9/07/2006

ABC throws 9/11 into the gutter

ABCs upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11 offers an interesting study in the cross-section of politics and entertainment. Corporatist propaganda is alive and well in the USA. We all know that. From product placement in movies and TV shows to the naming of public spaces, we live in a culture of propaganda. This is the era of "Truthiness." If the whole truth will tarnish a reputation or turn the tide of public opinion, why, then a little bit of the truth will do.

One would think that some subjects would be inviolate from spin. One would think that some subjects would be so sensitive and precious that they would be raised on a pedastal of facts and objectively affirmed by all for the benefit of future generations. For Germany and Jews, the Holocaust might be one such subject. For Americans of the early 21st century, I think 9/11 deserves that status.

That's why the mounting evidence that ABC's upcoming Path to 9/11 advances right wing myths is so very sickening. It isn't the fact that a conservative wrote it that bothers me. The point is that 9/11 doesn't have a single thing to do with a partisan outlook - or ought not to. Unfortunately, we do not live in those times.

We live in a time when a major media outlet can promise an objective dramatization of one of the greatest national tragedies in American History, promise to base it on the most extensive factual review that we have available (The 9/11 Commission's Report), and then shamelessly edit or create the record where necessary to support the author's and director's point of view. In this case, they seek to advance the notion that the Clinton administration had "... frequent opportunities ... in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so." Really? Evidence please. Oh. You don't have any? Never mind, we'll just make stuff up. Can you imagine the size of the ego that would do such a thing? Surely, they know what they are doing. Clinton's lawyers sure think so.

In a doubly sickening move, ABC partnered with Scholastic Books to produce and distribute over 100,000 Path to 9/11 companion study guides. These study guides, by definition, are designed to reinforce the patchwork of lies carefully woven in the program. Again, they know what they are doing. This is the art of high propaganda. This study-guide is the syringe that inserts the docutainmentporn as actual history in the minds of America's children. And they care more about the point of view than they do about the child's mind, or the child, or the truth.

But ABC didn't stop there. They exclusively screened the show with conservative audiences, refusing those who may think differently (sounABC sent a letter to right wing media types reassuring them that
The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact.

Folks-- right, left, middle, red, blue purple -- can we agree? It's wrong to turn our greatest national tragedy into agenda-laden propaganda and distribute it as education. It is shameful, and disgusting, and un-american. If our mothers have raised us right, we know the difference between fact and fiction, right?

By allowing ABC to slime the nation with lies then distribute it as fact, they abuse their power and cheapen us all. Please, I beg you for the sake of our kids, just say no to documtainmentporn.

You can do so here.

4 Comments:

At 11:44 PM, Blogger Mark D. said...

Good grief, not again! From the pointless Battle of New Orleans victory to the Alamo to Little Bighorn to the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin (those are just the obvious ones), it seems like American media has always used grand tragedies (usually massacres, yellow victories, and military defeats) to advance sordid geopolitical agendas. Which are often accompanied by even more sordid domestic political agendas (except for the Battle of New Orleans: that got Andrew Jackson elected president!).

You'd think people would be smarter now, given how the kids today can easily spot the yellow in the reportage about the sinking of the Maine. But maybe not?

Pretty outrageous, though. I wonder if ABC-Disney is just trying to whore its way into the Fox-troglodyte market?

 
At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what i understand tonight's show will bash on the Bush admin. and the failures there. But of course that will all be true, right? I'm a history channel addict and from the programs I have been watching the mistakes began with Carter and have continued up to now. Every administration has had there failures to point to that led to the current status. Mark, there is documented facts that during the clinton era they did have opportunities to try to kill Binladen but the bueracy of government stood in the way. It just so happened that Clinton was in charge so he takes the blame. I can't believe that terrorism has become just another partisan issue for our parties to bicker about in this country, our we really this fucking stupid???

 
At 8:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forgot to sign my post

Scott K.

 
At 11:27 AM, Blogger Chris Dykstra said...

>>>I can't believe that terrorism has become just another partisan issue for our parties to bicker about in this country, our we really this fucking stupid???<<<

Scott-- EXACTLY. I can't believe it either but apparently, we are this fucking stupid.

I don't have a problem saying that Clinton blew it. I have a problem saying he blew it for a decision he never made.

Likewise, I believe Bush is the worst president in our history. I believe his approach has made us less safe not more. But he should not be held responsible for stuff he hasn't done. It is most certainly not exclusively Bush's fault that we got attacked.

The producers of this program, for whatever reason, made the editorial decision to fabricate scenes, completely make up facts, that make Clinton appear more culpable than he is. As you say, there are documented instances where the Clinton administration choose not to attack Bin Laden. However one evaluates the reasons behind those decisions (i.e. Clinton made sensible decisions in the geo-political context of the day or Clinton lacked the will to pull the trigger) the factual record is clear. The facts are damming enough. So why embroider the record with lies? Why?

The only answer I can think of is that the real facts didn't make Clinton look bad enough to suit the author. So he made some up that did. Sustainable misdirection is the primary arrow in the quiver of the political officer. It panders exclusively to those willing to swallow lies to support a world view. It is the most dangerous practice of both our parties.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home