As we’re approaching the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it seems as if all the media outlets over here in the States are gearing up for full saturation mode. That’s only natural, given the human penchant to observe the passage of time in rounded numbers–and necessary, in my humble view. As a student of history, I’m all too aware of another human penchant to not learn from its lessons, which is why we keep making the same blunders over and over again. Whatever your political bent, events like these deserve serious examination–something far removed from the hyperpartisan hoo-hah that passes for debate these days.
Which brings us to The Path to 9/11, which ABC is scheduled to start airing tomorrow night. I haven’t seen a preview copy, so I can’t say whether or not the film is any good or even remotely accurate, but I have read enough about the stir surrounding its broadcast to be seriously concerned about the free-speech implications that surround it. The idea that members of Congress would make even a veiled threat on ABC’s broadcast licenses because they didn’t like the content of its programming should be something that all media outlets jump on, because it goes to the heart of one of America’s most basic freedoms–not to mention their bottom line.
As a former student of journalism, it still astounds me that the media aren’t closing ranks around this issue. It wasn’t that long ago when they would have raised some serious hell over any attempt at government censorship, no matter who was pulling the strings–Republican or Democrat. That they haven’t doesn’t give me much confidence that they have the guts to cover the tough stories the way they need to be covered.
A Fourth Estate that can’t or won’t do that job can protect no one’s liberty.
ShareSEP
2006