WHAT THE GOP DOESN’T HAVE

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Off switches on their televisions.

Or channel changers.

Here’s a fact: All the people on this board currently discussing the yanked Ronald Reagan biopic? They haven’t seen it. Everyone’s depending upon what other people have said. Biopics, movies about real events…their accuracy is routinely challenged. People see it and then decide for themselves.

But not in the case of Ronald Reagan.

Don’t let yourself get buffaloed into thinking this incident is anything other than just another case of someone else deciding on your behalf what you should be allowed to see or not see. They’ve come to the conclusion the biopic is inaccurate. But they don’t trust *you* to come to that conclusion independently. They figure, y’know, you’re not as smart as they are, or clever, or knowledgeable.

So CBS, which just last Sunday was laughing over how silly it was that they dumped the Smothers Brothers because they jabbed at the establishment, did it again. They bowed to conservative pressure, just as Warner Bros. did when the Nixon White House insisted that the song “Cool Considerate Men” be excised from “1776” because it made conservatives look bad. The CBS eye blinked.

And this business that James Brolin shouldn’t have been cast because of his *political beliefs*? Oh my God. That is the single dumbest casting debate I’ve heard since the notion that the casting of Vanessa Redgrave as a concentration camp resident in “Playing For Time” was an insult to Jews because she harshly criticized Israel. I mean, are we *really* back to that now? Politicizing casting? Paging Joe McCarthy. Joe McCarthy, come to the Senate, please.

It’s not just that it’s about Reagan. I’d have just as much contempt for them if they bagged a Clinton/Lewinsky biopic because liberals squawked (which, by the way, we all know they wouldn’t.)

PAD

116 comments on “WHAT THE GOP DOESN’T HAVE”

  1. Some conservative commentator had the steel nerve to say, “Of course, the liberals would have shut it down as well if someone had tried to make a mean-spirited movie about the Clintons,” and I thought to myself, “Did you guys SEE ‘Primary Colors’? Or, like, any randomly selected outing of the Rush Limbaugh show?”

  2. Some conservative commentator had the steel nerve to say, “Of course, the liberals would have shut it down as well if someone had tried to make a mean-spirited movie about the Clintons,” and I thought to myself, “Did you guys SEE ‘Primary Colors’? Or, like, any randomly selected outing of the Rush Limbaugh show?”

    CBS would never have shut down a film to accommodate liberals. No one’s afraid of liberals.

    PAD

  3. PAD wrote:

    CBS would never have shut down a film to accommodate liberals. No one’s afraid of liberals.

    What if they were African-American liberals? Throw in that race element I definitely think CBS would balk/accommodate.

  4. To put it simply…CBS didn’t want to lose money. There was the potential of major ad loss along with viewership during critical sweeps period.

    Even Les Moonves, president of CBS, has called the miniseries biased.

    Letting the movie run on Showtime isn’t a great compromise but at least it’s getting the mini out into the public. Besides…I’m sure they will release it on video/DVD as well.

  6. !) Tarring CBS may or may not be warranted. It may have a been a decsion ordered by their parent company, Viacom.

    Anyway, the end result has a kind of poetic justice to it —

    Now, for anyone to see “The Reagans” they’ll have to pay in order to do so.

    Nice article, from a source that couldn’t be broadbrushed as ‘liberal’ by any means:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1106/p01s03-ussc.html

  7. I wonder why there hasn’t been a liberal outcry over the accuracy of “Saving Jessica Lynch” to match the conservative outcry over the accuracy of “The Reagans”? I mean, yeah, some liberals have taken their shots at it, but the level of outright bile that “The Reagans” has attracted is truly staggering in comparison. Could it be that some people are more willing to trust in people’s ability to recognize bull$h!t for what it is? Or is it because “Saving Jessica Lynch” is apparently so laughably inaccurate that even uber-conservatives aren’t attempting to defend it?

    Or maybe, just maybe, entertainment is just that, and some of us *cough-conservatives-ahem* are taking it a tad too seriously?

    The OTHER John Byrne

  8. The Reagan movie situation is pretty pathetic. CBS has had their bad moments. Backing down against tobacco companies over a 60 Minutes piece showed how far the corporate attitude dominates things.

    James Brolin, from what I saw, looked and sounded like Reagan. I guarantee the story doesn’t conform to facts 100%. But what movie does?

    But there’s another tv movie that I find, in some ways, more offensive. Now not to knock her service to her country. But making a movie about the “heroic” Jessica Lynch just annoys me. She was wounded and lost from her unit. Okay, that’s rough. But as a friend pointed out. The people who rescued her were more heroic then she was. No book deals or attention for them.

    Movies like the Lynch and Reagan one fill a need for some people I guess. Everyone likes their big rallying points. The myth beats the reality most of the time. These days especially when much of the world is brought to us in 30 second newsbites.

    I guarantee that after both of these movies are shown those who like Reagan and Lynch will still like them. And those who don’t will not have their opinions changed at all.

