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
• 
Calling boycotts morally bankrupt is saying, a priori, you may not do this action.>>
No, what would make you think that? You’re free to do something I oppose (as long as it’s not murder, embezzlement, or wearing white after Labor Day). I support a free society, rememeber?
However, I won’t withhold my contempt for an action in the name of tolerance.
Something to consider:
1. CBS is owned by Viacom.
2. Viacom stands to benefit if Congress upholds the new FCC rules relaxing media ownership by big conglomerates.
3. Congress is controlled by the Republican party.
4. The protests against “The Reagans” was led by the head of the RNC.
It might not be government-sanctioned censorship, but it’s darn close…
The bottom line is:
CBS produced a dramatization about Reagan that (gasp!) portrayed some aspects of his presidency negatively. Instead of confronting it with positive things about Reagan, they attacked the show’s sponsors. O’Reilly even made some not-so-thinly veiled threats that “the people” would make CBS “pay” for their crime against St. Ron. Their goal was prevent “the people” from being able to see it make up their own mind about it.
That is wrong. It is wrong for this movie and it was wrong when people tried to stop showings of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” or the “The Last Temptation of Christ.” It’s not only wrong but it’s insulting. O’Reilly and his ilk are telling me that I’m too stupid to able to see what is fact and what is sensationalized fiction. They will decide what is fit for me to view because only they understand the “truth” of the Reagan legacy.
As for Reagan being ill and unable to defend himself, that is irrelevent. JFK and Nixon have been the subject of numerous hatchet jobs (I won’t go into the subject of whether Nixon deserved a hatchet job) and they’re dead! Nancy’s alive and able to speak. So are Schultz, Haig, Bush Sr., Meese and nearly every other administration official with a first hand account of what the administration was like behind closed doors. Let them defend St. Ron’s good name.
**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!”
Posted by Londo @ 11/06/2003 11:18 AM ET**
Uh, we’ve actually got Ann Coulter (roowrrr!!!), Bo “She’s An Official ’10′” Derek, and — very likely because of their conservative family backgrounds — the younger sister on “Providence” and that blonde from “Ed”. And probably a few other Hollywood actresses who won’t admit it because they have to to work in, well, Hollywood (home of the place where a studio will make such monumental initial PR blunders as having Barbara Streisand’s husband get cast as Ronald Reagan…).
I’m glad it’s yanked. I would have boycotted it to the fullest. I saw the clip they showed on Fox news and it was nothing more than a joke. The poor man is dying. I bet if it was your dying father being made fun of you’d think differently. And I am not a Dem nor a Repub.
Jeff, I don’t see how you would perceive the Clockwork Orange comparison as belittling. You’re the one who claimed millions of Republicans would be forced to watch the movie when, in fact, they have the option to not watch it. I refer you to the title and the first two lines of PAD’s entry: nobody is obliged to watch The Reagans.
In fact, the entire crux of that paragraph is logically unsound. The most successful films in the history of cinema have not been watched by millions of people. There are, quite literally, millions of people who have chosen to not watch Titanic or those Lord of the Rings movies because they don’t have an interest in seeing them. I’m among those millions; should my lack of interest in seeing either movie “be heard” to the degree that the films are removed from video store shelves? I have no interest in seeing a fantasy epic with orcs and trolls, so why not let my voice be heard and let’s ban this next movie before it reaches theatres!
Or maybe I should do what I did when Showtime tried to tell me our current Commander in Chief was Super-president in their DC 9/11 film: just ignore the silly movie and let people who want to watch it enjoy it in peace.
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: No, they’re depending on the script, and on the reputations of the people involved in producing the film.
Peter David: 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. 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.
Luigi Novi: So if a film like this is filled with lies and bûllšhìŧ, we should encourage them to be aired? Shouldn’t its accuracy be determined by evidence, rather than by “personal conclusions”?
Ann Coulter?! I suppose if you like anorexics that no nothing of true conservative politics and are routinely destroyed by Chris Matthews on live television….
