PressEthic

"The Path to 9/11," a controversial ABC miniseries about the lead-up to the attacks of September 11, aired on Sunday and Monday, amidst strong opposition from leading democratic figures, who asked for the show to be pulled.

Based loosely on the report of the September 11 commission, the film begins with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and advances up until the 9/11 attacks, chronicling the pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

The film has received numerous criticisms from the left wing for what they regard as a less-than-flattering portrayal of the Clinton presidency.

In one particularly harsh and clearly biased critique of the film, "Path to 9/11" is bashed for poor filmmaking and dull, often boring dramatizations. Towards the end of the review, however, the writer offers a few scenes from the film that were contested by democrats. Here is one in particular that occurs during the Clinton presidency:

Scene: The CIA and Northern Alliance come within killing distance of Osama bin Laden, but former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is portrayed saying they don't have the presidential authority to kill. ABC reportedly has toned down this scene in recent days.

Reaction: None of that happened, according to the film's senior adviser, Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 Commission. He admits the scene is a "composite," as are some agents in the film.

"It's utterly invented," President Bush's former terrorism czar Richard Clarke said this week.

"No such episode ever occurred -- nor did anything like it," Berger wrote to ABC. "In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or U.S. military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al-Qaida."

A Salon.com review of the film is also critical of the portrayal of Clinton. Here is a brief excerpt:

More disturbing, though, is the way the filmmakers seem determined to link the Clinton administration's missteps to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Instead of offering us some indication of President Clinton's earnest efforts to stop Osama bin Laden, we're repeatedly treated to his most uneasy moments in the hot seat over Lewinsky, painting the president as a buffoon more interested in blow jobs than terrorists.

Certainly, movies that "fudge" the facts and provide fictionalized accounts of true events are not a new phenomenon. In fact, they are commonplace. What seems to make this film of particular interest is the venue. ABC aired the two-part movie as part of the 9/11 coverage that took place all of last week, one in which the Bush administration hoped would paint the president in a positive light.

What may be more interesting to consider is what this means in relation to ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Co., and ABC News. It may also be important to remember that Walt Disney is the company that refused to release the Michael Moore film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," and instead created a documentary of their own, "America's Heart and Soul," an overly patriotic and sentimental film depicting good, honest American people. I am not saying that decision was good or bad, but simply attempting to point out how a film that was heavily criticized for being left wing was not supported in that case.

So then, should ABC's "Path to 9/11," filled with inaccuracies and perhaps biased in its approach, be a red herring for those who get their news from ABC or should this just be taken for what it is: a dramatized fictional film seeking to draw in large numbers of viewers and capitalize on the anniversary of 9/11?