Behind the News
Path to 9/11: A Belch in the Nation’s Slow Digestion of a Day
With the end of the second episode of ABC’s 9/11 movie, it’s time to let the fiction begin its march into oblivion.
By Paul McLeary Tue 12 Sep 2006 03:06 PMAfter considerable gnashing of teeth and tugging at beards, the long national nightmare is finally over. Sadly, we don’t mean the so-called “war on terror” or the bloody occupation of Iraq, but rather the five-plus-hour, two-part series, Path to 9/11 that ABC foisted on the nation this week.
By now, the film’s inconsistencies and flat-out inventions have been well-documented, and anyone interested in the debate over the film has made up his or her mind about the whole thing.
With the battle lines over the politicization of 9/11 and the war in Iraq having been firmly established for some time now, there wasn’t much suspense about what the shrillest voices on either side of the docudrama debate would say. But that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to treat both sides equally. ABC behaved badly. Despite initially claiming that the movie was based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report, the network simply fabricated some scenes (a few of which it later edited out), involving the pre-9/11 hunt for Osama bin Laden and the actions of some folks at the highest levels of government. If you’re going to fictionalize something as emotionally searing and politically loaded as 9/11, to portray real people doing and saying things they never did merely adds to the problems you’re going to face in the court of public opinion.
What was surprising was how surprised ABC seemed by the uproar. The film’s producers and the network’s brass were disingenuous in the extreme, pretending to be unaware of the political swamp that 9/11 — and everything that is wrapped up under that numerical signifier — encompasses: the failure of national security, the end of the Roaring 1990s, the highly contentious outcome of the 2000 presidential race, the invasion of Iraq and the faulty intelligence surrounding the march toward war, the 2004 presidential race, the upcoming mid-term Congressional election, etc.
September 11 is, at least for the moment, tied up in a larger national narrative that began in November 2000, when the country split evenly over who it wanted for its next president. That vicious fight, which was still very much an open wound in September 2001, laid the groundwork for everything that followed, and the country has still arguably not begun to regain its footing.
In the New York Times this morning, Marc E. Platt, an executive producer of the movie, claimed that it “was never a political project … We were never politically motivated. I never had a conversation with anybody at the network, any of the actors, advisers, filmmakers or writers about politics.”
That is extremely difficult to believe. September 11 is political; anyone who suggests otherwise must have been asleep for the last five years.
Consider the elaborate conspiracy theories that have sprung up around the attacks, and the range of political motivations the conspiracy theorists have ascribed to anyone and everyone who might have benefited politically and economically from the attacks. And lest you think that the paranoid style in American politics, as Richard Hofstadter once termed it, is relegated to Oswald nuts and late-night Internet sleuths, consider, too, that a recent Zogby International poll found that 42 percent of Americans polled believe the 9/11 Commission ”concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence” in the attacks. A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that a full 36 percent of respondents felt that it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that “federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them ‘because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.’”
(And just to drive that point home, it was reported this morning that Oliver Stone, the man with a chokehold on American paranoia, recently suggested that he is considering a film “investigating” the conspiracies surrounding 9/11.)
The conspiracy numbers are disturbing, but they point to a deeper reality that ABC, some of its critics, and the press in general have failed to acknowledge: The American people — and that includes journalists, TV execs and the rest of us — are still digesting 9/11 and its tumultuous wake. It has been at times chaotic, confusing, bloody, scary, absurd … and it’s all been mashed together in the churn of 24-hour news, the Internet, talk radio and endless partisan rancor.
In the tempest of all that indigestion, ABC’s movie of the week is but a briefly unsettling belch.
The fact is, for all its baffling inaccuracies, deplorable fantasies and hard-driving fictionalized federal agents, the Path to 9/11 is likely to fall into the dustbin of history almost as fast as the average Lifetime movie of the week. This doesn’t mean that the film’s team of creators can — or should — be let off the hook, or that the critics who forced the network’s hand shouldn’t pat themselves on the back for forcing the network to make a few changes, but it was a fight that in a few years time most likely will be forgotten.
