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

[MrFun]

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.

But the thing is, is that Reagan is homophobic -- but yes, CBS shouldn't have had their "Reagan" "say" something he never actually said.

[Jack_www]

For all of you who think the movie wont air and how it is stoping free speach, I heard on the radio today that CBS will show the movie on showtime instead.

[Giancarlo]

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

Hey the goverment wasn't forcing them to cancel it.

And people have a right to protest against bullshit when they see it. And this "series" was exactly that.

[Sava]

And this "series" was exactly that.

how do you know?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Sava
how do you know?

Because you disagree with that conclusion, therefore it must be correct.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
how do you know?

Oh, I saw that opinion on Fox News and adopted it as my own.

[Caligastia]

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Jack_www
For all of you who think the movie wont air and how it is stoping free speach, I heard on the radio today that CBS will show the movie on showtime instead.

My rights have been violated! I don't get Showtime! I wanted to see it, FREE, on CBS! I can't go on! My life is RUINED!

Gatekeeper (oh well, at least it's showing up somewhere, rather than nowhere)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Fez


Oh, I saw that opinion on Fox News and adopted it as my own.

[Giancarlo]

What is wrong with Fox news? It is balanced... And one of the most reliable IMHO.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Fez
What is wrong with Fox news? It is balanced... And one of the most reliable IMHO.

[Ned]

What happened here illustrates that something fundamental has changed in America and perhaps the world. News of the CBS project began to leak and be reported on internet sites such as Drudge. People who read the reports spread the word. Talks shows, both left and right, began to discuss. The controversy spread to the major TV news networks, primarily competitors of CBS. Person after person who knew Reagan or was in his administration were interviewed and denounced the reported content of the movie as pure lies and defamation. Nancy Reagan was purported to be mortified because she was called Madam Fuhrer. She was further protrayed as a pill popping drug addict that controlled the US government through astrology.

CBS was flooded with protest. Boycotts of CBS and CBS advertisers were organized. Obviously, the advertisers were concerned. Many inside CBS were concerned, including the Chairman of the Board.

The crescendo of protest apparently grew so loud and the concerns of this CBS management and legal staff so great that they chose simply to cancel airing the movie.

Although this does show that Reagan remains very popular with the American people, it also shows the power of the Internet and talk radio to communicate directly to the people and to provide a forum for the people to express their outrage not only in words on the Internet or talk radio, but also in terms of protest letters and boycotts. This is new. Only 10 years ago, the media was largely controlled by a few networks and a few major newspapers. The average folk did not have direct access to express their views except in polite op-ed pieces which many times could never express the level of anger of the people because of heavy editing.

The recall of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger was another such phenomena of popular protest. The anti-Gray Davis campaign was organized on the Internet. Thousands upon thousands of angry and pissed-off citizens volunteered to collect signatures on petitions. The organizers had 2 million signatures collected in a very short time and were able to submit the petition well short of statutory deadline.

What does this is all mean? It clearly shows the stranglehold of opinion by the elite leftist media that prevailed in the United States for so long has been ended. The people are expressing their views, strongly. The left must be shaking in their boots.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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?

Transparent bullshit. "Everyone" gets a say whenever they want to have a say in someone else's production.

And how offensive that the people who invest the money, and operate the performance and business side of the enterprise, should have the gall to insist that they control their work product, and let the "market" (i.e. viewership) decide for them selves. Damned inconsiderate free-marketeers, not taking the needs of society into proper consideration.

Ah yes, and "only artists and corporate honchos get to express themselves" - like there is anything preventing anyone from putting together an alternate production and making the case that we should chisel the faces of those four losers off of Mt. Rushmore and put Reagan up instead.

Funny, do you advocate giving "everyone" a say in your business or profession and your work product prior to completion or publication, regardless of whether they are investors or employees or have a direct stake in it?

OK, here you go. Since we don't want anyone to scream "censorship" let's form two private organizations with commercial and popular backing to threaten boycotts and other private commercial retaliation.

To represent God-fearing, patriotic, real American values, we have the Committee to Represent America Properly. For those stinking, whiny leftist heathen, we have People Opposed to Offensive Productions.

