Full Version: THE REAGANS pulled on CBS
There's been quite a bit of controversy recently over a proposed mini-series on CBS called "THE REAGANS". It kind of started quite awhile ago when James Brolin (Mr Barbra Streisand) was chosen to portray President Reagan, and things have pretty much gone downhill from there. Those who regularly read The Drudge Report have been getting a blow by blow description of this mini-series as it has progressed. The Republican National Committee has weighed in on it and finally today, CBS released a statement that they would not be airing this mini-series after all. Instead, another Viacom company, Showtime, will air it.
CBS Statement
So, the question here, and I realize nobody here has actually seen the film, is did CBS cave by deciding not to show it?
From the CBS release......
Second question to consider. What in the world does this mean?
Edited to add the link to the Showtime statement.....
Showtime statement on THE REAGANS
CBS Statement
So, the question here, and I realize nobody here has actually seen the film, is did CBS cave by deciding not to show it?
From the CBS release......
QUOTE
Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting
performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in
the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans
for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address
those concerns.
performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in
the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans
for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address
those concerns.
Second question to consider. What in the world does this mean?
Edited to add the link to the Showtime statement.....
Showtime statement on THE REAGANS
could THIS have been the deciding factor in pulling the miniseries off?
Between possible ratings loss and the slightest hint that CBS appear even MORE left-leaning than it already appears they did the only profitable thing to do. Ratings pay bills, political leanings do not.
QUOTE
The Boycott CBS site - campaigning under the banner "Don't let the Hollywood Left smear the Reagans and the Reagan legacy" - was swamped by supporters after Mr Paranzino appeared on the O'Reilly Factor on Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel over the weekend.http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565623228
Between possible ratings loss and the slightest hint that CBS appear even MORE left-leaning than it already appears they did the only profitable thing to do. Ratings pay bills, political leanings do not.
Yeah, they caved. I think the boycott is stupid too. Still, I don't really care where the miniseries shows as long as I can watch it.
I think this miniseries was a slander to Reagan because of it's lack of positive content about the Reagan Era. Michael Reagan was on CNN and fox news and said it was a terrible representation of his father and that CBS never asked them on info for the content of the miniseries, which can mean only that they didn't want to involve the good parts from family members.
I think CBS caved in because of the negative commentary it was getting in the media. It was being thrown against the wall for the slander and so, to save the network from a major ratings loss, they caved in
I think CBS caved in because of the negative commentary it was getting in the media. It was being thrown against the wall for the slander and so, to save the network from a major ratings loss, they caved in
Yes, I think CBS really tucked its tail between its legs, and gave in to the conservative right. I bet if it was about Clinton the conservative right would do an about face.
It sort of sounds like censorship.
It sort of sounds like censorship.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Nov 4 2003, 09:54 PM)
Yes, I think CBS really tucked its tail between its legs, and gave in to the conservative right.
It sort of sounds like censorship.
It sort of sounds like censorship.
Censorship??
More like protesting a disgusting protrayal of Ronald Reagan. His family was not consulted on materials for the script & the thing was basically a bash film, not a miniseries. If it were censorship, Bush would have called the FCC to pound CBS. THAT is censorship. I think it was more caving in to the protesters than censorship.
A president telling the media they can't say this, this and this is censorship. A network getting protests from people about an upcoming miniseries and then caving in and not showing it is NOT!
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Nov 5 2003, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Nov 4 2003, 09:54 PM)
Yes, I think CBS really tucked its tail between its legs, and gave in to the conservative right.
It sort of sounds like censorship.
It sort of sounds like censorship.
Censorship??
More like protesting a disgusting protrayal of Ronald Reagan. His family was not consulted on materials for the script & the thing was basically a bash film, not a miniseries. If it were censorship, Bush would have called the FCC to pound CBS. THAT is censorship. I think it was more caving in to the protesters than censorship.
A president telling the media they can't say this, this and this is censorship. A network getting protests from people about an upcoming miniseries and then caving in and not showing it is NOT!
So it is a 'disgusting portrayal of Reagan'. Is that a universal opinion or just an opinion by Reagans family and his conservative friends. I think it should have been shown and if it was all lies then CBS would then pay dearly. I don't want anyone else judging or making decisions for me.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Nov 5 2003, 12:22 AM)
More like protesting a disgusting protrayal of Ronald Reagan. His family was not consulted on materials for the script & the thing was basically a bash film, not a miniseries. If it were censorship, Bush would have called the FCC to pound CBS. THAT is censorship. I think it was more caving in to the protesters than censorship.
Wow, you must have gotten a sneak peak at this series to understand the content so well. How was it? Which aspects in particular riled you?
The fact is that by boycotting something BEFORE it came to air, the public has been deprived of an opportunity to judge this program for itself. Is this state-censorship? Not really. It merely demonstrates that the people involved in scuttling it are either afraid of something that it represents, or they fear that the viewing public wouldn't be smart enough to pick up any alleged falsehoods.
That's right, CBS cowers out. They knew what they were doing was disgusting and worthy being called treason, what they didn't know was that Americans love Ronald Reagan. I'm 23 and I hold him second to Jesus, so what are the people who voted for him going to think about all this. I reckon CBS knows now.
Of course they were right to pull it. It was a fictionally concocted idea of Reagan's life devised by two gay men that hate Reagan and blame him for the "epidemic".
I quote one of the two interchangables... "I will never forgive my fellow actor (Reagan) for ignoring the AIDS epidemic..."
Sounds like sour grapes to me and my fellow Conservatives won't allow the name of our most esteemed and precious leader to go trampled because two morons and Barbara Striesand hated his courage and bravery and leadership. Shame on CBS and shame on those libs.
Let me tell you, if you want to cause a flury, you could write a true story of Clinton's escapades from the Starr Report which I have read (you know who I'm talking to). We could make a Hollywood style porn out of Clintons bird-dogging and corraling however Ronnie's name should go untouched as was his record
In my opinion the responsible thing to do would be to pull the whole damn thing until they can tell the truth. I wouldn't stand for anyone's life story being told inaccurately (or in a desperate lie to ruin Reagan's reputation), especially Reagan's.
Edited to add:
Ultimate Joe,
I have read several pieces of the film's script and it was disgusting the "liberties" that were taken by the writers... and I while I was fearing that people wouldn't see throught the lies, CBS was counting on it.
Of course they were right to pull it. It was a fictionally concocted idea of Reagan's life devised by two gay men that hate Reagan and blame him for the "epidemic".
I quote one of the two interchangables... "I will never forgive my fellow actor (Reagan) for ignoring the AIDS epidemic..."
Sounds like sour grapes to me and my fellow Conservatives won't allow the name of our most esteemed and precious leader to go trampled because two morons and Barbara Striesand hated his courage and bravery and leadership. Shame on CBS and shame on those libs.
Let me tell you, if you want to cause a flury, you could write a true story of Clinton's escapades from the Starr Report which I have read (you know who I'm talking to). We could make a Hollywood style porn out of Clintons bird-dogging and corraling however Ronnie's name should go untouched as was his record
In my opinion the responsible thing to do would be to pull the whole damn thing until they can tell the truth. I wouldn't stand for anyone's life story being told inaccurately (or in a desperate lie to ruin Reagan's reputation), especially Reagan's.
Edited to add:
Ultimate Joe,
I have read several pieces of the film's script and it was disgusting the "liberties" that were taken by the writers... and I while I was fearing that people wouldn't see throught the lies, CBS was counting on it.
Thank you John for helping in defending my position.
Your quote about the AIDS thing reminded me of something that was said by Michael Reagan but i can't remember what it was but i know it was something that Michael knew was bogus.
