How often do you see a corporation truly step in it — I mean, step in it so strongly that you virtually can hear the "squish"?
How often in your lifetime do you see a big corporation do something, either by sloppy advance work or the intent of some higher-ups, that angers and bitterly offends a large number of its customers in such a way that its image could be dramatically transformed for years within a shockingly short period of time? How often do you see a corporation dig in its heels — and make matters worse? Or change course — and possibly (in another way) make matter worse? As any PR person knows, it is far easier to destroy an image (and credibility) than to rebuild it.
The Great "The Path To 911" Docudrama Controversy of 2024 is a body blow to ABC that is likely to have implications for the network and its parent company — for years.
In case you've been on Mars this week, ABC is planning on running a commercial-free docudrama about the events leading up to 911. The only hitch: it has been labeled politically biased and called a virtual campaign document for the White House. The tipoff: you see the right defending it and saying how great and refreshingly true it is and you see the left saying how outrageous and biased it is.
Now, there are signs that ABC is trying to gingerly avoid losing a whole segment of the American public (basically, those who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, who are not registered Republicans and who don't think that only one administration and one party contributed to 911 taking place) by doing what they should have done at the outset: tone down parts of it to get some balance in the story of 911. Because anyone who has read the 911 Commission reports or parts of it KNOWS that administrations of BOTH parties failed miserably to connect the dots, squelch life-costing inter-agency bickering, and pay proper attention to a telegraphed threat to attack the American homeland.
To people on the left (including some members of the Clinton administration such as President Bill Clinton), the ABC special is a virtual hit-piece that makes Democrats look bad when it takes dramatic license and makes the Bush administration and President George W. Bush look good. (No Florida classroom and George Bush reading "My Pet Goat" scene in this account movie. That's rotten imagery. But in the hands of a FAIR filmmaker that scene would have been in. Just Google 911 and see how many detailed accounts leave that out.)
To people on the right, it's finally telling it like it is and any attempt by ABC bigwigs to change any controversial scenes
— including the very kind of scenes based on no-evidence assumptions that so outraged conservatives in the case of CBS' ultimately-yanked Ronald Reagan bio three years ago — means ABC is backing down to Clintonista pressure.
To some of us in the middle, this is one more example of how there are so many intent on polarizing the country by demonizing those who belong to another political party.
In 21st-Century America, the other side just doesn't HAVE warts; it is ALL one big wart (and THEIR guy is always wart-free). From advance reports, it seems as if the filmmakers sought to portray the Clinton administration one way, and the Bushies another way. Or if that wasn't the intent, their personal sympathies got the best of them.
Now, ABC is reportedly trying to defuse some of the partisan rage that has been unleashed. Aside from info in the news story linked above about changes, The Ostroy Report has this:
The Ostroy Report has learned from a reliable source connected to ABC that an unnamed ABC executive said that former President Bill Clinton called Disney President and CEO Robert Iger this week to voice his anger and frustration over the network's plan to air a six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," on Sunday and Monday, and that Iger agreed to make certain changes requested by Clinton. According to this ABC source, the film is currently being edited. In seeking confirmation, our call to Iger's office went straight into voicemail. We will update our story if and when we hear from a Disney official. Disney is the parent company of ABC....
....The film will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary," contains "fictionalized scenes," and says the movie is based on the 9/11 Commission report, although that report contradicts several key scenes involving former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and other former Clinton officials. Both Albright and Berger, and other Clinton aides fired off letters of outrage to Iger, but the company refused to make any changes to the film and planned to broadcast it as planned. If in fact Iger did get a call from Clinton, and did agree to an edit, this would be a major change in the company's policy towards dealing with the fallout.
ABC stepped in it in several ways that underscore the polarization of America and the near-total lack of conscience on the part of many political folk to the concepts of fairness and balance, which some perceive as wishy-washy or signs of weakness just begging to be exploited.
ABC stepped in it:
--In political terms.
--In corporate terms.
--In financial terms.
In political terms: To many Democrats, and even to some in the middle who might feel the Clinton administration AND the Bush administration BOTH blew it in the pre-911 competence department, ABC will now appear to be Fox News with mouse ears.
Americans are constantly being asked to choose sides — Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative...and you're either with us or our enemy. The ABC special "tilted" existing above-the-fray perceptions of the network because advance DVDs were being sent out to conservative bigwigs and bloggers at the same time that Democrats — including Bill Clinton — were reportedly denied them when they asked for them.