Each will "gently suggest" that all screenwriters, authors, playrights, actors, musicians, artists, producers, directors, theaters, galleries, etc. submit to each organization all future plans to be reviewed for wholesome, unoffensive content. Only when both organizations are satisfied will the proposals be approved to proceed as is, with no modifications unless also approved by both organizations. Government can't participate in this, so the two organizations will just have to enforce their "creative participation" by threat of commercial coercive tactics and private blacklists. Stay tuned, on every channel and in every theater, 5000 variations on the theme of The Brady Bunch reruns.

[Caligastia]

I agree Ned. Have you seen this article? I think you'll find it very interesting.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
What does this is all mean? It clearly shows the stranglehold of opinion by the elite leftist media that prevailed in the United States for so long has been ended.

If only the brownshirts and Bolsheviks had the internet, how much more effectively would they be able to communicate and mobilize. And yes, prior restraint of publication is to be praised.

The people are expressing their views, strongly. The left must be shaking in their boots.

Or the right strutting in theirs,

And the best part, is we'll never know how much of the purported script was really part of the script, and how much was forgery, if any. Nor will we know how much of the initial script was ever intended for the final production. But those are all minor side issues, the true issue is that we must never be critical of True American Values^TM and those icons who (at least for public consumption) personify them.

[Caligastia]

MTG - I really don't see what the problem is. The 'Reagan' movie was finished and in the can. A few people got to see it before it hit TV screens and got the word out that it was a wildly inaccurate smear on Reagan and his family. People got upset. CBS decided not to air the movie.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And the best part, is we'll never know how much of the purported script was really part of the script, and how much was forgery, if any. Nor will we know how much of the initial script was ever intended for the final production.

As JohnT pointed out - the film was finished.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jack_www
For all of you who think the movie wont air and how it is stoping free speach, I heard on the radio today that CBS will show the movie on showtime instead.

Actually, a "properly sanitized" version is being sent to showtime, from what I read. CBS (who owns the rights, having bought them initially) is sending it's final edited version, not whatever the producer, director and editor intended.

I figured with James Brolin in it, it would probably be tedious and lame in any event. It's the point of prior "influence" by outside parties I find galling, regardless of the content or the political persuasions of anyone involved.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia



As JohnT pointed out - the film was finished.

The initial reports that I read were that filming and production were finished. That's a far way from the actual film being finished, as most two hour run cinema releases have around 80 to 120 hours of raw film, assuming you have a second unit. Consider this was a lower budget four hour TV production, and you still have a lot of film cut out in post-production, including, typically, many entire scenes.

CBS is now stating that there was no pressure, they just magically decided it wasn't "balanced" after seeing the finished work, but the original flap and leakage of the alleged script happened during the post production phase.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The initial reports that I read were that filming and production were finished. That's a far way from the actual film being finished, as most two hour run cinema releases have around 80 to 120 hours of raw film, assuming you have a second unit. Consider this was a lower budget four hour TV production, and you still have a lot of film cut out in post-production, including, typically, many entire scenes.

CBS is now stating that there was no pressure, they just magically decided it wasn't "balanced" after seeing the finished work, but the original flap and leakage of the alleged script happened during the post production phase.

I still don't see a problem. If the film looks like being a smear campaign, even if it is unfinished, people have the right to get upset about it. And if their getting upset about it leads to the thing being cancelled then so be it. Whether it was the unfinished version or not, the folks in charge of making it obviously weren't interested in presenting an accurate portrayal of Reagan, so why shouldn't they be called on that?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by MrFun

Can't get enough of Bill O'Reilly?

I love Fox News... finally something that reflects my views most of the time.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The initial reports that I read were that filming and production were finished. That's a far way from the actual film being finished, as most two hour run cinema releases have around 80 to 120 hours of raw film, assuming you have a second unit. Consider this was a lower budget four hour TV production, and you still have a lot of film cut out in post-production, including, typically, many entire scenes.

Michael, Michael... the "80-120 hours" of raw film are largely retakes and master shots, with the occasional extra scene cut out. Even big budget productions don't have the time or money to waste on hours of scenes that end up on the cutting room floor.

And second units generally go around shooting crowd scenes, close ups of dashboards, and crap like that. Very rarely is the second unit involved in any of the principal photography (anything involving actors), though the shoot for the film Titanic was so large and behind schedule that the second unit took many of the first unit's responsibilities.

Regardless, once principal photography is finished, the "script" regardless of how it developed* is complete - yes you can add/remove things in the cutting room, but the copies of the shooting script, with pretty much everything that can appear in this movie, are still around - probably being sold on Ebay, nowadays.