Your quote about the AIDS thing reminded me of something that was said by Michael Reagan but i can't remember what it was but i know it was something that Michael knew was bogus.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Nov 5 2003, 04:44 AM)
That's right, CBS cowers out. They knew what they were doing was disgusting and worthy being called treason, what they didn't know was that Americans love Ronald Reagan. I'm 23 and I hold him second to Jesus, so what are the people who voted for him going to think about all this. I reckon CBS knows now.
Of course they were right to pull it. It was a fictionally concocted idea of Reagan's life devised by two gay men that hate Reagan and blame him for the "epidemic".
I quote one of the two interchangables... "I will never forgive my fellow actor (Reagan) for ignoring the AIDS epidemic..."
Sounds like sour grapes to me and my fellow Conservatives won't allow the name of our most esteemed and precious leader to go trampled because two morons and Barbara Striesand hated his courage and bravery and leadership. Shame on CBS and shame on those libs.
Let me tell you, if you want to cause a flury, you could write a true story of Clinton's escapades from the Starr Report which I have read (you know who I'm talking to). We could make a Hollywood style porn out of Clintons bird-dogging and corraling however Ronnie's name should go untouched as was his record
In my opinion the responsible thing to do would be to pull the whole damn thing until they can tell the truth. I wouldn't stand for anyone's life story being told inaccurately (or in a desperate lie to ruin Reagan's reputation), especially Reagan's.
Edited to add:
Ultimate Joe,
I have read several pieces of the film's script and it was disgusting the "liberties" that were taken by the writers... and I while I was fearing that people wouldn't see throught the lies, CBS was counting on it.
Of course they were right to pull it. It was a fictionally concocted idea of Reagan's life devised by two gay men that hate Reagan and blame him for the "epidemic".
I quote one of the two interchangables... "I will never forgive my fellow actor (Reagan) for ignoring the AIDS epidemic..."
Sounds like sour grapes to me and my fellow Conservatives won't allow the name of our most esteemed and precious leader to go trampled because two morons and Barbara Striesand hated his courage and bravery and leadership. Shame on CBS and shame on those libs.
Let me tell you, if you want to cause a flury, you could write a true story of Clinton's escapades from the Starr Report which I have read (you know who I'm talking to). We could make a Hollywood style porn out of Clintons bird-dogging and corraling however Ronnie's name should go untouched as was his record
In my opinion the responsible thing to do would be to pull the whole damn thing until they can tell the truth. I wouldn't stand for anyone's life story being told inaccurately (or in a desperate lie to ruin Reagan's reputation), especially Reagan's.
Edited to add:
Ultimate Joe,
I have read several pieces of the film's script and it was disgusting the "liberties" that were taken by the writers... and I while I was fearing that people wouldn't see throught the lies, CBS was counting on it.
So now we have to determine if the story is right. Now I wonder who would make that decision. Let me mention some names: Sean Hannity,Rush Limbaugh(sorry, I forgot he is in rehab, sorry forget I mentioned his name),Bill O'Reilly,Ann Coulter.
Hey I would believe any of those people.
Or how about Newt Gingrich(oh no he had a 7 year affair when he was married to his second wife)
Or the Honorable Henry Hyde from Illinios(oh no he admitted to a 4 year affair with a married woman(Cherie Snodgrass)
Or the Honorable ex-speaker of the house Bob Livingston(oh no he admitted to straying from the narrow path a few times)
What I am trying to say is if these are the kind of people from the conservative right that are going to judge whether this Reagan Mini-series is correct. Excuse me please, if I have reason to not believe you.
Shame on those conservatives
The mini-series will be shown on another network for those who wish to watch it. Yes, ratings do censor television.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Nov 5 2003, 04:44 AM)
what they didn't know was that Americans love Ronald Reagan. I'm 23 and I hold him second to Jesus, so what are the people who voted for him going to think about all this. I reckon CBS knows now.
Yes, some Americans love Ronald Reagan. And some of us really
don't give the man all that much thought.
Comparing Ronald Reagan to Jesus Christ is like comparing
a Trailer Park RV to a Beverly Hills Mansion.
I don't even follow the teachings of Christ, and I'm offended on his behalf.
I have nothing against Reagan, really. I think my mom voted for
him back in the day. I haven't followed his political career too much, though.
I was at least alive when he was in office.
I do feel sorry for him and his family. If the movie was untrue
then it was a smart move for CBS to pull it. Besides, they should wait
until he's dead and buried before attempting any sort of life-story.
Popeye,
Thank you for your colorful mentioning of all those conservatives. Unfortunately for you none of them is Ronald W. Reagan. Are you like the kid that used to get in trouble and point out what everybody else did wrong? It's too bad Reagan's a little too stand-up for that. BTW I don't quite know why the fact that they had affairs wouldn't make them qualified to judge the life of a man they've studied, but I do know that lying about Reagan's life isn't acceptable just because Rush is a pill addict and Newt an apologetic adulterer (apologetic is much more than Clinton who to this day hasn't admitted his wrong). Despite what Liberals think, cheating on your wife (despite her cold shrillness) is wrong. Anywhoo, I'll digress as per you have no real argument other than to point out Conservatives that have committed moral wrongs other than Ronald Reagan.
GoAmerica,
Yes GA, I know exactly what your talking about. There is a quote in the Reagan "miniseries" that accounts for a fictitious moment that never occured in real life, Ronnie and Nancy are talking and she emplores him to do something about AIDS and he says bodly to her; "They that live in sin, Shall die in sin". 
. Yeah, I don't know where they got the idea for it but it came somewhere between a mistruth and a lie.
Here are a series of other lies depicted in the Political-Science-Fiction "mini-series".
Nancy is portrayed as a pill popper and even slaps Patty around, then foggishly remembers her childhood growing up and having been beaten by her mother...????
Ronnie is depicted as a homophobe and there are allusions that he had Alzhiemers while still in office (as soon as '84)
So far, Nancy, Mike and Patty have all come out to say that the program isn't even close. So they are pretty good judges I think.
Also, you know who else seems to have made a good point? Les Moonves, the head of CBS who today said that "CBS isn't afrais of controversy, but the miniseries is biased.
edited to add:
Hugo,
Only the governement can censor you. Everyone else is just inflicting their influence upon you. Calling the will of a free people that ban together to fight something they dislike "censorship" is just crying.
Thank you for your colorful mentioning of all those conservatives. Unfortunately for you none of them is Ronald W. Reagan. Are you like the kid that used to get in trouble and point out what everybody else did wrong? It's too bad Reagan's a little too stand-up for that. BTW I don't quite know why the fact that they had affairs wouldn't make them qualified to judge the life of a man they've studied, but I do know that lying about Reagan's life isn't acceptable just because Rush is a pill addict and Newt an apologetic adulterer (apologetic is much more than Clinton who to this day hasn't admitted his wrong). Despite what Liberals think, cheating on your wife (despite her cold shrillness) is wrong. Anywhoo, I'll digress as per you have no real argument other than to point out Conservatives that have committed moral wrongs other than Ronald Reagan.
GoAmerica,
Yes GA, I know exactly what your talking about. There is a quote in the Reagan "miniseries" that accounts for a fictitious moment that never occured in real life, Ronnie and Nancy are talking and she emplores him to do something about AIDS and he says bodly to her; "They that live in sin, Shall die in sin".
. Yeah, I don't know where they got the idea for it but it came somewhere between a mistruth and a lie. Here are a series of other lies depicted in the Political-Science-Fiction "mini-series".
Nancy is portrayed as a pill popper and even slaps Patty around, then foggishly remembers her childhood growing up and having been beaten by her mother...????
