My apologies, I thought I had provided the link.......[URL=http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031105.asp ####]here ya go[/URL]

Statements by JL about him being "second only to Jesus" and putting him on some pedestal with the actual great poeple of this country is precisely why this needed to air- simply to bring some balance to the fecal material that the right has been spreading about this man- like the "won the cold war" nonsense that they keep saying, when this is clearly not true to anyone except those who worship Reagan- there was in fact a debate about this, with ACTUAL fact posted instead of opinions about the Russian power structure- and there is no correlation between Reagan and the soviets, except timing.

I wish it would have aired.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes two wrongs make a right. deification of Reagan based on things he didn't say of do is wrong (not that I am accusing johnlocke of this mind you...) and demonization of Reagan based on things he didn't say or do is wrong (as is the case with this film) particularly if he can't fight back.

Balance of nonsense is not a desirable state. How about some truth...

I have to concede that is a good point Turnea- and I hear you, but I guess I see it as an anti-propaganda to counter-act the propaganda that has been spread around this man.

Concerning Jesus:

If I remember correctly(if I am wrong,please correct me)you brought up the issue of Jesus Christ and I made a comment on it. So if I am wrong for discussing it, what would that make you when you introduced it. I sure hope you don't live in a glass house.

Getting back to the subject, Reagan was a man that had faults like everyone else. And believe it or not I doubt if he was perfect. From 1 to 10, I would rank him 3.

P.S.-since you mention spin,I definitely am outclassed now since you have the no-spin master(Bill O'Reilly) on your side.

I'm glad people here see fit to carry on with their nonsense conversation about Reagan (which has been for the most part false) and ignore the fact that CBS tried to spin the life of a man who is currently in the painful state of DYING. Shame on all of you for supporting CBS after they admit their own bias of a man and his wife currently going through the most lonely moments in their existence. That's disgusting.

Is it possible for a conservative Republican to spin something. Evidently it isn't. Only other people put a spin on anything.

I guess I will have to find a clinic where they can treat my SPIN and make me SPIN-FREE. Thanks for opening my eyes. I blame the liberals for brainwashing me with SPIN.

Repeating myself again. No man is perfect and it is no shame to make mistakes. I have made many mistakes and surely Reagan has made a few too. It is no sin to portray Reagan as such.

Popeye,

Are we in the same thread? How many fingers am I holding up ? Just one? Good. Now let's start from the begining. This thread is about CBS (or the writers of the script) intentionally making a biased portrayal of an American President, give him that much at least, PLEASE. These people made terrible accusations that were unfounded at best and blatant lies at worst. If we made a movie about Martin Luther King Jr and we had him saying and doing things that can't be corraborated and these things make him look particularly bad, would you say that movie should be made? I'm not talking about mistakes and I'm not talking about cavalier fill-ins on dialogue, I'm talking about a biased, lies! CBS admitted it's biased, and that is that.

Do you have any proof that there are out and out lies? Does fictionalizing dialogue that is reflective of a person's true character constitute a lie?

It would be interesting to know what Maureen Reagan would say about the portrayal of her father and her stepmother.

I am a liberal, but I don't think CBS needed to stir up a hornet's nest with a controversial story on Ronald and Nancy Reagan--especially if it messed up their usual line-up! I'm serious. Don't mess with CSI, CSI Miami, or Judging Amy!

I liked Ronald Reagan but I didn't like his political demagoguery. And Nancy Reagan just seemed scary somehow.

But I don't think it would be proper to go against the wishes of the family concerning the miniseries. It just seems wrong.

Had CBS decided to stick with it, I would not have watched it anyway. I remember Ronald Reagan and his administration. That's enough. I would have been critical of the portrayal, and James Brolin would never look enough like the Gipper to my mind.

CBS did cave, but it was as it is for most corporations; it was more about profitability than a sense of decorum.

Lies? Yes. The Alzhiemer's allegations are completely unfounded and have no bearing on reality. I defy any person here (as I did before) to prove that Ronnie exhibited symptoms of Alzhiemers while in office. No one can. Thank you.

Also, they have Nancy popping pills and slapping Patti around, not to mention when Reagan melodramatically calls himself the "Anti-Christ". A part of the script I can tell you is quite disturbing.

Why can't people in here admit CBS made a mistake? Lord knows CBS admitted it.

