CBS pulls Reagan miniseries

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 4, 2003.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    pussies. i don't for a second believe a grass-roots conservative movement got it yanked. more likely the efforts of the GOP party itself.

    i'm seeing a pattern in how anything critical -- or even potentially critical -- of republicans can be "dealt with."
     
  2. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
  3. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    Does everybody see the liberal media in action???

    A major network pandering to conservative groups who dislike a portrayal of a conservative president. Sounds really liberal to me. :rolleyes:

    Taft
     
  4. Ensoniq macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Bronx, NY
    #4
    There is no more evidence that CBS pulling the mini-series was done due to efforts by the GOP directly than there is that Bush "intentionally lied" to the American people.

    CBS pulled the mini-series because none of the "sources" they used for their film actually worked directly for Reagan, and they knew that if they put out a piece of fluff that made fun of and/or villified Ron and Nancy while the poor man is dying of Alzheimer's that it would be sponsorship suicide.

    The decision was made for business reasons, not political...although the public backlash from Americans of all political affiliations was already rising. It was not a Republican issue, except to those the farthest left politically who see no reason why not to attack a man practically on his deathbed.
     
  5. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    And why is this wrong?

    If analysis of Reagan's legacy opened up questions as to his character, effectiveness, and legality of his presidency, should they just shut up until he is dead? Conservatives are painting this as an attempt to demonize a man who can't defend himself; a poor soul near the end of his life battling a horrible desease.

    Sure, Reagan has alzheimers, but that doesn't make him untouchable. What would you say if this movie was released in 5 years, after he was already dead? I'm sure you would have absolutely no problems with the movie, right? :rolleyes:

    And just because you say this wasn't a political issue, doesn't make it so. As far as I can tell, only right wing organizations, media outlets, and persons were fighting this movie and speaking out against it. Show me the rising number of lefties and moderates who were speaking out against this.

    You are simply trying to demonize the left by taking some sort of high moral ground here. This is a partisan issue. Go read any AP news release about the movie. Notice how the GOP and the RNC are listed as the top critics of the movie? Notice how they appealed to sponsors and righ-wingers to go against the movie? How can you possibly call that non-partisan?

    Taft
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #6
    What does it matter whether he's dead or alive -- or alive and unable to defend himself?

    It's a story about what he did in his life. Should we not make critical movies or bad comments about Hitler because he's dead?
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Not unless Hitler can defend himself. Then it's fair.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    Then he's just a good ol' fella until further notice I guess.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    In fact, no documentaries should be allowed unless the subject is there to defend themselves. That oughta cover it.

    CBS botched the movie big time, but this whole defending yourself thing is ridiculous.
     
  10. Ensoniq macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Bronx, NY
    #10
    The issue isn't whether or not Reagan can defend himself...I never said that, though other's did. The issue is whether or not CBS can defend themselves.

    Apparently they cannot...apparently despite their claims of all their "facts" being checked, they caved into pressure from the "right-wing media" because no legitimately credible sources close to Reagan verify the accuracy of the questionable scenes. Of course the AP is reporting the biggest complaints came from right-wing sources. That is to be expected. That doesn't mean ONLY Republicans found the mini-series questionable.

    The mini-series was based on the "Dutch" book which in itself was semi-fictitious and already debunked by legitimate historians as being inaccurate. To then make the mini-series even more into "historical fiction" instead of biographically accurate makes you wonder what the intent of the creators really was.

    The straw that broke the camel's back on this one was a line in the movie which basically claimed Reagan said that AIDS victims deserved to die, to which CBS now admits there is no historically proven basis. It was a line written as a work of fiction for the mini-series, based on some people's OPINIONS on how Reagan may have felt.

    Is that fair? Maybe, if the piece is billed completely as historical fiction, much like the movie "Primary Colors" was all about Bill & Hillary without claiming it was really about Bill & Hillary. But if CBS was going to air a movie that showed Bill Clinton saying "Yeah, I molested Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, but they asked for it", you don't think the far-left would be whining just as much as the right? Of course they would. And without evidence of the quote being a fact, but with the intent of the film to present it as fact, then I'd be just as outraged at the producers as I am now.