Apparently CBS didn't think they could edit out a salvagable movie, one that didn't impugn the Reagans character to the point of public outcry and possible private lawsuit. In a lose-lose situation they took the easy way out - hell, this controversy might do better for them as they can now justify releasing it on DVD and video to greater sales and rentals (don't tell Kid I used that word!) than anticipated.

*By spec (ala Chinatown), as the movie is shot (ala Casablanca), or by committee (ala most formula movies).

[Theben]

Originally posted by Fez


Can't get enough of Bill O'Reilly?

I love Fox News... finally something that reflects my views most of the time.

Why am I not suprised?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Transparent bullshit. "Everyone" gets a say whenever they want to have a say in someone else's production.

Bullshit to you, maybe. But this was a production about some other peoples' lives. This was not some made up tale about fictional people.

People other than the producers have an interest in what was being produced. Is that a terribly difficult concept to grasp?

And how offensive that the people who invest the money, and operate the performance and business side of the enterprise, should have the gall to insist that they control their work product, and let the "market" (i.e. viewership) decide for them selves. Damned inconsiderate free-marketeers, not taking the needs of society into proper consideration.

And from what we've heard, you'll be able to enjoy this tripe soon on video. CBS simply declined to broadcast it.

And again, this isn't simply about their product. It is about the defamation of a significant, and living, figure. You're freekin' right they don't have sole interest in what they make that figure say and do.

Ah yes, and "only artists and corporate honchos get to express themselves" - like there is anything preventing anyone from putting together an alternate production and making the case that we should chisel the faces of those four losers off of Mt. Rushmore and put Reagan up instead.

Nice side-step. However the point is what people thought about this particular project, and what they said about it. Furthermore, it is about what a broadcaster decided to do once they realised how big the pile of **** they were heading for is.

Funny, do you advocate giving "everyone" a say in your business or profession and your work product prior to completion or publication, regardless of whether they are investors or employees or have a direct stake in it?

Funny, I deal with the public directly every day. Of course what would annoy a lot of my potential consumers concerns me.

Also, when it comes to historical figures, everyone does have a stake in their defamation. If it's all bad press and lies about leaked scripts, then CBS should (and would I would hope) tough it out. However, they did not. Perhaps there is some fire under that smoke.

OK, here you go. Since we don't want anyone to scream "censorship" let's form two private organizations with commercial and popular backing to threaten boycotts and other private commercial retaliation.

To represent God-fearing, patriotic, real American values, we have the Committee to Represent America Properly. For those stinking, whiny leftist heathen, we have People Opposed to Offensive Productions.

Each will "gently suggest" that all screenwriters, authors, playrights, actors, musicians, artists, producers, directors, theaters, galleries, etc. submit to each organization all future plans to be reviewed for wholesome, unoffensive content. Only when both organizations are satisfied will the proposals be approved to proceed as is, with no modifications unless also approved by both organizations. Government can't participate in this, so the two organizations will just have to enforce their "creative participation" by threat of commercial coercive tactics and private blacklists. Stay tuned, on every channel and in every theater, 5000 variations on the theme of The Brady Bunch reruns.

Now the rest of this is simply getting silly. However, you apparently want freedom, but don't like the consequences. Everyone is free to express themselves, Mike, about just about anything.

If enough people feel the same way, strongly enough, wouldn't you as a shareholder want the executives of your corporation to pay attention?

[Kuciwalker]

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

Except that in the Soviet Union, it would have been "show it and die"; here, it's "show it and get lots of people really pissed at you"

[Tingkai]

American republican nutcases crack me up.

They're upset that a TV movie wasn't labelled as fiction. Well, I can see how they would get confused. They probably think all TV movies are 100% factual documentaries.


They're upset because a TV movie contains dialogue that the real-life person didn't actually say. How shocking. A movie with a script that is not 100% real-life quotes.

They think its shocking that a movie about an American politician is political.

They haven't seen the movie, but they know that it is slanderous.

This movie they haven't seen is slanderous because it portrays Reagan as a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. Yeah, that so off the mark.

Reagan once joked about nuking Russia, but the Republican nutcases complain that the movie has Reagan saying (probably sarcastically) that he's the anti-Christ. They're upset because they know that he never, ever said this and TV movies should be 100% factual.