The Path to 9/11 will surely not be the final rendition of the events that led to that day, and no one will ever mistake it for a carefully researched piece of historical scholarship. But believing that it will have a shelf life worth worrying about is like believing that the Winds of War represents an accurate portrayal of World War II.
The battle is over, but as of yet no war has been won. ABC’s movie has been exposed for what it is — a sloppy and dishonest piece of historical fiction. Let’s let it fade into the yawning vortex of network TV fare, never to be heard from again.
CJR
padikiller
Tue 12 Sep 2006 04:09 PMSomebody call the Whambulance!....
So... What is the point here?... To what exactly does our Liberal in Residence, Mr. McLeary, take offense?...
Networks shouldn't be allowed to make historical fiction anymore becasue.... Why?....
Because "The Path to 9/11" will inspire nutty conspiracy theories?...
Is THAT it?....
Well, then...
How about a cluebat for you there, Mr. McLeary?....
If you are truly so worried about 9/11 consipracy theories... Don't you think that the best way for you and your "professional journalist" buddies to combat them is to maybe like..... Report things?....
Like the fact that evil Islamofascists took advantage of the failures in our system (falures that persisted through almost immediately after eight years of Clintonian supervision prior to the first seven and a half months of the Bush administration) to plot and execute a heinous attack of cowardly terrosism...
How about you and your pals, Mr. McLeary, call out these conspiracy idiots, by refuting their politically-driven idiocy with facts....
Why don't you guys report on Dr. Bob Bowman, a 9/11 conspiracy nut who happens to be the Democrats choice to represent folrida's 15th district in the House of Representatives?..
How about tearing up Charlie Sheen?....
Or just about any Muslim leader on Earth by spilling the facts for us?...
Why can't you get that done, instead of trying to censor the fictional work product of TV networks?...
HUH?...
TDC
Tue 12 Sep 2006 04:34 PMPadikiller, I like the compare and contrast idea myself.
What the CJR said about "The Reagans", the 2003 docudrama about Ronald Reagan: By canceling "The Reagans," CBS set a dangerous example for dealing with the pressures that invariably arise to kill controversial programs before they can be seen. The network's weakness will only encourage future protesters from the left and right to demand that programs they don't like be pulled. Such programs, especially news documentaries on tough issues, are already network television's most endangered species. If "The Reagans" had not been a drama but a legitimate CBS News documentary, would CBS still have canceled it? Instead of running for cover and fobbing off "The Reagans" on Showtime, CBS should have run it, made television time available to give critics and supporters their say, and let the people decide for themselves.
So “sometimes” its OK to present historically inaccurate material in a docudrama format and let “the people” decide for themselves (if its about a detested Republican) and sometimes its not OK to do so (when its not about a detested Republican). Welcome to the land of the CJR staffers, hypocrites to the last.
padikiller
Tue 12 Sep 2006 07:00 PMYou have GOT to be kidding me!...
The sickest thing, TDC, is that your comment will almost certainly go unanswered... "Professional journalism" does not engender accountability or ethics, unfortunately....
But, what the Hell... Let's give it a shot, anyway... Just to be fair and balanced (as conservatives usually are).
How about it then, Mr. McLeary?....
Why should "The Path to 9/11" be relegated to the "dustbin" where it should forever lie, you claim, "never to be heard from again". Why should we deny future viewers the chance to see the movie?... Why not "let the people decide for themselves" about "The Path to 9/11" (as CJR suggested they should in 2003 regarding "The Reagans").
So, how about it, Mr. McLeary?.....
HUH?....
Xanthippas
Tue 12 Sep 2006 07:36 PMPadikiller, your ubiquitous "HUH?" is exactly what I'm thinking to myself when I finish reading your comments.