    Which leaves us with the entertainment value. Call me judgemental, but I doubt either movie will be very worthwhile. I’d rather pop in my Two Towers dvd. At least that fantasy story is not pretending to be true.

  9. Politcal pressures aside – the real reason, I believe, they canceled this movie was purely from a financial stand point. It wasn’t the mythic “Right Wing” conspiracy that was killing this movie – it was a American public who simply did not want to see it. Many Americans where ready to boycott CBS for making this movie – and quite frankly I support them. The American people put up with enough garbage on TV – with programs that boggle the mind on why a Network thought a show would be popular. But they took it a step further – they go and make a Regan-Bashing movie while the guy is on his DEATH BED! This no longer became just trash TV – it became insulting and hurtful.

    Thats why they pulled it – and they made a very wise desion.

    Now – I admit we all don’t know what the movie was really like. And soon enough, on HBO, you can find out. But with all the reports of people who have seen it – it doesn’t look like Regan was depicted well or truthfully.

    Really, the Main 3 Networks have been loosing viewers every single year. And it’s becuase of this kind of garbage that has caused this. The Regan movie would have done much more harm if aired. And not becuase of Concervative pressures – but by views voting with their remotes to not watch CBS. Thats what their afraid of.

    The reason this movie even got Green-Lighted is all more proof, in my view at least, that Big Name Media, Government officals, and other Elite people just don’t understand what it’s like to be a normal person.

    And for anyone (I’m looking at you Pad) who thinks that Boycotting is wrong, and not the way to go – then figure this: Normal people don’t have the big voices, to give their opinion on TV, in Speeches, and in the Papers. The people’s greatest power is to show their disapproval to such actions as this. You may say thats unfair – well guess what – it’s unfair to Regan, and all those who remember him from their generation, who see it as down right cruel to demean this man while dying.

    If it means boycotting – then that is the public’s right and privilage to do so.

    Don’t brush this off with “Boycotting is bad” It’s more than that – it’s a stand for some common decency. Just becuase you might not agree with a boycott doesn’t mean a boycott is a bad thing. It’s a strong tool – and I think the public chose wisely to use it – and it got CBS to listen.

  10. It was an attempt to slander someone who cannot respond. A producer (or was it a writer?) even said that they were trying to tell a true story that needed to be told. You can’t tell the true story of the Reagan presidency without even mentioning the economic expansion, and just making things up to fit the way you wish they had gone down.

    “REAGAN’S POLICIES LEAD TO WORLD WAR THREE”, Coming to a theatre near you! Creative license is one thing–slander is another.

    Inserting a quote about Reagan saying decisively that gays deserve to die from AIDS and refusing to discuss the situation when we all now know that he never even said it and that the conversation never took place is character assasination with reckless disregard for the facts. It’s slander.

    Trying to fulfill a dream of the left by asserting that Reagan was just some dumb B-level actor who happened to be in office during the economic expansion and the fall of the Soviet Union isn’t going to fly without criticism. If liberals protested a program at Fox News (and they have), and Fox pulled the program, it would be called a victory for the free speech of the protestors. When conservatives organize boycotts and protests, that’s limiting the First Amendment and turning America into the Soviet Union. The free market works! This is an outrage!

    BTW, I can’t wait for the Clinton movie to come out. I hope they get somebody good, like oh say JOHN TRAVOLTA to play him (hint, hint).

  11. There are a couple of factors here. First off, yes, it is a bad idea to make a film critical of the guy while he’s dying. Second, anything made by commercial TV will naturally be watered-down. To avoid offending anyone, the film would be run past dozens of executives and partisans, and ground into mush. (A film done exclusively for cable, like HBO’s critical film on Don King, would not need “vetting” by sponsors and parties.)

    Also, has anyone thought that this film was “made controversial” because no one else would watch it? A puff piece about a former President – which is what the Republicans seem to be demanding – would be easily beaten in the ratings by “America’s Funniest Incontinent Pets Live.” It would even put people to sleep at the Republican coronation – er, convention.

    As someone who hated Reagan’s stupidity, and his complicity in spreading AIDS and poverty, I don’t need to see a movie showing it, or hyping a case against him to the Limbaugh dittomonkeys out there. All it would do is what seems to be happening – it’s getting them screeching and throwing crap.

    And the last people to be doing such a movie is CBS, who were never able to do a decent TV movie, even when they were the big thing in programming in the mid-70’s. (NBC and ABC did better TV movies.)

  12. Maybe the CBS movie should have used this Reagan quote about AIDS from “DUTCH”, Ronald Reagans authorized biography written by Edmund Morris:

    “Maybe the Lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments”

    At least then there would have been no room for all this whining from the conservative right.

  13. From the little Ive read:

    1) This sounds like a parody version of ‘The Osbournes’, starring the Reagans; great idea, sounds downright funny, too. I hope to get to see it; I consider Reagan one of the most comic characters in late 20th century politics.

    2) Some company guy said they were pulling this off the air because it was an unbalanced look at Reagan, in that it only shows the bad parts. UNBALANCED. Like any dramatized biography was ever balanced. I bet if it showed Reagan as this nice, stable grandaddy guy to the entire world and Nancy as mother Theresa, it wouldn’t be ‘unbalanced’.

  14. (quote): “Inserting a quote about Reagan saying decisively that gays deserve to die from AIDS and refusing to discuss the situation when we all now know that he never even said it and that the conversation never took place is character assasination with reckless disregard for the facts. It’s slander.”

    (reponse, courtesy of a variety of web sources and myself): Though one line in “The Reagans” script that has received considerable attention (where Reagan says of AIDS victims, “They that live in sin shall die in sin”) is clearly fictionalized, the broader reality it attempts to convey is evident in the history of the federal government’s inadequate response to the AIDS crisis under the Reagan Administration.

    Reagan did not publicly utter the word “AIDS” during the first six years of his administration (his first public mention of the disease was made to the Third International AIDS Conference on May 31, 1987). The Kaiser Family Foundation’s Daily HIV/AIDS Report for June 7, 2001, looking and capsulizing back at 20 years of AIDS policy and legislation, also notes that the San Diego Union Tribune quoted Reagan as telling the conference, “Final judgment is up to God.”

    In a 2001 speech at the Kaiser Family Foundation’s National Symposium on U.S. AIDS Policy, Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan’s surgeon general, said that due to “intradepartmental politics” he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan Administration — and that “because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the advisors to the President, [sic] took the stand, they are only getting what they justly deserve.

    Like it or not, the policy of an administration is embodied in the chief executive – unless he explictly ]calls on the carpet those who contradict, contravene, alter, or otherwise skew that policy. Using the shorthand of a familiar quote to sum up the policy and attitude is not slanderous, it is condensation of a lengthy topic into a form that fits the story and the time constraints of the medium.

    We don’t ‘know’ if the actual conversation ever took place, but that is entirely irrelevant – the scene is a representation and a dramatization of the thrust of the administration’s policy or lack thereof. In any biography or historically based drama, there are any number of conversations that can’t be verified as verbatim – that’s the job of the screenwriter: to create dialogue that is representative of the subject and character, as determined by whatever facts, recollections and research were used as source material.

    BTW, in light of the earlier thread on language pet peeves, slander is verbal, libel is written, and woulkd be a more apt charge (if it were actually such a statement of denigration by falsehood) in this instance.

  15. “I wonder why there hasn’t been a liberal outcry over the accuracy of “Saving Jessica Lynch” to match the conservative outcry over the accuracy of “The Reagans”?”

    One reason may be because screenwriter John Fasano apologized a lot beforehand for what he knew were distortions:

    http://cgi.warblogging.com/warfarking/mirror/1065456878.html

    I do think that most of it is, as Mark Evanier points out, “CBS should have known that including any negatives would incur the wrath of those trying to sell the myth, abetted by those who believe you don’t speak ill (even the tiniest bit) of an Alzheimer’s sufferer and the woman taking care of him.”

  16. I don’t buy the financial angle in the slightest – as far as this sort of thing is concerned, there really is no such thing as bad publicity. This idea that a boycott was a real threat to CBS is practically laughable; it’s been shown time and time again that advertiser boycotts simply don’t work (remember Wildman?) because very, very few people go along with them.

    CBS simply caved. Even if it was unredeemably awful – which is a distinct possiblility – CBS probably would have made more showing it than they risked. The outcry probably would have driven ratings through the roof. Very few of these things are any good (the Hitler mini was quite good though, a rare exception) but occasionally they’re popular.

    Conservatives hold Reagan in higher regard than liberals hold anyone except possibly Martin Luther King Jr. Unlike conservatives, however, we’re willing to admit our heroes have flaws.

  17. It was an attempt to slander someone who cannot respond.

    How would you know? Have you seen the movie? You haven’t, have you? And that’s the point PAD’s trying to make, that we weren’t allowed to see the movie and make up our minds.

    Conservatives hold Reagan in higher regard than liberals hold anyone except possibly Martin Luther King Jr. Unlike conservatives, however, we’re willing to admit our heroes have flaws.

    Well, considering the Barbershop controversy, that’s a dodgy proposition. (See, liberals can try and ban movies too!)

  18. I just feel sorry for anyone who watches one of these biopics or reads a biography and thinks that it’s 100% truthful.

    This is one of the reasons I dislike movies or shows “based on/inspired by actual events” or “ripped from the headlines,” because I prefer my fiction to be mostly fictional (I don’t mind allusions to real world events or the like, just not fiction based on reality) and I stay away from most non-fiction shows and movies for this reason.

    I just wish people had more faith in the American public to see/read/hear something and then make their own judgments or even better, go out and research the issues that trouble someone in specific. However, the pessimistic side of me says that first the American public would have to prove they were smart enough to not take what they see/hear/read as the 100% gospel truth.

