MyDD :: A Bit of Bad Journalism Surrounding the 'Path to 9/11'

A Bit of Bad Journalism Surrounding the 'Path to 9/11'

by Matt Stoller, Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:58:14 PM EST

I've been doing a fair amount of work trying to understand the whole story behind 'The Path to 9/11' docudrama being presented on ABC this weekend. The reason it's an important fight is because the right is making a sustained move to blame 9/11 on Clinton and delegitimize the mostly successful liberal foreign policy regime of the 1990s in favor of a hard-right nationalistic security state based on paranoia and propaganda. Getting a major TV network to put out dishonest propaganda blaming the liberal foreign policy regime for the errors of the malicious right-wing, and then forcing this into schools, is a big deal. We can't let this go without a real response.

As for the fraudulent docudrama itself, it really is a disgrace. A senior Bush counterterrorism official just called the 'Path to 9/11' documentary shameful and straight out of Disney fantasyland. President Clinton himself was denied an advance copy, and the movie fabricates scenes and directly contradicts the 9/11 Commission report.

Some reporters, not knowing any better, are buying the line that this movie is based on the 9/11 Commission. It's not, as Digby points out, it's based on a weird book called 'The Cell' written by a dilettante reporter. We need to correct the record as journalists come out with stories that don't appropriately note the errors in the film and the political campaign around it.

For instance, while Jesse McKinley's story in The New York Times is good, Suzanne Ryan of the Boston Globe falls for the lies.

The assignment: Executive producer Marc Platt was asked to take events from the surprise bestseller ``The 9/11 Commission Report" and convert them into a television drama so bracing that the American public would demand change in homeland security.

Suzanne Ryan can be reached at sryan@globe.com. She needs to know that she was manipulated. Be polite.

Mekeisha Madden Toby of the Detroit News is similar.

The most sobering examination out of more than a dozen broadcast and cable tributes and specials, "The Path to 9/11" is a dramatization based on the 9/11 Commission Report and other published sources and personal interviews.

Mekeisha Toby can be reached at (313) 222-2501 or mmadden@detnews.com. Toby needs to know that this review reprinted what is essentially not true, that this film was based on the 9/11 Commission.

Reporters need to know that we're here to help them get the story right.

Tags: 911smear, 9/11, Tom Kean, Bill Clinton, Suzanne Ryan, Jesse McKinley, New York Times, Boston Globe, Detroit News, Mekeisha Madden Toby, Mekeisha Toby (all tags)

Permalink :: 14 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: A Bit of Bad Journalism (none / 0)

Talked to Mekeisha Toby on the phone. She had no idea -- just reporting what ABC told her.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. Like most mainstream journalists, Mekeisha is neither ideological or malicious -- just woefully misinformed and incurious. We, the citizens, MUST call our newspapers NOW and get this record set straight! Do it now, today, before its too late!

Michael Magee Jr.
Rhode Island

by mcmageejr on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:20:18 PM EST

tag request (none / 0)

Matt - can you create a new tag for this so that the liberal blogs can coordinate better on it? I propose something like "911smear". If tagged on del.icio.us, technorati, and digg then the refutations and campaigns by the left to combat the propanganda can be much more effectively targeted.

by azizhp on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:35:39 PM EST

Matt, I'm with you on this...but.... (none / 0)

Matt, I'm with you on this...but you are still missing the point on the larger picture.

Kean was the head of the 9/11 Commission. Philip Zelikow (who was on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and wrote in favor of an Iraq invasion) controlled the direction of the Commission.

Why are you still trusting the 9/11 Commission?

If you have some time in coming two weeks, please check out "9/11: Press for Truth". It's no wacky conspiracy shit. It's just a film that documents the lead-up to the 9/11 Commission, how hard we had to fight to even get it created.

by Ian Campbell on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:45:28 PM EST

Re: Matt, I'm with you on this...but.... (none / 0)

that's not the fight right now

by Matt Stoller on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I see what you're saying... (none / 0)

And I am SO happy we are taking ABC to task for this BS. And I understand getting out the fake scenes, or adding a disclaimer, or getting the whole thing dropped it the first order of business...so keep up the great work.

But beyond the "right now", why do you think the Right has even commissioned this film in the first place?

The conventional wisdom of the 9/11 Commission (on the Left and the Right) is that there were "failures" all around, and massive ineptness and "group think" and "walls" between the CIA and FBI enabled us to stop 9/11. The "9/11 Commission Report" does not blame the Bush Administration for 9/11. In fact, they made a point to not place blame anywhere.