Ok, now I’m confused. Was this a thread about politcally-based censorship or that networks yank a show because someone has a fit? Reading thru the thread (wherever the tedium that is polito-speak doesn’t bore me to tears) and the only interesting things that catches my eye are 1) bìŧçhìņg about Brolin, 2) saying they made stuff up about Reagan when the stuff was bad enough and 3) listing other such “offenses”. Maybe I’m not used to rambling on a thread or it could be that I don’t care about political discussions that center around A FRIGGIN MOVIE! I said above I didn’t want to watch the thing but after hearing apparent Reppies saying they ADDED stuff and complained that there was so MUCH bad stuff they shouldn’t have felt the need, well… kind of intrigues me. Never been a big fan of Brolin but to hear complaints of his selection based upon his politics is completely riduculous. Reminds me of the churchies who complained about George Burns being god. He’s an actor. Would they rather Rich Little have that guy from the 80’s who was everywhere as Reagan (even Hollywood Squares) and whose sole base for the impression was saying “Well…” fifty times a minutes, breathing funny and twitching? I know there were some serious issues with the man. You could tell watching him. Same way you could tell Clinton was a šlûŧ and a liar and W is a putz. Instead of stopping this movie, why are Reppies making their own version? Hëll, look at how many Long Island Lolita movies they made. Or Lucy flicks. Hollywood likes repetition. It’s easier. Personally, I think CBS just found a reason to stop an “event” that would have been anything but.
Uh, we’ve actually got Ann Coulter (roowrrr!!!), Bo “She’s An Official ’10′” Derek, and — very likely because of their conservative family backgrounds — the younger sister on “Providence” and that blonde from “Ed”. And probably a few other Hollywood actresses who won’t admit it because they have to to work in, well, Hollywood
Yes, because look at the damage done to the careers of Republicans like Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Selleck. Whatever happened to those poor bášŧárdš? Please. If anything, this past year has shown that it’s being liberal that gets you into trouble with Hollywood. (Also, Anne Coulter? Stop it. Just stop it.)
(home of the place where a studio will make such monumental initial PR blunders as having Barbara Streisand’s husband get cast as Ronald Reagan…).
What exactly do you think happened when Brolin married Streisand? Did she thrust her ovapositor into his chest and work her tendrils into his brain, bending him to his will? Do you actually think he was cast because he’s Barbra Streisand’s husband? James Brolin was a well-known TV actor long before he got married. The last time I checked, you didn’t need to share the same opinions with someone to be married to them. Take a look at James Carville and Mary Matalin sometime.
Actually, I bet with all the publicity this movie is getting it will be seen by more people now(plus when the DVD comes out), than it would of been otherwise. And here is my prediction: Hollywood will stick it to conservatives, by nominating this movie for the Emmy for best mini series and it will win. I have no doubt that this will come true.
I’ve read excerpts from Anne Coulter’s book and I’ve seen her debate on those talking head shows on Fox, MSNBC, etc.
Here’s my assessment of her: She’s not bad to look at, but she’s an absolute, frickin’ loon.
What exactly do you think happened when Brolin married Streisand? Did she thrust her ovapositor into his chest and work her tendrils into his brain, bending him to his will?
Of course, didn’t you watch South Park? Barbra Streisand is pure evil. “Ðámņ your black heart, Barbra Streisand!” 🙂
Seriously, the whole Brolin/Streisand thing is pure slander. Because Streisand is an outspoken liberal with a reputation as a prima dona, anything and anyone that she is remotely conntect to is guilty by association. It’s easier to attack it through her than to come up with examples that counter the alleged distortions of this movie.
Taking a cue from the extreme right punditocracy (it was only 16 words in an entire speech):
It’s only 9 words in an entire movie that everyone is so focused on.
Peter, I’m not sure why you insist on critics of this travesty having to have seen two plus hours of it to know it was a hatchet job. The numerous inaccurate statements are on record and played ver batim. Reagan looked like an ignorant fool in scene after scene. True, you say? Then you’re no better than CBS or the writer of this garbage.
With some controversial media, I agree it’s best to see the project as a whole–Mel Gibson’s upcoming THE PASSION OF CHRIST, for example. But there are plenty of script tidbits and scenes released to see what CBS was going for–the rewriting of history of Ronald Reagan as a confused, insensitive lout with an Odipedus complex.
People who wish to waste their time will still be able to see the show, so what’s the complaint?
“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.”
