At the present time a most interesting and revealing clash involving the movie "Loose Change" -- apparently the latest installment in 9/11 revisionist/re-inventing nonsense -- is raging between Mark Cuban (the owner of both Magnolia Pictures and the Dallas Mavericks) and various TV and radio pundits, not to mention the public. At issue is the fact that Cuban's distributor Magnolia Pictures -- a fine firm -- is going to promulgate and distribute "Loose Change", a pseudo-documentary that purportedly claims 9/11 was an "inside" or government job. What provoked this post is two critical and head-shaking commentaries in the March 28 ,2007 Dallas Morning News written by Mark Davis ("The right to free speech taken too far" p 15A) and James Ragland ("Criticism of Film won't deter Cuban" p 1B) respectively. Both raised signal points that bear attention.
Before going further, it is necessary to clarify a few things. What makes this issue special is not whether the movie's premise has any credibility, but the stance Mark Cuban is taking in reference to it. He has professed to not believe or even support the premise put across in the film, but is backing in the interests of promoting free speech and dialogue. The reasons given are laudable, but on one level show exactly what is so wrong with professional ethics these days, and what really is amiss here. That will be the subject of this post.
First, a note on the film. Allegedly it started life as "fiction, than morphed into a documentary ". That's a progression dubious enough to worry any credible historian. The style of scriptwriting being what it is, its unlikely that it would shed enough of its `fictional' background to carefully make the distinction between what was fiction and what was fact. A "documentary" airs -- or should -- under a higher bar of expectation for accuracy and `just the facts' than some film or dramatization. Its bad enough when taking free liberties with the facts is done with a recent historical event like the JFK assassination (such embroidery and going beyond the constraints of evidence all too common in that subject); its much more serious when it concerns ongoing and "real-time" events like 9/11 and the war started by the Islamic Jihadists. No matter how controversial and debatable the wisdom of the Iraq War is, that controversy and doubt should not spill over too much into evaulating 9/11, though regrettably it has.
Which brings us to the debate about Mark Cuban's role or seeming casual willingness to distribute this film. The arguments about the First Amendment and promoting `free speech and discussion' are sound. It is alright that the film air, and there shouldn't be any question of repression or censorship. The question is who airs it. The fly in this ointment concerns rather the ethics of when a credible person puts their weight behind dubious, and unsound works, and by so doing, gives it an undeserved or unwarranted stature . By his admission, Mark Cuban apparently does not put any stock in "Loose Change" 's premise. This is crucial. It would be better if he did, more consistent. A `documentary' is NOT a drama or novel -- different standards should apply. Why sanction or give any play to a view one judges erroneous, in a culture already overloaded with junk info and assertions? Why throw ones support behind it?
To come straight to the point. There is no shortage of `interpretations and points of view' about 9/11. Valid and real questions exist about the run-up to 9/11, and its catalyst. One overlooked by the media is a simple but revealing one: I for one, would like to hear if the interrogations of Al Qaeda leaders answered why that date and year was chosen, etc. (We were rather low-profile at that time in 01, catalyst seems lacking). Any credible and probing `conspiracy postulation' is indeed worth presenting and exploring, for sometimes they are true. What is NOT worth giving expanded play are less credible, and even thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories. Among these are that 9/11 was "staged" or the involvement of the aircraft faked, etc. The evidence simply does not allow it. There are too many witnesses, too many scientific facts. The only tenable conspiracy theory is that 9/11 was allowed to occur; that it was "an inside job" or staged by the government is nonsense.
I happen to agree with Mark Cuban's defense that "lies in the shadows are far more dangerous than lies you can confront and refute". The problem is that he is not taking into account the dilemma of mass public misinformation and the growing tendency for trusting people to be duped into believing or putting stock into bogus ideas and concepts because personages otherwise of stature and some credit associate with them . Its similar to why junk-science can be such a serious matter -- a scientist tends to inspire more reflexive trust they are sticking to facts than a journalist. Its fine to give the canned line of `the public can judge for itself whether the documentary has merit' and `not going to back away from something just because its controversial'. These are evasions.
It ignores the blatantly obvious fact that the bulk of the working productive public does not have time and the range to "judge" which claimed facts are false and which true. Its hard enough for historians and detective to do so when they have bad witnesses and false evidence . Remember, this is claimed to be a documentary. The public has a right to expect - at least hope - that things presented as fact, as documentary, are at least reasonably true, and not a `string-together' or exercise in hearsay. Especially when it is supported by a trustworthy and respected source. An established writer (non-fiction) has a higher ethical burden to `get the facts straight' than a debate club or round table at a bar for example.
THAT is the issue here, not really the production itself. It can stand or be rebutted on its own terms. Again, I haven't seen or even read a detailed script of the film. It is the fact that Mark Cuban stated that he is essentially giving a platform to a premise "that I don't believe the movie. Not at all." I submit there are many theories and reconstructions far more worthy of mass dissemination and such support, even criticisms and conspiracy theories that might have some legs, but not this. That's why it is hard to put a finger on just what is wrong with this, while straining to make clear are absolutely open to the free debate of ideas. The film is probably a flash in the pan, and not as interesting as the debate about ethical sponsorship and association it has spurred in the Morning News and airwaves.
Mark Davis was absolutely right when he observed, "This is open-mindedness to a crippling fault. Only chaos can result from such undeserved equivalence afforded to society's most pathological views."
That strikes me as exactly the rub, indeed. The prevalence today of a contemptible and research-lazy `intellectual relativism' that puts tabloid subjects on the same bar as an Oxford University Press archaeological report; which is then thoughtlessly taken up by the mass media and blasted everywhere with no context or rebuttal. In the world of research and fact-finding, `benefit of the doubt' is not given up front to just any notion that pops into head or has spicy spin; it has to be earned . It is a fair question why this `up front' platform is being given here. That is the real shame here.
- Antony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment