PressEthic

Liberal blogs are ablaze today over the soon-to-be-aired ABC/Disney mini-series "The Path to 9/11". ABC bills the program as "a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources" and yet bloggers and former officials have been lambasting the network and the creators for taking far too much editorial freedom with the material, painting an overtly negative version of the Clinton administration's terror watch. The New York Times reports that

The five-hour film depicts some Clinton administration officials, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Samuel R. Berger, national security adviser, as placing obstacles in the way of strikes against Osama bin Laden.

Both Ms. Albright and Mr. Berger have called such depictions a fabrication.

One particular target of Democratic anger is Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission that Congress created to investigate the events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Kean was a senior consultant to the mini-series, and in a strongly worded letter to him dated yesterday, Ms. Albright and Mr. Berger expressed “deep dismay” that he had played such a role.

“Actors portraying us do contemptible things we never did, and say things we neither said nor believed,” the letter read. “What’s more, in many instances these portrayals are contradicted by your commission’s own findings.”

The letter outlined five such instances in the mini-series’ first half.

As of Saturday, the Democratic National Committee had collected over 200,000 names on a petition, calling the program "right-wing propaganda" and demanding that ABC cancel it or fix the scenes that blatantly contradict the findings of the 9/11 Commission and inaccurately depict the people involved.

ABC continues to stick to their guns, openly describing the mini-series as a "docu-drama", emphasizing on their blog that a "long legend" runs before the program, stating that "the following dramatization...has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes."

While the legend might be informative for viewers tuning in at the exact start-time, what about those viewers who tune in five minutes, an hour, or halfway through the program? Where, then, is the sidebar that clearly categorizes the work, not as a documentary, but as a drama - as one group's take on what might have happened leading up to September 11? What is the responsibility of the creators and producers of "The Path to 9/11"? Do they have an obligation as journalists to stick to the facts, or does the label "docu-drama" allow them a wide range of creative license and absolve them of all truth-telling responsibility?

Is it legitimate to pressure ABC to pull or change this series, or, as one Daily Kos reader asked, are these attempts by liberals (and conservatives) censorship at its best?

Due to the politically and emotionally charged subject matter, it certainly seems justifiable to expect the creators of such a program to stringently adhere to the facts surrounding the events, however time (roughly 33 minutes at this point) will tell what actions ABC ends up taking, if any.

(Please see Open Letter to ABC for a compilation of blogs, news and rebuttals on the issue.)