That strikes me as incorrect. In all the reports and articles I’ve read, there was no indicator that any sponsors were withdrawing support (or even contemplating it) from THE REAGANS for fear of consumer boycott. In fact, I haven’t seen so much as one news item on “grass roots” opposition to the movie, only from heads of large and politically powerful right-wing organizations and popular right-wing pundits. From what a person can reasonably conclude, CBS was pressured by a very small but very powerful minority to bury or otherwise yank the project. I don’t think CBS was extorted per se, but I suspect that hints were sent that if they didn’t play ball by the RNC’s rules, there would be reprecussions (cutting off access to reporters, threatening unfavorable legislation to Viacom, etc.). The fact that the official line from CBS on why the movie was pulled is “the project was unbalanced” as opposed to a usual, non-specific reason that networks give when programs are yanked or cancelled (like “we concluded there is not enough interest in the film”) just strengthens my suspicions.
My take? Usually, biopics are reserved for the dead and I can’t imagine why it struck the CBS brass as a good idea to do one on Reagan now. I was never a fan of Reagan and I had no interest in watching the movie, but now with all this bruhaha, I’m tempted to flip it on just to see what the sound and fury is all about.
The only reason anybody’s saying anything is a) it’s Reagan, b) it’s Republican.
Here we are, more than 2 years after 9/11, and apparently it’s still wrong to speak out against the GOP.
That’s about all there is to it.
A Beautiful Mind won major awards for it’s inaccuracies.
That stupid Lynch movie will just inaccurately talk about an “American Hero”, when, as somebody else mentioned, the real heroes who saved her are nowhere to be found.
And a movie about Reagan? Pure evil, apparently. What a joke.
Peter, I’m not sure why you insist on critics of this travesty having to have seen two plus hours of it to know it was a hatchet job.
Because the only way you or I “know” it’s a hatchet job is because of what we’ve been told — and short of watching the darn thing, there’s no way we can determine if what we’ve been told is correct.
The New York Times notes that the movie also gives Reagan credit for ending the Cold War and portrays him as “an exceptionally gifted politician and a moral man who stuck to his beliefs, often against his advisers’ urgings.” Does that sound like a “hatchet job” to you?
Yes, it’s unfair to take shots at Reagan while he’s old & sick. Best to wait a short time until his black, shriveled soul is burning in Hëll.
Goodness me. Well, if nothing else I guess this whole affair has gotten people riled up. Good. Placidity gets boring after a while 🙂
Personally, I think it would be mean to lambast anybody while they’re in trouble. Or dying or dead or have family who care about them. Coming from the UK I have to deal with ANOTHER Princess Diana related ‘beyond-the-grave-death-conspiracy-drug-related-alien-abduction piece of crap every week. it’s pretty shameful that people do stuff like that. I feel so bad for the two kids, one of them’s the same age as me and I know if I was him I’d feel like ripping these peoples’ intestines out. Colorfully.
sna (from scotland)
**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.**
Squawked? Funny.
Well, I for one was aware of this and it was indeed “more PC garbage” by a select group of people who have little knowledge of what the films really are all about. It was appalling that FMC bowed down to this self-interest group of individuals and pulled the movies. And when FMC did air them again, they included those incredibly biased “discussions” at the beginning and end of the Chan movies. Shame on the Asian Coalition!
Now, for anyone to see “The Reagans” they’ll have to pay in order to do so.
Not necessarily. Showtime could decide and choose the weekend they air this movie to have a “free viewing weekend.” (and save the , “oh, but not everyone has cable… blah blah blah…”).
Ben: Rush Limbaugh from ESPN – I still think this was more over the drug revelation, which broke the same day, than the remarks. Actually, the painkiller thing broke about a week after he got booted from ESPN. I hate to nitpick, but accuracy is important.
And while we’re on the subject of accuracy… all you guys out there frothing at the mouth about how CBS President Les Moonves is a liberal sympathizer have forgotten something. Remember the Martha Burk-organized boycott of the Masters Tournament earlier this year (a boycott which, by the way, sent advertisers running early on, quite unlike this ‘you’d better drop the Reagan biopic, or we’re going to strongly urge advertisers to stay away’ dreck we’re seeing now)? You want to talk about a bunch of uber-conservative white guys, well, the Augusta National is a good place to start. CBS not only opted to air the Tournament in the face of the boycott, but did so without most major advertisers, all on the National’s dime! Do those sound like the actions of a ‘liberal sympathizer’ to you?
Robert Jung: It might not be government-sanctioned censorship, but it’s darn close… And that’s exactly what’s so scary about the whole thing: a work is being effectively withheld from the public domain, and it can’t rightfully be called censorship.
