From the Ministry of Truth: 9/11: The Movie!

[Marley23]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

This could get interesting. Will we see the Republicans who screamed for the Reagan movie to be deep-sixed now stoutly defending ABC’s right to show this historical reenactment?

There was no way I was watching this thing in any case, but yes, at least the controversy might be worth following.

[John_Mace]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

NThis could get interesting. Will we see the Republicans who screamed for the Reagan movie to be deep-sixed now stoutly defending ABC’s right to show this historical reenactment?

A reliable source tells me that exactly as many Republicans will do this as Democrats did concerning the Reagan movie. Just wait for the follow-up docudrama, though: The Path to Iraq. That should stir up the righty blogosphere!

[elucidator]

$40 million. Thats a pretty good chunk of change to simply kiss goodbye, if they stick to thier plan to air the movie without commerical interruption in some of the primest time there is. So they are writing off the costs and the potential profit.

Once again, I mourn the dearth of Marxist MBA’s. Sure would be handy. So, what’s in it for the Maus? What’s good for America is good for Scrooge McDuck? Do they get to write it off their taxes as a civic project in education? Perhaps they expect a sympathetic ear when they plead such a case? Dare I suggest that they expect some other rewards less tangible but nonetheless real? Hmm. Yes, I do.

[elucidator]

@John Mace

… The Path to Iraq. That should stir up the righty blogosphere!

To dream…the impossible dream!..

Hmmm. Man of La Mancha as Libertarian Party fundraiser! But, of course!

How’s yer singing voice, John-Boy?

[Marley23]

@John Mace

Just wait for the follow-up docudrama, though: The Path to Iraq. That should stir up the righty blogosphere!

If the Marx Brothers were still around, I think that movie would already be in production. They could even work in a few real-life sources.

[John_Corrado]

@elucidator

Once again, I mourn the dearth of Marxist MBA’s. Sure would be handy.

Yeah, funny thing, that.
Anyways. If it’s at all heartening, Entertainment Weekly gives the show a D+, stating

The first night of The Path to 9/11 blames bin Laden’s persistent freedom on the Clinton presidency, portrayed as distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. On the second night, that blame shifts to the Bush administration, where Condoleezza Rice reads the intelligence report saying bin Laden was ‘‘determined to strike in U.S.’’…and then ignores it. This unwieldy opus is hamstrung by the very thing ABC is so proud of: using The 9/11 Commission Report as its source and the chairman of the commission, former governor Thomas Kean, as its ‘‘senior consultant.’’ The results strain so hard to be objective and evenhanded (see, the Democrats and the Republicans both made mistakes) that they’re useless as drama.

In a sidebar, they question the wisdom of trying to claim to be a serious docudrama but casting Office Space’s Stephen Root as Richard Clarke. But I think that’s appropriate, as we well know that Clark lost track of bin Laden because he was distracted by the disappearance of his favorite Swingline stapler.
I’m also bemused at the number of people here who are shocked, shocked that Hollywood would distort the truth in order to make a show more dramatic, and further distort the truth to make something more palatable to a general audience. Or perhaps you hadn’t heard about Tom Cruise’s next big movie, where he plays the American aviator who won the Battle of Britain?

[yojimbo]

The BBC docu-drama has been on for 25mins now. So far they have said that the administrations of Clinton and Bush weren’t prepared for the attack. The said there were failures in the CIA and FBI.

Other than that it all about the towers and what happened in it. When they can put people’s actual words in their mouths they do. Lots of real life interviews etc.

My heart is breaking all over again watching it. My mother just rang me and said she’s already turned it off as it’s upsetting her too much. That’s poor bastards in those towers didn’t have a chance

Any back to the bullshit of partisan politics…

[yojimbo]

Anyway, back to the bullshit of partisan politics…

[elucidator]

Odd thing there, JC. The numerous sites I’ve seen on this suggest that the matter of Condi’s and The Leader’s lack of response to the warning was ignored.

