The Path to 9/11

[ciphergoth]

My letter to the BBC:

{Programme Name:} The Path to 9/11
{Transmission Date:}10 - 09 - 06
{Comments:}

I don't believe that it is still too early to make fiction about 9/11, but obviously the issue must be handled with the greatest sensitivity. That means not only respect for the lives lost, but a clear commitment to accuracy. I am therefore appalled that the BBC plan to show this shameless propaganda reel, which presents a number of outright falsehoods in its efforts to blame the Clinton administration for the attacks and leave the Bush administration blameless. The Path to 9/11 is a piece of tasteless fiction and a desecration of the memories of those who died.

Please assure me you will *not* be broadcasting any part of any reconstruction of events which runs flatly contrary to the known facts or the 9/11 commision report, except in a documentary examining those claims and providing balance. For example, please assure me you will not be broadcasting fictionalized footage of former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger hanging up on soldiers in Afghanistan.

Reports indicate that there are numerous other inaccuracies, documented here as well as other places:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Path+to+911

We can get this sort of thing on Sky News. We expect better from the BBC.

PS: Paragraphs. They make things readable. Why have you taken them away?

Their reply:

Thank you for your e-mail.

'The Path to 9/11', to be transmitted over September 10 & 11 is a drama based on real events and, as with any drama, the writer's perspective will be brought to bear on those events. A statement at the beginning of the programme is clear about the sources and methods which have been used:

"The following dramatization is based on the 9/11 Commission Report and other published sources and personal interviews. Composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compression have been used for dramatic purposes".

It is not our practice to engage in public debate about the contents of programmes before they've been transmitted, but what we will say is that this subject matter is always going to be politically controversial. Most of the events take place when the Clinton administration was in power so naturally it will feature heavily.

The programme has been reviewed by the Editorial Policy team and we are confident it lives up to high standards of fairness and accuracy.

With this in mind, we hope you will enjoy the drama.

Regards

BBC Information

It's particularly disturbing that they plan to describe it as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" when that's not how the commissioners themselves see it.

Update: this was propogated from wechsler. You can complain too if you like. At this stage I don't think we're going to stop them showing it - what will they use the slot for, Two Ronnies reruns? - but we should be insisting that the warning message at the start say at the very least that it contradicts the 9/11 commision report and as far as possible warn viewers that they're about to view a pack of lies designed to smear the Clinton administration.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=televisionNews&storyID=2006-09-09T001006Z_01_N08449906_RTRIDST_0_TELEVISION-SEPT11-ABC-DC.XML

They're still editing it. You're worse than Christian Voice - complaining about something based on people who haven't even seen the finished version.

Jon.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Heh, I wondered if someone would say that. It's a little rich of ABC to complain about people using review copies to review their programme - what do they imagine they are for? From that article it seems at least plausible that they are editing it in response to criticism like mine, so it would have been a mistake to wait for broadcast to start putting pressure on them.

Hello, Jon - are you a Jon that I know?

[countess-sophia.livejournal.com]

I'd imagine if this thing is shown in UK and the reports about it are in any correct then there's be a serious risk of libel action against both the producers and the BBC.

Soph

[arkady.livejournal.com]

There seems little point in complaining, unless you're simply looking to make a statement with the sheer volume of complaints; what you got is their standard response email. redcountess got exactly the same They're not bothering to read the emails.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

There's something to be said for making a statement with the sheer number of complaints. They do count that sort of thing.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Actually, the complaints helped. Democrats.org managed to collect 100,000 signatures to a petition, and a number of commissioners were public about mischaracterizations. ABC fixed a couple of the most egregious departures from fact before airing last night:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=the%20path%20to%209/11&
article from the 9th: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

a couple articles from today -- the hardcopy paper mentioned changes because of the attention, but I can't tell which of lots of articles it was. here are a couple.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100081.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000956.html

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Also, and almost more importantly, Scholastic pulled their endorsement off the website, so it was no logner 'study materials for kids and parents' as was originally planned.