ABC & Historical Revisionism
From Glenn Greenwald, on ABC's upcoming "Path to 9/11":
"In addition to the obvious inequities, CBS' quick and complete cave-in to conservative protests over The Regans, set next to ABC's combative attack on critics of this film, tell you all you need to know about the merits of the incessent, petulant complaints from Bush supporters about the "liberal MSM.""
Any thoughts on this perceived double standard? This does seem like a particularly inappropriate use of the "dramatization" defense, given the political and historical importance (and, most importantly, the proximity in time) of the subject matter.
"In addition to the obvious inequities, CBS' quick and complete cave-in to conservative protests over The Regans, set next to ABC's combative attack on critics of this film, tell you all you need to know about the merits of the incessent, petulant complaints from Bush supporters about the "liberal MSM.""
Any thoughts on this perceived double standard? This does seem like a particularly inappropriate use of the "dramatization" defense, given the political and historical importance (and, most importantly, the proximity in time) of the subject matter.
posted by Mockrates at 4:54 PM
4 Comments:
I'm not sure a TV show is worth starting a culture war over. Especially one which uses so many tired devices like the "reenactment" - it sounds like an episode of "America's Most Wanted", or that terrible show Geraldo does now.
From USA TODAY:
"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement.
They make it sound like they put an awful lot of creative work into it, but what comes through loud and clear is that the whole thing was conceived and micromanaged by a bunch of network execs.
Also, I file it under "too soon." Even as an educational tool (whatever that means), the proximity of the events of 9/11/01 makes such a so-called "definitive" production unnecessary.
"I'm not sure a TV show is worth starting a culture war over."
Is there any reason why Democrats should not attempt to derail this show, given its fictionalization of the Clinton record towards OBL and the highly politicized context in which it's being presented? Beyond that, the Dems are doing exactly what the Republicans did around "The Reagans," which, as Greenwald notes correctly, was nowhere near as politically important as this 9/11 "dramatization."
"the Dems are doing exactly what the Republicans did around 'The Reagans.'"
When the network caved and pulled The Reagans, they were roundly and rightly criticized for giving in to pressure. Where do you draw the line? ROOTS was pretty provocative for its time, too.
If a person would be deceived by the 9/11 TV special, chances are pretty good that his video-addicted brain is already full of mis-infotainment on current events, history, etc.
Even if you fought and "won" this battle, and a true and accurate version of the 9/11 events was played on network TV, you'd still have a impossibly large amount of work ahead of you to win the war.
"If a person would be deceived by the 9/11 TV special, chances are pretty good that his video-addicted brain is already full of mis-infotainment on current events, history, etc."
This is beyond question, but you're still failing to answer the question at hand. A lot of these video-addicted, misinfotained people vote, so if they're going into the voting booth thinking that Clinton and the Dems didn't do enough about terrorism and that the Republicans were criticizing them for it at the time, they're going to be making decisions based on even more seriously flawed information than they would be acting upon in the absence of the show.
Post a Comment
<< Home