  19. “Tarring CBS may or may not be warranted. It may have a been a decsion ordered by their parent company, Viacom.”

    This wouldn’t surprise me one bit and just shows, once again, that bigger is not necessarily better and that the corporate American mania with mergers and acquisitions rarely helps the end user as more and more ‘suits’ then get involved in screwing things up as far as the product or service is concerned. Not to mention that, the higher up you go on corporate food chains, the more likely (likely, not certain, mind you) you are to find political interference from connected ‘friends’ in office causing their own problems.

    And this isn’t restricted to the U.S. Consider how much of Canada’s media is concentrated in so few hands. A large number of newspapers are under edict from their politically-connected owners to be very careful what they say about the reigning (see, I used it correctly. Do I get a cookie? ;-)) Liberals. A well-liked editor was fired for speaking out against the Prime Minister several months back. The only reason such comments are now tolerated is that it is understood he’s on his way out. But beware saying anything bad about his heir apparent. This is good for democracy how, exactly?

  20. Well, considering the Barbershop controversy, that’s a dodgy proposition. (See, liberals can try and ban movies too!)

    I think the majority of liberals thought the Barbershop contraversy was idiotic – I know I did. That was more about Al Sharpton’s ego than anything else; virtually no one went along with that one.

  21. PAD,

    I think you’re very near the mark on this one. The only thing that bothered me about this whole story was the idea that *maybe* CBS knew it was inaccurate, and was going to use its inflammatory nature during sweeps week as a way to improve ratings. I would feel the same way if they make Martin Luther King Jr. into a Black Panther, or showed Ghandi sneaking cheeseburgers in India.

    However, if this kind of pressure was applied to get something unpopular off the air that CBS thought was legitimate filmmaking, then that’s shameful on their part.

  22. I think what frightens me the most is that this borderline censorship is yet another example of the new political climate in this country.

    Mr. David, I think you’ll like what our Michigan Congressman, John Dingell, had to say about the movie:

    Washington, D.C. – Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI) today joined the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Members of Congress and conservative pundits in demanding that CBS ensure that its upcoming two part mini-series “The Reagans” is an accurate portrayal of the Reagan legacy. In a letter to CBS President Leslie Moonves, Dingell wrote, “I trust that CBS will not be a party to a distorted presentation of American history.”

    Rep. Dingell, who served in the Congress during both of President Reagan’s terms in office, offered this advice to Mr. Moonves:

    “As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling.”

    Rep. Dingell concluded, “I hope you find these facts useful in accurately depicting President Reagan’s time in office.”

  23. Ah, now this is why I come here. The liberal/conservative fisticuffs are fasinating!

    IF you want to do a libelous piece on someone then you SHOULD go the Primary Colors route and fictionalize down to character names.

    1) You will be able to see this if you have Showtime.

    2) There is NOTHING wrong with CBS for pulling it. It’s their RIGHT.

    3) People have the right to blather about anything. They do not have a right to be listened to.

    4) The poster who said those who like and dislike Reagan won’t change their minds: agreed. Those who don’t know much about him or don’t care either way will be the ones affected.

    5) No problems with James Brolin doing the part, but it says a lot about the bias of the movie when his wife is hanging around. Any crediblity is lost when so-far-left-she’s-in-the-ocean-Babs is present.

    6) A movie about Clinton wouldn’t have to be spiced up to be interesting. The plain facts are sensational enough.

    I won’t applaud CBS, because they pulled it not out of principle but out of convenience. Still, I’m glad they pulled it.

  24. So much bûllšhìŧ so little time.

    It was all about the cash. CBS and there Liberal-Democrat supporting President did not want his advertisers affected.

    Of course he also admitted the film was biased as well.

    A compromise was also suggested by announcing at every commercial break that this was not a fair and accurate protrait of Reagan.

    That could have happened as well.

    The calls for a boycott were real.

    The petitions were real.

    Oh, but of course when a non-lefty

    complains, they just whine, when a left winger protests that is political activism.

    Yeah rock the vote.

    Incredible.

  25. Boycotting is never acceptable. It’s about silencing something or someone you find offensive (and boycotting is different from *not* watching something — I don’t watch about 98% of what’s on television — that’s different from trying to ensure that you don’t watch it, either).

    However, it’s important to not make this an issue of right vs. left so much as free speech vs. censorship. Everyone’s hands are dirty as far as I’m concerned: Jesse Jackson and his attempted boycott of “Barbershop” because it made fun of Rosa Parks. The ADL and its attacks on Mel Gibson (Frank Rich for the Times has written about two pieces about it so far) because his film might “spread anti-semitism.”

    Yes, ideas can inflame. Ideas can spread hatred. But you counter that with *more* ideas — not less.

