WE KNEW it would only be a matter of time before movies portraying the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were eventually placed on big and little screens alike. But while the recent "World Trade Center" focused on American unity and heroism in the face of tragedy, ABC has chosen a completely different approach with its "The Path to 9/11." Although ABC has irresponsibly mixed fiction with fact in blaming several Clinton administration officials, it is still up to the American people to use sensible judgment in not being swayed by a television miniseries.
The miniseries clearly has a conservative slant in focusing on shortfalls in the previous Clinton administration rather than the Bush administration in office during the attacks. The miniseries claims as its sources for the series "the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews," but ABC still remarks the movie is a "dramatization." The mixing of fact and fiction essentially puts a cloud of doubt over every event portrayed in the movie -- did it really happen or not?
One scene in particular drawing criticism depicts the CIA on a mission in Afghanistan, outside the home of Osama Bin Laden. The head CIA officer calls the White House for authorization to kill Bin Laden, but the White House does not grant authorization. The movie seems to imply the reason why the White House did not take the chance was because of the potential negative publicity in the face of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Roger Cressey, a counterterrorism official who has worked several roles with both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, called the scene on CNN, "straight out of Disney and fantasyland."
This sort of scene shows poor judgment. While it is true that the Clinton administration had opportunities to pursue bin Laden, most of these opportunities, Cressey states, were from single source intelligence and CIA director George Tenet recommended the shots not be taken. If ABC wished to examine the factual role of Clinton's administration in 9/11, it would have probably shed some light on the development of the event. While the Bush administration -- President Bush in particular -- gets an undue share of blame, this scene goes too far in placing blame on the previous administration.
President Clinton and other of his former top officials responded by sending letters to the CEO of Disney (which owns ABC), Robert Iger. ABC ended up making last-minute editing changes, shortening some controversial scenes to deflect specific blame, according to CNN. But some officials, such as Madeline Albright, still were angry by the way they are portrayed.
The amount of criticism given to the movie may be unwarranted, though. While we would hope for a moderate viewpoint from all media, we cannot expect it. In making programming, ABC has only one mission: to create something that entertains viewers, receives high television ratings and makes money. The only time ABC really must stick to the facts is during the news or 20/20. Viewers must responsibly consider what they are watching to determine how factual it is intended to be. Should viewers really expect factual evidence in a miniseries starring an actor who has played (excellently, I might add) two gangsters in Quentin Tarantino films? If ABC wished to portray nothing but facts, a $40 million miniseries would not be the outlet chosen.
In essence, the film mirrors other exaggerations of fact. Republican 9/11 commission member John Lehman compared the film to other films with liberal slants. "If you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club. The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life." Though one may object to the comparison with Michael Moore, many publications have since noted the inaccuracies and out-of-context clips within his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11." For example, David Kopel of the Independence Institute has created a list of 59 deceits within the documentary. Films slanted so heavily in one direction must always be considered carefully, rather than thought of as undeniable fact.
Ultimately, people did tune into "The Path to 9/11." The movie had by far the highest TV ratings throughout network television on Monday night. And so long as viewers consider the movie as their entertainment for the night, there really is nothing wrong.
Rajesh Jain is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached atrjain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