    I do NOT consider creating a campy semi-historical piece about a dying president to be a smart move for a major network...freedom of speech or not. There is an issue of common decency. Apparently, CBS now agrees. Whether or not it was political pressure that persuaded them doesn't change the fact that it's still the right decision.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Ulitmately it was economic pressure that changed the TV execs minds. The loss of money is very bad!
     
  12. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    For many, many years there has been a cottage industry of people who make their living portraying JFK in the most unflattering of lights. This towards a President who was assassinated in office. Now, some of it is good and the unrealistic mush about "Camelot" needed to be put in perspective. However, do you think any of the folks yelling about respect for a dying President would say word one to stop all the nonsense that has been put out there about JFK? As has already been pointed out, this is all about whose ox is being gored.
     
  13. jonapete2001, Nov 4, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  14. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    ?????

    that's not true at all. unless it's a documentary (which this mini-series is not), you can expect anywhere from some fiction to rampant exaggeration in a film. it's a work of fiction.

    that's why there's writers.

    heck, even a documentary still tells the story the filmmaker wants to tell.

    CBS isn't inventing a new thing here. haven't you ever watched a movie before?
     
  15. jonapete2001, Nov 5, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  16. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    there aren't suddenly a new set of rules about filmmaking because it's about a president, living or dead. c.f. what sayhey said about jfk, Primary Colors, Dick, et. al.

    please re-read my previous post. if you can't accept what i've said, then you'll forever be disappointed by the entertainment industry.

    they disappoint me, too, but for other reasons.
     
  17. jonapete2001, Nov 5, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  18. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #18
    So if the miniseries changed the name of the main character to Bill Johnson you'd have nothing to complain about? ;)
     
  19. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #19
    I dunno.

    I would have liked to have CBS air that mini-series as planned.

    Would have been nice to see what the reaction would have been, positive or negative. Now, only Showtime would know.
     
  20. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    please enlighten me as to these rules. the FCC website doesn't mention it.

    also consider: it was Reagan himself, in 1987, who vetoed the Fairness Doctrine, when Congress tried to make it law after FCC commissioners (appointed by Reagan) repealed it. held up by the Supreme Court in 1969, it secured the airwaves as a public trust.

    in 1986, the DC Court of Appeals upheld an FCC ruling that made TV text immune to the Fairness Doctrine. please note the prevailing judges were Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia.

    are we enjoying the irony yet?
     
  21. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #21
    Reagan DID make disparaging comments about victims of AIDS, just not the exact one created for the mini series. It's what's called an amalgam, blending many seperate true incidents into one fictionalized scene to tell the story. Worse yet Reagan failed to act in any real way to help slow the spread of AIDS when he had the opportunity to do so.
    What really bugs me about this whole thing is how the GOP/RNC/Conservative Media reframes the issue to something irrelevant so that nobody would debate the real issue. It's not about EXACTLY what Reagan may have said. It's not about poor Ronnie's alzheimers.
    It is about fighting any attempt to tarnish the image of the conservatives hero, former president Ronald Reagan. Maybe it is time to take an honest look at what reagan did as president. How about we start with the Iran Contra thing?
     
  22. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #22
    As much as I hate to reply to my own posts...
    and to quote Rep Dingell:
     
  23. Code101 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #23
    So you are comparing Reagan with Hitler? If your not, that's sure what it sounds like. That's sad!

    As much as I dislike the road Clinton put us on, I would disagree with a film put out about him that is full of half truths.

    The cast in this movie would be like having Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter play the Clintons in a movie about Bill Clinton when he is on his death bed. Would this be right? No! I don't think much of him but he was still one of the presidents of the United States and should be respected as such.

    President Reagan was a good man and a wonderful President. All it's about is a little respect, that's all.
     
  24. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #24
    a. Don't be naiive. Nobody was comparing Reagan and Hitler in this thread. It was a comment showing the idiocy of making people who aren't able to defend themselves immune from criticism. BTW, I have a headache right now so I am now immune from any response to this post that may not agree with me.

    b. Your opinion of Reagan is welcomed, so why is the possibility that another opinion be aired by a private company so quick to draw an outcry? If this same mini series ignored the morally questionable things that happened while Reagan was president would it be okay to air?

    We all need to remember that we are supposed to be living in a free and open society that welcomes the open exchange of ideas and opinions.
     
  25. jonapete2001, Nov 5, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012

Share This Page