  26. Man, first I hear they’re cancelling Coupling, then hear they dumped Skin off my TV and now I can’t watch a movie about the Reagans! Where will it end?!! Ok, I wasn’t REALLY gonna watch the Reagan thing. Couldn’t care less. don’t like hearing that others can’t see it, though. That sucks. Of course, I don’t care to watch a Lynch story either. Or that Smart Rescue flick. Or all the other “Inspired by” nonsense. Tried that 3’s Co. one but preferred the True Hollywood story better since THAT had more drama and humor. I’d rather watch an unbiased documentary about Reagan than a tv show. But since that’s not gonna happen, I’ll take two VERY biased documentaries, one from each side. To paraphrase the quote, I may not want to watch what you want to watch, but I will defend your right to watch it. unless we’re talking a Bush speech that screws up primetime. Or football that runs too long and screws up Futurama and/or the rest of the Sunday fox line-up. Or the playoffs which interrupt any chance of a new fox show catching on. Now that I think about it, it’s not what’s on, it’s when. Put the Reagan thing on Saturday night… all of it. Nothing else is on. Have a good weekend!

  27. I have no problem lambasting a president on SNL. That’s parody. A show that presents iself as the truth, that is setup like a historical mini-series? That attempts to destroy a president. I don’t agree with.

    I’m a conservative. I would be extermely upset if there was a mini-series call “The Clintons” which focused on the sex, and all the negative aspects of the Clinton Presidency. Why? Because the office does deserve some respect. That simple. The series on Comedy Central which was pretty biased, and attacked bush? No problem.

    Oh and this isn’t about free speech vs censorship. It’s about business. The government didn’t step in, and disallow this showing. CBS (or Viacom) made a business decision. Smart or not? Who knows. But just about every program on TV has a group of people trying to stop it (Coupling, for example) before it even airs. They don’t always bow to the pressure.

    Jerry

  28. Here is a list, do with it what you will.

    Rush Limbaugh from ESPN

    Dr. Laura TV show

    Little Rascals

    Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer

    Seinfeld “puerto rican flag” episode

    Speedy Gonzalez cartoons were banned from TV.

    The forced the cancelation of a Charlie Chan movie weekend.

    The Siege

    The recent NAACP pressures to boycott TV until an acceptable member of blacks were added to prime time network shows

    Trying to get TV stations to not show NASCAR because it’s too “white dominated”

    The Tom Clancy movie (Sum of all fears) where the novels – Muslim terrorists- were changed to Neo- Nazis to avoid offending muslims

    N.O.W. trying to boycott the Man Show

    And of course, all the banning of plays and literature in schools because they offend racial feminist sensibilities (Huck Finn anyone?)

    AS Drudge has said this a victory for the people and for new media like the internet, where the word can spread.

  29. A question for conservatives that supported the pulling of this movie…

    Should we remove Rush Limbaugh from the air? Sean Hannity? Bill O’Reilly? Should we prevent them and Ann Coulter from ever writing a book again? Their lies are far worse than anything reported to be in this movie, and they portray these lies as the truth.

    How deep do your beliefs run, conservatives? Or are you just being hypocritical tools of your party?

    While I may disagree strongly with what these lying conservatives say (and lying liberals like Michael Moore), I would never dream of denying them their right to put those lies out to the masses. Instead, I focus on trying to educate people as to what the lies are.

  30. Rush Limbaugh from ESPN – I still think this was more over the drug revelation, which broke the same day, than the remarks.

    Dr. Laura TV show – Lousy ratings

    Little Rascals – I’m notsure what this is in reference to.

    Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer – Terrible show, lousy ratings.

    Seinfeld “puerto rican flag” episode – What about it? It aired. It still gets shown in syndication.

    Speedy Gonzalez cartoons were banned from TV. – Rescinded almost immediately, due in part to pressure from Mexican groups to air them.

    The forced the cancelation of a Charlie Chan movie weekend. – Understandable, given the stereotyping. I think Asians have a legitimate gripe here.

    The Siege – What about it? It got released.

    None of this compares to the Reagan thing – PC-ism has gone crazy occasionally, but it’s a very different situation. For every “liberal” PC thing (and only some of these really count) there’s a bunch of “conservative” PC things that are done as well (e.g., the cancellation of the “Beverly Hillbillies” reality series).

    Political correctness may have originated in the less rational wing of the liberal movement, but it’s been coopted by the conservatives as well. David Limbaugh’s new book, for example, is essentially a conservative PC screed.

  31. Ben said:

    <>

    I think the poster was responding to the assertion that leftists had never attempted to boycott or silence dissenting views. These are adequate examples, especially since many of the Democratic candidates asked for Limbaugh to be fired as *direct* result of what he said.

    Little Rascals – I’m notsure what this is in reference to.>>

    Buckwheat was viewed as an offensive character. Some groups tried to have the shows pulled. There is an urban myth that Bill Cosby bought up all the rights to the Little Rascals to keep them from ever being shown, which is not true.

    This reminds me: the NAACP put the kibosh on Amos & Andy, which is no less offensive than many so-called “black” shows on the air. It’s also quite funny.

    Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer – Terrible show, lousy ratings.>>

    However, there were attempts to cancel it based on its content.

