NOW does Sandy Berger have grounds for a libel suit against Disney?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

About an hour and 50 minutes into PT911, ABC showed the scene the media have been taliking about for days--that never happened--Osama in the sights of the CIA and Berger refusing to give the go-ahead to take him.

What did this scene look like BEFORE the last-minute edits. I can't imagine it being any worse.

How many millions will Berger's Dream Team ask for?

[itsrobert]

1. You mean Disney?

Viacom is partners with CBS.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. Oops! Will edit. Thank you

[LiberalArkie]

2. What should he sue for? Putting the world to sleep during trying times?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. It's no right-wing Fahrenheit 911, but so far it's been more entertaining

than I expected, and, until a few minutes before hour #2, less slanted toward Dubya than I expected. It looks as though Hour 3 is going to be the Propaganda Hour of the first episode.

[Armstead]

14. You've gotmto be kidding -- It's BAD as entertainment

It's about as entertaining as watching jumpy home movies of someone else.

The assholes who produced this piecve of shit are trying to be "cool" and theybmade the mistake of thinkling that jerky cameras automatically mean "verismillitude."

If you watched Traffic or a similar film, it shows that such techniques can be used to simulate trealism IN THE HANDS OF A TALENTED FILMAKER.

These clowns who made this piece of crap are BAD filmakers, who only succeed in being boring and giving the poor viewer headaches with all of the incoherent editing and jump cuts and jarring cameras and shouting.

And NO sense of characterization. Who gives a daman about any of these peope.

And their attempt to manipulate emotions -- to make us angry at the bleeding heart liberals of the Clinton administration -- is just laughable. It's so transparent.

Watching a bad movie always makes one appreciate how hard it is to make a good movie. At least the Christian Clowns succeeded in that.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. I'm not saying it's going to win any awards. How would it stack up against

the average TV crime drama, such as "CSI" or "Numbers"? I'd say it's no worse as entertainment, though infinitely worse as ostensibly politically unbiased programming.

[Armstead]

19. It makes CSI look like Speilberg

It's pure amateur hour.

I'd feel that way despite the slant. If I agreed with it, I'd be embarassed.

Pure no-talent crap -- not even on a level of slick prime time TV.

[me b zola]

23. F/911 told no lies

P2911 was no puke version of F/911 because it was based on lies meant to mislead and deceive. F9/11 was uncomfortable to so many because it was the truth.

[mucifer]

4. I dont see how a suit would work. Plenty of untrue made for tv movies

about historical figures that are crap. Just usually they wait a few years or til people are dead til they pull this.

[warrens]

45. Actually, there is something different here

They were warned before broadcast about inaccurate and damaging scenes involving very live people. I doubt there will be a libel suit, but the grounds are certainly there.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Pre-trial discovery could get at who put up the $40 million...

I think there will be a lawsuit.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Remember: This was shown world-wide. In Britain, libel laws...

are easier to pursue.

[Hamlette]

7. public figures have to prove actual malice, almost impossible

there is no way any of them can sue. The burden of proof is just too high (to prove malice).

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. See post #5. Actually WINNING the lawsuit would go beyond the 2-month

window before the 2006 midterm elections. The object of a lawsuit, like the object of Paula Jones's action against Bill Clinton, would be to get discovery, depositions by David Horowitz and Richard Mellon Scaife, etc.

Don't you think there's enough for top lawyers to get INTO court, if not to get out of court with a big-money judgment?

[Hamlette]

27. no, I do not think there is anything close to enough for a suit

and you can't file one just to do discovery, that's abuse and a Rule 11 motion will result in you paying damages to THEM.

Public figures are fair game in the US. Read: Sullivan v New York Times. It's the big case on the issue. During civil rights era. Sullivan was a bubba in the South who alleged NYTimes defamed him in ad/articles about mistreatment of blacks and protesters. Think if Sullivan had won. It would tie the hands of legitimate news sources.

IMHO, we did some damage here. Got the word out, Scolastic changed its lesson plan. The movie was boring (I didn't see it, just reporting what I saw here.) There is exactly, in my opinion, a 0% chance of a defamation/libel/slander suit here by anyone.

So, we have much work to do in other areas and that's what we should be doing.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

28. "ZERO perecent chance"? Are you sure? In every court in every country

where PT9111 was broadcast?

I wasn't arguing for a 100 percent chance, so your position seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

[Hamlette]

30. well, I don't know the laws of other countries well enough to say

but in the US, zero.

