CBS has cancelled its "truthful" anti-Reagan hit piece - Page 2

Shi Huangdi · November 4, 2003, 02:36

"God forbid that any portrayal of the GOP's mythical superhuman demigod be anything less than a GOP propanda piece of non-stop praise, with any unflattering references edited out."

CBS's film had Reagan refering to himself as the Anti-Christ and saying about AIDS: "Those who live in sin die in sin"

A fair portrayl wouldn't have been a problem. Having Reagan say he is the Antichrist is.

notyoueither · November 4, 2003, 02:38

Why? If some white-supremesist wing nut started a project defaming MLK, don't you think people would speak up to put a stop to it sooner rather than later?

I have to wonder why the script was leaked. Maybe someone wanted other people to know what was being produced, and knew that after the airing would be too late?

MichaeltheGreat · November 4, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"God forbid that any portrayal of the GOP's mythical superhuman demigod be anything less than a GOP propanda piece of non-stop praise, with any unflattering references edited out."

CBS's film had Reagan refering to himself as the Anti-Christ and saying about AIDS: "Those who live in sin die in sin"

A fair portrayl wouldn't have been a problem. Having Reagan say he is the Antichrist is.

The reports I've read on it have mentioned the unauthenticated "those who live in sin die in sin" line regarding AIDS, but I haven't seen any report that cited the script where Reagan referred to himself as the anti-Christ.

Considering he picked James "We don't have to care for the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" Watt and was the fair haried golden boy of Falwell, et al, I think it odd that anyone trying to discredit Reagan would put in such an absurd piece of dialog.

MichaeltheGreat · November 4, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why? If some white-supremesist wing nut started a project defaming MLK, don't you think people would speak up to put a stop to it sooner rather than later?

I have to wonder why the script was leaked. Maybe someone wanted other people to know what was being produced, and knew that after the airing would be too late?

You think there haven't been hatchet pieces on MLK? And lots of others, on every side of the spectrum? And if some white supremacist wingnuts do a hatchet piece, let it get aired and let people make their own judgments. And if they want to respond, in any manner not illegal, let them do that to.

notyoueither · November 4, 2003, 02:57

So, you don't think there would be efforts to effect production prior to release if the script were leaked?

Why not?

Imran Siddiqui · November 4, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

Imran - it's a bit different to boycott sponsors or broadcasters after the airing, or if there's a pre-screening of the finished product than it is to start a PR, media and boycott threat, intimidation and what have you campaign before a project is even finished production.

They've seen the script.. which is what touched off the whole thing. Face it, this is just a smarter boycott

.

MichaeltheGreat · November 4, 2003, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, you don't think there would be efforts to effect production prior to release if the script were leaked?

Why not?

Did I say that?

Since I didn't say that, did I say that leftists or anyone else trying to spin and propagandize productions prior to release is ok, but it's not ok when rightwingers do it?

If anyone has an alternate view, let them produce and air it. Then let the viewers decide.

notyoueither · November 4, 2003, 03:10

No, you said that it should get aired, and then people should speak up. Why shouldn't they speak up prior to airing if they have the script and know what is to be said?

MichaeltheGreat · November 4, 2003, 03:32

Do they have the script? Really? Has it been published by it's authors? Is the purported copy of the script they allegedly have an accurate and complete copy that reflects the edited final product? We won't ever know, funny that, because "leverage" has been applied pre-release, to make sure we never get to see something that some nice, upstanding people would prefer us not to see.

Gee, I like that system.

The Mad Monk · November 4, 2003, 03:39

Excerpt of article from The Drudge Report:

Quote:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX NOV 02, 2003 19:45:18 ET XXXXX

STREISAND DRAWS DISTANCE FROM 'REAGANS'; CBS CONSIDERS NEWS SUPPLEMENT; MORE SCENES REVEALED

**Exclusive Details**

SingerActorDirectorProducerMotherActivist Barbra Streisand this weekend distanced herself from any involvement in CBS-TV's upcoming film THE REAGANS, although the film stars her husband and is being produced by Streisand frequent collaborators, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron.

"Ms. Streisand has never even read the script!" Streisand declared on her website's Truth Alert [leading readers to believe that she first became aware of multiple, specific script scenes from the DRUDGE REPORT.]

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.

****

Drudge still has all the script quotes up.

He had audio clips on his radio program.

Gatekeeper · November 4, 2003, 03:44

I would have preferred to view the movie and make up my own mind but, alas, the righteous, God-fearing, Reagan-loving American people have spoke up and decided for me.

Thank God I don't have to think. I'm safe with them on my side.

Gatekeeper

notyoueither · November 4, 2003, 03:46

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Do they have the script? Really? Has it been published by it's authors? Is the purported copy of the script they allegedly have an accurate and complete copy that reflects the edited final product? We won't ever know, funny that, because "leverage" has been applied pre-release, to make sure we never get to see something that some nice, upstanding people would prefer us not to see.

Gee, I like that system.

Which system? The one where only artists and corporate honchos get to express themselves? Or the one where everyone gets a say whenever they want to have a say?