    Seinfeld “puerto rican flag” episode – What about it? It aired. It still gets shown in syndication. >>

    It wasn’t shown in syndication for about three years or so. This was a *direct* result of pressure from Puerto Rican groups (frankly, the episode was rather flattering of the mess that is that dámņ parade).

    The forced the cancelation of a Charlie Chan movie weekend. – Understandable, given the stereotyping. I think Asians have a legitimate gripe here.>>

    No, they don’t. They can choose not to watch them. They can’t choose to keep others from watching them. That’s the main reason why boycotts are morally corrupt. You don’t need to boycott to keep something that no one will watch anyway off the air. The bottom line will take care of it. However, when people boycott, they concede that without their interference, the shows would be seen by enough people to remain on the air. They concede that the majority would like to see it and they attempt to keep the majority from seeing it.

    <>

    Yes, a lot of it is much worse. CBS merely did some hand waving, since you can watch The Reagans on Showtime. Limbaugh was pressured to resign because he said something he apparently shouldn’t have (again, a business decision but not one that upholds free speech).

    <>

    Yes, apparently you agree with them (the Charlie Chan example) or you are unaware of the ramifications (the Seinfeld example).

    << For every “liberal” PC thing (and only some of these really count) there’s a bunch of “conservative” PC things that are done as well (e.g., the cancellation of the “Beverly Hillbillies” reality series).>>

    Let’s stop misusing “liberal.” Liberals — like myself — would not support censorship. Leftists and right-wingers do.

    The cancellation of the Beverly Hillbillies reality series was a business decision that wasn’t really politically motivated, unless you’re implying that the people being offended in this case were all Republicans (poor rural people are often Democrats).

  32. Outrage? Victory? I don’t understand how either can be claimed. Until Americans on either side of the political fence stop identifying the other side as our greatest enemy; Until we can trust the media to value honesty more than money; Until we can agree that we all need a moral standard to live by; Until we can accept that our president, whether democrat or republican, may just be acting in the best interests of our nation, whether or not we personally agree with his decisions; all is loss, all is outrage. So laugh when your side wins, cry when you lose. Or do like I do and cry all the time.

  33. I’ve read through your posting three times now, and each time I read “What the GOP Doesn’t Have” I think silently, “…They ain’t got dames!”

  34. That’s the main reason why boycotts are morally corrupt. You don’t need to boycott to keep something that no one will watch anyway off the air.

    Yes, you do…if folks don’t know why you don’t want to watch it. Tell people WHY you’re not buying a product; it’s up to them to go along with you or not. But I think it’s sloppy thinking to brand that sort of thing morally corrupt.

  35. Ben said: I don’t buy the financial angle in the slightest – as far as this sort of thing is concerned, there really is no such thing as bad publicity. This idea that a boycott was a real threat to CBS is practically laughable; it’s been shown time and time again that advertiser boycotts simply don’t work (remember Wildman?) because very, very few people go along with them.

    I think you might have misunderstood the situation here. The reason the boycott threat worked just fine is that it was not a matter of viewers threatening to boycott CBS. It was the advertisers that threatened to boycott CBS. Hardly laughable when the advertisers who’ll be boycotting include bigwigs such as Target.

    The cold, hard truth is that broadcast TV is not about free speech or balanced presentation. The networks do not provide programming out of altruism — they are entertaining us for the sole purpose of delivering us as a commodity to their real customers: the advertisers. And the number one rule of business is that the customer is always right.

    Whether conservatives bullied these companies or they were just afraid of backlash, the point is that they in effect made the decision for CBS, which has a fiscal duty as a corporation to make sound financial decisions. If you don’t like it, blame the people who put financial pressure on the network.

  36. That’s the main reason why boycotts are morally corrupt. You don’t need to boycott to keep something that no one will watch anyway off the air.

    Yes, you do…if folks don’t know why you don’t want to watch it. Tell people WHY you’re not buying a product; it’s up to them to go along with you or not. But I think it’s sloppy thinking to brand that sort of thing morally corrupt.>>

    I obviously disagree. Look, I wouldn’t bother staging a boycott for a racist sitcom called The Nìggërš. If America didn’t watch it on its own accord, then we have other issues to deal with.

    It’s pretty clear that the whole reason that a minority exerts economic pressure to silence something it finds offensive is because it would otherwise find an audience. Would it have been worth trying to boycott Skin?

    I can understand letting people know why you’re not watching something. Though, I really don’t have enough time to tell the world why I’m avoiding most UPN programming. But boycotts aren’t about *dialogue.* It’s not about writing a column about how grossly inaccurate The Reagans is. That was never a problem, was it? People who objected to The Reagans had every avenue open to them to express their views (and they did). However, they were only content with not allowing anyone else to see it. It’s the difference between countering offensive words and keeping offensive words from even being uttered. The latter can’t be allowed in a free society.

  37. The script was leaked! Nothing was made up and this movie was as bad as it sounded.

    The political beliefs of those who made the movie does in fact matter.

