Criticism of ABC is ‘premature and irresponsible’?

September 7, 2006

The more I think about ABC/Disney’s official statement in response to “The Path to 9/11” controversy, the less sense I think it makes. Here’s the statement in its entirety:

“The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression.

No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.

Some of this is backpedaling. For ABC to argue that the movie is “drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report,” is already a concession — in recent weeks, the network’s advertising for the show has said, simply, that the docudrama is “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.” Of course, continuing to insist that this is “not a documentary” rings rather hollow when the writer of the movie is going around telling people that the movie matches the “just-the-facts tone of the report,” and describes the project as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.” Indeed, if this is just an exaggerated “dramatization,” why did ABC partner with Scholastic to use the film in classrooms?

But the notion that the criticisms are “premature and irresponsible” is just odd.

As I understand the argument, the docudrama isn’t done, so there’s no point in scrutinizing it. That might be somewhat persuasive if ABC hadn’t sent around hundreds of preview copies to conservatives and news outlets for the sole purpose of getting people to talk about it. For ABC, is the far-right praise equally “premature and irresponsible” as the criticisms? Or, more likely, does the network only mind analysis that points out the movie’s flaws?

For that matter, ABC insists the “editing process is not yet complete,” but that’s true in large part because the network is editing scenes that have sparked the most controversy. In other words, the criticism wasn’t “premature,” it was right on time — it’s causing ABC to take a closer look at the project before the network misleads tens of millions of people.

If we follow the official statement’s logic, the only time anyone would be able to complain about this docudrama would be after it had aired and offered an inaccurate and unfair version of the events to Americans who may not know better. I’m afraid ABC has it backwards — the point isn’t to complain after they’ve misled people, it’s to prompt the network to meet its responsibilities and avoid peddling fiction as fact in the first place.

What started as an inconvenient flap is becoming a real debacle for ABC. Today’s disjointed statement only makes matters worse.

Poor, poor Disney. So misunderstood

Well, I for one am glad we are slamming these rodents.

  • Let’s just remember that Hugh Hewitt has posted an e-mail from a Disney source that none of the “editing” will change the assault on the Clinton Administration.

    FWIW, there is an AOL Poll up now as regards their news on this, and right now 50% of respondents say they believe the Clinton Administration “had a great deal to do with 9/11.” Also, as a result of all the controvesy, 49% of the respondents plan to watch it.

    I think Digby has put it best:

    The reason this matters so much, and why Democrats are so apoplectic at the way ABC has handled this material, is that popular culture has a way of inculcating certain concepts into people’s minds, especially young minds, far more effectively than talking head programs or earnest debates among political bloggers and columnists. This is the kind of thing that could taint the debate for generations if it takes hold.

    The right howled mercilessly at Oliver Stone’s depictions of JFK and Nixon, claiming that he was rewriting history. He was, and he used very clever techniques to do it — particularly the odd, dreamlike optical montages that feel like memories. But the key is that these films were
    about events that happened long in the past — they were re-writing history, not writing the first draft while the immediate events were still being debated. Certainly, nobody sent out high school study guides saying they were based on fact or claimed they were based on The Warren
    Commission Report or Nixon’s memoirs. Stone never claimed that he was depicting a factual account but rather always said that he was providing an “alternate history.”

    “Path to 9/11” is using the sophisticated techniques (if not the talent) of Stone’s “alternate history” style to create an alternate reality in real time. The purpose of this can best be compared to the “who lost China” and “sell-out at Yalta” campaigns of the late 40’s. The right made
    political hay for decades out of those — blaming the Democrats for being soft on communism. These set the stage for the next 50 years of full throated accusations of traitorous cowardice and we are dealing with the residual results of that cynical political calculation even today. (After all,
    the Republicans of the day were the reluctant warriors in WWII. They desperately needed to erase that image just as they desperately need to erase the image of the Bush administration’s failures on 9/11 and Iraq.)

    If this nonsense is allowed to stick, we will be battling these inaccurate demagogic, phantoms for another 50 years — and I don’t think the country will survive it. These new rightwingers make the red-baiters of the 50’s look like Gandhi. In order for the Republicans to maintain power as often and as much as possible, they must find a way to blame the Democrats for terrorism and ensure that neither party can ever stray from the most hard line they can possibly maintain. It’s the same formula that killed over 50,000 Americans in Vietnam and it’s going to do far worse this time out if we let it happen again.

  • Premature and irresponsible might be the way we could describe ABC’s decision not to use unbaised editors and not to listen when the FBI agent quit the project because of ABC’s departure from the facts.