As to both you and TDC, actually yes, there is quite a difference betweeh the subject matter of "The Reagans" and a mini-series on 9/11. Right-wingers were upset that The Reagans was insufficiently hagiographic; left-wingers were upset that 9/11 was inaccurate. And the subject matter of the latter is far more divisive, calling for even more restrained treatment. Nor do I believe McCleary is arguing that ABC should have taken it's mini-series off the air; he's arguing more that they should have bothered to be more careful about it. Had they done so, "Path to 9/11" might be remembered for what it contributed to the history of 9/11, and not on what it took away from it.
padikiller
Tue 12 Sep 2006 08:08 PMXanthippas spreads it deep - there is quite a difference betweeh the subject matter of "The Reagans" and a mini-series on 9/11. Right-wingers were upset that The Reagans was insufficiently hagiographic; left-wingers were upset that 9/11 was inaccurate.
padikiller puts on his LONG boots -- B U L L S H I T . . . .
The controversy surrounding "The Reagans" is PRECISELY the same as surrounds "The Path to 9/11..
Namely that fictitious quotes and events were attributed to people...
One of the quotes (mis)attributed to President Reagan pertained to his opinion of the AIDS epidemic... Which was then, as it is now, a highly charged political issue...
Check your facts and then get back to us...
jdorsey
Wed 13 Sep 2006 07:16 AMHere's an offbeat question -- how did CJR go from getting zero comments on anything it did, to suddenly having not one but two Bush supporters regularly filing under McLeary's stories as if they were writing for a blog of their own? They suddenly found this place and went on the attack, unabashed by the fact no one really comments on the pieces. Not that they shouldn't ... seems random, yet not.
But at least it's something different.
And it's Florida.
padikiller
Wed 13 Sep 2006 08:16 AMjdorsey -- Here's an offbeat question -- how did CJR go from getting zero comments on anything it did, to suddenly having not one but two Bush supporters regularly filing under McLeary's stories as if they were writing for a blog of their own?
padikiller -- Actually... This is more than an "offbeat" question... It is an irrelevant and stupid question..
I am no Bush supporter... Were it in my power, I would impeach him (as I would also have impeached Clinton) for failing to secure our borders against the invasion of illigal migrants we face. (A conservative estimate is that a dozen serial sex offenders cross our borders illegally every day).
Why don't you deal with the issues?
Your response is typical of liberals... "What are these conservatives doing here?... Whaa!... Who let them talk?.... Whaaa..."
Give it a rest....
pmcleary
Wed 13 Sep 2006 12:31 PMSince this has become an issue, and in the interest of keeping this discussion going, let me quickly address a few points. First, not once in the piece did I call for ABC to pull the 9/11 miniseries -– and in fact I think that calls for the network to do so were rash and wrongheaded. Much of the criticism I’ve seen here seems to accuse me of something I neither wrote, nor believe, so I’d just like to put that to rest.
The thing is this: CBS, in its film about Reagan a few years ago, fictionalized parts of Reagan’s presidency -- a quote about AIDS, if I remember correctly -- and ABC fictionalized parts of the pre-9/11 hunt for bin Laden. They both deserve criticism for clouding the historical record. But in the end, just as America won’t remember Reagan through James Brolin’s portrayal, (at least let’s hope not), it also shouldn’t remember the complicated story of 9/11 though Donnie Walhberg’s Jack Bauer impersonation of a fictionalized “composite” of many different federal agents, doing things that no federal agents actually did. History always can, and always will be, interpreted different ways, but inventing actions or conversations as if the people involved actually said or did them is misleading, and wrong.
The "Path to 9/11," like so many other network docudramas, will be forgotten not because it didn't stick to some liberal script, but becasue it was inaccurate, and frankly, not very good.
padikiller
Wed 13 Sep 2006 02:34 PMMr. McLeary's point appears to have changed more than a tad since his article was published...
In his original piece, he claimed that ABC "behaved badly" by "foisting" the miniseries on the public when it was "obvious" that political processes drove the decision to run the series. Mr. McLeary plainly accused one ABC executive producer (a certain Mr. Platt) of lying about the network's motivations in airing the series.
