ABC’s 9/11 “Docudrama” Unfair? Unbalanced?
Something’s certainly odd about the pre-event P.R. for ABC’s new 9/11 “docudrama” (itself an oxymoron worthy of Frank Luntz). Seems that high-profile right-wing bloggers are getting advance screening copies but their liberal counterparts are being told to cool their heels. Likewise, amidst paranoid mutterings that the evil lefty media are going to slice out bits of precious truth before airtime, a blog posted by the producers disappeared after being decorated with questions and criticism. Check in with Digby for the fishy tale so far:
Apparently, the rightwing bloggers all got preview copies days ago. Hugh Hewitt wrote:
I, and I am sure many others, have been sent the entire six hour program to preview and review, which I will be doing over the weekend. Edits post-distribution of the review DVDs would invite scrutiny of the very portions sent down the black hole, underscoring the episodes the censors hoped to hide.
When this was revealed, the lefty bloggers who asked ABC for copies so that they might see it too, were told that they would have to wait until this week. Obviously, none of us will be able to screen it until Wednesday at the earliest and probably not even then. I suspect that it may have been sent out to the rightwing blogs for the specific purpose that was referenced by Hewitt above, and seconded by Instapundit: by ensuring that it was in their hands in its original form, any edits of incorrect information would be preserved and protested vehemently.
And then there’s this wierd question of the “disappeared” blog. Check out the succession of “clarifications” which, before the blog was completely removed, tried to claim that the movie was unbaised, concluding with this from the director:
The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of “agenda”. You may feel we “bash” Clinton and/or you may feel we “bash” Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.
Watch the movie! Then let’s talk. If you haven’t seen the movie with your very own eyes – don’t castigate the movie out of ignorance.
-David Cunningham
Smells of agenda, indeed. Obviously,since only some people have had a chance to watch the movie and guage its accuracy, it’s difficult to know. But from what I can tell, there has not been anyone who’s said that the movie “bashes” Bush. In fact, those who’ve seen the whole thing, say things like this:
The Clinton administration will likely go ballistic over this film. (Perhaps why ABC isn’t pushing it at as much as they should be??) It does not have a “partisan” feel to it by any means. The Bush administation comes in for some criticism (Condi Rice in particular comes off rather poorly), but that is nothing comapred to the depiction of Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. I doubt that they will be able to show their faces in public after this (and also helps to explain why Berger was so eager to try to illegally remove classified documents from the archives before his Senate testimony on the 9/11 events). If Bill Clinton’s current purpose in life is solidify a positive “legacy” for his time in office, this film has the potential to be his biggest hurdle to overcome yet.
Well, I’ll certainly look forward to seeing this fabulously unbiased film. If non-partisan bloggers on Patterico say it tells the real story, who am I to be skeptical?
Apart from the ghoulish hype around the anniversary (I know, I know: it’s just huge, billion-dollar corporations helping people process their emotions), the idea of politicizing the event this way is just particularly noxious.
Looks like the campaign season is, indeed, officially here. (And maybe Disney thinks it knows which side its bread is buttered on.)
Update: Aravosis at AmericaBlog has some choice words for ABC and links to a ThinkProgress post that explains why ABC is, in essence, lying. We could have a long talk about media effects theory, but in a program supposedly “based on the 9/11 Commission report” it’s certainly audacious to–and I’ll use the technical term here–make $*&^ up.
Update II: More on where the creators of the ABC 9/11 “docudrama” (more drama, less docu) are coming from. Hint: it ain’t the left. Also, Rep. Louise Slaughter is using material from ThinkProgress to argue against the politicization of 9/11 and the program’s apparent factual inaccuracy. ABC is definitely spending some trust on this issue, or should be. It’s shaping up to be what I would think of as unconscionable, though actually that train has long since left the station. But even pragmatically and apolitically (to the extent that anything 9/11-related can be considered apolitical) it has to be considered at least “unprofessional.”
UPDATE III: The New York Times weighs in on ABC/Disney’s “Path to 9/11″… and, yeah, pretty much Clinton did it.
September 8, 2006 at 11:32 am
MICKEY SUCKS REPUBLICAN COCK:
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/3029/mickeysuckspb4.jpg
September 8, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Okay, this is a *great* opportunity to talk about free speech! Thanks, Violator!
This comment is way, way farther out there than I would go on this blog, but I will totally respect your right to say that, post it and link to a pretty coarse piece of political cartooning (full points for directness, though, and the illustration is not bad).
In another post, a commenter basically framed the ABC/Disney 9/11 film as a “free speech” issue, accusing me (I guess) and liberal bloggers (I guess) of “Liberal Censorship.” I’ll just copy my quick response here:
***
If the information is inaccurate — as it has been demonstrably proven to be — is it still “free speech”? We don’t give people on a witness stand the freedom to give false information (perjury). We don’t let advertisers make false claims abou their products. We punish people who lie on federal documents, tax returns, job applications, etc. (Etc., etc.)
So, it’s not really a free speech issue, right? Can we agree on that? And I don’t think any of the bloggers I’ve linked to have said: “These people do not have a right to produce a movie about 9/11.” What they object to is the (dramatic! partisan!) misrepresentation of facts, particularly under the umbrella of credibilty gained by a) referencing the 9/11 Commission Report, b) referring to the piece as a “docudrama”, and c) distributing the film as educational material to schools.
What do you think?
***
No response yet, but you can search “Rewrite Wing” here at Big Ink in the future if you want to see what Jim comes back with.
Now, on the other hand, we have Mr. Violator here. While there could be a spirited debate as to the veracity of both propositions — a) Clinton is more responsible for 9/11 than Bush; and b) Mickey Sucks Republican Cock — it seems that in the first case, we can draw on a public record and compare the facts established by the 9/11 Commission (and/or other sources) with the representations in the film. Where there is a dramatic disagreement, it’s worth debating the merits of distributing acknowledged “dramatizations” (or “falsehoods”).
In the second case, one could make the argument that there is also a public record, but that would be, and you’ll pardon the expression, stretching it a bit. This second assertion (and it’s a nice, firm assertion) is going to fall into the category of opinion. Boldly, fearlessly nasty opinion.
It may well be the opinion of the producers of the film, the board of Disney, and the entire Bush administration (right down to the guy who brought Bush an iced tea on August 6, 2001) that Bill Clinton was more responsible for 9/11 than George Bush. And all of those people are free as birds — and if they don’t have any birds handy, I will be glad to give them one — to make their case.
But there is a qualitative difference between expressing that opinion — even between making a film portraying that opinion — and granting it the imprimateur of credibility that will give citizens information that is false when they believe it to be accurate. People are smart. They can figure things out and make up their own minds. But allowing conservative media structures to simply produce convenient rewrites of history and pass them off as “official” is a very different thing than expressing an opinion.
This controversy is about two things. From the side of the liberal bloggers, it is about deceptiveness and partisan abuse of the public airwaves (to say nothing of a gruesome exploitation of 9/11). From the side of the producers, it’s an opportunity to make a credible (if undeservedly so) claim (in the midst of a critical election) based on false propostions and, perhaps more importantly, to Change The Subject from the real national security debate we should be having (and were having last week) to a much more convenient national security storyline, one that, in fact, places Mr. Bluebird on George Bush’s shoulder.
So, Violator, I salute your intensely efficient expression of your opinion. (And your crazy-ass site, which everyone should visit by clicking on “VIOLATOR…”; that’s some fun radical culture jamming happening over there, and I dig me some DM going WAY back… but, dude, no WAY you’re 99; we can tell.)
Have a nice day, everybody.