One man at the network admitted bias. That is a far cry from LIES. Once again, a lie requires a prior-knowledge of the truth... a lie is a deliberate falsehood. You can call elements of the dialogue inaccurate but a lie is an entirely different animal. It is an accusation of a deliberate act... so unless you can PROVE that Reagan didn't have Alzheimer's, or that Nancy Reagan wasn't a control freak, then your accusation is purely bombast.

Sorry, JL , you know I like you and all, but that statement is patently absurd. Yes, CBS caved in (to a minority opinion) and, in doing so, exercised censorship. What you are apparently referring to is "official" or "state" censorship. Much more common is the censorship exerted by publishers, producers, editors, schools boards - even authors and journalists themselves (known as self-censorship). When such censorship results from outside pressure, it can justifiably be argued that those exerting the pressure are attempting to force censorship. That is what happened in this case.

When a high school library decides not to carry Catcher in the Rye, they are practising censorship. When salon.com failed to follow up on Greg Pallast's stories about election-tampering in Florida in 2000, they were practising censorship. When The National Review gave Ann Coulter the boot, they were practising censorship. When CBS cancelled The Reagans, they were practising censorship. There are dozens upon dozens of similar examples - none of them by government edict.

As we're working on our vocabulary here, Les Moonves said that he personally found the program biased. Biased, last time I checked, means biased. It does not mean fictitious. It does not mean false. It does not imply lies. It implies a bias. Period. Several definitions of "bias" can be found at dictionary.com. Not one of them states that a bias indicates a lie (no matter how many times you repeat it ). Bias simply implies presenting some facts and omitting others in order to create a certain slant.

As to some of the criticisms here, any docu-drama necessarily "invents" a certain amount of dialogue, though it generally attempts to reflect and illuminate the spirit of the personalities involved (and the assessments of those writing and/or producing the material). I have not yet seen any dialogue allegedly lifted from the teleplay which contradicts the spirit (or policies) or Ronald Reagan (except, perhaps, for uncharacteristic honesty in describing himself as "the antichrist" ).

As CBS is celebrating its 75th Anniversary this week - and went out of their way to honor Ed Murrow and his ground-breaking news programs - I found this whole incident a bit of an ironic echo. Murrow's See It Now was considered a revolutionary form of news coverage - it virtually invented the television news magazine and was the precursor of such programs as 60 Minutes. Further, it was highly influential: Murrow can be much more easily and directly credited with the fall of Joseph McCarthy, for example, than Reagan can with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Despite their early friendship, William Paley, head of CBS, grew increasingly alarmed by Murrow's uncompromising investigative style. Finally, in 1958, during a program on the statehood of Alaska and Hawaii, Murrow allowed criticism of Rep. John Pillion to stand. Many on the right opposed both territories becoming states for reasons arising from anti-communist hysteria. Hawaii, it was feared, would - horrors! - support civil rights due to its ethnic diversity and, because labor unions were strong on the islands, Pillion claimed that "in granting statehood to Hawaii, we actually invite four Soviet agents to take seats in the US Congress." The opposition to Alaska was even more lunatic. Politicians like Pillion feared that, were Alaska granted full statehood, Russians would march across the Bering Strait and occupy the territorial US, thus establishing a foothold in the American homeland. (Why they should wait to do so until after Alaska was admitted to the union was never really addressed.)

On See It Now, a critic of Pillion referred to his objections as "crazy" - and, as Pillion was allowed to respond, Murrow refused to excise the comment. There was a strong outcry from the last vestiges of the McCarthyites in Congress and Paley cancelled the entire series. Ring any bells?

History has proved Pillion and his cohorts to have been fools - and Paley's reputation suffered as a result of his actions. History will no doubt also judge Reagan to have been a fool - though I doubt Les Moonves will be thought any less of than he already is...

From what I've read so far, The Reagans clearly and distinctly "revolves around the facts" (though, unlike those villifying the thing, I will certainly reserve any definitive judgement until after I've seen it - if I ever do). For those absurdly claiming that docu-dramas should only contend with ancient history or the dead: where was the outcry about Showtime's ludicrously biased and highly fictionalized DC 9/11: Time of Crisis? Are such objections only reserved for TV movies which have their alleged bias toward the left? And does our "liberal media" only cave in when criticism is coming from the right? All too apparently, the answer to both questions is yes. In the program's critics, this is called hypocrisy. In the media execs, it is called cowardice. I don't find either trait particularly admirable - even in relation to something as banal and inconsequential as a TV mini-series.


