![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Path To 9/11
Sep. 7th, 2006 08:59 amI'm not sure what to think about this latest outrage of media bias known as "The Path To 9/11".
On the one hand, the docudrama (programming that looks like a documentary and is "based on a true story" or -- my favorite -- "ripped from the headlines", but is actually a work of fiction) is nothing new, and it really should not come as a surprise to anyone.
On the other hand, it's irresponsible of ABC to simultaneously promote the show as being accurate in its dealings with Scholastic, while disclaiming that it is a work of fiction when called on it by those who know better because they lived the experiences portrayed. You simply can't have it both ways.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gmjambear has prodded me to do some research which I used to respond to grimmlok's outraged post on the subject. Then I read some of the links provided by teddybtoronto in his recent post. And while reading LJ this morning, I overheard Elayne Boosler as guest host of the Stephanie Miller show mention that both former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright are very unhappy with their portrayals in the film. Albright went so far as to call her portrayal libelous (unfortunately, as a public figure, she would have to prove actual malice for such a charge to stick, but if the shoe fits...).
And then there's this business of providing preview copies only to conservative/Republican bloggers and pundits, and the suspicious timing of the show mere weeks before a crucial midterm election. But of course, the fifth anniversary of the attack itself makes for a convenient explanation of this latter point.
About the only sense I can make of this charge and counter-charge is that it is crass and utterly boneheaded of ABC entertainment to impugn whatever integrity ABC News has left by muddying the waters, both in promoting the show as fact and in making its cozy deal with Scholastic. Were I the head of ABC News I would take care to get as far away from this abortion as possible.
On the one hand, the docudrama (programming that looks like a documentary and is "based on a true story" or -- my favorite -- "ripped from the headlines", but is actually a work of fiction) is nothing new, and it really should not come as a surprise to anyone.
On the other hand, it's irresponsible of ABC to simultaneously promote the show as being accurate in its dealings with Scholastic, while disclaiming that it is a work of fiction when called on it by those who know better because they lived the experiences portrayed. You simply can't have it both ways.
gmjambear has prodded me to do some research which I used to respond to grimmlok's outraged post on the subject. Then I read some of the links provided by teddybtoronto in his recent post. And while reading LJ this morning, I overheard Elayne Boosler as guest host of the Stephanie Miller show mention that both former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright are very unhappy with their portrayals in the film. Albright went so far as to call her portrayal libelous (unfortunately, as a public figure, she would have to prove actual malice for such a charge to stick, but if the shoe fits...).And then there's this business of providing preview copies only to conservative/Republican bloggers and pundits, and the suspicious timing of the show mere weeks before a crucial midterm election. But of course, the fifth anniversary of the attack itself makes for a convenient explanation of this latter point.
About the only sense I can make of this charge and counter-charge is that it is crass and utterly boneheaded of ABC entertainment to impugn whatever integrity ABC News has left by muddying the waters, both in promoting the show as fact and in making its cozy deal with Scholastic. Were I the head of ABC News I would take care to get as far away from this abortion as possible.
