Earlier this evening, PBS aired the first part of Ken Burn's latest epic documentary, "The War," which focuses on the American experience of the Second World War. Tonight's opening installment was gripping viewing, complete with extraordinary footage and moving stories of everyday veterans. The overwhelming sense of tragedy and devastation permeate a narrative that also captures both human honor and indignity. Weaved through the events of war are the stories of four American towns--one in the West, the South, the Midwest and the East--and how the war changed them forever.

As I watched, however, I became increasingly annoyed. Not with "The War" itself, mind you, but with the review of it I read earlier today from Alessandra Stanley in the The New York Times. Stanley wants to remind us that "World War II didn't just happen to us." Well no, and Burns didn't suggest that it did. In fact, the prologue suggested just the opposite by reminding viewers that other nations sustained heavier losses and the destruction of their homeland. Burns is very up front about the fact that he is examining the American experience of the war. Why is this a problem? According to Stanley, it's "rarely a good idea" to look at the war from the view of just "one belligerent." Not only that, Burns commits this offense in a documentary with the audacity to have such a "definitive" title as "The War." In fact, "it's telling" that Burns focuses so heavily on America. But perhaps there's an explanation:

"Public television is too often in a defensive crouch, fending off attacks by right-wing groups that accuse it of liberal bias. That insecurity has perhaps driven PBS to underestimate its audience’s appetite for widened horizons."

Words fail.

Let's leave aside the silly complaint about the title, which the documentary makes clear is from what Americans themselves called this global conflict (and which in itself reveals the war's impact on Americans). Let's leave aside the reflexive Iraq comparison--Stanley's twist is in comparing Burns to the Bush Administration in regard to "insularity." What exactly is wrong with focusing on the American experience of World War II??? Burns has always made a big deal of collective memory and the role it plays in forging national identity. When I read reviews like this, I begin to wonder if media elites view that national identity--which some in their darker moments have dared to call "patriotism"--as a threat to the preferred disposition of national self-loathing and identity politics. Ironically, Burns spares no one--war is indeed hell and American soldiers and society are shown warts and all. He also added stories of Latino and Native American veterans after some groups expressed concern over being left out. But hey, in the world of The New York Times, one can't be too careful, I guess...