Proving it is false is not enough. You have to prove they knew it was false and did it anyway to harm Clinton et al.

I can't see them going to another country to sue.

Honestly, there is a friggin' war on. We should stop wasting time on this stupid show.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

32. What about the election, and the five hours of unanswered propaganda

wrapped in fearmongering Republicans hope to get out of PT911?

Time will tell, and soon.

[Hamlette]

40. we've had 5 years of unanswered propaganda on Fox "News"

Falwell sold a movie accusing Clinton of murdering a couple of dozen people.

If you want law suits of stuff like this, you have to change the law but be careful what you wish for. Remember, this law (NYTimes v Sullivan) came out of the civil rights movement and provided protection to newspapers for reporting how awful things were then.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

42. Libel law has changed A LOT since Sullivan. See post number 35 and the

link provided there.

I'm not a lawyer, but Sandy Berger's lawyers may be considering doing what Carol Burnette did to win a judgment against the National Enquirer for defaming her:

From http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/burnett.html :

"CAROL BURNETT v. NATIONAL ENQUIRER, INC.
Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, July 18, 1983

Maintaining the item was entirely false and libelous, an attorney for Ms. Burnett, by telegram the same day and by letter one week later, demanded its correction or retraction "within the time and in the manner provided for in Section 48(a) of the Civil Code of the State of California," failing which suit would be brought by his client ..."

[Hamlette]

44. could be...I'm just saying...

I'd be surprised to see a suit but I didn't see the movie, maybe there was something there.

[Justice Is Comin]

39. Disagree totally.

That's why Clinton's counsel gave them two notices to correct the lies or pull the movie. They didn't do either.

This would not be perceived as a frivolous and malicious lawsuit because it electronically libeled an ex president and major figures in his administration at a time when they are now private citizens with standing to sue.

ABC cannot claim good faith or excusable error because they were notified by scads of people, groups, principals, representatives of their own party and even congress that scenes depicted were totally false.

Putting that disclaimer on the screen to merely attempt to cover their ass legally will not in my opinion be perceived by a court as dispelling the libel or informing the uniformed public that they should view this as a fictional movie. In fact, it is just the opposite and their reference to the commissions 9-11 report is how they wanted to lure their audience.

The gravity of the subject and the false influence of easily swayed voters on the eve of a historically important election by a major network charged with responsible use of the public airwaves to air six commercial free hours with false conclusions is, and was, the intent of ABC to create republican votes. I believe a court would find that.

And several people including the actors, would have standing to sue. This is not the typical libel case when you are talking about the most significant terror event on US soil. This was intentional and malicious to influence an election.

[struggle4progress]

33. Malice only means the media knew the statement false or acted ..

.. with reckless disregard for truth. ABC advertised the movie worldwide as the official true story, despite having been informed repeatedly the scenes were false ...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. Thank you! "Knew or acted in reckless disregard ...

Thank you! "Knew or acted in reckless disregardof whether (its) words would be interpreted by the average reader as (false) statements of fact" is the phrase I was trying to remember. Your post allowed me to google the definitive cases, including Harte-Hanks (491 US 666)

"(T)he actual malice standard is not satisfied merely through a showing of ill will or 'malice' in the ordinary sense of the term. . . . Nor can the fact that the defendant published the defamatory material in order to increase its profits suffice to prove actual malice. . . . Actual malice, instead, requires at a minimum that the statements were made with a reckless disregard for the truth. And although the concept of 'reckless disregard' 'cannot be fully encompassed in one infallible definition,' we have made clear that the defendant must have made the false publication with a 'high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity,' or must have 'entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.'"

Carol Burnett won a $50,000 damage award from the National Enquirer because she proved they knowingly published an article falsely alleging she was drunk and argued loudly with Henry Kissinger at a Washington restaurant.A recent (1999) restatement of the principles of libel law and its controlling cases (> megabyte PDF) is at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/72BFB353104C6BE288256BD60075C6AA/$file/0155443.pdf?openelement#search=%22libel%20%22reckless%20disregard%20for%20truth%22%20%22carol%20burnett%22%22

[Jane Eyre]

18. Maybe...but then...

ABC was warned repeatedly by Clinton's attorney that it appeared that they were about to release a movie filled with false information. Madeline Albright used the words "false and defamatory" when referring to the scenes which had been described to her. Albright, Clinton and Sandy Berger all requested review copies of the movie, and all were denied that right despite the fact that 900 advance copies of the movie had already been distributed to right wing hacks such as Hugh Hewitt.