Ronnie is depicted as a homophobe and there are allusions that he had Alzhiemers while still in office (as soon as '84)
So far, Nancy, Mike and Patty have all come out to say that the program isn't even close. So they are pretty good judges I think.
Also, you know who else seems to have made a good point? Les Moonves, the head of CBS who today said that "CBS isn't afrais of controversy, but the miniseries is biased.
edited to add:
Hugo,
Only the governement can censor you. Everyone else is just inflicting their influence upon you. Calling the will of a free people that ban together to fight something they dislike "censorship" is just crying.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Nov 4 2003, 08:44 PM)
That's right, CBS cowers out. They knew what they were doing was disgusting and worthy being called treason, what they didn't know was that Americans love Ronald Reagan. I'm 23 and I hold him second to Jesus, so what are the people who voted for him going to think about all this. I reckon CBS knows now.
I fear you may be stretching the definition of "treason" here. How exactly is being critical of a president tantamount to treason? Particular such a sorry specimen as Reagan?!?!?
QUOTE
Let me tell you, if you want to cause a flury, you could write a true story of Clinton's escapades from the Starr Report which I have read (you know who I'm talking to). We could make a Hollywood style porn out of Clintons bird-dogging and corraling however Ronnie's name should go untouched as was his record
Under Reagan's watch, we had Iran-Contra. Remember that little bump in the road? Some people went to jail. A lot of Central Americans died. But hey, you're right, it's much worse to have sex!
Reagan signed the largest tax increase in this nation's history. Check it out.
Has it perhaps occurred to you, JL, that you may have a slightly biased view of Reagan? Would you accept any truth less than a paean to the man?
I think that those who protested this miniseries are disgusting and treasonous. Just kidding. I would say this, though: It's freakin television! It's supposed to be vapid and mindless! What a waste of time getting so worked up over a show!
Quark,
Another great post, unfortunately it doesn't belong in this thread. None of the issues you bring up are issues of concern regarding the CBS "movie". Even the head of CBS a self described liberal democrat said it was pulled because it was biased. What do you want from me?
I'll debate you on Reagan if you please, but not in this forum which is about Reagan's life's relation to a miniseries... stay on topic.
PS.... Reagan's tax increase is only comparable when compared to inflation (according to your article) yet Libs won't see that point when blamed for the deficit that we had under Reagan when it was their over spending in the budget that caused the shortage of money....they added a ton of programs to his budget. Hmmn, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Yet and still, it has nothing to do with the miniseries.
Another great post, unfortunately it doesn't belong in this thread. None of the issues you bring up are issues of concern regarding the CBS "movie". Even the head of CBS a self described liberal democrat said it was pulled because it was biased. What do you want from me?
I'll debate you on Reagan if you please, but not in this forum which is about Reagan's life's relation to a miniseries... stay on topic.
PS.... Reagan's tax increase is only comparable when compared to inflation (according to your article) yet Libs won't see that point when blamed for the deficit that we had under Reagan when it was their over spending in the budget that caused the shortage of money....they added a ton of programs to his budget. Hmmn, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Yet and still, it has nothing to do with the miniseries.
I saw excerpts of the show on NBC today, the main points that made the Raygun worshipers angry- the quote about aides "They who live in sin die by sin" or something close to that, but hey, that is a verified statement- the other part, him not recognizing his defense secretary at the end of his presidency, which has been verified a couple of times, his slipping into alzhiemers towards the end of his presidency ( I think it started about 1976 personally) - Nancys super controling behavior has been well documented by actual cabinent members (Donald Regan and Nancy clashing were well known, and her quote of "talking to the president by first talking to me was verified by both Donald Regan and Stockton?) so- what they were mad about was an accurate portrayal of his failings, and the miniseries was CERTAINLY imbalanced by not showing what his positives were (I guess he loved his wife or something) but who cares? Apparently the vociferious right!
Since it's just television, I summed up everything I had to say about it with this:
"It's freakin television! It's supposed to be vapid and mindless! What a waste of time getting so worked up over a show!"
What I was attempting to point out is that since none of us has seen this movie yet, how can you be so quick to throw in words like "treason?" You are perfectly free to write a different version if you choose. It's television. You don't have to watch it. I choose not to watch any of it.
"It's freakin television! It's supposed to be vapid and mindless! What a waste of time getting so worked up over a show!"
What I was attempting to point out is that since none of us has seen this movie yet, how can you be so quick to throw in words like "treason?" You are perfectly free to write a different version if you choose. It's television. You don't have to watch it. I choose not to watch any of it.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Nov 5 2003, 07:16 AM)
You are perfectly free to write a different version if you choose. It's television. You don't have to watch it. I choose not to watch any of it.
If I wrote my own I would just tell the truth... Something these liberals were having a hard time doing.
I think any movie about a President and his legacy should focus on facts and your calling it mindless TV doesn't make their attempt to discredit that which is reality any better.
As I stated above... Any movie about a President (or anybody) should revolve around the facts.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Nov 5 2003, 12:44 AM)
They knew what they were doing was disgusting and worthy being called treason, what they didn't know was that Americans love Ronald Reagan. I'm 23 and I hold him second to Jesus, so what are the people who voted for him going to think about all this.
Seems like a lot of one-week stories on the board this week. Oh well...
If I were a Republican, I'd be mighty darn pleased that the GOP took the governor offices in Mississippi and Kentucky away from the Democrats and along with California that makes three-for-three in 2004.
Or if I were a Republican I'd be tickled that four Democratic Senators from the South aren't running for reelection and the Republicans stand a good chance to pick up all four seats and pad their lead in the Senate.
But noooooooooooooooooo....
What are you guys all bent out of shape about? Because Mr. Barbara Streisand supposedly plays your hero, Ronald Reagan, as something other than a near Christ-like figure.Dial the hyperbole machine back down to a "five" John Locke. I know anyone daring to diss the Great and Wonderful Ronnie Ray-Gun is a public enemy to you, but seriously dude you need to chill. There's no "treason" in making a crummy TV movie that is less than flattering of any U.S. president. Just ask anyone who admired Kennedy or Nixon how badly they've been treated over the years.
If you're 23 now, then you were just a little Johnny Locke when Ronnie was elected in 1980. And I'm sure Jesus will be glad to know he's still Numero Uno over Ronnie. Guess I must have missed it when Reagan fed the masses with a couple of loaves of bread, or made the blind see and the lame walk and rose from the dead.
Be content that by pulling the chicken switch and dumping the Reagan mini-series on Showtime, the decision to bail on the selling commercial ads will probably cost CBS thousands of dollars.
So you've watched a televison network knuckle under, cave in and punk out and exile an high-profile project to the wilds of pay cable where it will languish and die a quiet death.
Don't worry. Be happy.
I fully intend to weigh in on this later tomorrow morning, however I will leave you all tonight with a link and a quote from someone who knows the truth......
Patti Davis
TIME Magazine
And by the way, the name is spelled Reagan, the Raygun crap went out years ago. It's not clever anymore.
QUOTE
My father would probably say, “This too shall pass.” And it will. We will continue to come to his bedside, knowing that death waits in the doorway and will one day reach for him. We will continue to cherish the fact that we walked away from our old battlegrounds and discovered how much better peace feels. We will look at each other through the clear glass of the present, not the mud-spatter of the past. What a pity the producers missed out on that part of the story.
Patti Davis
TIME Magazine
And by the way, the name is spelled Reagan, the Raygun crap went out years ago. It's not clever anymore.
And by the way, the name is spelled Reagan, the Raygun crap went out years ago. It's not clever anymore
Wasn't meant to be clever Aquilla. Just trying to give credit to the pinhead prez who poured so many billions down the rathole of his pie-in-the-sky "Star Wars" missile defense system.