More on Edward R. Murrow can be found at wikipedia.org - and more on his relationship with William Paley (and the demise of See It Now) can be found in Sally Bedel Smith's biography of Paley, In All His Glory.

"Invents" dialogue. ie. They made it up, it never happened, don't need a dictionary for that. Why would they do that? Why would they need to do that? We're not talking about some average Joe here who happened to be in a building in NYC on 9/11 amid the chaos, we're talking about the President of the United States. It's hardly difficult to find out things about him, look up his speeches, read his documents, there are hundreds of thousands of them. Surely for a skilled group of writers it wouldn't be a difficult thing to find out about Reagan based on his own words and actions. Why make it up? Bias? Oh yeah, that bias thing. It's not a lie, it's just not the truth. It depends on what your definition of is is..... Where have we heard that before? There's no such thing as a lie, not really, it's rather just a bias on the truth, different "slant" on things, no problem, no harm, no foul.



What some people may call "censorship", others may call "standards", or if you will, as is the case with this forum, "Rules and Guidelines". Newspapers have standards that must be met before they'll print a story. Is that censorship, or is it rather a case of them meeting professional journalistic standards? It is quite obvious from the LA Times article I cited that CBS was not happy with the mini-series, it was not what they expected when they contracted for it. It was their decision and their decision alone to decide not to broadcast it. You may call that censorship, I call it broadcast standards.

The program wasn't cancelled, not yet at least, and if it airs on Showtime, I'll be interested in watching it. I'll be especially interested if they air the following.....



I wonder if they'll include that in their TV program......

Gee, they wouldn't even need to make that dialogue up.

"The Reagans" miniseries never claimed or pretended to be journalism or a documentary film, any more than "DC 9/11: A Time of Crisis" that aired on Showtime in September. That movie was nothing more than a reelection campaign movie on behalf of George W. Bush and, in my opinion, an insult to those who perished on 9/11. I didn't hear the outcry when the fictional portrayal of Bush had him repeatedly demanding to be taken to the White House, of which there is no proof of him saying, or the glossing over of some troubling issues raised by the attacks such as the the horrendous failure of U.S. intelligence during the first nine months of his presidency. Why the silence about that movie when it was not accurately portraying Bush? Why the sudden rigidity for accuracy concerning Reagan?

At least this cancellation should put to rest the idea that the media, and CBS in particular, is liberal. The media isn't driven by ideology. They are driven by their fear of any controversy which might scare off advertiser. This means they will bow to the whims of any impassioned minority of people, on either end of the political spectrum.

Whether the movie is unfair to Reagan, I don't know, because I have not seen it. And neither has anyone else complaining about it being unfair, so they don't know either. To believe you can judge a movie by some out of context lines from a script is silly.

It seems that the Reagan idolaters can't stand the idea that he, like every president, like every man, had his faults. Reagan doesn't need their protection. He is loved by many and reviled by an almost equal number. It's hard to imagine anyone changing their minds because of a TV movie.

John Locke



It was proven in the Discovery documentry I mentioned earlier. Various doctors and experts in Alzheimers studied footage of Reagan before and after he was shot and came to the conclusion, that being injured had seriously affected Reagan and most likely triggered the Alzheimers.

Of course they could not prove it since no one had checked Reagan for Alzheimers at the time, but he did exhibit all the lcassic symptoms for some one going through the first stages of Alzheimers.

Quite frankly I don't see why this should matter. What difference does it make whether Reagan was ill or not? He did what he did, and if your a Reagan supporter then why should this interpretation of the truth matter?

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the one making the allegations. I can't prove Reagan wasn't a cross-dresser, transvestite, closet pedophiliac space alien either....Does that mean claiming Reagan was a child-loving alien from Mars isn't a lie? Must I prove that one too?

This is very confusing, Moif. First you claim it was proven, then you admit of course they can't prove it. When you first brought up this program, it was in the context of drug abuse and there is nothing in there about that at all with respect to Reagan. Quite confusing actually, as was their synopsis and the conclusions they drew from some things. Some just plain wrong. For example, from the synopsis.....