Lincoln · November 4, 2003, 08:35

CBS can do what they want. They decided to pull the film. The public can do what they want as well. Free speech in action. I don't see any problem here.

Rogan Josh · November 4, 2003, 08:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
What would you say if someone ran a biography about FDR and had him say that he purposefully ignored the the Holocaust? Or had LBJ say that his Great Society was no more than BS for the voters? Would that come under free speech or slander?

I agree that anything based on true events should be kept as close as possible to the truth, but I don't think your examples count as slander any more than the movies 'Pearl Harbor' or 'Enigma' or 'U(whatever number it was)' etc etc were slander. Why is this any different from them?

Q Classic · November 4, 2003, 08:47

Quote:

Hmm. Carl Sagan died in 1996.

he lived in the same building, same dorm, same house that i live in at uchicago.

uh Clem · November 4, 2003, 09:33

I'm sure that Republicans would be just as diligent in protesting a film that showed Bill Clinton having people murdered or Hillary decorating a Christmas tree with condoms.

Sava · November 4, 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Slander is not protected by free speech.

Slander has to be proven... so.... prove it Ann Coulter!

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 10:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Republicans pride America for its free speech, yet when something appears that they do not like...They wish to silence it so that nobody may hear it.

How.....Soviet

Of course the difference being... vast. I.e., no purges, gulags, deaths, midnight arrests, or even action by the government.

Sava · November 4, 2003, 10:34

Quote:

Of course the difference being... vast. I.e., no purges, gulags, deaths, midnight arrests, or even action by the government.

yeah, we reserve that for the Arab community...

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
While I agree this movie is too political (I mean all political movies will bend the facts, however this one went a bit far....) however to silence them is to begin a slip into despotism.
If the Republicans have enough power to begin shutting things down that violate party doctrine...

No peoples should be silenced from giving out their opinion, and they should not be limited in how they express their opinion unless it harms other people.

Again with the bizarre implication that this is an action taken by the government. How is it that people can mistake private judgement for governmental censorship is beyond me... unless you are purposely mistaking the two.

Sava · November 4, 2003, 10:37

this isn't governmental censorship...

and that's not what he's asserting. He's comparing CBS's "private judgement" to governmental censorship. Which, IMO, isn't that far off.

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 10:39

Quote:

If anyone has an alternate view, let them produce and air it. Then let the viewers decide.

The viewers decided, Mike. Before they even saw the show, they decided.

Sava · November 4, 2003, 10:39

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

If anyone has an alternate view, let them produce and air it. Then let the viewers decide.

The viewers decided, Mike. Before they even saw the show, they decided.

no... CBS executives decided...

Nubclear · November 4, 2003, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Of course the difference being... vast. I.e., no purges, gulags, deaths, midnight arrests, or even action by the government.

Very rarely do nations suddenly take a deep plunge into depsotism.

Quote:

this isn't governmental censorship... and that's not what he's asserting. He's comparing CBS's "private judgement" to governmental censorship. Which, IMO, isn't that far off.

Exactly.

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
this isn't governmental censorship...

and that's not what he's asserting. He's comparing CBS's "private judgement" to governmental censorship. Which, IMO, isn't that far off.

The difference here is that the production units and the television units are largely separate - i.e., CBS isn't "making" this film it's just "airing" it. The production company (Storyline, iirc) is a separate entity from CBS and is in charge of all aspects of production (script, hiring of actors/directors/editing) etc. (a separation that has existed since the 1950s).

The point that I'm trying to make is all that CBS has done is cancelled airing the program on their main network. Barring some possible contractual issues that I am unaware of, there is nothing preventing Storyline from selling the property to anybody else who wants to pay their price.

So CBS didn't cancel the production of the movie. It still exists, ready for somebody, ANYBODY to take it and air it.

And MtG? The film is already in the can (hell, it was supposed to air in a couple of weeks), meaning that plenty of first-hand witnesses to this movie and its script exists.

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 10:54

By the way, the producers of The Reagans are the same people who produced the film Chicago. They're also leading an effort to bring a number of musicals to the TV screen, including "The Music Man" and "Kiss Me, Kate."

Whaleboy · November 4, 2003, 12:14

You wanted free speech. Deal with it.

DinoDoc · November 4, 2003, 12:22

So much vitriol over a TV movie. I especially enjoyed the idiotic statements regarding the first ammendment.

Shogun Gunner · November 4, 2003, 12:29

Barbara Streinsand was reportedly on the set during the production of this show. I can only imagine her input and comments...

Theben · November 4, 2003, 12:38

CBS cancelled a program. They have the right to do that, espec. since they're in business to make money and enough people complained to make them think they could lose money in the end. That's capitalism for ya.
OTOH, the right-wingers seem to think that this means EVERYTHING alluded to in the flick (that's negative towards Ronnie, nach) has been disproven, and that he's a saint beyond reproach.
And the Left is saying this is a free-speech issue, which it isn't. CBS is under no guarantees to air anything it initially contracts to produce.

Basically, y'all a bunch of jackasses.