A head of lettuce sitting on the shelf at Ralph's Grocery store in San Diego would look at THAT and say: "Hey. It seems as if these filmmakers don't like the Democrats and are marketing their production to Republicans to try and get a big audience of Republicans who think the Clinton administration was to blame for 911."
In corporate terms: Every corporation has an image — and an image is GOLD. Three years ago CBS yanked the (in)famous Ronald Reagan bio movie — which yours truly did not watch for the same reason yours truly will not tune in to this ABC film — due to a firestorm from conservatives who felt it contained scenes and characterizations that were not based on fact. We also recently witnessed CBS' corporate agony over what to do with former Evening News anchorman Dan Rather, whose image had fallen down so far that only a Sewer Department tech could have recovered it. So CBS opted for Katie Couric to put a new face on its evening news and news operations.
Up until this special, ABC had as part of its image its parent company Disney, which still remains the most respected name in film, television and live family entertainment.
Now? Some folks will remain bitter because if there are indeed significant changes ABC had to be nearly dragged to make a change in a film that it had refused to let a former President who is "dissed" in it see — at the same time when conservative talkers and bloggers were hailing its accuracy based on THEIR advance viewing.
If you were on a newspaper (I was) and someone mentioned in a story called up and said: "Hey, I heard you're doing this series on me. What I heard you have is wrong and I want you to hear my side of it and include it in whatever you run" it WOULD be included (even if it was just a short paragraph).
But in this case, ABC and the filmmakers are saying its ENTERTAINMENT — yet, this film is was originally (before the outcry) going to be presented to viewers, and to young people, as FACT. A quickie disclaimer isn't going to offset glaring sections that are inaccurate or dramatic embellishments.
How many liberal or centrist bloggers were invited to see an advance DVD? If the number is small, then it's clear the intent was to market the movie to the right as a dramatization that would tell the "real" story of 911 from ONE point of view without all those bothersome loose ends (you know, those pesky nuances from the 911 Commission report that didn't paint only the Clinton administration as the ONLY screw up administration...since administrations of both parties actually fit in that category — including the present one).
In financial terms: The sad part is that no one does family entertainment better than Disney, which is generally protective of the
kinds of values it communications through its live and recorded presentations to children and young people. But you can BET that in 2024 there will be some people who will forgo a trip to Disneyland or Disneyworld or to a movie theater showing a Disney film out of political anger. Disney is bound to lose some customers because ABC seems to have chosen sides.
The saddest part about all of this is what it says once more about the state of American politics.
Nothing is off-limits anymore:
911 as a watershed American event such as Pearl Harbor, a tragedy that brought Americans together?
911 has now become just one more political football — in this case a football that was going to be quietly pushed down the field by people who had the power to get it and push it down the field, in the hopes that no one would see it being pushed down the field until the crowd roared and the game was nearly over.
Even worse: ABC was planning to send study guides on this film and work with Scholastic publications so that school kids would be encouraged to see the film, think about it, and discuss it....just as if IT WAS FACT and NOT a docudrama that took dramatic liberties in portraying key figures in ways aimed (like in all drama) to arouse viewer emotions.
Wasn't there a word once widely used for taking license with facts, putting events through a biased political prism, then using it to teach young kids that this version was reality? The word — if you applied it to something happening in a Communist country or Iran — would be "propaganda."
That may not be and probably wasn't the intent. But in politics perception equals reality.
And when Democrats, liberals and conservatives were not given the SAME chance to pre-screen this movie, both by invitations to screenings and advance DVDs, and when the former President of the United States was told "NO!" when he asked for an advance DVD, ABC set itself up for a big corporate black eye.
So the new network eye isn't CBS News with Katie Couric.
It's the ABC Black Eye. The extent of the bruise depends on the extent of what (if anything) ABC does to offer more than just an celebration of the Bush administration's strong response to 911.
FOOTNOTE TO ABC: You need to learn who was in charge of advance publicity. You need to have a nice talk with them and explain how polarized the United States is right now. And you need to let them know that even if it wasn't their intent, the seeming back of the hand face-slap given to those who didn't have an "R" in front of their names in the production and marketing of this film about a tragic day that was the failure of administrations OF BOTH PARTIES has created serious image, possibly long-range problems for your network...and its long-respected parent company.
PS: I'll pass on watching this for the same reason I passed on watching the Ronald Reagan bio. In TV viewer numbers equal success. Yes, I know someone will say "You can't judge it unless you tune in." Why tune in and give the film producers and the network the viewership they seek?
Those who hate this kind of political gamesmanship can register their feelings — but watching something else that night.
Or reading a weblog (and I do have a suggestion for you on that...)
Subscribe