To paraphrase Henry Rollins, they’re spitting on our minds. The conservative element responsible for axing “The Reagans” is saying, “we know better as to what you should be watching, because we’re the ones in charge, and you’re just some dumb $h!t.” It’s hypocritical, it’s disrespectful, and it’s wrong. Period.
Oh, and everyone who’s thinks it’s okay because the biopic will get aired on Showtime, anyway, so no harm, no foul, right? WRONG– that conservative element is still attempting to edit the version Showtime will air (http://www.imdb.com/StudioBrief/#8).
Where will it end?
tOjb
THE MAN IS DYING! For God Sakes, don’t you people have any heart????? Jesus Christ, talk about heartless.
THE MAN IS DYING! For God Sakes, don’t you people have any heart????? Jesus Christ, talk about heartless.
It’s funny, liberals are all about “heart” and compassion, until they hear or see something that they disagree with. Then they’re usually worse than whomever they’re railing against. They have freedom of speech–you or I certainly don’t.
Maybe CBS decided to take a cue from the flack that NBC got a few years ago (even from its own “Saturday Night Live”) for the loony fictionalization and historical mismatches that went on into that awful “Noah’s Ark” mini-series with Jon Voight a few years ago. (The one where Lot — who actually doesn’t enter the Old Testament picture for a few hundred years after Noah — is shown leading a band of “Waterworld” refrugees into an attack on the ark!) Maybe CBS felt it might lose audience credibility for future historical dramas, just as NBC did.
The best theory I heard about this is that CBS realized the whole show was a pile of cr@p. No network pulls a controversial show if it gets ratings (which they always do). The fact that it moved it to an alternate network may just mean the whole thing is a waste of film – and not worth the uproar it’s caused.
Does this thread remind anyone else of the Dixie Chicks thread that we had a few months ago?
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.
I dunno. Remember the flap over King’s thesis a few years ago? It seems as though the uproar over the plagiarism had less to do with the accuracy of the allegations than with the temerity of questioning King. (Personally I think the man deserves a holiday just for writing “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” but I’m idiosyncratic.) Liberals are as intolerant as conservatives. Actually, more so, and this is the reason that conservatives (these days Republicans) will be the natural party of government and liberals (currently Democrats) will be the natural party of opposition (in more ways than one) for the foreseeable future. With a few notable exceptions, conservatives don’t believe liberals are evil. We think they’re wrong, gullible, naive, but we understand that for the most part they’re trying to do what they think is best. Liberals tend not to give us the same credit. When we voice opinions, we’re not “wrong” or “misguided.” We’re “racist” or “homophobic” or on the take. Until liberals recognize that most conservatives are acting from principle the same way the leftists are, they’ll continue underestimating us, and losing.
“The series on Comedy Central which was pretty biased, and attacked bush? No problem.”
And again, the problem at the root of this shows up against without any apparent irony, which reminds me that Conservatives were VERY quick to say that 9/11 was the end of Irony.
The show “That’s My Bush”, made by the South Park team, was a silly sitcom that happened to use Bush and would have been done exactly the same if Gore would have won…and the South Park boys have gone on record repeatedly saying that they are supporters of Bush and consider themselves HUGE conservatives. But, without seeing the show, you thought it was a disrespectful show made by “Hollywood Liberals.”
So typical. So wrong.
BrakYeller wrote:
\\And that’s exactly what’s so scary about the whole thing: a work is being effectively withheld from the public domain, and it can’t rightfully be called censorship.
To paraphrase Henry Rollins, they’re spitting on our minds. The conservative element responsible for axing “The Reagans” is saying, “we know better as to what you should be watching, because we’re the ones in charge, and you’re just some dumb $h!t.” It’s hypocritical, it’s disrespectful, and it’s wrong. Period.
Oh, and everyone who’s thinks it’s okay because the biopic will get aired on Showtime, anyway, so no harm, no foul, right? WRONG– that conservative element is still attempting to edit the version Showtime will air (http://www.imdb.com/StudioBrief/#8).
Where will it end?\\
Well, it certainly won’t end with the likes of you using scare tactics to exagerate things. There is no censorship involved here. The movie will see the light of day and people can watch it if they choose.
It’s funny, liberals are all about “heart” and compassion, until they hear or see something that they disagree with. Then they’re usually worse than whomever they’re railing against. They have freedom of speech–you or I certainly don’t.
__
I AM NOT A lib nor a con nor a dem nor a repub. Love how people label other people and the used to call Archie Bunker the biggest Bigot in the world.