This story is a well known anecdote from the Reagan years. Michael Reagan, the Reagan's adopted son has detailed it on numerous occasions. The first debate problems weren't caused by Reagan's mind, they were caused by the people running Reagan's campaign. They tried to turn him into a facts and figures kinda guy, and Reagan was never that sort of person. He wasn't a micro-manager and didn't get into the details of things. He set policy and told people to do it. After that first debate which was a disaster, Nancy Reagan went on the warpath, fired the campaign people responsible and told everyone else, 'From here on out, we let Reagan be Reagan'. It has absolutely nothing to do with senility.

Just a case of more revisionists making stuff up.

It was nuthing but just complete lies thats they more or less would have focued on.

It makes Regan look like he was arrogant and an angry person, personally id have to disagree with that. I believe it was just an attack on Regan, by the Producers and makers of the film.

In the movie they also portray The Mrs. Regan as a so called "demanding" person, which is not so either...

I have just one question to ask. During the iran-contra when ask about what he knew, his reply was 'I DON'T REMEMBER'. On other occassions he also gave the same reply 'I DON'T REMEMBER'. Isn't one of the symptoms of alzheimer's a bad memory. Either he was lying in those situtations or perhaps he had early stages of alzheimer's.

Popeye,

Sorry my friend but you have clearly misquoted Ronnie. His answer was "I do not recall", and those were "Diplomatic Omissions" whereas "I did not have sex with that woman" was just another lie. Again, you're trying to spin this around and make it about things aother than CBS's admitted bias. Why not try debating by posting a piece of evidence that Ronnie had Alzhiemers while still in office and not what a bunch of quacks concluded from watching the discovery channel. Do people here understand that if they tried to make MLK Jr out to be anything other than what he was by televising the sadistic rumors of his enemies that attempt to delegitimize who he was a leader, there would also have been a national uproar.

Wertz,

sorry but most of your post has been answered already and to be honest I don't have much to say outside of other peoples comments but I will tell you that I know that what we as conservatives did to CBS was not a "form" of censorship. Boycotting is not censorship. Vocalizing your opinion is not censorship. Demanding truth is not censorship. They are expressions and demands. CBS maybe claiming all this artistic bullcrap, but you know as well as I do Wertz, they are a corporation. Not artistic sponsors. Their goal is to make money, not "enhance American values through artistic creative TV". Their shows are no different than FOX, ABC, BVI, NBC or anyother large conglomerate. Their shows are commercial delivery devices. Nothing more, nothing less. And this is capitalism at its' finest. They want to make money, they can't if they are boycotted. This is not a book burning or lynching so stop making it out ot be. They are interested in making money, not art and their pulling the show proves it for those who didn't know.

ps... I could honestly (no offense to you personally Wertz) care less about what CBS did in 1958 or in 2003. They are a station for old people and less-intelligent young people who want to see who will be next to get kicked off an island and middle age less-intelligent people who don't understand that CSI is just CBS spelled differently.

Wow. I can't believe I agree with ANYTHING that JL writes, but I must admit he's right to say that this is not a case of "censorship", unless you want to think of it as "self-censorship"... you know, the kind that keeps you from calling Aunt Martha a "fat pig", because you know that she'll be meeting with her lawyer next week to drop you from the will.

It's the same thing as NBC keeping "Coupling" from being enough like the British original to be interesting, because it would alienate potential viewers... and then cancelling it because no one wanted to watch it because it was boring. They should have moved it to Bravo and added the sex parts back in.

Aquilla

Yes, I see I used the word proven when I should have used another more fitting word. Forgive me, I should have written demonstrated perhaps...



Yes. The entire series was about drug (substance) abuse, Reagan was said to be dependent on medication which altered his perceptions and changed his ability to think clearly.




And do you know what? You may even be right.

But my point was not that Reagan was or was not drug addled, but that his name had already been dragged through the mud.

As I already said, I don't know if its true. I just know that the image of Ronald Reagan has already been well and truly tarnished by one of the worlds foremost TV authorities.

Whether or not Discovery has any real credibility in your eyes, or whether the documentry was made up by 'revisionists' (who ever they may be) is completely besides the point.

The point is, as clearly stated in my first post; Reagan's name is already mud.

Why did no one make a fuss about this when Discovery aired their programme?