If you and John Locke and GoAmerica and the rest of the crew want to swap stories about the good ol' days when President Gumby Hair was large and in charge, that's cool and the gang. However, I thought we were discussing THE REAGANS mini-series on CBS that none of us have actually seen and the vast majority without Showtime never will get a chance to.
Believe me, I was being polite regarding Ray-gun. If I wanted to be nasty, I'd make some snide remark about Alzheimer, but that's too low a blow even for a confirmed Reagan basher as myself.
Patti Davis? That the same Patti Davis who got butt-nekkid in Playboy a few times? Oh yeah, I'm sure Ronnie and Mommy enjoyed that.
Wonder if it made the TV movie?
Wasn't meant to be clever Aquilla. Just trying to give credit to the pinhead prez who poured so many billions down the rathole of his pie-in-the-sky "Star Wars" missile defense system.
If you and John Locke and GoAmerica and the rest of the crew want to swap stories about the good ol' days when President Gumby Hair was large and in charge, that's cool and the gang. However, I thought we were discussing THE REAGANS mini-series on CBS that none of us have actually seen and the vast majority without Showtime never will get a chance to.
Believe me, I was being polite regarding Ray-gun. If I wanted to be nasty, I'd make some snide remark about Alzheimer, but that's too low a blow even for a confirmed Reagan basher as myself.
Patti Davis? That the same Patti Davis who got butt-nekkid in Playboy a few times? Oh yeah, I'm sure Ronnie and Mommy enjoyed that.
Wonder if it made the TV movie?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2003, 02:39 AM)
Wasn't meant to be clever Aquilla. Just trying to give credit to the pinhead prez who poured so many billions down the rathole of his pie-in-the-sky "Star Wars" missile defense system.
I've reported your post for its offensiveness, but there is one item I'd like to point out.
The star-wars defense program was the ultimate 'weapon' that won the Cold War. Without firing a shot!
So CBS supposedly "caves" and moves the movie to Showtime? Ok, let's look at this logically:
1. If they show it on CBS without advertisers and some affiliates -- a distinct possibility considering the near deity relationship some on the right have with Reagan -- then CBS loses money.
2. If they move it to Showtime, which is subscriber based, they fill several time blocks during the next couple of months and subscribers pay for it!
If you're running a business, which do you choose? I'd choose to make the most money. It's pretty simple. I'd also make sure it quietly showed up as a Blockbuster rental in about 4 months.
SHOULD they show it on CBS even if it antagonizes advertisers and affiliates? My take: they should re-cut the movie like "Memento", so that the scenes are in reverse order.
1. If they show it on CBS without advertisers and some affiliates -- a distinct possibility considering the near deity relationship some on the right have with Reagan -- then CBS loses money.
2. If they move it to Showtime, which is subscriber based, they fill several time blocks during the next couple of months and subscribers pay for it!
If you're running a business, which do you choose? I'd choose to make the most money. It's pretty simple. I'd also make sure it quietly showed up as a Blockbuster rental in about 4 months.
SHOULD they show it on CBS even if it antagonizes advertisers and affiliates? My take: they should re-cut the movie like "Memento", so that the scenes are in reverse order.
The whole mess is disgusting. The right wing is proving that if you twist and shout enough, you get your way.
It's the behavior of a two-year-old.
This, my friends, profiles American politics 2004.
Aren't y'all proud.
As Garrison Keillor has been singing for a while, "We're all Republicans now!"
Heh! Okay, back to the cell.
It's the behavior of a two-year-old.
This, my friends, profiles American politics 2004.
Aren't y'all proud.
As Garrison Keillor has been singing for a while, "We're all Republicans now!"
Heh! Okay, back to the cell.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 5 2003, 08:06 AM)
The whole mess is disgusting. The right wing is proving that if you twist and shout enough, you get your way.
You mean to say that public outcry (for we all know CBS isn't going to pull squat just because a couple radio hosts dislike it) actually has an effect on the media?
"behavior of a two-year old"? Yeah, just like the Iraq protests, all that kicking and screaming. (Doesn't look like they'll get their way)
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
the quote about aides "They who live in sin die by sin" or something close to that, but hey, that is a verified statement
Evidence?
I believe there was also mention of Reagan calling himself the anti-christ in the movie (dead serious). Face it, it appears the movie writers hated Reagan enough to put vile words in his mouth (If he had verifiable vile words, then by all means, don't make them up) and paint his wife as a real... not nice person.
To whine that those darn right-wingers actually did something about it, is pointless.
If this series is as confrontational as has been suggested, then it seems to be that some one is trying to attack Reagan, whilst he is down. And frankly, thats the act of a coward.
Having said that though, judging by the clips I've seen on CNN and BBC, as well as Cruising Ram's observation, then I feel I ought to point out that Ronald Reagans name and reputation has already been well and truly dragged through the mud by several recent documentaries already.
It bodes ill for us all if we get more worked up about a work of entertainment (fiction?) but largely ignore facts.
Its not more than two months since Discovery channel ran a series of programmes detailing the drug abuse of various world leaders which included Reagan.
I saw that programme, and was shocked by its revelations. If Reagan really was so weak minded as the programme's medical experts suggested, then the man was nothing more than a puppet!
Now, I don't know if thats true or not, but I find it weird that people get so excited by this series when no one bats an eye about the others.
I suppose this is because Reagan was always a 'rag doll' to the US population, because he made people feel good about themselves. To me, Reagan always seemed to be about never accepting responsibility... it was always the other guy with his 'evil empire's fault...
A bit like GW Bush...
Having said that though, judging by the clips I've seen on CNN and BBC, as well as Cruising Ram's observation, then I feel I ought to point out that Ronald Reagans name and reputation has already been well and truly dragged through the mud by several recent documentaries already.
It bodes ill for us all if we get more worked up about a work of entertainment (fiction?) but largely ignore facts.
Its not more than two months since Discovery channel ran a series of programmes detailing the drug abuse of various world leaders which included Reagan.
I saw that programme, and was shocked by its revelations. If Reagan really was so weak minded as the programme's medical experts suggested, then the man was nothing more than a puppet!
Now, I don't know if thats true or not, but I find it weird that people get so excited by this series when no one bats an eye about the others.
I suppose this is because Reagan was always a 'rag doll' to the US population, because he made people feel good about themselves. To me, Reagan always seemed to be about never accepting responsibility... it was always the other guy with his 'evil empire's fault...
A bit like GW Bush...
Did CBS cave? I think they just came to the logical conclusion that the writers and director of this miniseries, which was billed as an factal portrayal of Reagan, failed to "keep it real"...come on people, one scene had President Reagan declaring himself "the anti-Chirst". This kind of writing might be fine for South Park but to attach any sort of "truth" label to it would have been dishonest at best.
As for the idea that the right wing was kicking and screaming and acting like two year olds....from what I can tell all they really did was sent some emails...wanna see two year olds? Been to a college campus anti-war rally lately??
As for the idea that the right wing was kicking and screaming and acting like two year olds....from what I can tell all they really did was sent some emails...wanna see two year olds? Been to a college campus anti-war rally lately??
QUOTE(The Answer @ Nov 5 2003, 11:33 AM)
Did CBS cave? I think they just came to the logical conclusion that the writers and director of this miniseries, which was billed as an factal portrayal of Reagan, failed to "keep it real"...come on people, one scene had President Reagan declaring himself "the anti-Chirst". This kind of writing might be fine for South Park but to attach any sort of "truth" label to it would have been dishonest at best.
