The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Reaganistes
: Terry Teachout sees ominous signs in CBS’ decision to cancel The Reagan miniseries under public pressure. So do I (and I’ll tell you why in a minute). So does tomorrow’s New York Times editorial (though it’s hard to tell exactly what this wobbly bit of writing is trying to say). So does Dan Gillmor (though he sees in this a sign of the sins of media consolidation — a kneejerk response, a real stretch, and a mistake). Terry’s take is the savviest:
I
It was merely a two-bit TV movie starring Mr. Barbara Streisand. It was also a two-bit TV movie that was to be presented as a truthful depiction of a major historical figure. It, however, contained blatant fabrications and distortions of the historical record, specifically regarding Reagan’s attitudes towards gays and AIDS. The fact that public pressure stopped CBS from using their airwaves, which I believe they would term a “sacred public trust” or somesuch, to offer an inaccurate portrayal of history, is not “tyranny of thought” but is a simple, prudent business decision. How about if they had a “9/11 was a US conspiracy” type of movie in production? Would you think it was “tyranny of thought” if after public pressure they decided not to air it? They must have some sort of responsibility not to simply lie to people. The decision not to air a miniseries that told mean-spirited lies about a popular president is simply a sound business decision. It’s a network. Their goal isn’t to piss people off. It’s to get as many viewers as possible. Anyway, all this talk of “cancelling” and “killing” the thing is inaccurate. It’s still airing on Showtime.
Wow, amazing how you can deliver a review without having watched the show. What a talent. I should have tried that when I was a TV critic. Would have saved years of my life.
Cable.
Even though Animal Planet has it’s own “Jeff Corwin” reality TV show that doesn’t mean cable/satellite is totally devoid of anything remotely cerebral. What it tends to be is much more targeted. O for women, spike for men (so long as both are comfortable with their traditional gender roles) NHL Center Ice, Speed TV, A&E, IFC, TLC, Discovery, Cartoon Network, etc.
Diversity thy name is legion. I myself rarely bother with the crap on IFC unless they re-run Yojimbo or something decent. I watch Spike for XMC and watch the occasional A&E movie special.
If broadcast TV becomes tripe there is still cable, and as with news we can get things more to our taste from cable. Insofar as news channels go I can stay away from Peter Jennings and Barbara Walters, though I try to sit through CNN occasionally.
Kal
Network TV’s business model is as viable as ever, but it’s changed. No longer is it just about prime time entertainment per se (despite what their ads may tell you). Its main job now is as the world’s biggest loss-leader for developing syndicated content for local and international TV stations. A hit show like Friends, Seinfeld etc is worth billions globally. ABC or CBS are just incubators, as it were. Their overheads are paid for by advertising, and whatever they sell to the BBC or Australia is just gravy to their shareholders.
Unflattering movies of Reagan will sell well abroad (UK, France etc), so I’m sure CBS will recoup their investment many times over…
Though yeah, I agree all this timid bahavior is bad for democracy, but there’s a bigger game going on. Mr Average American Thursday Night TV watcher is just one small piece in the puzzle, and getting smaller by the day.
You are not giving Nancy Reagan enough credit. The cancellation has more to do with her then anyone else. “She is very upset about the miniseries,” said Martin Anderson, co-author of the newly released book “Reagan: A Life in Letters.” I bet she was.
CBS said in a press release: “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.”
Is this the same CBS who approved the script in the first place? Viacom’s stock is down, the media consolidation issue is on the table, groups are boycotting, and advertisers are pulling commercials. Now that’s pressure. I wonder if it will even be shown on Showtime.
jeff…
we haven’t seen it, for we are not babs or drudge
if the script segments are accurate, it appears to be libelous and could have exposed CBS to massive liability (since this would be malicious & knowingly untrue, thus forfeiting the network’s 1st amendment defence against)
now i’ve gone after people for complaining about the passion, and would argue for the same thing here… though it does seem worse that it’s broadcast and sweeps, rather than a tiny movie that will barely get any box office
there are hit pieces and there are making up untruths… you can make nixon look horrible by tapes he made himself… but it seems that this was shading the truth rather severely. let’s wait and see what it looks like on showtime. then we’ll take babs’ head off (virtually of course)
I want to boycott this movie. I wish CBS would air it so I could not watch it.
Jeff-
Quite naturally I disagree.
This episode had little to do with offending anyone and more to do with wholesale fabrication of lies. This movie’s primary significance would only have been as the latest attempt to re-write the history of the Reagan administration.
Not only did Mr. Reagan never utter to words coming out of his portrayer’s mouth, he never held the personal beliefs that would lead one to utter such words.