Since you asked for it I will have to give you more proof.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_5.html

Some quotes from this article:



This was February 20,1987. proof enough

And proof about consulting the stars by Nancy:



Need any more proof

Discovery channel is one of the world's foremost TV authorities? News to me.

As far as President Reagan's name being "mud", sorry, but I do have to laugh at that one. Moif, do you know what they (the press) used to call Reagan? Did you ever hear the phrase "teflon President"? That's what they used to call him and do you know why? Because despite all of the mud and crap thrown at him, nothing ever stuck, and believe me, they threw dump trucks worth at him. Ever hear the term "October Surprise"? LOL!!! That was a dandy story that the Reagan-haters made up. Supposedly, on the eve of the election in 1980, George Bush (Sr) hopped on board an SR-71 and flew to Paris for a secret meeting with envoys of the Iranian government to make sure they didn't release the American hostages until after the election. LOL!!!! I don't know who came up with that one, but whoever it was, they must have had one potent batch of "medications".

So, Moif, this sort of stuff isn't anything new, it's been happening to Reagan for his entire political life, and unfortunately, thanks to the hate-filled left, it will most likely continue to happen, even in the twilight of Ronald Reagan's life. But, we don't have to put up with it, and as this thread demonstrates, we won't.

Unlike many of the people here, I was around in the 1980's, working and earning a living and I remember those days. I was working at Lockheed when we pulled our people out of Iran just before the Shah fell, and I lived through the bumbling incompentence of Jimmy Carter. I lived through the double-digit interest rates on home mortgages, heck I have credit cards today that charge less interest than people in those days were paying on their homes! I remember what it was like, the mood of this country and I remember when we elected Ronald Reagan President of the United States and how he changed things, and how the Reagan revolution is still happening today. So when people make garbage up and keep trying to drag his name in the mud as you call it, you bet I'm going to defend him. And they won't be successful this time either.

Popeye,

Work well done. You were right. Reagan did say"I don't remember, period". However my point still remains that that was a diplomatic omission. You have nothing to fall back on. CBS has admitted they pulled the show because it was biased. What more do you want? You are begining to seem very vile a person to try and wish a show to be put through that tells a biased story based on half-truths and not-truths, about a man and his family who are going through one of the most sadest and lonely times people can go through. I wish you'd post anything constructive in here rather than your hatred of Reagan. We love Ronnie and we won't let you talk about him like that. That's a promise. Run his name throught the mud politically if you have to and it'll make you fell better. But try not to spread lies about him or his persoanl life. Your not CBS. And BTW just so we're all on record here....the Reagan Family has come out said that all thos instances we've discussed were lies as well. Now since they were the only people their for half of the TV lies and misrepresentations, who exactly are you to claim otherwise. Unless maybe all their friends start talking behind their backs, or you can find Nancy's stained dress if ya know what I mean.

Personal Attack Removed

Aquilla



Of course it is. Its a channel which is based around documentries, around fact. Sure, they are open to mistakes, bias and misuse, but so is every other TV channel.




Yes, yes, no and yes.... but how does this relate to my point?




Then why does this CBS series cause so much resentment?




I'm not saying you have to put up with anything. But I wonder at your use of the word 'hate'.

Why do you presume that people who disagree with you, are so filled with hate? Do you hate them?




But they are successful. Most people on the planet do not remember Reagan kindly.

I know we non Americans don't count for anything in your world view, but we do have opinions you know, and the majority of the world does not look upon Reagan with much fondness and when American made TV documentaries are shown which document Ronald Reagan's ill health, and how it was used to further interests he himself claimed not to know about, then I'm afraid most people out here in the world are not particularly surprised.

Call me vile if you wish, see you have the freedom to do that and I would defend your freedom to say that.

I have not reported anything in this debate that was a lie. Everything I discussed was a fact, and if you can prove otherwise, I will apologize to you and anyone else.

I try not to enter anything in AD until I have more than one source for my beliefs.

There are probably times when I make a mistake(see I admit it)and I definitely will correct it if brought to my attention.

Popeye,

I made a mistake about Reagan's quote. Did I not just admit that in my last post ? My only point was that you made the mistake of bringing up an irrelevant point, Reagan is not beyond reproach (he is still human no matter how much that seems unlikely to me) the point of this thread is that CBS has distorted the facts and lied, and ADMITTEDLY presented a biased version of his life and his family's.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about but I never said you reported my post. So perhaps you'd like to apologize to me for that insinuation. If you weren't talking to me you could just apologize for not clarifying .


