The path to enlightenment on "The Path to 9/11"

I have only watched a few minutes of "The Path to 9/11," the ABC docudrama that started Sunday night and concludes tonight. Clinton operatives have been howling for a week about it, claiming the depictions are inaccurate and unfair to Their Man.

The difference is, I'm telling you I haven't seen much of it. This knucklehead for The Huffington Post, which has been doing some of the loudest howling, obviously hasn't seen ANY of it ... but he writes as though he has: "On Tuesday, ABC was forced to concede that 'The Path to 9/11' is 'a dramatization, not a documentary.'"

Dude, first off, if you'd seen even a minute of the program, you'd have known that your own self. Second, ABC has never claimed "The Path to 9/11" was a documentary. Here is the press release that was sent to me on July 5 and posted to ABC's publicly accessible media relations web site:

ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event.

The clueless Huffer-Puffer goes on to spin an elaborate web of associations that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the production MUST be biased (sight unseen, of course) because this person on "The Path to 9/11" worked with that person who once capped knees for Lee Atwater, and so on. It's Joe McCarthy meets "The Last Temptation of Christ" protest campaign -- only it's Democrats this time, making the attacks doubly bizarre.

I've been hearing from other conspiracy theorists in recent days, claiming that Democrats were denied requests to see DVD screeners of "The Path to 9/11," while Republicans were freely sharing them among those in their "network." Uhhhh, those DVDs have been floating around since early July.  They were slipped under every hotel room door and left in stacks on press tables at TV critics' tour.  I'm sure they were circulating around New York, too. They could've been had by any reasonably plugged-in person.

Again, don't call it a conspiracy just because you're lazy. Or clueless.

As to the criticisms of the show itself, I can't speak to those. I haven't worked up the enthusiasm to watch, nor am I likely to.  Nor have I listened to the 9/11 Commission Report, which has been sitting on my iTunes for a couple of years, though I suppose I should. James Wolcott feels the same way, and puts his finger on what I think is so wrong with all the observances of which this docudrama is just one:

Even if The Path to 9/11 were politically pure, its raison d'etre would be suspect. How many times and how many ways must the adrenaline be pumped, the tragedy replayed, and the suffering exploited? The fall of the towers has become a ritual fetish, an annual haunting, that doesn't exorcise fear, but replenishes it.

Wolcott is worth a read. He quotes Simon Jenkins at length, who also makes some provocative points, none of which I suspect you'll hear expressed on the nonstop cable coverage today.

Link: James Wolcott: Repetition-Convulsion Syndrome.

Comments

[Rocky]

Well it did look like a documentary

[Soonerthought]

I cannot bear to watch all this depressing stuff--reminds me too much of the endless dirges we had to endure about the Murrah Bldg in Oklahoma City; but I certainly wouldn't put it past the screewnwriter of this feature (see who his buddies are...) to attack Democrats and try to stick blame on them.

[Peter B Pitsker]

Barnhart may not be motivated to watch "The Path to 9/11" for good reasons. It is simply bad television! Further, the distortions contained were offensive to those who lost loved ones in this tragedy and those of us who value the truth and share their sorrow.
Sad that ABC would show such obviously politically motivated trash on their network and blacken their name forever as a source of information and entertainment, when this program provided neither. This family will not watch ABC ever again.

[Joe Coughlin]

I was disappointed and decided to skip it because, even if it was good drama, it was misleading. The publicity that I read for it always mentioned that it was based on the 9/11 Commission Report. I just felt to do that seemed to mean that it should be more docu and less drama, almost as if they should have been more responsible because there were those out there who could have seen it as gospel because of its supposed pedigree and genesis.

But airing CBS's rerun of "9/11", it couldn't have been better than that. "9/11" was honest, gritty and real. ABC's offering, for all I've heard, was little of these things. Why bother with a docudrama when the documentary airing at the same time has more drama and no problems with veracity?

It must be just a coincidence that our beloved President has scheduled a Republican Campaign Infommercial right before the second half of this propaganda epic.

[Mark Jeffries]

Hey Pete, what's with this "our family" crap? Wanna bet your teenage kid's going to sneak out tomorrow night and watch "Dancing With the Stars?" What if your wife wants to watch "Lost?"

Could we have documented proof that this was a majority vote of your family or is this just an opinionated big mouth trying to dominate everything?

Hope you aren't going to be watching "Monday Night Football" tonight--who owns ESPN, Petey?

[Aaron]

Oh, now, give the reader credit for spotting bad television. They're still developing that skill at ABC (where, last I heard, they're still planning to put "Big Day" on the air).

[Mark Jeffries]

Apologize for the snarkiness--I just go so tired of these "our family won't..." messages when they have no proof that the guy's actually speaking for his family.

As for Patriot: Dope addict El Rushbo ain't exactly Jack LaLanne.

[hmpierson]

Interspersing scenes that are complete fiction along with factually accruate information is a no-no - as I imagine ABC will soon find out via lawsuits.

"One scene that had already been singled out by critics as factually incorrect was edited by ABC, but not much. It depicted Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refusing to give the order to take bin Laden out, something contradicted by Berger and the 9/11 Commission. Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 Commission, says "that never happened.""

