Left In Lowell

Successes Against Path to 9/11; Fakudrama Also Tanks

9 Responses to “Successes Against Path to 9/11; Fakudrama Also Tanks”

1. A friend from Europe Says:
   September 11th, 2006 at 6:09 pm

   Path to 9/11 is not the only inaccurate and misleading docudrama. The movie United 93 is described as “meticulously researched” and “based on fact” and supposed to “honor all victims”, but there is not any indication that the German passenger Christian Adams was indeed a coward and appeaser and tried to stop the American heroes from storming the cockpit as the movie shows, as I explain in: German 9/11 Victim Defamed in “United 93″ Movie.
   While liberal Americans stage huge protests against Path to 9/11 (like conservative Americans did with Fahrenheit 9/11), Germans did not waste their time with protesting against United 93.
   So, dear readers, if you think Germans criticize the US all the time: Think again!

2. pete the pirate Says:
   September 11th, 2006 at 7:50 pm

   tonite on the history channel they aired the 9-11 commission report. very interesting and it shows how incompetent and totally caught offguard so many agencies of the government were, from bush to the faa, cia,fbi, and the military. very interesting.

3. -b Says:
   September 11th, 2006 at 10:41 pm

   I don’t get all the critism.

   ABC couldn’t have been more blunt about saying that this was not a documentary and that certain portions had been fictionalized.

   I couldn’t get myself to watch the game. Watching Bob Costa’s teeth gleam as he gets all giddy about the Manning brothers was too painful. So I watched a good portion of Path to 9/11 instead. Pretty average, like most network drama’s.

   Not really sure what all the hype was about.

   Seems right in line with oposition to Fahrenheit 9/11 or The Passion of the Christ.

4. Lynne Says:
   September 12th, 2006 at 8:15 am

   -b: they were NOT blunt about it. Overseas, they billed it as “what really happened.” Here, same thing, until the campaign to get them to tell the truth happened and the pressure actually worked. They were NOT billing this as partly fictional. Their ads for weeks have been misleading and lying. Good, they put a disclaimer finally. Doesn’t mean it’s NOT slanderous towards Berger and other entities such as American Airlines.

   How many times do I have to go over this? It is fine to have a perspective when doing a documentary. You make directorial choices. However, Michael Moore did NOT make any facts or scenes up in any of his movies. No right winger has been able to credibly dispute any of Moore’s films.

   9/11 was traumatic on a large scale. It was dramatic enough without embellishment, and it’s disrespectful to do so. There are enough things to criticize in the Clinton/Gingrich era AS WELL AS the Bush admin. They choose to make shit up to make Clinton look worse and glossed over Bush’s failures (of which there are many) right before an important midterm election where the Republicans are in trouble. Its author is a known right wing shill, and this was broadcast on PUBLIC airwaves, not pay cable, and not a movie/DVD which you have to go out of your way to buy and watch. If this had been a DVD or movie, the reaction would have been largely the same, only it would have been a simple boycott (which thanks very much but we have a right to do) but it was not - it was on public airwaves, billed for weeks as based on fact, and we fought. Please do not trivialize the levels to which the right wing will go to protect its majorities in Congress, and if you can’t recognize this as part of their long term strategy to obscure their leaders’ failings and keep them from being held accountable, for political propagandist purposes, then I can’t help you.

5. -b Says:
   September 12th, 2006 at 1:28 pm

   The fact is they put up disclaimers many times. I saw them.

   Did you want them to put a scroller across the bottom the screen too?

   The show used actors, which typlically means that one is watching a drama. Drama’s typically contain some degree of fiction.

   I would hope that the European’s that watched were educated enough to tell the difference between a drama and a documentary. Seems pretty obvious to me.

   As for the show, it did not come across to me as a personal vendetta against the Clinton administration. It seemed to me that all of the parties involved were deeply concerned about the terrorism threat.

   I also disagree with your reference “They have crap-all for programming anyway, locally or otherwise…”

   Personally I find Chronicle and Nightline to be quality shows.

6. Lynne Says:
   September 12th, 2006 at 8:40 pm

   Yes, but again, -b, they were not planning to put up a disclaimer, until there was a fight.

   So, was it useless, making a fuss, if we changed the way they presented this garbage?

   They were billing it for WEEKS as a docudrama and as based on the 9/11 commission report. They had to change their tune in the last week. Again, because we made a fuss.

   Funny how you come out with a difference sense of it…because they slandered members of the Clinton administration and their actions. How is that NOT slanted?? They DIDN’T show, say, the PDB that Bush ignored or the deer-in-headlights moment he was told the country was under attack. Or how we failed to get bin Laden when we could have in Afghanistan after 9/11. Not slanted at all.

   And yes, the majority of the stuff on ABC is crap. Lots of people like Lost and the like, but for the most part, there’s not much to like about their programming or their local news program. One or two decent things doesn’t save them from mediocrity. And even if there was something decent to view, I will not be watching it.

7. -b Says:
   September 13th, 2006 at 12:37 pm

   I guess if I were passionate about the evil’s of the right perhaps I might have had a different perspective. But I didn’t watch with the intent of nitpicking and searching for inaccuracies. I would tend to guess that most of the people who watched it fell into that camp as well.

   It is true that they didn’t show Bush glazed over look when he was told about the attack. It is also true that they didn’t show Democrats voting to give Bush the power to invade Iraq.

   Regardless, like most network dramas the show was mediocore and of little value. Anyone who uses it as a history lesson is clueless.

8. Lynne Says:
   September 13th, 2006 at 1:13 pm

   Oh great, so you’re saying the average American Joe didn’t bother to question the inaccuracies of the piece, therefore they just fall for it…this isn’t a good thing.

9. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 13th, 2006 at 4:39 pm

   Useful discussion on PBS:

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/pbs-newshour-on-the-path_b_29359.html

Leave a Reply