Are you serious? OMG. That is insane. Seems like CBS caved in alright. If they had played that whole thing without editing it, they would be getting hate mail and their ratings will fall like a rock.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Nov 5 2003, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE(The Answer @ Nov 5 2003, 11:33 AM)
Did CBS cave? I think they just came to the logical conclusion that the writers and director of this miniseries, which was billed as an factal portrayal of Reagan, failed to "keep it real"...come on people, one scene had President Reagan declaring himself "the anti-Chirst". This kind of writing might be fine for South Park but to attach any sort of "truth" label to it would have been dishonest at best.
Are you serious? OMG. That is insane. Seems like CBS caved in alright. If they had played that whole thing without editing it, they would be getting hate mail and their ratings will fall like a rock.
Umm they were already getting the hate mail (I sent in mine), the real reason they dropped it was probably related more to a hard time coming up with advertising sponsers than it was to a fear of future ratings dropping (I mean come on, who can give up watching Survivor?
) Call it caving or call it coming to a business decision...doesnt matter to me as long as the situation was rectified.
QUOTE(moif @ Nov 5 2003, 07:33 AM)
Having said that though, judging by the clips I've seen on CNN and BBC, as well as Cruising Ram's observation, then I feel I ought to point out that Ronald Reagans name and reputation has already been well and truly dragged through the mud by several recent documentaries already.
It bodes ill for us all if we get more worked up about a work of entertainment (fiction?) but largely ignore facts.
Its not more than two months since Discovery channel ran a series of programmes detailing the drug abuse of various world leaders which included Reagan.
I saw that programme, and was shocked by its revelations. If Reagan really was so weak minded as the programme's medical experts suggested, then the man was nothing more than a puppet!
It bodes ill for us all if we get more worked up about a work of entertainment (fiction?) but largely ignore facts.
Its not more than two months since Discovery channel ran a series of programmes detailing the drug abuse of various world leaders which included Reagan.
I saw that programme, and was shocked by its revelations. If Reagan really was so weak minded as the programme's medical experts suggested, then the man was nothing more than a puppet!
I checked on the Discovery website and couldn't find any reference to the program Moif cited, so I'm not sure of the context. In any case, it wouldn't surprise me if something like that ran, true or not. People of certain political persuasions have been throwing stuff like that at him for years. We've even seen a bit of that here by certain posters. There does seem to be a contingent out there who think that if they make something up and repeat it often enough, it becomes true. If they can get it broadcast on television, so much the better. Hey! If it's on TV, it must be true, right?
Well, no, and I give most of the people here in this forum a little more credit than that, but unfortunately, there are alot of people out there who do believe anything they're told on TV. "I know he said that, I saw him say it on TV!" Errrr.. No, you saw Mr. Barbra Streisand say that on TV and therein lies the problem and the objection that people have raised to this particular show. It's not an accurate portrayal of the Reagans. One doesn't need to see it, CBS admitted as much in their press release.
So, I must ask, why create a work of fiction about a real life person? What is the purpose behind doing that? Is it simply to add to the anti-Reagan list of urban myths, or is it just to simply get one's jollies by attacking a man they despise and who they know can't fight back?
Reagan can't fight back, not directly and his family is going through enough right now to carry the fight, but those of us who do admire the man can, and we did. I don't place Ronald Reagan on the same level as Christ, but I do put him up there with Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson, but that's a different debate for another time. All we did was to tell CBS that if they aired an inaccurate portrayal of Reagan, they would be held accountable. Nobody threatened to pull the plug on their network, nobody threatened to jam their satellite transmission, nobody censored CBS at all. What we did do was to advise CBS to look very closely at what they planned to air and make a determination of whether they wanted to stand behind that broadcast or not. CBS took that advice and guess what? They decided that they weren't comfortable with it.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Nov 5 2003, 08:45 AM)
I've reported your post for its offensiveness, but there is one item I'd like to point out.
The star-wars defense program was the ultimate 'weapon' that won the Cold War. Without firing a shot!
The star-wars defense program was the ultimate 'weapon' that won the Cold War. Without firing a shot!
QUOTE
Though you didn't bother to quote any figures or substantiate your claim that the Strategic Defense Initiative was "the ultimate 'weapon' that won the Cold War", I'd like to point out that despite spending nearly $50 billion between 1983 and 1993, no breakthroughs in deploying a system was found, and to this day the Pentagon has not been able to reliably knock missslies down with other missiles.
The Department of Defense has now tried 17 times since 1983 to actually hit a long-range ballistic missile warhead target with an interceptor. Fourteen times the interceptors missed.
http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt061799b.html
As for the "offensiveness" of my prior post, you do whatever you feel you need to Passion51. I'm not sure who is supposed to be "offended" besides the most rabid Reagan fan or Mr. Reagan himself though.
Is the former president a member of America's Debate?
First off I'd like to address CruisingRam. There is no such evidence anywhere that exists in factual form to suggest that Ronnie had Alzheimers or its' symptoms before 1992 and his diagnosis came shortly thereafter in 1992. I wish that people who commonly believed and perpetrated these lies would (or could for that matter) please post an ounce of proof from an unbiased source. PLEASE stop making things up or passing along lies in order to discredit Ronnie. It's disgusting and there is nothing to back it up. It is one of the reasons CBS pulled the show.
In order to prove that CBS presented a biased left tilting view of Reagan's life I will defer to the comments made by the Head of CBS Les Moonves, a self described
Liberal Democrat.
"CBS is not afraid of controversy....the miniseries does not provide a 50 50 version of Reagan's life....it is biased."
So there, they admitted it. You'll have to eat that up for a while.
What more else is there to say???
edited to spelling and a typo in years.
In order to prove that CBS presented a biased left tilting view of Reagan's life I will defer to the comments made by the Head of CBS Les Moonves, a self described
Liberal Democrat.
"CBS is not afraid of controversy....the miniseries does not provide a 50 50 version of Reagan's life....it is biased."
So there, they admitted it. You'll have to eat that up for a while.
What more else is there to say???
edited to spelling and a typo in years.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Nov 5 2003, 04:37 PM)
In order to prove that CBS presented a biased left tilting view of Reagan's life I will defer to the comments made by the Head of CBS Les Moonves, a self described
Liberal Democrat.
"CBS is not afraid of controversy....the miniseries does not provide a 50 50 version of Reagan's life....it is biased."
So there, they admitted it. You'll have to eat that up for a while.
What more else is there to say???
Liberal Democrat.
"CBS is not afraid of controversy....the miniseries does not provide a 50 50 version of Reagan's life....it is biased."
So there, they admitted it. You'll have to eat that up for a while.
What more else is there to say???
QUOTE
Could you provide a link John Locke to Mr. Moonves's statement? I've seen Moonves on The Charlie Rose Show and he seems like he would be just as well suited to sell used cars as television shows. The word "slick" comes to mind.
A link to the statement would be appreciated though.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2003, 08:45 PM)
Could you provide a link John Locke to Mr. Moonves's statement? I've seen Moonves on The Charlie Rose Show and he seems like he would be just as well suited to sell used cars as television shows. The word "slick" comes to mind.
A link to the statement would be appreciated though.
A link to the statement would be appreciated though.
Nighttimer,
The quotes were posted on CNN, FoxNews and DrudgeReport yesterday. Sorry if ya missed them. I'm sure a little fishing can net you those results though.
If a miniseries about Clinton (that even CBS was willing to deem biased and slanted against him) was produced, I would be slightly perturbed. If a miniseries about Martin Luther King (that was a nasty and biased slant against him) would come out, I would boycott the producers.
I hope that anyone who supports a biased anti-Reagan miniseries on the grounds that "no one really watches" and "it's no big deal" would think the same about a similar miniseries against Martin Luther King. Call me doubtful.