An honest portrayal could have and should have included criticisms of Mr. Reagan’s term in office (i.e. inability to reign in a Congress that was spending like drunken sailors, failure to privatize Social Security, deepening the impact of our failed War on Drugs), but such criticism must be founded in fact. This movie was founded in the fantasies of 20 years worth of liberal misconceptions, distortions, and outright lies.
One of the reasons I frequent your blog is that you claim to be liberal, yet you don’t fall for the multiple misrepresentations of America’s efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. You don’t place political dogma above the need for a clear eyed assessment of the facts as they are. This is quite a contrast when compared to the current Democratic leadership and much of the European leadership; not to mention the media on both sides of the pond.
I find it disappointing that you seem unable to exercise the same judgment relative to this work of fiction being marketed as fact.
As much as I find Mr. Clinton’s presidency regrettable, I would be just as opposed to a movie where he was portrayed as saying “What are we waiting for? Smoke ’em out! Burn ’em out” regarding the Branch Davidians or “Just shoot ’em. They’re just redneck trash.” about the Weavers. Based on what is known (and Mr. Clinton’s administration was known for its leaks) he not only never said such things, but he never believed such things.
This episode is a clear justification of the power of the Internet. This work of fiction deserves to be back shelved for because it is fiction, but because it is offensive. The Disney Channel produces better quality movies than this thing, and that is saying something indeed.
-Regards
I had another thought on the way to work….this is precisely the sort of thing that I wish could happen to Dan Rather before he reads the nightly news. I’d love to write/edit his news copy. Same goes for Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Bernard Shaw,…….
Once a lie is said, it can’t be taken back. As is evident throughout history, enough repetitions of a lie will result in the masses believing that it is the truth.
So, a major media outlet was prevented from broadcasting a (admittedly by both sides of the issue, now that Moonves has spoken) falsehood-ridden, partisan attempt to rewrite history and smear a man who can’t defend himself… just coincidentally, right before election season starts…. and this is a failure of democracy and a bad thing for the nation? To hold that position, you’d have to start by asserting that slander or libel are Constitutionally-protected free speech, or that black propaganda is necessary to the Republic’s smooth functioning. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
It wasn’t killed, it was relocated. Not _much_ different than Trent Lott losing his seat in the center ring for what he said at a private party.
Regards
What if this movie had been made about a black politician and was full of fabrication, lies and stereotypes?
Would there have been an outcry to boycott the station?
Would that boycott and subsequent pulling of the show been acceptable?
I’m just glad to see some PC rammed down the Left Coast liberal throat.
CBS could have run the show with the caption stating the show was a fiction. The standard disclaimer that any character resemblances are purely coincidental… blah blah blah. Why didn’t they do that if they already to admitted making stuff up in the mini-series?
Quit trying to lump the networks’ entertainment divisions under the umbrella of journalism. This was a production that featured willful lies, not just criticism or selective emphasis. That is why people are upset. The truth is that the nets can’t get away with this stuff anymore, largely because of bloggers like you. The information gets out now and the outrage follows. It’s market pressure, not censorship.
If I were the producers of this movie I’d organize a boycott campaign to keep it off Showtime as well.
Then, I’d record an introduction by Michael Moore, call it “Stupid White Presidents” & sell millions of DVD’s by billing it as the ‘the movie that Republicans don’t want you to see’. And laugh all the way to the bank.
Wow, amazing how you can deliver a review without having watched the show. What a talent. I should have tried that when I was a TV critic. Would have saved years of my life.
I did not attempt to review the “show”. I said nothing about the quality of the performances or the dialogue or anything else of which, not having seen it, I of course would not be qualified to opine. I merely referred to the historical inaccuracy of one aspect of the miniseries, an inaccuracy which has been widely reported, even in your beloved New York Times. Was the reporter for your beloved New York Times lying? How do you know this? You must have an even greater power of clairvoyance than the one which you snidely and sarcacstically attirubte to me.
As can bee seen by the sampling of commenters here, the objection to the miniseries was not that it was “bad”, but that it was untruthful in this one specific instance.
To be very specific what I’m talking about is what Dann refers to above, the “Those who will live in sin will die in sin” line, which the article in your beloved New York Times says is a total fabrication.
This entire post and your comment to me would be a good example passage for a new version of “Politics and the English Language”. Those taking exception to a televised drama about a major historical figure which contained a major historical inaccuracy are merely saying that the televized drama is “bad”. This is of course a magnificently vague word. It could mean that we’re upset about the costume design for all the reader knows.
