Network follies

I was visiting my parents earlier this week. They watched both ABC and CBS evening news. I don't have much regard for TV news but I watched it with them just because I was there.

ABC had a segment on the controversial 9/11 'docudrama' they are airing. Apparently, they got some central facts wrong. What's worse is that they appear to have done so intentionally and are rightly taking heat for it.

For example, they aired a scene where a CIA agent had Osama bin Laden in his crosshairs but Pres.Clinton's national security advisor pulled the plug at the last second.

One problem: that never happened.

ABC claims that the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But the 9/11 Commission Report said it didn't happen, that Osama was never in anyone's crosshairs.

ABC Entertainment responded to these accusations with a shrug. It's not a documentary, it's a docudrama. They didn't even pretend to say the scenes in question were anything close to accurate.

A docudrama is not a documentary but a one that claims to be based on a factual document should remain reasonably faithful to that document. They don't have to get everything exactly correct but they have to get the main parts correct.

If then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright were wearing a blue suit and drinking a cup of coffee in a particular meeting and the film showed her wearing a red suit and drinking a can of Coke, this wouldn't be a big deal. But getting facts central to the story incorrect and then hiding behind some notion of artistic license (after claiming that the film is based on a document)? Ethically, this is dubious.

What if the film had shown a scene where Pres. Bush ordered the CIA to commit the terrorist attacks? What if the film had car bombs blowing up the Space Needle and Dodger Stadium as the central events of 9/11? Wouldn't people have been outraged? Would that have been within fair artistic license?

Some will say that the film is fictionalized, just like the West Wing, so anything's fair game. But there are some big differences. West Wing was often inspired by real events, but storylines were fictionalized, other countries were usually fictionalized and people's names were fictionalized. The main character wasn't Pres. Clinton or Pres. Bush, it was Pres. Bartlet.

By using real people's names and having them do things they didn't really do (especially while claiming that the film is based on a document), ABC is veering uncomfortably close to criminal defamation.

I don't have any problem with the film showing mistakes made by the Clinton administration in not sufficiently dealing with Islamic extremism. But if the Clintonites really did make so many mistakes, then ABC surely could've designed the film in such a way that central facts were respected while still getting their point across. Especially since they claim the film was based on a document.

Given that key scenes in the film are now known to be demonstrably false, I don't know how anyone can take the rest seriously. Any purported educational value pretended by ABC is now nul and void.

***

Then, I watched the new CBS News with Katie Couric. I was hardly inspired but I didn't expect to be. They had a segment called Free Speech, which is a random person making a brief opinion discourse on a topic of their choice. The segment I saw had Rush Limbaugh. This segment has potential but only if done differently.

First, the segment is only 60-90 seconds long. In order for the segment to have any value, it needs to be at least a few minutes long in order for the speaker to venture away from predictable soundbites and into, gasp, nuance. I know that's an eternity on the network news but if they're not going to do it right, why bother.

I was also disappointed with the choice of Limbaugh for two reasons. I have no problem with putting an avowed conservative on, but why put on someone so partisan and shrill? If 'Free Speech' is going to be any different from the plethora of yap shows, then it must eschew speakers with that mentality. Spare us the Limbaughs. Spare us the Jim Carvilles and Michael Moores and Ann Coulters and their lame, predictable soundbites. When I listen to these people, not only do I not learn anything, but I feel myself actually getting stupider.

The other problem I have with the choice of Limbaugh is that he already has a long daily radio show that's aired on tons of radio stations across the country. People like him and Al Franken and others already have a medium to reach a huge audience with their opinions. Give us someone new and fresh. You want someone to argue that the 'war on terror' must be supported unconditionally? Isn't there some college professor, think tank person or retired ambassador without their own broadcast show who could make that case?

If this is going to be yet another vehicle for establishment people to express their establishment opinions, then it will be a waste of time. But it can also be a chance for intelligent, well-spoken people without a national profile to get exposure for their ideas.

It all depends on what CBS does with it.


Update: This guy has a great piece pointing out how even many conservatives have criticized the shortcomings of ABC's 9/11 'docudrama.' Even Bill O'Reilly, a person more normally associated with deceit and the other worst traits of modern 'punditry,' is critical. Given the hyperideological times and the hyperpoliticized event in question, it's nice to know that even some of the most partisan warriors can put aside their ideology for a moment and retain a shred of intellectual honesty. Too bad this can't be the rule in public discourse rather than the exception.