Now, if this has been altered recently, say, re-edited in the last several days in reponse to pressure, then we can very well expect the tighty righty heavyweights who recieved earlier versions to scream like a stuck…mouse. Out of some 900 of them (900! Sweet Jebus, there are 900 goddam Hugh Hurlitts out there?..) surely one of them will blow the whistle.

Besides, you can’t really rely on Entertainment Weakly for the facts, they are riddled with Hollywood liberals. For the truth, you gotta go to Michael Medfly.

[Otto]

@John Mace

A reliable source tells me that exactly as many Republicans will do this as Democrats did concerning the Reagan movie.

As I recall, the biggest gripe with the Reagan movie was that it included a scene in which Reagan said something to the effect of people with AIDS deserve what they get, and the line was pulled following the protests that the president who said nothing about AIDS for the first several years of his administration might not have thought the dirty homos got what was coming to them.

If you see no quantitative and qualitative difference between the supposition that Reagan might have said something bad about PWAs and the flat out falsehoods apparently portrayed in this film then is there really a lot of point in continuing the discussion?

[elucidator]

When they’re flat out busted, caught red-handed, the standard tighty righty response is to try to present some instance, however flimsy, that will permit them to believe that there is some “debate”, that the matter is not settled but somehow controversial. When they’ve no leg to stand on, they try to stand on ours, and claim that its a matter of perspective, different strokes, doncha know…

[John_Corrado]

@elucidator

Odd thing there, JC. The numerous sites I’ve seen on this suggest that the matter of Condi’s and The Leader’s lack of response to the warning was ignored.

Now, if this has been altered recently, say, re-edited in the last several days in reponse to pressure, then we can very well expect the tighty righty heavyweights who recieved earlier versions to scream like a stuck…mouse. Out of some 900 of them (900! Sweet Jebus, there are 900 goddam Hugh Hurlitts out there?..) surely one of them will blow the whistle.

Nah, read what I quoted again: “On the second night, that blame shifts to the Bush administration…” It’s airing Part I on September 10th, and Part II on September 11th.

I’m not a betting man like Mssrs. Bricker and Mace, but I’d bet quite a bit of money that many of those currently decrying the “bias” of the documentary don’t realize that there’s a Part 2, airing on a later night, which trashes the Bush administration. Nor would it even surprise me that many conservative pundits haven’t been clued into that either.

Of course, that doesn’t excuse the distorting of facts, and the creation of ‘dramatic scenes’ that actually never happened and make the Clinton adminsitration’s errors look large and obvious when compared to reality.

Besides, you can’t really rely on Entertainment Weakly for the facts, they are riddled with Hollywood liberals. For the truth, you gotta go to Michael Medfly.

It depends - what does Michael Medfly think of Family Guy?

[Squink]

Scholastic Replaces ‘The Path to 9/11’ Classroom Guide With New Discussion Materials Focusing on Critical Thinking and Media Literacy Skills

Scholastic, the global children’s publishing, education and media company, today announced that it is removing from its website the materials originally created for classroom use in conjunction with the ABC Television Network docudrama, “The Path to 9/1l,” scheduled to air on the ABC Television Network on September 10 and 11, 2006. A new classroom discussion guide for high school students is being created and will focus more specifically on media literacy, critical thinking, and historical background.

[John_Corrado]

Two other notes:

• It can’t have been edited recently, as the copy I’m quoting from EW was from an issue that arrived in my mailbox last Saturday. Unless ABC had time machines to jump back and edited the documentary to avoid the forthcoming controversy, of course. But you’d think that if they had time machines, they’d have done something to stop Jake in Progress.

• The only way I can prove for sure that my thesis is true - namely, that night 1 bashes the Democrats and night 2 bashes the Republicans - is to watch the thing. And I think I’d rather be pulled apart by wild dogs. (Actually, I’ll be watching “9 | 11 : A Documentary” on CBS, which is the emotional equivalent.)