  • One of the reasons 9/11 happened is that throughout the ’90s, the Right was more interested in going after Clinton than going after al Qaeda. This particlar film and its attendant furor demonstrates that five years after 9/11, they are still more interested in going after Clinton than going after al Qaeda.

  • If this nonsense is allowed to stick, we will be battling these inaccurate demagogic, phantoms for another 50 years —Tom Cleaver

    That is perfectly phrased and pinpoints the thing that bothers me the most about this scheme. We will be battling this piece of disinformation for years and further it is a blatant attempt to steal votes in November. It’s hard not to hate these people.

  • Question- if it does end up airing, could any of the Clinton aides desparaged therein have grounds to sue for defamation of character or other? That could make for an interesting past-time for the next bit…

  • What we are witnessing with this ABC fiasco is the culture this Bush Administration has so deftly produced over the past 6 years: THE CULTURE OF UNACCOUNTABILITY. ABC can’t step up and take the responsibility for hiring a far right apologist to do a slockudrama that points away from any accountablility this current Administration bears simply because by doing so ABC would be projecting corporate accountability for its decision-making – something Jack Abramoff preached against in his incessant illegal lobbying.

    Pop Quiz: What do the following names have in common?
    Abramoff, Lay, Bush, Cheney, Rove
    Answer: Undemocratic Authoritarians, the lot of them, and their minions too!

    Voters of America, vote the Rascals Out in ’06 and ’08! -Kevo

  • I think that we have been stumbling around the truth regarding “The Path to 9/11.”

    This story has been as fictionalized as Oliver Stone’s “JFK” was. If this movie has as much (or as little) credibility as Stone’s “JFK,” then Disney should have placed the film in movie theaters and not on television. Putting the film in movie theaters would have allowed the marketplace to function and consumers to make a choice–regardless of the amount of fiction.

  • A fictionalized scene is one where real characters say some things similar to, but not exactly, what was really said, or where two actual meetings and exchanges are shown as happening in one meeting. There is a connection to reality, but it’s not precise and exact.

    A fictional scene is one where real characters do something they never did and which has no connection to reality.

    A scene where Lincoln hears Booth at the last moment, jumps up, engages in a kung-fu fight, and disarms Booth, only to die accidentally when the fallen gun discharges when kicked by a cop leading Booth away isn’t ‘fictionalized’. It’s completely fictional.

    And so are several scenes in this movie. Suggesting otherwise is duplicitous.

  • Look what we’re doing — acting like a bunch of pansies because we’ve been scolded by ABC. Think about it — we were right! We had to act because time was short! The docudrama was terrible lie about the Clinton administration, and we had every right to go after it. We are doing the right thing.

    Besides, I can’t imagine that ABC isn’t finished with the product yet — 9/10 is this coming Sunday.

  • Blitzer on CNN did a very long piece on the ABC business. Maybe that’s the key to turning the MSM around. Pick on one at a time, and their competitive urges will get the stories on the air. (God, that sounds Rovian!)

  • As Glenn Greenwald puts it, comparing this to “The Reagans”:

    In addition to the obvious inequities, CBS’ quick and complete cave-in to conservative protests over The Reagans, set next to ABC’s combative attack on critics of this film, tell you all you need to know about the merits of the incessent, petulant complaints from Bush supporters about the “liberal MSM.”

    And as I put it just now in a much longer post over at That’s Another Fine Mess (link below):

    Writing in “Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince,” Marc Eliot describes a process known as “Disneyfication”:

    “Disneyfication” is a process that allows for the perpetuation of
    cultural stereotypes that portray – in a “cute” manner – the
    Otherness of areas of the world the United States has come to
    dominate politically, culturally, or economically.

    This is accomplished through the utilization of traditional
    stories in such a way as to reinforce the values and cultural
    practices of America. Disney’s method has been to portray life in
    the places it depicts in its films in the way America either was
    like or should have been like – according to the beliefs of Walt
    Disney – regardless of the historical truth of the situation it
    attempts to portray.

    When Walt Disney created his masterpiece of entertainment,
    Disneyland, he said “Disneyland will be based upon and dedicated
    to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created
    America. And it will be uniquely equipped to dramatize these
    dreams and facts and send them forth as a source of courage and
    inspiration to all the world.”

    “The Path to 9/11” is entirely “in character” for Disney.

  • Ha! Ha! Thanks for the update DA.

    One thing I’ve been wondering: Wasn’t September 11th DRAMATIC enough without the need for dramatizations? Of course, I’m a nerd and don’t much care for anything that smells of revisionist history. And ABC’s latest offering REEKS.