It’s still heartless and tasteless period. no matter what your politcal views maybe. The man is dying and the newtwork wants to do is make a buck off it….
tacky.
I doubt anyone here would want a movie about their dying father made like it was a poor comedy or a sick joke. You people are so of it.
From Grant: Jeff, I don’t see how you would perceive the Clockwork Orange comparison as belittling. You’re the one who claimed millions of Republicans would be forced to watch the movie when, in fact, they have the option to not watch it. I refer you to the title and the first two lines of PAD’s entry: nobody is obliged to watch The Reagans.
I didn’t claim that millions of Republicans would be forced to watch the movie. I said that millions of people liked Ronald Reagan. The “gasp” was for the people here that just can’t believe that others might actually like something,or someone, they don’t. And saying that the people that like Reagan are straightjacketed and going thru aversion therapy is insulting.
I still say if the filmmakers wanted to make a negative picture about Reagan, then they could have found enough true examples to exploit. They could have tackled the time it took to respond to the AIDS crisis, or the Iran-Contra affair, or a number of different things. The fact that they feel they needed to make up things shows me what a bad job they did. A biopic really should have more correct than the names of the people being portrayed.
CBS (and VIACOM) were not censored. They still have the film and plan on showing it. The public spoke out expressing their displeasure, leading the network to change when and where it would be shown. If the suits had faith in the product, they would have gone the way of the Masters Tournament (as someone else stated) and run the program commerical free, or with limited commerical breaks if and when advertisers pulled out. But, it’s not just the network commericals that would be affected. There are the local stations that get air time during programs that might lose ad revenue as well. Plus, it’s television ratings time. It’s really NOT a good time for broadcasters to start alienating their audience.
For those that don’t understand the ratings periods, this is when the advertiser rates are set for the next several months. These rates are based on numbers of people watching. That’s why especially November and Febuary the networks will have more specials than any other time.
More on Lynch and the Pentagon’s foofaraw, from the horse’s mouth:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031107/people_nm/people_lynch_dc_2
Interesting take on “The Reagans:”
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090834/
As for the ‘free’ and “blah…blah…blah” comments made above – anything is, of course, possible – Showtime might breed and then send every viewer a free flying monkey, too.
Speculating to the extreme is a dead-end.
The original “they’ll have to pay for it” was just what it stands as – a throwaway, a ‘bit,’, nothing more, nothing less.
This Reagan miniseries thing has me so upset, I’m going to do something about it. I’m so fed up with people misrepresenting Our Nation’s Greatest President that I’m going to build a time machine, go back to the late ’70s, and get Saturday Night Live cancelled before they can ever show a single untruth about Our Nation’s Greatest President.
Seriously, this is absurd. Bush is still fumbling around with his pet war and we as a nation are so disinterested that we give this much of a šhìŧ about a CBS miniseries? That this is even an issue outside TV Guide and the entertainment sections of newspapers is proof that we deserve the government we’ve got.
“I still say if the filmmakers wanted to make a negative picture about Reagan, then they could have found enough true examples to exploit.“
–Jeff
Yeah, they could have given my Grandma a call. She went to high school in Ashton, IL, and their biggest rival was Dixon, which was a few short miles away. She knew Reagan back when he was a bodyguard and thought he was a dûmbášš.
One last thing: Anyone who has MSN as a homepage might have seen the fluff piece with 12 facts you may not have known about American Presidents. I loved this thing. It didn’t tell anything I didn’t know, but the last two presidents with a piece of trivia in the article were Clinton and Dubya. Dubya’s fact was that he was a cheerleader in college and started a stickball team there. All the other presidents’ facts showcased great character or high intelligence, but Clinton’s was just that he liked to cheat at golf.
I’m not denying that there’s a liberal bias in the media, but it’s at least balanced by the conservative bias in same. It’s probably outweighed, actually.
Quick; name a liberal political talk show host (aside from Al Franken)!
Actually, the painkiller thing broke about a week after he got booted from ESPN.
CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews were all talking about the painkiller allegations before Limbaugh resigned. He confirmed the allegations about a week later, but the initial reports that his name had come up in relation to a drug investigation hit while the talking heads were still speculating on whether Limbaugh’s ESPN job would survive his McNabb/media comments.
Actually, the painkiller thing broke about a week after he got booted from ESPN.
CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews were all talking about the painkiller allegations before Limbaugh resigned. He confirmed the allegations about a week later, but the initial reports that his name had come up in relation to a drug investigation hit while the talking heads were still speculating on whether Limbaugh’s ESPN job would survive his McNabb/media comments.
With a few notable exceptions, conservatives don’t believe liberals are evil.
I assume by “notable exception,” you mean Anne Coulter?
“And again, the problem at the root of this shows up against without any apparent irony, which reminds me that Conservatives were VERY quick to say that 9/11 was the end of Irony.
The show “That’s My Bush”, made by the South Park team, was a silly sitcom that happened to use Bush and would have been done exactly the same if Gore would have won…and the South Park boys have gone on record repeatedly saying that they are supporters of Bush and consider themselves HUGE conservatives. But, without seeing the show, you thought it was a disrespectful show made by “Hollywood Liberals.”
So typical. So wrong. “
That’s awfully presumptious of you. I have seen the show. So I couldn’t remember the name? So what. And did I say the show was made by hollywood liberals? Nope. Putting words in my mouth?
Anyone watching the show, (and dámņìŧ, “eexxccuuuseee meeeee!” for not knowing the whole backstory and history of the creators. I have a life.) would see the show as biased. But as I very clearly said (obviously not clear enough for some people) was that I had no problem with it. Satire and Humor are one thing. Semi-historical seeming mini-series are something else…
Jerry
Quick; name a liberal political talk show host (aside from Al Franken)!
Alan Colmes, Chris Matthews (used to work for Tip O’Neill). Has Jesse Jackson’s Equal Time been cancelled? I’m thinking that it has, but that would count otherwise. Carville % Begala certainly represent the left well on Crossfire. There’s a fair mix.
Censorship????
Does anyone realize that the government has to ban something for it to be censorship (at least the wrong kind).
If John Byrne wrote a comic about PAD and DC refused to print it, that isn’t censorship. John can flap his mouth (or pen) all he wants, but no one has to publish it. No one has to listen to it or see it. If the GOVERNMENT swept down and told JB he couldn’t produce it, THEN it’s abhorant censorship, not before.
“Quick; name a liberal political talk show host (aside from Al Franken)!”
“Alan Colmes.”
Alan Colmes is a !#@$%!?@ milquetoast whose primary duty is to offer token opposition to anything Sean Hannily says. Franken’s book tears Colmes a few few orifices by documenting numerous instances where Colmes sat by passively while Sean doled out misinformation and hypocrisy on a daily basis. You might as well bring up John Byrne as an example of an artist who admires PAD’s work, fer crissakes.
If John Byrne wrote a comic about PAD and DC refused to print it, that isn’t censorship.
Yes it is. It’s corporate censorship, not government censorship. The difference is, corporate censorship is perfectly legal, since corporations have the right to publish or not publish what they want. TV stations censor programs all the time. They bleep out words or blur nudity or they pull programs because they knuckle under to threats to their sponsors.
Oh, and Alan Colmes is a joke. I think his main purpose on that show is to get Hannity his coffee.
Let us be clear: The yanking of the film has nothing to do with sensitivity to Reagan’s family or Reagan himself. Even if Reagan is of sufficient mental coherency to comprehend it…he doesn’t have to watch it. Nancy, the kids, none of them have to watch it.
It has to do entirely with the GOP striving to maintain control over how one of their sacred cows is presented. Nothing more, nothing less than that.
Some may not care about that. The reason is, as always, they believe in free speech for themselves and in that which they find pleasing. That which upsets them, they try to get rid of…all for the purest reasons, of course. Never because they’re censors or small minded, but because they’re protecting someone. The Reagans. Women. Children. Puppies. Whatever.
People prevented a movie they didn’t see from being aired on network. A film that, back in July, Leslie Moonves–who did see it–described as fair and even handed.
The question becomes: Where and when does it stop?
Answer: It doesn’t. TV movies. Theatrical films. Books. TV shows. Radio programs. There will always be people who are proud to call themselves Americans expressing contempt, in their actions, for the free speech upon which America rests.
This naturally doesn’t bother people who don’t truly believe in free speech, because they *like* preventing others from seeing something that bothers them personally. It’s a kick, a rush. Gives them a sense of control. Yup, yup, showed them uppity liberals what-for.
Of course, when the day arrives that someone comes after something that THEY want to see or hear…well, that’ll be another story entirely.
PAD
I do believe in free speech, but boycotts and the like still piss me off. The Rev. Donald Wildmon still has my ire for his part in getting Mighty Mouse cancelled in the late ’80s.