I hope that anyone who supports a biased anti-Reagan miniseries on the grounds that "no one really watches" and "it's no big deal" would think the same about a similar miniseries against Martin Luther King. Call me doubtful.
I checked the Drudge Report, CNN and MSNBC websites John Locke and unfortunately could not find the Moonves quote. While I don't dispute that CBS probably apologized for the content of the mini-series, I'm a bit skeptical that Moonves would describe the program as "biased" or himself as a "Liberal Democrat."
Mrs. Pigpen, I agree that if someone who didn't like Martin Luther King were to produce a biographical television prgram about him that dealt with King's infidelity, or had advisors that were homosexual and Communists, the charges that he plagarized while in college or just showed him smoking (he wouldn't let photographers take his picture with a cigarette in his mouth) that some people would be upset with such a depiction.
However, the fact is King DID cheat on his wife, did have advisors such as Bayard Rustin who were gay and others that had Communist ties, may have lifted some other writers words and passed them off as his own and did smoke. That doesn't diminsh Dr. King's legacy in my mind. It just means he was a human being with all the faults and failings of any human being.
People need to be able to see King, Reagan or Kennedy or anyone else as they really were instead of the way they would like them to be. "The Reagans" may have been the biased mess its critics say it was, but in the desire not to just do a smear job on a historic figure, we should be cautious that the examination can be an honest and critical analysis and not just a glorified Valentine.
Would any depiction of Ronald Reagan's life that was anything less than an unabashed celebration satisfy some of his defenders on this board? I certainly hope so that is not the case.
Mrs. Pigpen, I agree that if someone who didn't like Martin Luther King were to produce a biographical television prgram about him that dealt with King's infidelity, or had advisors that were homosexual and Communists, the charges that he plagarized while in college or just showed him smoking (he wouldn't let photographers take his picture with a cigarette in his mouth) that some people would be upset with such a depiction.
However, the fact is King DID cheat on his wife, did have advisors such as Bayard Rustin who were gay and others that had Communist ties, may have lifted some other writers words and passed them off as his own and did smoke. That doesn't diminsh Dr. King's legacy in my mind. It just means he was a human being with all the faults and failings of any human being.
People need to be able to see King, Reagan or Kennedy or anyone else as they really were instead of the way they would like them to be. "The Reagans" may have been the biased mess its critics say it was, but in the desire not to just do a smear job on a historic figure, we should be cautious that the examination can be an honest and critical analysis and not just a glorified Valentine.
Would any depiction of Ronald Reagan's life that was anything less than an unabashed celebration satisfy some of his defenders on this board? I certainly hope so that is not the case.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2003, 02:38 PM)
Mrs. Pigpen, I agree that if someone who didn't like Martin Luther King were to produce a biographical television prgram about him that dealt with King's infidelity, or had advisors that were homosexual and Communists, the charges that he plagarized while in college or just showed him smoking (he wouldn't let photographers take his picture with a cigarette in his mouth) that some people would be upset with such a depiction.
However, the fact is King DID cheat on his wife, did have advisors such as Bayard Rustin who were gay and others that had Communist ties, may have lifted some other writers words and passed them off as his own and did smoke. That doesn't diminsh Dr. King's legacy in my mind. It just means he was a human being with all the faults and failings of any human being.
People need to be able to see King, Reagan or Kennedy or anyone else as they really were instead of the way they would like them to be. "The Reagans" may have been the biased mess its critics say it was, but in the desire not to just do a smear job on a historic figure, we should be cautious that the examination can be an honest and critical analysis and not just a glorified Valentine.
Would any depiction of Ronald Reagan's life that was anything less than an unabashed celebration satisfy some of his defenders on this board? I certainly hope so that is not the case.
AAAAAHHHHH! No! Don't you realize that such a depiction would be totally wrong? Any person in the world could have their life analyzed in minuscule detail, their good points eliminated and their unpleasantries magnified. Everyone would be a villain under such scrutiny.
King's house was bombed, and he was threatened constantly. He steadfastly held to the belief that racial inequalities could be overcome peacefully, when he had the power to start a violent civil war. He did this in spite of the fact that the actual law enforcement officials themselves were using attack dogs against black children, during peaceful assemblies, which was documented on film. This could come down to a nasty story about an adulterer with Communist leanings?
The point is not to equate MLK with Reagan, but to put it all in context. Documentaries are honest. There is nothing wrong with a contextual, honest portrayal of some historical figurehead. It is wrong to arbitrarily create a slanted 'miniseries' exemplifying the low points of an individual. It's dishonest, and the whole liberal/conservative quarrels here remind me of Dr Seuss' 'Butter-side-up' book. I don't want to see a nasty miniseries about Clinton or anyone else. If I desire to experience a slam on one or another's representatives, I can read Anne Coulter or (insert the liberal equivalent here).
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2003, 01:38 PM)
I checked the Drudge Report, CNN and MSNBC websites John Locke and unfortunately could not find the Moonves quote. While I don't dispute that CBS probably apologized for the content of the mini-series, I'm a bit skeptical that Moonves would describe the program as "biased" or himself as a "Liberal Democrat."
The comment that John Locke was referencing was in The Drudge Report.
Just in case that link doesn't work, here is part of what it says.
QUOTE
"It just doesn't work," Moonves told staffers in a bold move of conscience. "Listen, we are not afraid of controversy, we'd go out there if it came in at 50-50, pro and con, but it simply isn't working. It's biased."
Moonves, a self-described liberal democrat, on Tuesday took full responsibility for canceling the movie, sources tell DRUDGE. "He made up his own mind after seeing it," a top source said. "He's made a brave, decisive move."
Moonves, a self-described liberal democrat, on Tuesday took full responsibility for canceling the movie, sources tell DRUDGE. "He made up his own mind after seeing it," a top source said. "He's made a brave, decisive move."
From today's Business section of The Los Angeles Times which may require registration to read.....
QUOTE
"This isn't the movie I thought I was getting," Moonves said, according to one source. The CBS chief was evidently upset that he wasn't seeing the love story that he had ordered. Though Moonves is a staunch Democrat who had strong ties to the Clinton White House, he also was apparently concerned that the tone of the miniseries was unduly sensational.
Yes, I have to basically ditto Mrs. P's response. I have seen George Bush accused of masterminding the attacks on 9/11 and have seen it inferred that Bill Clinton was a serial killer. This mini-series on Reagan apparently (I have not seen it) is biased and puts words in Reagan's mouth that he never uttered. CBS would never even consider a one sided mini-series that is biased against Dr. King. You don't present a highly partisan attack if you wish to appeal to all viewers. If this turns out to be a success on ShoTime I expect to see a mini-series including a scene of Bill Clinton driving off in a vehicle with the corpse of Foster beside him.
The internet, blogging in particular, and the ever growing popularity of talk radio are the two main reasons CBS was forced to back off this series.
It sure must be tough on the libs now that conservative voices are finally being heard.
It sure must be tough on the libs now that conservative voices are finally being heard.
Aquilla,
Alas, you don't read Danish, but none the less here is the site which relates to the programme...
http://www.discoverydanmark.com/alteredsta.../feature2.shtml
Editted to add;
And here is the same site in English...
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/altereds.../feature2.shtml
QUOTE
I checked on the Discovery website and couldn't find any reference to the program Moif cited, so I'm not sure of the context. In any case, it wouldn't surprise me if something like that ran, true or not. People of certain political persuasions have been throwing stuff like that at him for years. We've even seen a bit of that here by certain posters.
Alas, you don't read Danish, but none the less here is the site which relates to the programme...
http://www.discoverydanmark.com/alteredsta.../feature2.shtml
Editted to add;
And here is the same site in English...
