ABC's 'Path' Not Taken

The Washington Post ^ | September 13, 2006 | Ruth Marcus

[John Carey]

Does it matter that ABC invented and distorted history in its "warning: this is not a documentary" docudrama, "The Path to 9/11"? After all, the first night of the faux drama was trounced by the brother-against-brother actual drama of "Sunday Night Football."

But consider: The gripping final report of the Sept. 11 commission (budget: $13.5 million) became a surprise bestseller at 1.5 million copies. The not-so-gripping, not-so-accurate ABC production (budget: $40 million) was seen by about 13 million viewers on the first night.

As Thomas H. Kean, who served as the commission's chairman and then made the unfortunate decision to lend his prestige to the project as co-executive producer, correctly predicted this summer, "More people will see this than will ever read our report." Such is the drawing power of even shoddy television.

ABC's response to the pre-screening uproar was twofold -- both folds simultaneously inadequate and disingenuous. First, it removed the most flagrantly dishonest scenes: Bill Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger slamming down the phone on a fictional CIA operative pleading for permission to attack Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1998; White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke suggesting that the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the looming impeachment had sapped the president's willingness to "take chances" on getting the terrorist leader. Yet, these and other misleading insinuations remain, in subtler form.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your post was nonsense through and through. BTW ABC never even attempted to recover the costs through ads. IF you had seen the show you would be aware that there were NO ads at all.

The film was not "sloppy" but used standard dramatic devices for telling a story. The story is TRUE. Believing an audience views a film like a jury a judicial proceeding is silly.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"This, unfortunately, is not true. Middle-roaders seem always focused on the refutations of specific details--where the ABC film was sloppy--and they conclude the whole thing was false."

What an incredible statement! "Middle roaders seem always focused on refutations of specific details". What evidence have you to support this? Have you done a study? Has it been published? I ask you the same question about your claim that "...they conclude the whole thing was false"

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Thirteen million viewers is just fine. Just like "United 93" and "The World Trade Center, plus other documentaries have multiple legs, so will this miniseries. The payback is, the Democrat Party will take neither the house or senate this year, and as such it will begin to tear itself apart little by little. My friend, you have not seen nothing yet. You must realize that our nation is under attack and fighting a war we must not lose. The Democrat Party has actually enabled, aided and abetted our foes and is guilty of being traitors and committing treason against these United States. The Republicans and their political allies have not even begun to fight really hard. The Dems are going down, and....at the end of the day, they may even lose seats in both houses.

[ForGod'sSake]

Something smells gawd-awful.

Your nose for news is still working I see ;^)

Seems the socialists will continue to cultivate and nurture their networks. Almost incestuous. On second thought.....

From the article: The irony of "The Path to 9/11" is that this dramatic license was so unnecessary, given the richly detailed narrative in a document available to the docudrama's creators. It was called "The 9/11 Commission Report."

Which only adds credence to the comments I've seen on FR and elsewhere many, many times re the 9/11 commission's whitewash, er, report. The lady is a tramp.

[willk]

"Just for giggles, wonder how many folks TiVoed the two episodes and watched them all at once AND watched the football game(s) Sunday and Monday"

Count me as one of them. Wife couldn't stay up late on Sunday and I'm a Raiders fan (sympathy please).
Finished them tonight.

[ozzymandus]

Get over it, cow.

[Landru]

"Your nose for news is still working I see"

Nawwww. ;^)
What I tried to point out I thought *kind* of obvious to all but the blind to anyone from this neck of the woods given that *name*.
Your vision's something else to "see" my point all the way from the piny woods. ;^)

"Seems the socialists will continue to cultivate and nurture their networks. Almost incestuous. On second thought..."

And that's the entire point, my friend.
I'll finish your thought & say for anyone who cares: it isn't "almost incestuous", it IS incestuous.
Yet the Republic's Liberal-Socialists find nothing whatever wrong with a little incest, eh?
Funny that.
Simply more proof one could use to out the criminals & their now old, horribly overused modus operandi.

Just think of how the Republic was *treated* to the *revelation* that the makers -- writer, producer etc -- of this ABC program were "Linked to Right-wingers"!!!
Next thing y'know & in nearly the same breath the shameless Liberal-Socialist shill Marcus' pablum shows-up in a Liberal-Socialist rag...shazam!
And anyone with even half a brain's supposed to sit-back & take notice?

HA!!
Good gawd.

Wouldn't one think by now the Liberal-Socialist ruse be fully understood by anyone professing to embrace Rightwing ideology, & promptly given its just desserts?
Well, think again.
The beat goes on, old bud. :o)

"The lady is a tramp."

Yup.
A common pedestrian-grade shill.
No more & no less.

I see you've still an amazingly uncanny ability, my friend.

...to call a spade, a spade. ;^)

[Round 9]

"Ruth Marcus attempts to tie Harvey Mansfield's new book, Manliness, to the liberal lament about the Bush Administration, arguing "What this country could use is a little less manliness -- and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt."


Isn't that what we got with the Carter administration?

Especially a heaping helping of self-doubt.