Lots of e-mails asking me to write something about the upcoming Path to 9/11 "docu-drama" on ABC which will portray a version of history that, many are arguing, is a right-wing fantasy, intended to minimize the shortcomings of the Bush administration and to affix blame to the Clinton team.
As I've said before here — like when CBS had that TV-Movie, The Reagans — I'm not a fan of works that purport to dramatize history but reserve the right to fictionalize whenever it pleases them. It's one thing if you write or produce something and are willing to say, "I believe this is a reasonably accurate depiction of what happened." Then there can be a clear debate on the truth, or lack thereof in the work. It's quite different when you claim the right to fictionalize and say, in effect, "I'm just making stuff up here because it's more fun this way." Then everyone knows that it's bull. The docu-drama form, to me, is an attempt to have it both ways; to present something that many will take as history but to give its presenter an alibi for inaccuracies and even a free pass for intentional distortions. I don't like Oliver Stone movies for the same reason.
I haven't seen the upcoming semi-fictionalization of what led up to 9/11 but the advance hubbub does not sound encouraging as to the project's integrity. Left-wing websites have identified what they say are numerous wrenchings of the truth, often citing folks who were there at the time and/or on the 9/11 commission, on whose report the TV-Movie supposedly relied heavily for research. The people who made the new TV-Movie seem to be balking from claiming it's what actually happened, instead employing statements like "…for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression." Every dramatization does that to some extent. I'd be more impressed if they offered specific defenses or sources for some of the alleged fibs.
They have also heavily embraced the right-wing blogosphere, freely distributing advance screeners to the Limbaugh crowd while denying them to any party (including those depicted in the film) who might find advance fault with their accuracy. At the same time, an ABC press statement said, "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." But of course, they have already distributed a version of it to folks they knew would embrace its every anti-Clinton moment and scream over any excisions that were later made. That's called Stacking the Deck.
I see utterly no reason to view this one any different from The Reagans, except that this one is about a more serious subject and has more relevance to an upcoming election. Blogger Glenn Greenwald has resurrected a lot of quotes from prominent right-wingers about how unfair it was to semi-fictionalize the lives of Ron and Nancy. I think they all apply to this one, too…though I would stop short of arguing that the work should not be broadcast at all.
If some network wants to yank a show or film because they decide it's seriously flawed, that's their right…but it shouldn't be done just because they were pressured into doing so. Pressure, as it's applied in these cases, is a capricious thing that often has more to do with who's efficient at rallying the troops — and getting to key affiliates or advertisers — than with any fair assessment of the offense or public outrage. I do think it's fair game to criticize the work in advance to perhaps make ABC (in this case) reconsider if they want to put their corporate integrity, such as it is, behind the project. If they do, fine. If I were the guy in charge at the network, or had I had that post at CBS when The Reagans was igniting controversy, I'm not sure what I would have done…other than to question the responsibility of green-lighting such factually-arguable "docu-dramas" in the first place.