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/altereds.../feature2.shtml
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Nov 5 2003, 04:44 AM)
That's right, CBS cowers out. They knew what they were doing was disgusting and worthy being called treason, what they didn't know was that Americans love Ronald Reagan. I'm 23 and I hold him second to Jesus, so what are the people who voted for him going to think about all this. I reckon CBS knows now.
Of course they were right to pull it. It was a fictionally concocted idea of Reagan's life devised by two gay men that hate Reagan and blame him for the "epidemic".
I quote one of the two interchangables... "I will never forgive my fellow actor (Reagan) for ignoring the AIDS epidemic..."
Sounds like sour grapes to me and my fellow Conservatives won't allow the name of our most esteemed and precious leader to go trampled because two morons and Barbara Striesand hated his courage and bravery and leadership. Shame on CBS and shame on those libs.
Let me tell you, if you want to cause a flury, you could write a true story of Clinton's escapades from the Starr Report which I have read (you know who I'm talking to). We could make a Hollywood style porn out of Clintons bird-dogging and corraling however Ronnie's name should go untouched as was his record
In my opinion the responsible thing to do would be to pull the whole damn thing until they can tell the truth. I wouldn't stand for anyone's life story being told inaccurately (or in a desperate lie to ruin Reagan's reputation), especially Reagan's.
Edited to add:
Ultimate Joe,
I have read several pieces of the film's script and it was disgusting the "liberties" that were taken by the writers... and I while I was fearing that people wouldn't see throught the lies, CBS was counting on it.
Of course they were right to pull it. It was a fictionally concocted idea of Reagan's life devised by two gay men that hate Reagan and blame him for the "epidemic".
I quote one of the two interchangables... "I will never forgive my fellow actor (Reagan) for ignoring the AIDS epidemic..."
Sounds like sour grapes to me and my fellow Conservatives won't allow the name of our most esteemed and precious leader to go trampled because two morons and Barbara Striesand hated his courage and bravery and leadership. Shame on CBS and shame on those libs.
Let me tell you, if you want to cause a flury, you could write a true story of Clinton's escapades from the Starr Report which I have read (you know who I'm talking to). We could make a Hollywood style porn out of Clintons bird-dogging and corraling however Ronnie's name should go untouched as was his record
In my opinion the responsible thing to do would be to pull the whole damn thing until they can tell the truth. I wouldn't stand for anyone's life story being told inaccurately (or in a desperate lie to ruin Reagan's reputation), especially Reagan's.
Edited to add:
Ultimate Joe,
I have read several pieces of the film's script and it was disgusting the "liberties" that were taken by the writers... and I while I was fearing that people wouldn't see throught the lies, CBS was counting on it.
I believe there was a lot of twisting arms and political pressure involved in taking the Reagan Mini-series off CBS. Who was right or wrong,I don't know because I don't have access to the film.
But as Reagan being second to Jesus Christ. That is a comment that leaves you wide open. I know about Jesus Christ and who he was(lots of people love him)but to be second to someone of that stature. Well it blows my mind.
Names like John Kennedy,Franklin Roosevelt,Abraham Lincoln,George Washington and many others come to mind,but would they themselves be vain enough to considered themselves second to Jesus.
Lets examine some truths of Ronald Reagan:
He was a hollywood actor(Class B movies would probably be a good slot)
He was a leader with charisma(he could sell a refrig. to a eskimo)
He was leader of country during Iran-contra,but when asked about it,his reply was 'I Don't Remember'
He spent billions of dollars on Star-Wars program,which never worked properly
And last but not least, the author of the "trickle down" theory. You know where you give the companies tax breaks and they give more money to the employees. Now if that trickled down to me and millions of other workers, I will call him Jesus Christ.
Now for some assumptions on my part:
He said he couldn't remember and he probably couldn't ,maybe because of alzheimers. Either way he was either lying or had alzheimers. take your choice.
I believe in his whole presidency he believed he was playing the part of president in a movie.
Just thought you'd be interested in seeing what those fine examples of fair and unbiased reporting had to say about this......
QUOTE
1) ABC's Peter Jennings made it seem as if CBS's The Reagans just
wasn't positive enough for conservatives, saying CBS cancelled it
"when word got around that it may not have been as faithful to the
Reagan story as some conservatives wanted it to be." NBC's Mike
Taibbi worried not about CBS's misdeeds with such a disrespectful
movie, but about "which program and which network will be targeted
next?" CBS's Jerry Bowen, after clips from two conservatives,
turned to a bunch of those upset by CBS's decision, including Tom
Daschle who accused conservatives of "intimidation" and James
Brolin's manager, who charged: "We seem to be in a very oppressive
era..." Bowen argued those disturbed by the Reagan portrayal are
hypocrites since they didn't object to Showtime's September movie
about President Bush "that also used fictionalized dialogue."
2) CNBC's Brian Williams painted conservatives as the bad guys, an
intimidating force which suppressed the free speech of CBS and the
artistic community. He characterized CBS's decision, following the
conservative complaints, as "dangerous" and a reaction to
"extortion." Williams asked rhetorically: "Did CBS cave to
political pressure to cancel a controversial miniseries on the
Reagans?" Williams lamented the supposed assault on free speech:
"So is it hyperbolic to say, you know, when we give all these
speeches about freedom in the United States, you can go ahead and
stretch your artistic freedom, make a movie about whatever you
wish as long as it doesn't cross a certain political or societal
group?"
3) ABC's Charles Gibson on Tuesday morning approached the Reagan
movie controversy from the assumption that those concerned about
it were encroaching on "artistic freedom," he was befuddled by all
the fuss over it given how other Presidents have been poorly
portrayed in previous movies and he contended that while the exact
quote credited to Reagan about AIDS may have been made up, it
accurately conveyed Reagan's disinterest in the disease. Gibson
pressed Michael Reagan: "A lot of people feel, for instance, that
your dad was slow to recognize the AIDS crisis, that it had
festered for quite a period of time before he addressed it. So if
you fictionalize that, is that necessarily wrong?"
4) One TV critic was quite disgusted with CBS even contemplating
dumping its The Reagans mini-series after complaints from
conservatives. In Tuesday's Washington Post, Philadelphia Daily
News TV critic Ellen Gray grumbled to Post television reporter
Lisa de Moraes: "If Hitler had more friends, CBS wouldn't have
aired [its Hitler miniseries] either."
wasn't positive enough for conservatives, saying CBS cancelled it
"when word got around that it may not have been as faithful to the
Reagan story as some conservatives wanted it to be." NBC's Mike
Taibbi worried not about CBS's misdeeds with such a disrespectful
movie, but about "which program and which network will be targeted
next?" CBS's Jerry Bowen, after clips from two conservatives,
turned to a bunch of those upset by CBS's decision, including Tom
Daschle who accused conservatives of "intimidation" and James
Brolin's manager, who charged: "We seem to be in a very oppressive
era..." Bowen argued those disturbed by the Reagan portrayal are
hypocrites since they didn't object to Showtime's September movie
about President Bush "that also used fictionalized dialogue."
2) CNBC's Brian Williams painted conservatives as the bad guys, an
intimidating force which suppressed the free speech of CBS and the
artistic community. He characterized CBS's decision, following the
conservative complaints, as "dangerous" and a reaction to
"extortion." Williams asked rhetorically: "Did CBS cave to
political pressure to cancel a controversial miniseries on the
Reagans?" Williams lamented the supposed assault on free speech:
"So is it hyperbolic to say, you know, when we give all these
speeches about freedom in the United States, you can go ahead and
stretch your artistic freedom, make a movie about whatever you
wish as long as it doesn't cross a certain political or societal
group?"
