‘Path To 9/11′ Review
Moments ago I finished watching the last half of ABC’s increasingly controversial drama “The Path To 9/11″. While initially promoted as an accurate docu-drama of the events leading up to 9/11, ABC was forced to re-define the two-part miniseries as containing fictionalized content, composites, dramatizations, etc. Despite last minute editting by the network, the resulting controversy has set the blogosphere ablaze.
In my last post, I reacted to the ridiculous and often groundless conspiracy theorists who made the connection between the film’s director, David Cunningham, and the Christian organization, Youth With A Mission, which his father Loren Cunningham founded, as proof of a hiddenright-wing agenda. I am thankful that very few news agencies have made this very shallow mistake, but am still astounded by how many bloggers have jumped on this sinking ship of theories. However, I shouldn’t take it too seriously. When someone calls YWAM a right-wing mind control, fundamentalist cult, sourcing a website(s) run by known fundamentalists who often reject YWAM for their liberality, is a joke. Strangely, by some definitions of “fundamentalism”, many of these bloggers fit the bill- uncritical and dogmatic acceptance of shallow ideas with no regard to actual proofs.
In the end, one thing should be clear- David Cunningham has never hidden his Christian faith, his relationship to the organization Youth With A Mission nor his desire to see Christian values influence the world of film and television. While he & I might disagree with how that is done and what that might look like, I know him well enough to know his intentions were good, not convertly subversive. Anyone with Google could find out any of these facts. There was not conspiracy. Further, as the film’s director, he had a script to work with, having very little content control. When facts were questioned, he referred to the experts hired by ABC. In fairness, he had no reason to suspect the answers he received from this expert was questionable. Again, leave David & YWAM out of the argument and focus on who had the power- the writers, the network and the hired experts. Enough said on that.
Having watched the film, I will say that the film had a clear bias towards conservative politics. With a topic as important as 9/11, ABC clearly failed to treat the work responsibly. While this is no excuse, I will say that the degree of inaccuracy was not as extreme as many have represented, having seen far greater bias on FOX News at times. Much of the bias was represented, not in blatant misinformation (though there was some of this with no question), but by creative omission. While the network claimed the piece represented failure in both the Clinton and Bush administration, the prior received far more attention and far less balance. The results were clearly biased.
Should the film have been dumped completely? I don’t think so. Does it offer anything worth viewing to the public? Probably more than some would like to admit. The public stir and conversation around this film is likely enough to inform the uninformed. In the end, many of those who lean right will likely accept it uncritically and many of those who lean left with reject it uncritically. Hopefully, somewhere in midst of it all, we can walk away with at least some real dialogue and healthy debate about the issues, perhaps even make our way past the unhelpful, back-biting partisanship that so many on both “sides” have engaged in. Here’s hoping.
Now play nice!
P.S. On a sidenote, for those who watched the movie, the blonde flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11 was my very talented sister-in-law, Jennifer Ricci. Well done, Jen!
So what do you make of the following?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/path_to_911
<i>”Hopefully, somewhere in midst of it all, we can walk away with at least some real dialogue and healthy debate about the issues, perhaps even make our way past the unhelpful, back-biting partisanship that so many on both “sides” have engaged in. Here’s hoping.”</i>
To say that statement shows you an optimist would be an understatement Jamie.
When it comes to politics (and come to think of it, often religion too), I’ve seen little in the way of cessation of partisanship and back-biting for actual humility and a real seeking of the truth.
But then I guess I’m a jaded cynic.
Peace to you
Hey, just watch the knee-jerk anti-conservative “journalism” of our very own propaganda machine, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), if you want to balance out Path to 9/11 with a dose of equally agenda-driven liberalism.
Ken,
The facts of this little piece you linked are murky. First, Robert Iger doesn’t seem to have made this kind of clear statement anywhere I can find. However, with all the controversy, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in the upper eschelon of this whole affair will try to shift blame.
Obviously there is a conservative bias, but a concerted effort on the part of the writer AND director? I call bull. I know David well enough to know he would never be involved in something so intentionally subversive and deceptive, even if he believed it to be true.
Thanks for the link.
Peace,
Jamie
A,
I hear you, which is why I said I HOPED for at least SOME dialogue. Admittedly, it will likely be in the minority. Alas!
Peace,
Jamie
Rob,
CBC? Biased? NEVER! (note the dripping sarcasm) Sad, but too often true. News is no longer news. Having grown up in a family of very good and true journalist, it is a sick and sad reality of this day and age.
Peace,
Jamie
R U being biased because your sister-in-law was in the film? LOL!!!!!!!
EP,
LOL! I hope not, seeing as I was fairly critical of a film YWAM created with our secret millions- oops! Did I write that out loud?
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie Arpin-Ricci, Yes, the Nation has a certain slant to be sure, and the tone of the writing is anything but helpful in my view. The tit for tat kind of argument that goes on over these issues, in the ‘culture war’, are, to be sure, less than useful. I was interested in your take because you probably know a lot more about than I do. What of the reconstructionist theology etc? That part really does concern me, is it true?
Ken,
The connection to Christian Reconstructionism is something of an embarressing, but uninteresting tale. In the earlier years of YWAM, the organization was breaking new ground, especially in Evangelical (charismatic) circles (i.e. young people with no seminary as missionaries; raising and releasing missionaries from all cultures; etc.). As a result, there were many people on the fringe who came into relationship with YWAM.
In the case of Christian Reconstructionism, as YWAM searched for a theology for impact whole cultures, they came across a few people in these circles. It should be noted that the “version” that was talked about in those days in that context, was a much milder version (though still HIGHLY problematic in nature). However, it was never adopted by YWAM, taught as a part of cirriculum or promoted as right theology.
Were there some centres that did pick up on it? Did some centres advocate it, if only slightly, in their programs? Almost without question. However, they are example of isolated incidents of organization immaturity and by NO means a reflection of the current, larger mission. Most YWAM leaders would cringe at the suggestion.
Hope that helps!
Peace,
Jamie
That does help. Because, sadly, in all my connections with various YWAMers I have often cringed when they talk about theology etc. I don’t want to sound condescending, but it’s like they’re reciting from a textbook, and the similarity of those YWAMers’ views was shocking. Since then I haven’t really been to interested in the movement. But glad to know there are some voices and room for change. And yes, that does help!
Ken,
To be truthful, what you are going to hear from a YWAMer will depend on where you are. For example, you are more likely to here the common right-wing Evangelical view from YWAMers in the US- not ALL, but many. However, you could talk to some European or Canadian YWAMers and come away with a different impression completely- again, not always, but often.
It should also be said that YWAMers, in general, are not very theologically sophisticated, sometimes to a fault. However, despite this, I have still seen few missional movements that have developed the bredth and commitment of YWAM. Theology is important, but perhaps in YWAM’s case, it can’t be evaluated primarily on what is articulated and espoused, but rather by what is lived and modelled.
Peace,
Jamie