    This is one of the many reasons I ignore the magic talking box. Broadcasting corporations will leap naked through flaming hoops when certain so-called conservatives get their pants in a knot over a bad word, or (shock, horror) anything that implies people of the same gender form relationships (ie the PBS fiasco).
    But when people say “Excuse me, you are broadcasting LIES about a very important day in American history,” they scurry behind that loathesome word “Docudrama.”

    All righty then. How about I whip up a “Docudrama” that depicts Robert Iger as an incompetent dweeb who ought not be left alone with house pets? That OK with you, Bob? Good.

    Anyhoo, if you wish to contact ABC: http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html

  • i suggest (thanks to american progress for the address) a personal note to george mitchell, chairman of the board at disney.

    mine noted that as the father of a 2-year-old, i was prepared to vote with my feet if this shoddy work was aired, and never attend a disney theme park or a disney movie or purchase a disney product.

    george.mitchell@dlapiper.com

  • Rewriting history and reinterpreting history are very, very different activities. Let’s not be free and loose with the language here.

    Oliver Stone’s “JFK” is, IMO, a sincere and justified re-examination of a shocking and obscene event that everyone who was alive at the time can remember as clearly as 9/11. It was never adequately explained by The Warren
    Commission Report. Stone took another look at it — he re-interpreted the facts. He did not fictionalize it.

    I haven’t studied The 9/11 Commission Report so I don’t know how convincing it is. Bits and pieces I’ve picked up on the way, however, suggest that there was also some obstruction of information and testimony casting a doubt on its final veracity. However, that is still no excuse for hijacking a national tragedy for the purpose of political propaganda. That is rewriting history before the blood has dried on the sidewalk. And that is an obscenity the FCC should be exercising itself about if it was half the body it is supposed to be.

  • ABC feels it is irresponsible to defend onself because they are using their version of rules of a duel of honor.
    First they take a 5 hours of shots at you at point blank range in prime time on national television, only then, after being severely damaged, are you free to shoot back, but without a national platform.
    A Rovian style slime attack is not supposed to be fair.

  • Daniel D, I appreciate the thought, but I have not seen any humor about our current administration since they sent our fighting men and women to Iraq to exact revenge for his father. Come to think of it, we should be very leary of leaders thinking that they can do a better job fighting a war than their predecessor. Recall LBJ saying that he would outdo Kennedy on his Vietnam policy. Hmmm… didn’t work out too well…

  • A bright spot… Scholasitc is now irreversibly committed to pulling out of the whole thing. I am not a letter-to-the-editor writer myself, but I understand they had 50thousand objections (even without mine ), some of which were rather weighty, and decided to pitch their tent on a higher ground.. 🙂

    I can’t help wondering abut ABC though… Suppose, just suppose for a millisecond, that they comply with the wishes of many and do do a lot of editing before airing… They can’t re-shoot — it’s too late; all they can do is cut. Or cut and paste, if they have “alternative scenarios” already in the can.

    But… The program was originally billed as being 6hrs long. Then they decided not to interrupt it with adverts (official excuse: “too emotionally important to chop up with BrylCreem ads), so they had 5.5hrs left. Last I heard, the program is to run for 5 hrs (some cutting done, to balance the ire on both sides)… Possibly, some more cutting will be necessary, if only to defend themselves from the multitude howling for their scalp… Say, 4-4.5 hrs is left, after Sandy Berger *doesn’t* slam the phone, etc.

    So… The question is… WTF are they’re going to do with the 2hrs of *unfilled* air time? Rerun political debates for free?

    Yours, cynically amused,

  • Looking through the above posts, a stream of thought hit me: ABC’s cop-out is that viewing a make-believe right-wing view of 9/11 should simply be dismissed as “entertainment.” My isn’t it fun to pin the failings of George W. Bush on a previous administration? No, it’s called a lie.

    Reading the blog follow-ups of the Allen “macaca” flap, one blogger opined that Allen’s well known display of a confederate flag and a noose in his ofices in the past is not just a cute display of southern unity (“hey, it’s entertaining!”) but belied a horrific past beyond its symbolism of Allen being cut from the same southern white-boy cloth as his supposed constituency.

    ABC and Disney, you are not presenting an entertaining mythology of the American saga, you are working on behalf of a political faction whose corrosive political ends you find compatible with your profit margin. That is selling out. “Patriotism” is not the last refuge of a scoundrel, the dollar is.

  • “I’ve got two words for you. Michael Moore.”

    Was anything Michael Moore wrote or presented a lie?

    Because ABC is about to lie to the American people. There are no ifs ands or buts about it.

    • Comments are closed.