (Ohio National Guard), Cedar Lee Cinema
• Dayton (near Wright-Patterson AFB, US Air Force), Regal Hollywood 20-Fairfield Commons – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Decatur, IL Carmike Hickory Pointe 12 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Tacoma, WA (near Fort Lewis), Coming Soon
• Oceanside, CA (near Camp Pendleton) Regal Oceanside 16 – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Monterey, CA (near Presidio of Monterrey, DOD), Osio Cinema