3) ABC's Charles Gibson on Tuesday morning approached the Reagan
movie controversy from the assumption that those concerned about
it were encroaching on "artistic freedom," he was befuddled by all
the fuss over it given how other Presidents have been poorly
portrayed in previous movies and he contended that while the exact
quote credited to Reagan about AIDS may have been made up, it
accurately conveyed Reagan's disinterest in the disease. Gibson
pressed Michael Reagan: "A lot of people feel, for instance, that
your dad was slow to recognize the AIDS crisis, that it had
festered for quite a period of time before he addressed it. So if
you fictionalize that, is that necessarily wrong?"
4) One TV critic was quite disgusted with CBS even contemplating
dumping its The Reagans mini-series after complaints from
conservatives. In Tuesday's Washington Post, Philadelphia Daily
News TV critic Ellen Gray grumbled to Post television reporter
Lisa de Moraes: "If Hitler had more friends, CBS wouldn't have
aired [its Hitler miniseries] either."
What is the source of your quote of quotes, Passion51?
Popeye,
As is typical of Dems (as you Primaries show) your concentrating on things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Who I regard 2nd to Jesus is my opinion and you'll never change that. Dumping on the contras is a point we'll disagree on because some of us thought it was more than diplomatically profitable than others did. And to say Star Wars didn't work is like saying Henry Ford wasn't effecient. Star Wars was a great Defense program that we are still learning from today and it is the grand-father of our modern day ICBM Defense systems and the pillars for where that program is headed. It is one of the reasons Reagan single handedley wiped out the USSR (no thanks to anyone from the Dems) and Reagan is the father of every Conservative in America, lest you not be called conservative. He's the father of modern day patriotism and the man who made American's believe we could do things that others said we couldn't. Mess with Reagan and deal with the rattle snake, son.
Anywho... this debate is just about over. Dems and everyone must admit that CBS pulled the show because it was biased....CBS did. Please see Aquilla's link just a few postsd above. They did something wrong and they'll have to pay. Such is life no matter how often Democrats try and get out of dealing with the consequences of their own capricious actions.
As is typical of Dems (as you Primaries show) your concentrating on things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Who I regard 2nd to Jesus is my opinion and you'll never change that. Dumping on the contras is a point we'll disagree on because some of us thought it was more than diplomatically profitable than others did. And to say Star Wars didn't work is like saying Henry Ford wasn't effecient. Star Wars was a great Defense program that we are still learning from today and it is the grand-father of our modern day ICBM Defense systems and the pillars for where that program is headed. It is one of the reasons Reagan single handedley wiped out the USSR (no thanks to anyone from the Dems) and Reagan is the father of every Conservative in America, lest you not be called conservative. He's the father of modern day patriotism and the man who made American's believe we could do things that others said we couldn't. Mess with Reagan and deal with the rattle snake, son.
Anywho... this debate is just about over. Dems and everyone must admit that CBS pulled the show because it was biased....CBS did. Please see Aquilla's link just a few postsd above. They did something wrong and they'll have to pay. Such is life no matter how often Democrats try and get out of dealing with the consequences of their own capricious actions.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Nov 6 2003, 12:21 AM)
What is the source of your quote of quotes, Passion51?
Very good question. I would like to be able to read that link,too.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Nov 6 2003, 12:34 AM)
Popeye,
As is typical of Dems (as you Primaries show) your concentrating on things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Who I regard 2nd to Jesus is my opinion and you'll never change that. Dumping on the contras is a point we'll disagree on because some of us thought it was more than diplomatically profitable than others did. And to say Star Wars didn't work is like saying Henry Ford wasn't effecient. Star Wars was a great Defense program that we are still learning from today and it is the grand-father of our modern day ICBM Defense systems and the pillars for where that program is headed. It is one of the reasons Reagan single handedley wiped out the USSR (no thanks to anyone from the Dems) and Reagan is the father of every Conservative in America, lest you not be called conservative. He's the father of modern day patriotism and the man who made American's believe we could do things that others said we couldn't. Mess with Reagan and deal with the rattle snake, son.
Anywho... this debate is just about over. Dems and everyone must admit that CBS pulled the show because it was biased....CBS did. Please see Aquilla's link just a few postsd above. They did something wrong and they'll have to pay. Such is life no matter how often Democrats try and get out of dealing with the consequences of their own capricious actions.
As is typical of Dems (as you Primaries show) your concentrating on things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Who I regard 2nd to Jesus is my opinion and you'll never change that. Dumping on the contras is a point we'll disagree on because some of us thought it was more than diplomatically profitable than others did. And to say Star Wars didn't work is like saying Henry Ford wasn't effecient. Star Wars was a great Defense program that we are still learning from today and it is the grand-father of our modern day ICBM Defense systems and the pillars for where that program is headed. It is one of the reasons Reagan single handedley wiped out the USSR (no thanks to anyone from the Dems) and Reagan is the father of every Conservative in America, lest you not be called conservative. He's the father of modern day patriotism and the man who made American's believe we could do things that others said we couldn't. Mess with Reagan and deal with the rattle snake, son.
Anywho... this debate is just about over. Dems and everyone must admit that CBS pulled the show because it was biased....CBS did. Please see Aquilla's link just a few postsd above. They did something wrong and they'll have to pay. Such is life no matter how often Democrats try and get out of dealing with the consequences of their own capricious actions.
All I can say is that Reagan must have had some big feet to fill Jesus's shoes. That is what you said. I don't know of anyone(conservative or what) that would agree that he was that great.
I gave all my evidence and I am happy to let everyone see that and make their own informed decision.
Popeye,
What kind of ridiculous spin are you trying to pull here? This isn't about Jesus, it's about Reagan and I said Reagan was second. You, Barbara Streisand and Ted Turner can along with Stuart Smalley spin all the facts you want, but this is about CBS making a biased story of Reagan's life and people not accepting it. It's the American ideal of the people's will rolling right over the Big Money from the small Left.
CBS admitted it!
What kind of ridiculous spin are you trying to pull here? This isn't about Jesus, it's about Reagan and I said Reagan was second. You, Barbara Streisand and Ted Turner can along with Stuart Smalley spin all the facts you want, but this is about CBS making a biased story of Reagan's life and people not accepting it. It's the American ideal of the people's will rolling right over the Big Money from the small Left.
CBS admitted it!
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 5 2003, 03:24 PM)
All we did was to tell CBS that if they aired an inaccurate portrayal of Reagan, they would be held accountable. Nobody threatened to pull the plug on their network, nobody threatened to jam their satellite transmission, nobody censored CBS at all. What we did do was to advise CBS to look very closely at what they planned to air and make a determination of whether they wanted to stand behind that broadcast or not. CBS took that advice and guess what? They decided that they weren't comfortable with it.
Since I haven't seen any of the clips shown, or really paid much attention to the whole thing, I can't really answer to whether or not it was an accurate portrayal. But if everyone (including the network it was to be shown on) except the producer of the program says it's badly biased, it must be pretty bad. If they wanted to make a biographical pic, there were plenty of negatives in Reagan's Presidency to show without having to make things up. Plenty of positives too.
Your quote above is the one thing I don't get, on either side of the fence, when it happens. The knee-jerk reaction to calling something "censorship" when it obviously isn't. No one from the government cancelled this show. No one from inside the government even suggested pulling this show.
What people don't understand is that you do have the right to say pretty much whatever you want, in all kinds of open forums. But when you do, people also have the right to stop coming to your concerts, movies or political rallies, if they don't like the message. That's not censorship, that's my right to find a message I agree with.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.