ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Company, is planning to air a 6-hour docudrama called "The Path to 9/11." Three hours a night for two nights, 9/10 and 9/11.
Now, they admit that this is a "docudrama." NOT a documentary, which of course means they can make up dialogue, condense events, excise events, combine various people's stories to look like they are happening to one character, etc. etc. There is no responsibility to be completely true to the facts, despite the fact that they are claiming to use the 9/11 Commission as the blueprint for the production's script.
However, apparently one of the "events" in the program shows soldiers about to swoop in on Osama bin Laden BEFORE 9/11. Obviously this could have prevented bin Laden from orchestrating 9/11 and saved thousands of American lives. According to the docudrama, the squad about to "get" bin Laden could not get approval from the Clinton Administration to carry out their assignment, and this is why bin Laden was never captured.
According to many people working in the government at the time, including Richard Clarke, that scenario never happened. We never had troops surrounding bin Laden, ready to capture him.
Why would ABC produce a program that places the blame of 9/11 on a man who was no longer President when the attacks occurred, and make up a scenario that never happened to prove his Administration's incompetence? (Meanwhile no mention is made of the "bin Laden Determined to Attack United States" memo, Condi Rice had a month prior to the attacks) Why would they willingly disseminate misinformation, which might confuse potential voters, 8 weeks before Election Day?
Advance screening copies of the production were sent to right-wing broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh, who calls the "event's" writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh a friend of his. Yet left-leaning publications & broadcasters did not have copies of the show made available to them. Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, was listed as an advisor to the film (wonder if he got paid?), not so the Democratic co-chair. Rep. Louise Slaughter, senior member of the Ways & Means Committee, has written a rebuke to the creators of the production, and to ABC for airing it so close to Election Day.
On top of this, ABC currently plans to make the production available for free, at least for teachers, on iTunes, which means this factually inaccurate dramatization could conceivably be taught in school, which is where children go to learn. And they will be taught something that didn't happen. ABC has also worked with the Scholastic Company to make additional learning materials based on the docudrama available to classrooms. Unless they're teaching it as fiction, why would they be producing learning materials for students based on this production?
It's almost-impossible to NOT get political talking about this, but I swear I'm not trying to. But even taking politics out of the equation, don't we deserve to know that this story is not a completely factual true story? And shouldn't students have a better foundation for learning about the events of 9/11 than a fictionalized account of what happened that plays so fast and loose with the facts? I wouldn't want a class watching James Cameron's "Titanic" to learn about the "actual" events of that night, nor would I want them watching bio-pics of most world leaders because of the filmmaker's potential bias or the need to condense or sensationalize the story.
Everyone should be informed. I'm not saying don't watch it. I'm saying be aware that what you're watching isn't necessarily the truth.
Now, they admit that this is a "docudrama." NOT a documentary, which of course means they can make up dialogue, condense events, excise events, combine various people's stories to look like they are happening to one character, etc. etc. There is no responsibility to be completely true to the facts, despite the fact that they are claiming to use the 9/11 Commission as the blueprint for the production's script.
However, apparently one of the "events" in the program shows soldiers about to swoop in on Osama bin Laden BEFORE 9/11. Obviously this could have prevented bin Laden from orchestrating 9/11 and saved thousands of American lives. According to the docudrama, the squad about to "get" bin Laden could not get approval from the Clinton Administration to carry out their assignment, and this is why bin Laden was never captured.
According to many people working in the government at the time, including Richard Clarke, that scenario never happened. We never had troops surrounding bin Laden, ready to capture him.
Why would ABC produce a program that places the blame of 9/11 on a man who was no longer President when the attacks occurred, and make up a scenario that never happened to prove his Administration's incompetence? (Meanwhile no mention is made of the "bin Laden Determined to Attack United States" memo, Condi Rice had a month prior to the attacks) Why would they willingly disseminate misinformation, which might confuse potential voters, 8 weeks before Election Day?
Advance screening copies of the production were sent to right-wing broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh, who calls the "event's" writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh a friend of his. Yet left-leaning publications & broadcasters did not have copies of the show made available to them. Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, was listed as an advisor to the film (wonder if he got paid?), not so the Democratic co-chair. Rep. Louise Slaughter, senior member of the Ways & Means Committee, has written a rebuke to the creators of the production, and to ABC for airing it so close to Election Day.
On top of this, ABC currently plans to make the production available for free, at least for teachers, on iTunes, which means this factually inaccurate dramatization could conceivably be taught in school, which is where children go to learn. And they will be taught something that didn't happen. ABC has also worked with the Scholastic Company to make additional learning materials based on the docudrama available to classrooms. Unless they're teaching it as fiction, why would they be producing learning materials for students based on this production?
It's almost-impossible to NOT get political talking about this, but I swear I'm not trying to. But even taking politics out of the equation, don't we deserve to know that this story is not a completely factual true story? And shouldn't students have a better foundation for learning about the events of 9/11 than a fictionalized account of what happened that plays so fast and loose with the facts? I wouldn't want a class watching James Cameron's "Titanic" to learn about the "actual" events of that night, nor would I want them watching bio-pics of most world leaders because of the filmmaker's potential bias or the need to condense or sensationalize the story.
Everyone should be informed. I'm not saying don't watch it. I'm saying be aware that what you're watching isn't necessarily the truth.