Mr. McLeary called for the miniseries to be relegated to "dustbin" where it should forever remain... "Never to be heard from again.."
Mr. McLeary states now that he never claimed that ABC should pull the minseries but the plain wording of his original article belies his lame attempt at beckpedalling...
"This doesn't mean that the film's team of creators can -- or should -- be let off the hook, or that the critics who forced the network's hand shouldn't pat themselves on the back for forcing the network to make a few changes.."
The network should not be "let off the hook" for WHAT, if not for deciding to air the show over the protest of the liberals so deserving of Mr. McLeary's praise?....
It's one thing to get one's hand caught in the cookie jar... But Mr. McLeary should simply own up, now....
CJR is truly nothing more than a rabidly liberal mouthpiece... Anytime it decries a "lack" of coverage of an issue... CJR means a lack of LIBERAL perspective... Anytime that CJR bemoans excessive coverage, however, it is always some news that runs counter to the liberal agenda..
TDC
Wed 13 Sep 2006 03:37 PMTo imply that this is some kind of organized right wing trolling operation is just plain horse shit. I have a few moments here and there to burn at work and will do so however I please.
Thank you for responding Mr Mcleary, but I am not convinced. While it is true that what I linked to was most certainly not written by you it is still a product of the staff of the Columbia Journalism Review and represent a fairly standard DNC/lefty set of talking points much like another article you wrote that I commented on. The issue with the Reagans was not only the completely fabricate quote on the AIDS epidemic, “They that live in sin shall die in sin”, but his portrayal as a fool, whose power hungry wife and wicked staff make call all the shots. And as I illustrated above, the CJR has no problem sticking up for a docudrama trashing Reagan with “creative liberties” while just a few years later lambasting a docudrama for taking its own “creative liberties” with a liberal icon.
I suppose if had to make a general point it would be the following: why does the CJR publish the comments of someone who appears to be regurgitating the lefty talking points on any issue regardless of similar issues in the past where there appeared to be an opposite point of view expressed. Face it, Victor Navasky has turned a once tolerable publication (for a former subscriber and Attila the Hun conservative like me) into a piece of swill indistinguishable from a Howard Dean press release.
TDC
Wed 13 Sep 2006 03:42 PMOne more thing, I hope you don’t think I am singling you out personally because I find you to be one of the better writers at the CJR.
pmcleary
Wed 13 Sep 2006 04:59 PMAgain, nowhere in my piece did I say it was “"obvious" that political processes drove the decision to run the series.” Nowhere. I said that 9/11 is a political issue, an emotional issue, and quite complicated, and that a five hour miniseries ain’t gonna be the final word on it. There is a lot being read into my piece that just isn’t there.
No network should be “let off the hook” for making things up and passing them off as fact. That goes for any media product, whether ABC, Fox, the Weekly Standard or The Nation.
What’s more, I didn’t call for the piece to be relegated to the dustbin of history. In fact, I didn’t “call” for anything, I merely said that that’s where it’ll likely end up, with other network movies of the week.
All of this seems pretty clear from my original post.
padikiller
Wed 13 Sep 2006 07:20 PMPAUL MCLEARY WROTE -- "Again, nowhere in my piece did I say it was “"obvious" that political processes drove the decision to run the series.” Nowhere"
PADIKILLER -- BALONEY...
You practically accused the executive producer of "The Path to 9/11" of lying when he said that the series was not politically motivated....
-- "...Marc E. Platt, an executive producer of the movie, claimed that it 'was never a political project ... We were never politically motivated...' That is extremely difficult to believe."
There it is... In black and white....
PAUL MCLEARY WROTE -- "What’s more, I didn’t call for the piece to be relegated to the dustbin of history. "
PADIKILLER -- Come now!.... Let's keep the Reality Train on the tracks here, shall we?...
You wrote "let's let it ["The Path to 9/11"] fade into the yawning vortex of network TV fare, never to be heard from again."
If this isn't a call for the movie to relegated to the dustbin of history.... Then WHAT is it, for Pete's sake?....