Tall Tales coming to a boob tube near you....watchya gonna do?

In case you haven't heard, ABC is putting out a new "docudrama" about the events of September 11, 2001. That's almost okay, except that the piece is apparently crap and very, very false.

You can learn the facts at Don't Airbrush 9/11. One of the most telling is that advance copies have been given not only to entertainment reporters, but to conservative and right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. Bill Clinton and other officials slimed in this movie have not been allowed advance copies, and neither have any of the most popular left-leaning blogs.

ABC has a blog for this movie here. The latest post is quoted below, and I've added my annotations.

Even Further Clarification

It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors.

Pardon me. Dictionary.com lists as the second definition of "documentary": Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. Notice the key omission from ABC's statement: no fictional elements. Dramatization, as it used here, means fictionalized.

The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process.

Actually, the screen writer for this film, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a rabid conservative wag. He openly advocates a conservative shift in Hollywood, feeding the myth that Hollywood is liberal to begin with. As James Wolcott noted on the Rachel Maddow show, even though George Clooney is a self-described Liberal, his tar power makes it possible for him to do movies with actors and other who don't share his views. Even trolling Clooney's acting history at imdb, one can find he's been in projects not necessarily liberal in nature. Of course, as Clooney got in the director's and producer's seat, his films can represent more of his views.

So, too, does this film largely represent the views of its director, screenwriter, and production company. It may be that other involved int he project are "liberal," but it also equally true, then that they are earning a paycheck, not calling the shots.

And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.

Well, as covered above, this is anything but accurate and honest. Tom Kean, a 9/11 commission member and an official advisor to the film, has indicated that it contains factual errors. Roger Cressey, a former Bush counter terrorism official, calls the film "something out of fantasy land."

The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.
Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.
-David Cunningham
September 02, 2006 | Permalink

No, what actually smells of agenda is the the way the film was only pre-screened by right-wing commentators, and how Clinton's office was not allowed an advance copy. The danger in this film, is that if aired on a major network, it could spread its falsehoods to even more millions of households.

For a little more truth on the disconnect between Clinton and Bush, watch Condoleeza Rice answering questions from Richard Ben-Veniste of the 9-11 commission:



Don't you hate it when someone asks you a direct question, rather than fluff?