Moif,

It's not that your opinions don't count, or that of all europeans don't count. I listen and understand all people's opinions to the best of my ability. I just don't care about opposing opinions once I've made up my mind about a situation (unless new info that I haven't already heard comes to light which is rare because I read more than most - except Wertz ). And why should I. I can't compromise my beliefs to make people feel as though their opinions matter when thay really don't. Call me close mided but I don't see you conceding your point that Reagan didn't have Alzhiemer's in order to make me feel good. Unless you think your Socrates on some sort of social mission to make people think about what they do and why they do it. Believe me we have too many of those people anyhow. So please don't take what I said offensively, I didn't mean it like that.

Johnlocke:

[/QUOTE]

Also, I don't know what you're talking about but I never said you reported my post. So perhaps you'd like to apologize to me for that insinuation. If you weren't talking to me you could just apologize for not clarifying .

[/QUOTE]

I am at a loss of words. I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I don't know anything about a post being reported. I have never reported a post and probably never will. I leave that up to the adminstrations discretion.

I would gladly apologize if I knew what I have done.

I was extending the olive branch to you in the last post:



I can see now you have no intentions of have a peaceful debate,but I did try.

Popeye,

Easy buddy. No one is shredding your olive branch. I was being comical, hence the big laughing LOL symbol afterwards. Jeez. It's all good dude.

Back to the point, CBS put out a biased depiction of Reagan and admitted it.

It's called "writing". We're not talking about people putting together a documentary, we're talking about people writing a dramatic mini-series based on the personal lives of Ron and Nancy Reagan - most of which is not a mater of public record. DC 9/11, apart from about seven minutes' worth of press conferences and broadcast speeches, was pure invention from start to finish. Were you upset by the fact that Showtime broadcast a ridiculously partisan exercise in jingoism of the highest order, the bulk of "fictionalized" (or, as you would no doubt have it, lies)? If not, why not?


On the basis of what I've read, that's exactly what they did. I have not seen anything that strikes me as particularly uncharacteristic of Reagan, his actions, or his attitude. Same goes for Nancy. The only inherent bias that I've actually seen is in the oft-cited line about AIDS. It strikes me that they were being very generous in attributing some sort of Christian morality at work in Reagan's decision to let thousands of people die horribly rather than simply callous disregard. I suspect that, if Nancy ever seriously questioned Ronnie's reasons for refusing to fund any significant AIDS research, he didn't leap to quoting the Bible at her. Reagan was not a particularly religious man - at least not as evidenced in the Reagan presidency I lived through. I imagine his humanitarian response was much more like "Ah, they're just fags - let 'em die."


This had nothing to do with "journalistic standards". If it were a matter of sub-standard or slanderously inaccurate writing, Viacom would not be broadcasting it at all. What is obvious from the article you cited is that it was purely and simply a matter of CBS caving in to pressure and threats from conservative advocates of the heavily gilded memory of the Reagan presidency. It is, of course, the right of such advocates to threaten boycotts (though doing so before the fact on the basis of dubious leaks strikes me as a bit suspect) and it is the right of Les Moonves to wimp out (and, yes, to censor CBS's programming) when faced with such threats. Not very noble of either, but perfectly within their rights.


Uh, yes it was. CBS was going to broadcast the program, now CBS is not going to broadcast the program. It was on their schedule, now it's off. That is what is known in the industry as cancellation. The fact that Viacom's Showtime has decided to pick up the property doesn't mean that CBS didn't cancel it. It just means that there weren't really any serious concerns about ethics or standards or bias or balance involved. Just caving in to pressure.

Interesting. It is "Viacom's Showtime", but just plain old "CBS". No "Viacom's CBS"? Not going to make many points with Sumner Redstone that way, Wertz. Fact is that after review of the television mini-series, it was moved from one Viacom company to another one, one deemed more appropriate for the content of the mini-series.