[Mark Roberts]

Aaron, thank you for posting the James Wollcott link. It captured my sentiments about as closely as anything else has.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but I think all must realize that 9/11 has become an infinite blank canvas, one upon which anyone can paint anything and manipulate anything. And that's just what has happened. Politicians and partisans manipulate it to suit their own agendas. TV news manipulates it in the cheap, guaranteed pursuit of ever-increasing sensation. It's the ultimate Moment, the culmination of the Van Gordon Sauterization of TV news where information takes a back seat to emotion and even self-pity.

Sure, it was an emotional day. No one can deny that. The day of the attacks, TV news was at its finest. The facts were presented as they came along. Sometimes they were confused and mixed up. But in the moment, that was understandable. But the story generally was handled calmly and responsibly, by the networks and cable news alike.

What I'm talking about is what happened after the attacks. Five years on, the manipulation seems worse than ever, as does the pursuit of sensation and outrage.

Anniversary stories are somewhat of an artifact anyway. Perhaps it is a healthy sign that we now have enough distance from the event that there is less hesitation about going back to that awful day. But the manipulation, the sensationalism, and the primacy of emotion over the basic search for simple understanding continue to be appalling. It doesn't have to be this way.

the real issue is that the vast majority of people that watched this probably believed it to be factual. your average TV viewer is not very discerning and not too eager to read between the lines, and thus has no reason NOT to believe it to be "documentary". They tweaked it and added disclaimers so that they would have some sort of defense against more intelligent people who recognize propaganda when they see it.

People in general are susceptible to advertising. Regardless of how many little disclaimers and things they stick in the corners, if your average American TV viewer sees "based on the 9/11 Commission", that is what will stick with them, and they will gobble down this misinformation as fact. There is no doubt in my mind that the producers realized this, if they really wanted people to take it as a "drama" they would not have touted its supposed factual base as much.

[Capn]

Gee, not factual, huh? I sat with the 9/11 Commission Report in my lap and compared facts with the movie. There were undoubtedly some "fill in the gap" moments, but this film was overwhelmingly based on factual accounts. As for the Sandy Berger incident, others who had input into the Commission said that event actually did happen, but that the official version accepted aligned with what ended up in the report. As for the movie, if you'll recall, virtually everything was laid at George Tenet's feet, something that lines up with the Report's findings.

[Aaron]

Interesting debate - let me toss this in. I think people sample from a wide variety of sources, and weigh them accordingly. Of course, one person may not weigh sources the same way another does: for instance, Pew studies have found Fox News devotees far more likely to believe the Saddam-al Qaeda link than PBS watchers. So while I agree that the scene in question sounds bad, (a) it's what, two minutes in a four-hour miniseries? (b) it's not likely to make Clinton haters or Clinton supporters feel any differently about Bubba or any of his administration staff.

[Aaron]

(The John Seigenthaler-Wikipedia dustup last year seems an especially apt analogy. The record was corrected in the blowback, and the aggrieved subject returned to his rightful obscurity.)

[tabarnhart]

there's good reason for Huffer-Puffers and others to rant: ABC did not sell this as any form of fiction until their duplicity was made known. it's not that they dramatized events; they made a lot of this stuff out of nowhere. well, not nowhere: the imagination of the guy behind it, Rush Limbaugh's pal (whose name i can't be bothered to google right now cuz he's not worth it). no one on the 9/11 Commission vouches for the show's accuracy. it's revisionist history of a sort that would give Stalin a proud smile.

we live in a country where half the people still think Saddam was part of the 9/11 plot. so feeding them even more false info in the name of entertainment becomes one of the best reasons to listen the wise John Prine: blow up your tv. and if that's not good enough, Keith Olbermann's words to Bush on Monday should make clear why this show is possibly even worse than us whiners and noisemakers have been saying. it's just another huge abuse of 9/11.

[Aaron]

Let's let reader David Wicks have the last word. He emails:

I'd like to dissent mildly from your reaction to a strong HuffPost article. Having little appetite for conspiracy theories, I agree with your criticism about the overblown article itself. But you dismiss too quickly some relevant details.

>"ABC has never claimed 'The Path to 9/11' was a documentary"

Perhaps not, but they were not shy about stamping the imprimatur of the 9/11 Commission all over "Path". And they trotted out Commission chairman Thomas Kean to vouch for its accuracy and fidelity to the Report.

Whether "documentary" or "dramatization", ABC was clearly selling "Path", and its contents, as WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. That is inappropriate when "Path" contained invented scenes.

>"Uhhhh, those DVDs have been floating around since early July. They were
>slipped under every hotel room door and left in stacks on press tables
at
>TV critics' tour. I'm sure they were circulating around New York, too.
>They could've been had by any reasonably plugged-in person."

I don't know what you mean by "plugged-in". Are you implying that Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Madeleine Albright should know how to get critics' DVDs? And that they are "lazy" for not using a back-door channels that TV critics know about?

Here's what they did do: ask ABC for copies. ABC said no.

In August, clearly using politics to drum up support, ABC sent promo DVDs to Rush Limbaugh and other right-leaning media figures. They sent no such DVDs to Al Franken and left-leaning media figures. It is no conspiracy to conclude that ABC knew who would like their dramatization and who would not.

>". . . only it's Democrats this time, making the attacks doubly
bizarre."

You will see more left-based attacks in the future.

As a Democrat, I am heartened by the rise of the blogging left. Even if there was a fair amount of overreaction in this case, the
left-leaning blogosphere is a necessary counter to the right-wing bloviation that has dominated talk radio and the internet for the past
ten years.