Dennis: There is no censorship involved here. The movie will see the light of day and people can watch it if they choose. If you look closely, you’ll see I said exactly that: pressuring CBS to move the biopic from a primetime slot during sweeps to the relative backwater of Showtime can’t be defined as censorship, though it sounds and feels like it. What bothers me is that in many ways this move is worse than state-sponsored censorship. People of a particular political leaning are unduly exerting their influence for the sole purpose of making something they don’t like go away. Not because it will give you cancer, not because it will start a war, and not because it’s illegal… but because they don’t agree with the political view it represents. They’re not freedom fighters for historical accuracy, they’re political pundits who are trying (and succeeding) to silence the opinions of their opponents. If that’s not scary to you, I don’t want to know what would be.
Jeff: The public spoke out expressing their displeasure, leading the network to change when and where it would be shown. The public? More like pro-Reagan furvor. This was a total non-issue until certain conservatives made it an issue. And I think you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of the people who are against airing the movie on CBS are against it because of their conservative beliefs.
In all honesty, I’m sorry that Reagan suffers from Alzheimer’s. I’m well aware of (and grateful for) the many positive aspects of his time as President. I don’t have any axe to grind with the guy, personally or politically. But when you become President of the United States, you become a target for criticism, whether it is deserved or not. It’s unavoidable, it comes with the job, and it’s both our right and our duty as citizens to criticize a leader when we feel they’ve done something wrong and support them when they do their job right. By most accounts this biopic is a far-fetched, poorly made hatchet job with an obvious agenda, and if turns out to be just that, I’d like to think that the American public can and will recognize fiction from fact, and that Reagan’s reputation is capable of withstanding an obvious attempt at smearing. But for the love of the principles this country was founded on, don’t rejoice in the silencing of any opinion, or aid others in their work to silence those opinions. Why is there such a pressing need to silence what is so very obviously someone’s ham-handed attempt at a political statement?
tOjb
Anyone watching the show, (and dámņìŧ, “eexxccuuuseee meeeee!” for not knowing the whole backstory and history of the creators. I have a life.) would see the show as biased.
And the fact remains that Stone & Parker were waiting for the results of the 2000 Election to figure out which show they were going to do: Bush or Gore.
Bush “won” the election, so they did the show around him.
Either way, it was going to be a satirical show about the President in the White House, so your comments about it being “biased” are pretty much useless.
Go watch South Park some time and you’ll know why.
IIRC, the only thing they were told (by the gov’t no less) was off limits was any sort of assassination attempt and such againt the President.
If this was verbal, I’d speak slowely for you, but it doesn’t really work written down. Just read this twice, so you undestand…
Do you know the definition of Biased? It basically is ” to influence unfavorably or detrimentally”. Are you saying “That’s my Bush” reflected on Bush in a positive light? Hmm? It doesn’t matter if they weren’t anti bush, or pro gore, liberal or democrat. Only you brought that up. Not me. Amazing. Like a black guy bringing up race and accusing me of racism. The fact of the matter is, the show showed Bush in a negative light. And you know what? As I said several times, I DON’T CARE! It’s satire. It’s comedy. I love when SNL makes fun of Bush. It’s ussually funny (except this year. The new guy doing it sucks).
So how bout you stop trying to hijack my point? I at no point attacked, or had anything negative to say about the comedy central show. Yet you focused on that. Defensive?
One more GOP “dame”: Tracy Scoggins
There’s something wrong when a film claims to be a historical movie and doesn’t bother to ask/interview any of the people they’re making the movie about (Michael Reagan, Patti Davis, Nancy Reagan etc).
CBS pulled it because they knew it wasn’t credible enough to withstand the critics (who were informed what the film contained, many had seen clips and seen the script).
“The notion that President Reagan was a homophobe strikes me as silly beyond belief,
“Not only did he have several gay men on his staff when he was Governor of California,” said Christian, “he called my lover, Rock Hudson when he was on his deathbed just weeks before he died of AIDS and wished him well and voiced his and Nancy’s concern and prayers.”
Information on the Reagan Administration’s AIDS policy from a member of the team: http://nationalreview.com/comment/kmiec200310230835.asp
Gentlemen, gentlemen. The man requested the name of a liberal talk show host. I supplied Colmes, who is a) liberal and b0 a talk show host. His lack of stones is another matter altogether.