When 'Fake but Accurate' is acceptable
Forkum reveals a useful insight into when 'fake but accurate' is an acceptable standard in referring to the Path to 9/11 ABC movie:
I can't comment on the movie, but if it's essentially accurate in the required summation and fictionalization of events, then the movie should stand whether the particulars match history or not. "Fake but accurate" is not an acceptable standard for journalism, but it is absolutely necessary for art. And this is a movie not a documentary.
Sadly, I think a lot of people won't get this. In telling a story, you may combine a string of boring notes and meetings into one scene which captures the essence of the underlying narrative. In telling the news, you can't make up a scene, and then argue that it is capturing what you "know is true" - either you tell it like it is, or you don't tell it at all.
