Despite predictions that any controversy is better than little publicity, the first part of ABC’s highly controversial and — in some quarters — bitterly denounced docudrama “The Path To 911” didn’t exactly prove to be a must-see, monster-audience-share television event.
The first part that aired Sunday night turned out to be a big, noisy ratings belly-flop: viewers in droves watched football instead, according to Broadcasting Cable:
(UPDATE: According to the Drudge Report, last night’s final part did better but was still not a ratings barn burner: it came in first in its time period, beating by a little less than two share points a CSI re-run).)
ABC’s Path to 9/11 got a lot of pre-broadcast buzz for its controversial treatment of the Clinton administration, but it managed only a third-place finish for the night [in its first part broadcast on Sunday Sept. 10].
In fact, the two controversial 911-related shows on Sunday night, ABC’s drama and CBS’ airing of documentary 9/11, were beaten by Fox’s animated lineup of The Simpsons, Family Guy and American Dad.
Some Clinton administration associates (such as his lawyers) and American Airlines suggested that in places ABC’s film was as realistic as most cartoons (see below):
Some CBS stations did not carry the show, citing its unedited profanities and the FCC’s crackdown on language.
The ABC drama recorded a 3.5 rating/9 share in the Nielsen overnight ratings for the 18-49 demo, beaten by football on NBC (6.6/17 to win the night) and and partly by football on Fox (5.1/13 for second place). Fox got strong performances from its animated lineup, but it also got a big number from the overrun of its football game into prime time (7.8/23 at 7-7:30.
CBS managed a 2.9/7 on the night, getting little help from its sports overrun–a 2/6 for U.S. Open Tennis at 7:-7:30. It was fourth for the night in the demo with a 2.9/7 behind ABC.
TPM Cafe has posted a letter from Clinton lawyers Bruce Lindsey and Douglas Band to Disney chief Robert Iger after they watched the first installment. And it suggests this controversy is far from over. Here’s part of it:
Nine days ago, we wrote to you asking simply that the miniseries tell the truth, as researched extensively and definitively by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We asked that your network not present outright fiction as historical fact to the American public. In fact, we took pains to detail sequences in the movie that were plainly invented, based upon the version of the film that was shown to television critics and distributed to many conservative commentators. During our two recent conversations, you assured us that you were personally taking the responsibility to ensure that appropriate edits to the film would be made. Publicly, ABC said that the editing process was ongoing and that it was irresponsible” to condemn the film before seeing the finished product.
Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention. “The Path to 9/11” flagrantly ignored the facts as reported by the 9/11 Commission and invented its own version of history. The result, in our judgment, is irreparable damage to the Commission’s work. More importantly, it is a disservice to the American people.
That the film directly contradicts the findings of the 9/11 Commission is troubling. That it defames dedicated public officials is tragic. But the fact that it misleads millions of people about the most tragic and consequential event in recent history is disgraceful.
ABC and Disney might be a bit worried about the word “defames.”
Meanwhile, Americablog says American Airlines is considering legal action against the network. It quotes an email from an American Airlines official:
I think it is important for you to know that ABC had factual errors in its dramatization, and we are looking at possible legal actions as a result. According to the 9-11 Commission report, it was not American Airlines, nor was it even the right airport that was depicted. In reality, it was another airline, flying out of Maine. Please know this was a tragic incident in our company’s history and we hope you will be sympathetic to our employees and our airline on this day especially. Again, we are outraged by this situation, and we alerted ABC about its gross error. It is very unfortunate.
It later quotes an American Airlines press release that is equally as angry:
“The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
“A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.
“This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11.”
You now have to wonder: will some heads roll at ABC and will some mouse ears be boxed at you-know-where? Consider:
- Unless there is some huge increase in the second installment, the series flopped not just as a special “television event” a la Roots but as a TV movie. And it didn’t even have any commercials.
- The series showed that you can’t market a TV program by going after one political party and seemingly praising another in an increasingly polarized nation…and do it in a hotly-contested election year…without losing part of your audience in the short term.
- The ratings suggest that there is a real danger ABC and Disney will have lost some long-term customers as well — particularly because it’s clear neither Bill Clinton’s attorneys or America Airlines are just going to shrug and say: “Oh well, that’s show biz!”
- The question becomes: where was the oversight at both the network and its parent company in allowing a producer to grind his political axe so loudly that it overshadowed the rest of the project, whipped up an angry hornet’s nest of opposition, provided some lawyers chances to increase their billable hours and caused some viewers not to watch because they felt the movie was little more than a political hit-piece?
- How (if at all) do ABC and Disney repair their respective corporate images since they are now viewed by Democrats and also by many independents as producing a film at variance with what the 911 Commission actually said and containing some scenes depicting events that didn’t happen — and the most damaging of those scenes were negative to Democrats and not Republicans in an election year?
In terms of stellar accuracy, docudramas have always had a somewhat low standard (look at all the films on the Kennedys, Ronald Reagan). And recent documentaries have resembled op-ed pieces more than the old CBS Reports or PBS specials (notably the films of Michael Moore).
What was different about this film?
The timing of it — on the anniversary of 911, a supposed day when Americans would unify to think about once unthinkable horror and tragedy…coming two months before bitterly contested mid-term elections.
The way it was being marketed to schools for teaching their students, until there was a huge outcry.
The fact that key GOPers and talk show hosts (such as the producer’s reported friend Rush Limbaugh) got advance looks at the movie while key Democrats such as former Bill Clinton were refused an advance look.
This put this film in a different class than some of the other past, controversial ones, created many more angry partisan enemies for ABC and Disney — and seems to have chased many viewers away.
And, in the end, the most devastating damage seems to have been less to the reputation of the Clinton administration than to those who green-lighted the project and let it air in a form that left both Clinton associates and another major corporation extremely unhappy — and using words that now suggest that there is at least the contemplation of future legal action.
FOOTNOTE: One scene that would not have been flattering to George Bush on September 11 was missing from this film. It is not a teensy detail and is still the subject of very heated controversy. It was when he was here. Read the comments under that post and you can see how it is still being debated. If scenes involving Clinton official Sandy Berger were included that reportedly never actually happened, why wasn’t this one included — one that happened but is still being debated?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.