"The Path to 9/11": The Saga Continues

by Cliopatria

Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it's dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama about the events preceding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.
"After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release.
The original materials had been criticized for oversimplifications and failures to address flaws in post-9/11 policies, including the invasion of Iraq.

Full story

Text of Scholastic, Inc., Press Release

Letter to Disney from several Democratic Senators

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment,"When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right."

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network¹s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

* Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said,"As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission's findings the way that they had." ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

* Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as"deeply flawed" and said of the program's depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent,"It's 180 degrees from what happened." ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

* Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because,"he thought they were making things up." [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

* Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said,"It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer."

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Mark Grimsley - 9/9/2006

PS - Could you define "bias" as you understand the term?

Mark Grimsley - 9/9/2006

I was puzzled by your "broad brush" paragraph until I realized you must've been puzzled by the mention of where I was going when I heard the Medved radio spot. No, I didn't suppose that you were a creationist. Rather, here in Ohio there's a big election year tussle between two conservative Christian churches (Fairfield Christian being one of them) that have organized de facto Christian political action committees -- Reformation Ohio and the Ohio Restoration Project to support GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell; and a group of mainstream / liberal pastors that have created an organization called We Believe Ohio, which avoids endorsing candidates but is plainly a riposte to RO and ORP. I'm on the WB side of the issue, but I intensely dislike the caricaturing that the Right does of the "pagan left" and the milder but still unmistakeable caricaturing that moderates and liberals do of the Right. That's why it was important to me spend time at FCC, but plainly you couldn't possibly have known this, and I'm sorry I didn't put you in the loop. I hope this explains things.

I too read both Powerline and Kos. I've always thought it'd be interesting if Powerline was set up like Kos in the sense of allowing users to create and post "diaries." As matters stand, Powerline doesn't even permit comments.

As for your pondering: I can see where you might think so, but I don't think this "Path to 9/11" business will have an impact on the election one way or the other. I think the Bush administration has done an amazing job of driving down the confidence of voters in the GOP and the Democrats have done an equally amazing job of failing to offer a coherent alternate vision, and I think it'll stay that way all the way to November. "The Path to 9/11" issue angers me principally because of its crass partisan exploitation of an American tragedy. I'd be just as ticked off if a TV mini-series depicted 9/11 in a fashion critical of the Bush administration. It's just too soon for any of that, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the comparison works re the Reagan mini-series, at least not to me, because the Reagans just don't rise to the level of 9/11. Nothing does. (If a TV network wanted to air a mini-series on Bill and Hillary Clinton's struggle to continue their marriage in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky affair, for instance, I think that could be great television.)

Grant W Jones - 9/8/2006

The Party that wrapped itself up in the Bill of Rights during the debate over the Patriot Act now wants to control what everyone sees on TV.

Here is an interesting article from Variety that makes the point about what happened when the shoe was on the other ideological foot over the showing of "The Reagans:

"http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html

Imagine if Senate Republicans threatened to pull a network's license over some biased nonsense broadcasted by "60 Minutes" or "World News Tonight." Oh I forgot, it's only the "right" that can engage in propaganda, the "left" by definition is objective, particularly when it comes to PBS specials and NPR.

"C'mon. It is a fact of life that people have contrasting points of view." And its also a fact of life that there are those who want to keep "contrasting points of view" they disagree with off the public airwaves.

I'll show my bias and provide a link to the Liberty Film Festival on this:

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/?p=2356

Greg O'Byrne - 9/8/2006

Fair enough, I don't think I was telling you that you couldn't have your bias and I would agree that everyone is certainly coming at issues from different directions.

Thanks for the broad brush there, but no I have no interest in attending a midweek Bible study conducted at a Fundamentalist church I think all that creationist stuff is bunk and Medved is an overrated hack. I read Powerline because I think they are some of the smartest guys on the web. I also read Daily Kos several times a week, although it's a bit hard sometimes to keep track of everything over there, it always seems so frenetic and wrapped up in end-of-the-world / end-of-america trappings. Just my humble opinion.

Anyways I will once again wait until after the broadcast to have an opinion of the mini-series.

And to leave you with a pondering. Could this be yet one more example of where the political left get overly excited about an issue and blow it out of proportion and in the end cause far more harm to their cause then benefit? It smells of that to me. There will be plenty of amunition to come out of this for the right to use. Clinton's trying to cover up, the Democrats are blackmailing the media. Hypocrisy re: 9/11 miniseries vis-a-vis the Reagan miniseries... My point is will this have a backlash?

Mark Grimsley - 9/8/2006

And the fact that you're referencing Powerline could be taken as evidence of your bias.

C'mon. It is a fact of life that people have contrasting points of view. I think I've explained my point of view pretty clearly; I don't think it deserves to be invalidated by the use of a term like "bias."

You might note that I was listening to a conservative evangelical radio station at the time I heard Medved. That's because I regularly expose myself to other points of view. I was then en route to a midweek Bible study conducted at a Fundamentalist church -- I do not think they would object to the term -- in Lancaster, Ohio. The subject that evening was creation science and why it is indispensable to a sound Christian world view. I don't happen to agree but I listened carefully, took notes, bought $60 worth of books on the subject, and chatted with the speaker afterward.

I wonder if you've ever done anything equivalent in your life.

Greg O'Byrne - 9/8/2006

I am ambivalent about the upcoming miniseries on ABC, but I do think you are viewing the upcoming docudrama through the prism of your bias. The mere fact that you have a KOS diary is informative on that note.

For a counterpoint to your argument I point you towards Powerline's excellent listing of worldwide terrorist attacks during the Clinton Administration.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015216.php

The point being to illustrate how it should have been obvious that the threat was increasing.

This dovetails nicely with the premise of the "Path to 9/11" docudrama (at least as far as I understand it at this point).

All that being said, I have not seen it yet and will hold my opinion until after it has aired.