The Path to 9/11

Over the weekend there were a firestorm of stories of how high ranking members of the Democratic Party demanded that ABC pull the broadcast of The Path to 9-11. Immediately there were comparisons to the CBS mini-series about Ronald Reagan, only that time conservatives were the ones screaming that the mini-series was factually inaccurate. The producers called both mini-series "docu-dramas", this is just deceptive term that is only meant to confused viewers into believing that that what they are seeing is actually the truth but sprinkled with enough lies to keep the drama moving forward. I hate this "docu-drama" term, lets stop pretending that this is a "fair and balance" news report. There is no way that the people in charge of the creative process of creating any "work" can remove their personal emotions from their representation of the truth. It's naturally going to be slanted. I personally don't believe that there is anything wrong with that. It's not that hard to understand, imagine the difference if the Passion of the Christ was directed by Rob Reiner rather than Mel Gibson.

I think I am one of the few people in this country that saw both the Reagan and the 9-11 mini-series. One difference I noticed during the entire controversy was the way liberals went about lobbying ABC vs. the way conservatives went after CBS. The Pull the Reagan mini-series was a grass root movement of people who were ready to boycott any advertiser sponsoring the program. The Yank 9-11 Campaign consisted of a few high ranking Democrats and Clinton advisors who threatened ABC's license to broadcast. Not that any of this matter because the real difference between the two shows was that the Reagan mini-series was downright horrible (which is the real reason why CBS pulled it) and The Path to 9-11 was exceptional, probably the best mini-series aired on any broadcast network in decades (which is why ABC aired the program).