The rest of your post makes it clear, at least in your mind, what this whole thing is really all about. The makers of this series are angry at Reagan because he didn't spend enough money on AIDS research back in the 1980's. He didn't fix the problem by throwing a bunch of money at it. Actually, that might not have fixed the problem, but that's just details I guess. Apparently, you agree, and that's fine, there are two sides to that story. The TV show perhaps should have been re-titled "The Evil Reagans: They didn't cure AIDS".

According to the LA Times, and I realize their reporting is somewhat suspect these days, Moonves thought he was getting a love story. Instead, he got a work of fiction about two real life people that is less a portrayal of their lives together and more a hit piece based on the makers' view of their policies on AIDS. Kind of like ordering a BMW and ending up with a used Chevy instead I would guess. So, instead of taking delivery on the car he didn't order, he gave it to his brother and told him, "See what you can do with this. Just don't try to drive it on the freeway.'

Here is my take on the mini-series. First off, you don't need to bring out something like this when the guy is not even dead..and far worse his wife has STUCK BY HIS SIDE through probably one of the worst things you can have happen to you.

Second, in all the clips that have been aired, CBS would have been better off not having Barbara Streisand going on touting the movie...geesh give me a break.

Third, from the bits and pieces that I have seen the movie is not even based on any reality of the man that WAS Ronald Reagan. The man was actuially a genious, I would definately suggest those that think this guy was some sort of idiot read some of his letters and manuscrpits.

In conclusion, CBS ie Viacom, made a decision IMHO was probably the best for them. CBS is basically a Midwest organization, what would make them want to alienate not only viewers but sponsors? The movies timing...lets face it sucks and smells of politics, the guy isn't even dead and far worse for Nancy Reagan. It's not based on really anything factual, esp the characters. Next time I suggest they actually interview people that worked in the Reagan administration and...this is a stretch..mabe Nancy Reagan and kids?

Well thats my view of it. Hopefully we can start acting more like human beings and see that timing of things like this is important. I don't see this as censorship because NO ONE is forcing CBS to remove it. Free will is totally being exercised here IMHO. If CBS wants to roll the dice they can most certainly air it. But, like real life there are consequenses for everything we do...even opening your mouth...just ask Howard Dean, not to mention a few others.

cusbilla

A see a lot of folks here writing as if you KNOW Ronald Reagan
personally. The truth of the matter is, nobody knows what
occurred in his personal life. And if you think his wife is going
to be candid on the subject, dream on.....

The only things we know are those we've seen in the media,
which can be greatly distorted. So, to base your assumptions
about the "truth value" of the movie, on what you've seen or
heard about a man who is far removed from your world, is
speculation at best.

Besides, movies are meant for entertainment. Documentaries
are what we view if we want to obtain factual information.

Um, CBS even agrees it's over the top. Whats your answer to that?

cusbilla

May I suggest you look into reading I Love You Ronnie it is a collection of love letters sent throughout their long marriage from Ronnie to Nancy...you can doubt the level of candor of Mrs. Reagan or any of his children or close acquaintances if you choose to, but there is a wealth of information out there which gives quite of bit of insight into who Ronald Reagan was....too bad CBS choose to ignore most (all?) of it.

The Answer:

I don't doubt that Nancy and Ronnie loved each other.
(I'll have to pass on reading the book "I Love You Ronnie")

What I'm saying is that you nor I can dare to presume
that we know these people in a real and honest way.
That book she wrote was written and published with
the knowledge that millions of people would be reading
it. Do you really think that Nancy would talk about herself
or her husband in such a way that might show them in a bad light??

Please accept the fact that all you really know about
Mr. and Mrs. Reagan is what they want you to know.

Cusbilla:

CBS may agree that it is "over the top", but that doesn't
change the fact that any tv movie is made for the purposes
of entertainment, and many movies ARE over the top.
They could have produced a documentary if they wanted
accurate and fair (but less people would watch).

To quote one of our other members here:



Yes, from everything I've read, this movie was biased, and quite possibly socially irresponsible. Not saying that you don't have the right to complain, but after all, it is just a movie.

I have noticed that both Wertz and Popeye have insinuated that by people coming together and banning something in order to get their way (ie: democracy) that somehow the Conservatives have infringed the rights of free speech. If that is so (and I'm pretty certain that public pressure on large conglomerates is not an infringement) isn't it actually a much larger infringment to say that the Conservatives don't have the right to put this kind of pressure on a large corporation. BTW if memory serves... the American Revolution was started with boycotts and it continues to be a good way for the public to get change when other routes have been expended. If memory serves enviromentalists and all sorts of other people use this method a lot.