[RTFirefly]

Scholastic severs its connection with 'Path to 9/11

NEW YORK, Sept. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ – Scholastic, the global children’s publishing, education and media company, today announced that it is removing from its website the materials originally created for classroom use in conjunction with the ABC Television Network docudrama, “The Path to 9/1l,” scheduled to air on the ABC Television Network on September 10 and 11, 2006. A new classroom discussion guide for high school students is being created and will focus more specifically on media literacy, critical thinking, and historical background.

“After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues,” said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic. “At the same time, we believe that developing critical thinking and media literacy skills is crucial for students in today’s society in order to participate fully in our democracy and that a program such as ‘The Path to 9/11’ provides a very ‘teachable moment’ for developing these skills at the high school level. We encourage teachers not to shy away from the controversy surrounding the program, but rather to engage their students in meaningful, in-depth discussion.”

The new guide clearly states that Scholastic had no involvement with developing the ABC docudrama, and that the company is not promoting the program, but that the program can provide a springboard to discussion about the issues leading up to 9/11, terrorism and the Middle East. The guide will focus on three issues:

1. Media Literacy -- what is a docudrama; how does it differ from a
   documentary; what are the differences between factual reporting and a
   dramatization?

2. Background to 9/11 -- what are some of the causes of unrest in the
   Middle East and other parts of the world that give rise to attacks on
   the U.S. and other countries?

3. Geography and Culture -- there is a long history of conflict in the
   Middle East.  How well do students understand each of the countries
   involved and what influences their behavior?

Sweet.

[RTFirefly]

@John Corrado

I’m not a betting man like Mssrs. Bricker and Mace, but I’d bet quite a bit of money that many of those currently decrying the “bias” of the documentary don’t realize that there’s a Part 2, airing on a later night, which trashes the Bush administration. Nor would it even surprise me that many conservative pundits haven’t been clued into that either.

They’re gonna be pissed if they were shown only Part 1, and Part 2 makes their guy look just as bad.

But really, why should I expect this? I’ve learned a fair amount about the crew that made it, and they’re biased as hell. And the marketing of the show by making copies (of the whole thing? just the first part?) available to lots of right-wing commentators and bloggers, but to hardly anyone else, would be pretty damned suspicious even aside from that.

My personal theory is that Disney/ABC would much rather have the GOP running the country, and this is their part of the effort to try to win a few votes back to the GOP that were starting to drift away.

[John_Corrado]

@RTFirefly

My personal theory is that Disney/ABC would much rather have the GOP running the country, and this is their part of the effort to try to win a few votes back to the GOP that were starting to drift away.

Tin looks good on you.

[RTFirefly]

@John Corrado

Tin looks good on you.

Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man…

[RTFirefly]

@John Corrado

Nah, read what I quoted again: “On the second night, that blame shifts to the Bush administration…” It’s airing Part I on September 10th, and Part II on September 11th.

I’m not a betting man like Mssrs. Bricker and Mace, but I’d bet quite a bit of money that many of those currently decrying the “bias” of the documentary don’t realize that there’s a Part 2, airing on a later night, which trashes the Bush administration. Nor would it even surprise me that many conservative pundits haven’t been clued into that either.

Hugh Hewitt:

I, and I am sure many others, have been sent the entire six hour program to preview and review…

They’ve seen the whole thing, and they think it’s great.

[interface2x]

@Tuckerfan

I have no intention of watching this piece of dreck, but I ask of any Dopers who might, a small favor. If there’s a shot from inside the towers of a plane heading towards it, get me a screencap of that, would you? I happen to think that would be a breathtakingly dramatic shot.

There was a scene like this in the recreation of one man’s memories in the Discovery Channel’s “Inside the Twin Towers” (or something like that) last weekend. I tivo’d it and burned it to DVD to watch later if you are interested.