    How about if FOX makes a movie about the Clintons made by Rush Limbaugh staring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

  39. Controversy continues to swirl around the movie, set for air later this month, with CBS now considering a “news supplement” addition tagged to the end of the two-part film, to both fill time from late edits made to the project, and to cool cries of heavy-handed political bias at the network.

    Meanwhile, Reagan daughter Patty Davis is considering a public comment of concern over liberties taken by CBS in telling the story of Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

    CBS’s senior vice president of movies and miniseries, Bela Bajaria, is being blamed internally at the network for the growing backlash against the project, CBS sources said this weekend.

    “Look, it was going to be about the Reagans and their family,” a senior network source said. “A love story! We lost control of it… it transformed. Politics was seasoned in. What was delivered is not what was pitched to me or anyone else here, that I am aware of.”

    Bajaria told the LOS ANGELES TIMES last summer that in REAGANS she wanted to tell “an amazing love story that spans four decades.”

    “We don’t expect this to be controversial,” she explained.

    p. 180 of final REAGANS script– SCENE WITH DON REGAN TALKING TO MICHAEL DEAVER ABOUT NANCY

    REGAN: So, Deaver — tell me. You’ve known Madame Fuhrer a lot longer than I have. How the hëll do you manage to put up with her?

    Last week in Los Angeles former First Lady Nancy Reagan was being described by close friends as “discouraged” over the film, as controversial new details emerge.

    One of the most painful accusations raised in the CBS movie is that President Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease — 9 years before he was diagnosed, a charge Nancy has told friends is an outrageous lie!

    p. 185-186 — SCENE WITH NANCY TALKING TO DR. HUTTON, THE REAGANS’ PHYSICIAN, AFTER REAGAN’S CANCER SURGERY IN JULY 1985

    INT. HOSPITAL CORRIDOR —

    Nancy talking to Dr. Hutton:

    DR. HUTTON: The good news is, we caught it at an early stage. Now all he needs is a little radiation, and he should be fine.

    Pause.

    NANCY: Doctor… do you think this could explain why Ronnie… I mean, some of his behavior…

    DR. HUTTON: What behavior?

    NANCY: His… his forgetfulness… and he’s… he’s tired, all the time…

    DR. HUTTON: You’d be forgetful and tired, if you were President of the United States.

    NANCY: Yes… but he’s not the same… something’s wrong.

    DR. HUTTON: Don’t worry, Mrs. Reagan. If something were wrong, we’d know about it. Say, that “Just Say No” program of yours is getting a lot of play, isn’t it?

    NANCY: Doctor, I’m trying to tell you, Ronnie’s not well…

    DR. HUTTON: Of course he’s not well, he’s just had surgery for cancer. Once he gets back on his feet — maybe a little vacation — you’ll see. He’ll be fine. He’s a warhorse.

    NANCY (trying to believe him): Thank you, Doctor.

    He gives her arm a squeeze, and heads down the hall. Nancy stands there, trying to collect herself. Kathy Osborne comes up to her with a cup of tea.

    NANCY’S ASSISTANT: Here’s your tea. It’s a little strong, but you can add some more milk to it, and it will be fine.

    Nancy turns to her, bitterly:

    NANCY: Everybody keeps saying that. “It’s fine. Everything’s fine,” they tell me. (pause) Well, everything is not fine. It’s not fine. It’s not.

    Also of major concern is the impression that Ronald Reagan was homophobic, which is referenced throughout the script.

    P. 123, Backstage at a performance of the Joffrey Ballet where young Ron is performing.

    INT. BACKSTAGE — THEATER — NIGHT

    The Secret Service move Nancy and Reagan THRU A CRUSH OF DANCERS, MEDIA, WELL-WISHERS toward the men’s dressing room

    INT. MEN’S DRESSING ROOM — CONTINUING

    It’s backstage at the Moulin Rouge. Mirrors, shadowy lights… MALE DANCERS in various states of undress, showering, getting dressed for a night of parties, as the Secret Service explodes into the room to check it over…

    RON: Oh Christ. Sorry, everybody — it’s my parents.

    Suddenly the door opens, the Reagans are whooshed into the room. The dancers freeze, in genuine awe. Reagan tries to cover his discomfort:

    REAGAN: It’s okay, boys. It’s only us, and God knows, we’ve seen plenty of dressing rooms. Don’t be embarrassed.

    But the dancers are embarrassed, especially as the room fills with PHOTOGRAPHERS AND REPORTERS, catching Nancy as she runs over to Ron, and plants a big kiss right on his lips:

    NANCY: Oh, Ron! You were so wonderful!

    RON: Thanks, Mom.

    Reagan stares uncomfortably at Ron’s make-up (reds, greens, yellows, a la Nureyev) and sticks out his hand, man-to-man.

    REAGAN: Yes, sir. You were always a natural athlete. Football, basketball. (loudly) You’re all boy.

    NANCY: (gushing) Ron, we had no idea — did we, Ronnie — we had no idea how great you were!

