As part of the unrelenting crush of 9/11 documentaries and specials coming out on the fifth anniversary of the attacks, ABC has been promoting "The Path to 9/11," which it calls a "docudrama." Based on real events, but with healthy heapings of dramatic and fictional elements.
It paints a pretty partisan picture, and thus debate about it has been pretty partisan as well. Conservatives say, "Hey, you guys had your 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' so drop all the self-righteous demands for accuracy!" Liberals say it's basically one long propaganda piece to firmly absolve President Bush and further indict the easy target that is Bill Clinton.
While some of the complaints are coming from the usual suspects (including Clinton, whose complaints apparently led to some last-minute edits), some of the criticism from "the other side" is notable. People depicted in the film are upset about wholly fabricated scenes and situations, an FBI consultant brought on board quit over the fictionalizations, star Harvey Keitel acknowledges there are issues, and some of ABC's partners (like Scholastic) are bailing. It's airing commercial free to spare the struggle over finding a sponsor. The fact that ABC largely limited advance "screeners" to presumably favorable reviewers further shows their apparent discomfort.
Blogs have been in a froth over this thing for a while, but now, just hours away from its airing, it's hitting the mainstream. After standing its ground against some pretty high-level critics, now Variety reports ABC is having second thoughts.
For a relatively level-headed look at what's in the film, see this Editor & Publisher overview. Note the subsequent updates. Our own Linkmeister has inquired whether KITV will air it, and reports that KITV says it has no choice. He notes they opted out of "Saving Private Ryan" (discused on HT here).
So is this a big deal or much ado about nothing? Same old, same old, or unconscionable politicizing of a shared tragedy? Will this whole flap be free advertising for ABC and a smashing success for the network? Or will it unfold into a mess that a Disney company probably shouldn't have waded into in the first place?
It paints a pretty partisan picture, and thus debate about it has been pretty partisan as well. Conservatives say, "Hey, you guys had your 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' so drop all the self-righteous demands for accuracy!" Liberals say it's basically one long propaganda piece to firmly absolve President Bush and further indict the easy target that is Bill Clinton.
While some of the complaints are coming from the usual suspects (including Clinton, whose complaints apparently led to some last-minute edits), some of the criticism from "the other side" is notable. People depicted in the film are upset about wholly fabricated scenes and situations, an FBI consultant brought on board quit over the fictionalizations, star Harvey Keitel acknowledges there are issues, and some of ABC's partners (like Scholastic) are bailing. It's airing commercial free to spare the struggle over finding a sponsor. The fact that ABC largely limited advance "screeners" to presumably favorable reviewers further shows their apparent discomfort.
Blogs have been in a froth over this thing for a while, but now, just hours away from its airing, it's hitting the mainstream. After standing its ground against some pretty high-level critics, now Variety reports ABC is having second thoughts.
For a relatively level-headed look at what's in the film, see this Editor & Publisher overview. Note the subsequent updates. Our own Linkmeister has inquired whether KITV will air it, and reports that KITV says it has no choice. He notes they opted out of "Saving Private Ryan" (discused on HT here).
So is this a big deal or much ado about nothing? Same old, same old, or unconscionable politicizing of a shared tragedy? Will this whole flap be free advertising for ABC and a smashing success for the network? Or will it unfold into a mess that a Disney company probably shouldn't have waded into in the first place?
Comment