No doubt ABC would launch a vigorous defense, and no lawsuit is a sure thing. Still, it would seem that the parties depicted in this film have put ABC on notice that a lawsuit is a definite possiblity in this case.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. ABC/Disney sure won't be able to argue they did not know the material

was false and would damage the plaintiff.

As a security consultant, Sandy Berger could argue that this libel was a direct attack on his earning power, that it was premeditated and deliberate, and that it has harmed his career irreparably but for com-pen-sa-tion he seeks in court.

[Hamlette]

31. right

and everyone knows politicians never lie.

Bush told us there were WMD in Iraq. Does that mean there were?

It's not enough. Honest. Read Sullivan.

[Downtown Hound]

22. I'm not sure I entirely agree

It would be difficult yes. But the fact the movie was screened only to right wing bloggers, that it was funded by Christian Conservatives, that ABC aired it without any commercials, that ABC was told over a year ago by FBI agents of the numerous historical inaccuracies and they did nothing. I think that strongly points to it being a hit piece, and that implies malice.

Also, how much of the $40 million production tag went directly to ABC for airing it commercial free? Given the apparent lack of production values in it, I'm guessing quite a lot. That almost makes it sound like a political ad, and it is illegal to air a political ad without stating that's what it is and disclosing who paid for it.

ABC is on very thin legal ground with this picture. I think a sharp lawyer could take this up and run with it. In the end, it would really come down to what kind of judge presided over the trial. God knows the Repukes have enough judges on their team.

[mmonk]

43. So creating a false scene that makes someone look

particularly bad (such as 9/11 indirectly in part being that person's fault) is difficult to prove malice?

[journalist3072]

9. I grieve for my country. Just tell me this, though

Did they show the briefing that took place during the transition between the Clinton and Bush Administrations, when he warned the incoming Bush team that they would "spend more time on terrorism in general, and Al Qaeda specifically, than any other issue."

Because that REALLY DID happen.

[MasonJar]

10. The best thing to do is to boycott ABC, their sponsors and Disney

and be sure they all know why.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. That won't counteract the "irreparable harm" 5 hrs of unanswered propaganda

would do to Democratic electoral chances in November.

[alittlelark]

12. I'm hoping for a rich attorney to take the case

and donate the proceeds to charity..... best case scenario. I'll bet there are 20+ THAT FIT THAT BILL AND ARE CHOMPING AT THE BIT.

[karlrschneider]

26. How about John Dean?

He has the ability and the cojones...

[struggle4progress]

34. I'm hoping for a slew of lawyers suing in Bermuda, the British Isles, etc

[rodeodance]

15. wonder how Allbright feels about being portayed as a BITCH

[moez]

20. And a stupid one at that!

I wonder if she has any grounds for a lawsuit as well!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

24. LOL!

[Supersedeas]

41. So, how much advanced notice did YOU give the Pakistanis..HOW MUCH?

[iamthebandfanman]

17. ugh!

i cant believe so many of you are actually WATCHING that GARBAGE.

i havent even turned it on for a second.

curiousity got all your cats i guess

[karlrschneider]

25. There are reasons to keep track of the enemy.

If we don't know what they're doing, how do we combat it?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

29. I'm glad some of them reported back to us- I couldn't watch it- too boring

n/t

[symbolman]

36. Just think of it

it takes 40 MILLION DOLLARS and ALL of DISNEY MAGIC to make Bush look like he DIDN'T FUCK UP.

Now that's a kid any Parent can be PROUD OF :)

What a YUTZ, a fuckhead, a loser, a traitor, a clown, a Monster, a traitor.. did I say Traitor? Worth saying twice..

[Beowulf]

37. Brand image

I have no idea if there are sufficient grounds to win a libel case or not. However, if we approach this the way the right would approach something similar, the real damage we could inflict would be to Disney's carefully crafted brand image as a provider of wholesome entertainment. This is why, IMO, Scholastic revised their lesson plans. Scholastic has built a brand image as a purveyor of educational materials that teachers and parents can trust. When teachers and parents made it clear to Scholastic that they were angry, Scholastic had to back off or risk losing the image their brand carries.

[Xenotime]

38. He should go for the juglar. He could own Disney...they should..

.have pulled that movie.