NYTimes Editorial: The Fictional Path to 9/11

[Kadie]

Editorial
The Fictional Path to 9/11


Published: September 12, 2006
Perhaps the entertainment industry will come up with a few lasting lessons from the outcry over ABC’s “dramatization” of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. One suggestion: when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.

The film, a fictionalized portrayal of the nation’s failure to head off the attack on the World Trade Center, was shown Sunday and Monday. The second episode was wrapped around a live speech by President Bush, so it was especially unfortunate that the most questionable scenes all seemed to make the Clinton administration look worse, and Mr. Bush look better, than the record indicates.

Some of the most controversial scenes were cut at the last minute. But the first episode, for instance, showed C.I.A. agents and the charismatic leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance perched outside a bin Laden camp, ready to swoop in and capture him if only Washington approved. The authorization is not granted, and the Afghan leader rails, “Are there no men in Washington, or are they all cowards?” Yet neither C.I.A. operatives nor the Northern Alliance leader ever laid eyes on Osama bin Laden, terrorism experts say. The film may be referring to a proposed raid by other Afghan tribesmen that was vetoed by the C.I.A. because it had a low probability of success and was apt to harm civilians.

The “docudrama” format can be useful in allowing viewers to see recent history through the eyes of fictional characters inserted in the action. But it carries the inherent risk that scriptwriters will take the opportunity to improve on history. ABC should certainly have been aware this was a danger with such a politically charged topic. If that thought never occurred to the folks in charge, they might have heard warning bells when Rush Limbaugh went on the air promoting the film and bragging that the writer was a friend of his.

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/opinion/12tue2.html?_r=1&oref=login

[qnr]

1. "Improve on history" - kind of a relative concept, overall.... n/t

[peacetalksforall]

2. Improve on history - that's why the big $$$ are being laundered around?

Right wing groomed producers, directors, networks, owners.

Was money paid to 'improve on history' just as money was paid to journalists for all their 'improvements'? I don't doubt it.