CBS probably made a wise decision to pull the Reagan movie in view of all the controversy from not only the Reagan family, but from Reagan's fans-of all party affiliations. I know of one conservative forum that sent 53,000 protest emails to CBS.

Just as in the scads of Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon movies-dramatizations based on true stories-and more often than not-drama frequently gets the upper hand over truth or facts. I guess the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon families have grown weary of fighting all the mis-quotes, misconceptions, and just plain lies about their loved ones.

A wasted 9 million dollars by taking the low road and not doing a better job of sourcing and researching which the Reagan family, primarily Nancy, would have gladly (under the right conditions) provided information for.

Oh well....the big guys make mistakes too...and costly ones at that!

I wouldn't give up the day job for mind-reading, Aquilla. In an effort to stick to the topic, I was addressing one of the few actual objections to the series which have been raised here: the AIDS quote. Trust me, there are many, many, many, many, many more reason for judging Reagan a horrible president and a despicable man - but those would be off-topic. Thanks for making presumptions about me, though - and about the entire program. For all I know - for all you know - the AIDS comment may be one brief exchange in a drama running to several hours. As it is one of the only things which people have been using to excoriate the entire program, it is one of the only things which can be discussed here.

Whether medical research into any deadly epidemic is "throwing a bunch of money" or not is the subject of another debate. I expect many people who are terminally ill, their family-members and loved ones, would disagree. The fact remains, though, that since the Reagan-Bush years (during which I lost dozens of friends and a lover - so, yeah, I do take Reagan's inaction on this one issue a bit personally), when more significant funding has been made available, great strides have been made in HIV research - and thousands of lives have been extended, if not saved. Following Reagan's lead, hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - more would be dead.

I suspect you know me well enough to realize that I would judge no one on a single issue - and that would be the case with Reagan as well. Were his cavalier attitude toward those dying horribly of AIDS-related illnesses the only short-coming of his presidency, I (and, I imagine, the writers of The Reagans) might feel quite differently about the man. Instead, it was symptomatic of a presidency which was amoral and degenerate from start to finish. Perhaps that is why so many didn't want this program to be seen - and why its opponents have been focussing on such trivial speculations in order to condemn the entire project.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


I can't speak for Popeye, but if you read my post, JL, you will have noticed that, while I "insinuated" nothing, I plainly and simply stated the direct opposite:
If there's any way I can make that clearer, let me know.

Wertz, basically you are saying it's censorship which is far from being in the realm of reality. The Government is not forcing it what so ever. The "dubious leaks" as you put it???? were snips CBS released. It shocks me that you would have such a broad definition of "censorship" only when it fits your ideaolgy. Also, demeaning someones character over removing something you don't agree with smacks of hypocracy.

cusbilla

Thought I would ressurect this thread since Showtime aired the movie this weekend. How many here watched it? I tuned in for the first 45 minutes of it or so and thought it was total garbage, so I went back to ESPN and watched the football game instead.

Anyone else actually watch this piece of trash? Wanna tell us about it?

I watched about 1 1/2 hours of the movie, then fell asleep. The movie did what it set out to do - make Reagan look like a fumbling disorganized puppet and Nancy look like Mommy Dearest.

I would fall on my own sword and slice my guts out horizontally before I watch that show, but I am glad that those who are watching it aren't enjoying it .

jl: I would hardly base the public reaction to The Reagans on the postings of two self-identified conservatives at America's Debate. By all (other) accounts, the film is, as I expected, hardly as controversial as several bullying pundits were trying to make out without having seen it. I missed the broadcast myself on Sunday, but will be catching it either tomorrow night or Saturday. While I prefer not to judge anything without having seen it, I anticipate that James Sullivan of the San Francisco Chronicle will be proved right. He concludes his review, "Much Ado About Nothing", thus:

Wertz,

I didn't know that any other opinions mattered . Seriously though I think everybody expected it to be boring. It's Produced by CBS. We just didn't like the slander in it. Or the Treason. Nor did we appreciate the fact that the liberals wouldn't see the way things ought to be. So now I can say, see I told ya so .

I do gather you're right though, Wertz. However I really don't think anyone expected it to be openly hateful.