So why didn't the makers of this film just stick the CW of the "Bi-partisan 9/11 Commission"?

Why did they feel the need to go out on such a flimsy limb (making up scenes!) to place blame for 9/11 squarely on Clinton?

I know the "right now" is important, but we need to start looking down the road and see what/why they're doing this. We need to start laying the ground work for this future battle. They've already started.

by Ian Campbell on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt, I'm with you on this...but.... (none / 0)

Here's the trailer for "9/11 Press for Truth"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpD75mDP cE

by Ian Campbell on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Composite" (none / 0)

Remember: a "composite" is an artificial material invented to serve a function that other materials can't. Somebody -- like a real journalist, if one can be found -- might want to ask Kean what function his "composite" serves that he doesn't think the truth is suitable for.

by Bearpaw on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:14:33 PM EST

Re: "Composite" (none / 0)

I despise composites in most biopics. I just think it's a screenwriting crutch.

But even if one were to buy the composite argument,why did they have Sandy Berger as the character instead of inventing a composite character. That's a bigger problem here. They were applying the rules of a composite character to a real life specific character that remains in the movie with his real name.

by Pravin on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where is the DLC now? (none / 0)

What I want to know is why the DLC so intent on fighting people in its own party is not doing crap when it comes to fighting ABC on this.

They could easily make ABC news worthless by asking party members not to talk to ABC News. THey could ask some Hollywood supporters to give ABC's THe View short shrift with interviews.

by Pravin on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:21:55 PM EST

Time to Mobilize (3.00 / 1)

I'd broaden Pravin's point to say that a key focus should be to put maximum pressure on ABC to drop the program (unlikely to happen, but they should feel the pain of failing to do so), while simultaneously following Matt's suggestion to contact journalists to help them understand the facts. Another strategy prong, as Ian Campbell points out, is to promote in all posts and contacts, the alternative view presented by "9/11: Press for Truth," which presents a real documentary that can counter the BS ABC is disgracefully broadcasting just two months before election day.
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

I also like the suggestion to add the "911smear," which Matt or someone else has apparently done. We want it to be as easy as possible for bloggers, blog readers, journalists and everyone else to access and contribute to the truth-telling about this shameful broadcast, and the even more shameful right-wing strategy that will be served by it.

This reminds me of the Sinclair abuse of spectrum licenses that occurred in 2004. This FCC won't do anything about it, but maybe we should also consider contacting the two Dems on the Commission to encourage them to make some sort of statement.

Thanks Matt for digging into this.

by mitchipd on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Bit of Bad Journalism Surrounding the 'Path (none / 0)

Thanks Matt, Entertainment Weekly also got it wrong. I am sure it would nto occur to most entertainment reporters that ABC could be so duplicitous.

by Alice Marshall on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 03:21:37 PM EST

Selective comments on 9/11 movie blog (none / 0)

Just thought I'd let everyone know that on the movie's blog, they're only printing comments submitted by right-wingers.

I submitted one yesterday, and got a "we review all comments" reply. They weren't kidding!

After a day or so with no new comments, the blog now has lots of 'em, and they're all in support of the movie.

Catapulting the propaganda...

by charuhas on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 05:46:15 PM EST

Re: A Bit of Bad Journalism Surrounding the 'Path (none / 0)

OK...This one is really upsetting me. To be fair, I received an email from democrats.org urging me to send an email to ABC letting them know I wasn't happy. But, it seems to me that the best way to really get their attention is to hit them in their pocketbooks. With that in mid, it seems like someone (I would do it if I wasn't WAY too busy already) should create a website that keeps track of all the advertisers on the program and gives readers a way to contact them to let them know of their displeasure. Maybe just creating such a website (with enough traffic) will help ABC to get the hint.

by dtrain on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 09:19:09 PM EST

Re: the 'Path to 9/11' (none / 0)

Where was all of your concern for accuracy and truth when Michael Moore was being awarded an oscar for Bowling for Columbine? And you people can claim that Farenhite 911 deserved to be taken seriously? Or that Dan "fake but accurate" (bl)ather was really non-partisan?

Until you people start dis-avowing the crazies within your own cirle, and start demanding that ALL media report the TRUTH, FAIR & ACCUARETLY, you don't have much room to be offended or claim the high ground. Chances are The Path to 911 is far more accurate than the examples I've cited here. My guess though is that you expect only the other side to be fair and un-biased.

by scottinphx on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:11:10 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.