    RON: No, I’m not great. I started too late. But I love it. Mom. I do.

    REAGAN: Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly. There was nothing wrong with them, either, Strong. Stronger than most fullbacks. Did I ever tell you about the time I had dinner with Gene?

    RON: Doria! Come in!

    Ron’s talking to Doria (his wife), who has appeared in the doorway. She smiles, shyly.

    NEWSPAPER HEADLINES —

    Newspaper photo of Reagan, Nancy, Doria, and Ron all smiling broadly, arms around each other. The headline blares: “He’s Not Gay, Says Proud Papa.”

  40. what about the financial reasoning do you not get? There is no such thing as bad publicity if you are only going for a one-shot big time ratings. Most of CBS’s viewers are older and conservative. You offend them and you lose a lot more than what a tv movie can produce.

    It should also be mentioned the movie will air on showtime.

    It should also be mentioned that nancy reagan herself said the movie was offensive and hurtful to her family.

    Also the timing should be mentioned. Wait a couple years the man is on his gøddámņ deathbed.

  41. The bits and pieces that have been releashed showed how unaccurate the film is. “Let them die in sin” or “I am the antichrist” are things that, according to Reagan’s family and people that were there, were never said. But the filmmakers felt the need to add these things. Nope, no political bias there.

    There are plenty of things (see some posts above) that show negative things about the Reagans. So, why did the filmmakers feel they needed to make up even more negative stuff? That alone should show there was a severe bias involved in the project. I agree that if they wanted to make this film, they could have gone the “Primary Colors” route and changed the names. But a biopic should at least try to be accurate.

    This isn’t a case of censorship. The film will still be aired (although on a pay channel at first). But anyone want to bet how long it will be before it’s shown on broadcast TV. I’m betting 3-6 months after Ronald Reagan’s death. CBS “caved” to the advertisers, which pay the bills. The advertisers listened to the public that was upset about the film. It’s a simple matter of economics. Did any of you screaming “CENSORSHIP” write or call the advertisers tellng them they should go ahead and buy time on this movie? This is all very similar to the groups that were boycotting the Dr. Laura TV show before it even aired. I guess it’s OK for political groups to lobby advertisers not to support something, but not OK for lots of individuals to do the same thing.

    And, like it or not, there are still millions of people that actually like Ronald Reagan (collective gasp!). Those people don’t want to see a hatchet job, and let their voices be heard.

  44. “It’s pretty clear that the whole reason that a minority exerts economic pressure to silence something it finds offensive is because it would otherwise find an audience.”

    The power to silence in the case of boycotts only means something if the majority agrees with the minority; otherwise, the “power” is quite impotent. And, again, much of this boils down to informing the various audiences the whys and wherefores. A boycott is meaningless if audiences don’t agree with the reasons for it; if the audiences DO agree, then it’s the free market at work.

    Calling boycotts morally bankrupt is saying, a priori, you may not do this action. It takes the decision away from the individual just as much as deciding a product shouldn’t be released in the first place.

  45. Jeff wrote: “And, like it or not, there are still millions of people that actually like Ronald Reagan (collective gasp!). Those people don’t want to see a hatchet job, and let their voices be heard.”

    These millions of people… they sport straitjackets and that cool metal eyewear modelled by Alex in A Clockwork Orange, apparently.

    A hack named Albert Goldman once wrote a hatchet job on John Lennon. You know what I did? I didn’t buy it. Problem solved.

  46. I have always thought of Reagan as the “Teflon President.” Nothing stuck to him while he was in office. And the cancellation of this movie just seems to be more in the same vein. It is sad that he’s dying of Alzheimers, cruelly and slowly, but this is just a movie, after all. No one expects it to be truthful. Or fair. Or, since it’s a political biopic, all that interesting.

  47. Jeff wrote: “And, like it or not, there are still millions of people that actually like Ronald Reagan (collective gasp!). Those people don’t want to see a hatchet job, and let their voices be heard.”

    Grant wrote: “These millions of people… they sport straitjackets and that cool metal eyewear modelled by Alex in A Clockwork Orange, apparently.”

    It sure didn’t take long for someone to come up with a belittling comment there! I guess if you can’t participate in a discussion, that’s what a person is reduced to.

  48. Jeff, are you talking about the “collective gasps” comment or the “Clockwork Orange” one? Both could be seen as belittling.

  49. Howdy,

    Just for the record, the Charlie Chan films were but back on the schedule after Chan fans squawked louder than the Asian-American groups that tried getting it pulled off the air.

    The fact that nobody seems to know this probably suggests how important this issue really was to those who denigrated the action as “more PC garbage.” All most of them cared about was that someone who didn’t look like them said they couldn’t see them.

    — Ed

  50. Just so that *some of you* know, the man you are defending spells his name REAGAN, not REGAN.

    He was in numerous movies, was president for 8 years, and was elected to the office over 20 years ago, and you still can’t spell his name correctly?

Comments are closed.