[Ned]

On one of the talk shows tonight, it was said that the president of CBS saw the final version that was to be aired and decided to pull the project because it was irredeemably biased and unfair. There is also talk that the CBS news division, including Rather, were none too pleased that CBS would put out a factually questionable piece because that would impact the credibility of CBS News.

At least according to CBS itself, it did not succumb to popular pressure to cancel the mini-series.

[Sikander]

There is a very good article about this on the New York Times site. It seperates the wheat from the chaff as far as what happened, and when.

[The Mad Monk]

Please post it -- I hate going to that site.

[Sikander]

Shifting 'Reagans' to Cable Has CBS Facing New Critics
By BILL CARTER

Published: November 5, 2003

his article was reported by Bill Carter, Jim Rutenberg and Bernard Weinraub and written by Mr. Carter.

CBS's decision yesterday to drop its mini-series about Ronald and Nancy Reagan, after an impassioned campaign by Republican and conservative groups, roiled the television industry, infuriated some Democrats and liberal groups, and left CBS executives open to criticism they had caved in to political pressure.

CBS executives, who declined to be identified by name, denied that they were capitulating to pressure from Republicans and conservative groups in moving "The Reagans" to the pay cable channel Showtime, a sister network at Viacom. The decision, they argued, was instead "a moral call," reached after concluding that the four-hour television movie carried a liberal political agenda and treated the Reagans unfairly.

Advertisement

The decision by the CBS chairman, Leslie Moonves — less than two weeks from the broadcast of the first part of the mini-series and after CBS executives had approved the script — is the most significant turn in the development of "The Reagans." What had seemed like a calculated bid for a little controversy to boost ratings has backfired, as CBS underestimated the fierce and organized reaction from Reagan loyalists.

Now, as conservative groups cheer CBS's decision, the network has to deal with a backlash from Democratic politicians like Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota and members of the Hollywood community, including Barbra Streisand. "Indeed, today marks a sad day for artistic freedom — one of the most important elements of an open and democratic society," Ms. Streisand, the wife of James Brolin, who plays Ronald Reagan in the television movie, said in a statement.

"The Reagans" actually began life four years ago as an ABC production. The producers, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, had given ABC ratings hits with musicals like "Cinderella" with Whitney Houston and biopics about Judy Garland. But ABC passed on an early version of the film, in part because "it was very soft; it was not controversial in the least," said one network executive.

But when CBS picked up the project, the story line had changed. While the network announced that the television movie would be a love story about the Reagans' relationship, one executive involved in the production said the producers had made it clear in several meetings they were aiming to produce a highly controversial film. That was also the message they conveyed in an article in The New York Times on Oct. 21, that for the first time provided details about the portrayal of the Reagans, and that alerted conservative backers of the former president that the film was not going to be entirely sympathetic.

The day the article came out Mr. Moonves cleared his schedule to deal with the television movie, several CBS executives said. While he had read at least one draft of the script and had seen one day of the daily film footage, the executives said he had not closely followed the progress of the production.

Mr. Moonves emerged from the screening furious, people at CBS said. He alerted his staff members and the filmmakers that CBS would re-edit the film. One of the first scenes to go was one in which Mr. Reagan was shown saying to his wife "They that live in sin shall die in sin" when addressing the AIDS crisis. The quote, the filmmakers conceded, was fictitious.

As the editing proceeded, people at the network said, Robert Allan Ackerman, the director, removed himself from the project. Upon hearing that news, people at CBS said, the film's stars, Mr. Brolin and Judy Davis, sent word that they would not participate in publicity for the movie.

Meanwhile, the details about the film revealed in the Times article provided new fodder for conservative commentators and activists, who had complained in the summer about the casting of Mr. Brolin because of his wife's politics. Michael Reagan, one of the president's sons and now a conservative radio talk show host, appeared on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes" and said, "This is all about the agenda of dismantling my father, dismantling the conservative movement and tearing down Ronald Reagan as we go into an election year."

Matt Drudge, whose Drudge Report is one of the more popular Web sites, soon obtained a copy of the script and regularly parsed out excerpts, which set the conservative talk radio, cable and other Internet sites back into motion.

On Oct. 28, the Media Research Center, a conservative group led by L. Brent Bozell that monitors the news and entertainment industries for what it sees as liberal bias, wrote a letter to a list of 100 top television sponsors urging them to "refuse to associate your products with this movie."


end page 1