Someone pointing out this instance of historical inaccuracy, one which has been widely reported in the mainstream press, is attempting to “deliver a review” of the miniseries.
Viacom making the decision to move the miniseries from CBS to Showtime is “cancelling” and “killing” the series. And, as hugh macleod pointed out, the miniseries will sell well abroad, where there is a greater market for libel about President Reagan.
I think the Republic will survive this.
I agree that the decision by Mr. Moonves to move this miniseries from network to cable was a business one. Focusing on whether doing so is harmful to other values overlooks the process that has occurred. Partial releases of the script (a moving target?) via the NYT and Drudge provided information (in a relatively rapid manner) for much more broad review, reflection, and comment. In the debate that ensued, personal beliefs and assumptions shaped opinions and reactions, but the breadth and vibrancy of the expression is what stands out in my mind. I wonder what the TMQ would say.
From the clips I’ve seen, the movie looks like typical made-for-tv camp. My only real objection to it is that making it while Reagan is very ill and possibly close to death seems tacky, to say the least. But I agree with Jeff…CBS should have had the guts to air it even if it offended some viewers. If it did turn out to be a Hollywood hatchet job (and it probably is) then so be it. It would have damaged CBS’s reputation a lot more than Reagan’s.
It is clear that to be offended is to be powerful in America right now. And, like most any of the dying Left’s delaying tactics, to be offended trumps reason, conversation, and resolution.
However, so long as the damage done by Victim Group posturing is unidirectional, we will not be able to agree to dispense with it. If the Hatfields kneecap the McCoys, and the McCoys don’t kneecap the Hatfields, no consensus that kneecapping sucks will emerge.
And Victim Group politics is easily the most corrosive current expression of the Left’s project to get everyone to hate everyone else, and it REALLY sucks.
To put this off as being because the movie is “less than flattering” is a complete mischaracterization of the argument. The objection isn’t that the piece is mean to Reagan, but that the meanness is based on falsehood.
Further, the argument that “if the movie was bad, CBS should never have made it”… I can think of a number of films off the top of my head that were made, but the completed product was so bad that the film was buried or quietly dumped onto home video. So I ask myself, is it possible that CBS greenlit a project that either turned out on film to be more of an obvious partisan hackjob than was apparent from reading the script, or one where the senior executives simply never read the script closely (or never fact-checked it), and were therefore surprised when the fabricated scenes were made an issue?
Killing bad product is done all the time in Hollywood. Likewise, Hollywood seldom seems to have trouble standing up to unwarranted criticism (or, in the case of network news, even warranted criticism).
So CBS should have had the guts to release something they knew was wrong after they realized they were going to be spanked for it? Hunh? That’s the logic of an overactive toddler.
You seem to have way too much fondness for the Big Media. Sorry, dude, but the New Media is an improvement in so many ways over the old media. More intelligent, more in depth, more honest, more varied, less pompous, etc..
Its capitalism. The deadwood gets pruned and something newer and better replaces it.
Sorry, Jeff- have to disagree with you on this one. Imagine Bill Clinton lying comatose from some disease and Fox getting ready to air a retrospective of his presidency that features a dramatization of his encounter with Juanita Brodrick. Let’s assume that this encounter never happened (yeah, i know there are those who say it did), would it be OK for a former President to be slimed by a tv program when he himself was incapable of countering those lies? I think the same thing would apply in that case as well. Putting lies on the air for people to view about a historical figure that can’t fight back against those lies is not the type of broadcasting that we need in our country. That CBS can make money peddling lies overseas isn’t something they should be proud about, IMO. ‘m glad I’m not a Viacom shareholder right about now.
Offense is the cardinal sin of the age. If anybody is ever offended then something must be done; punishment must be met; mouths must be shut. A Mafia movie about Italians? Can’t do that! Shut them up! A Reagan movie that’s less than flattering? Heavens to Betsy! Off with their airtime! We must protect the people from offense…. This takes the ethos of political correctness and spreads it to the right: It is now politically incorrect to criticize the Reagans.
(wild, raucous appluse) Great post, Jeff!
> For the real problem here is that we’re turning ourselves into a nation of media sheep, namby-pamby, thin-skinned, coddled, babied consumers who are protected from offense and opinion.
No, the problem is that some folks get upset when certain speech has negative consequences. They’re wrong – it’s a good thing when speech has consequences, whether those consequences are good or bad.
You’d think an industry that spouts “if someone isn’t mad, we haven’t done our job” would understand that.
CBS is as “liberal” as it can afford to be and in this case they (or the producers) misjudged the line. That’s not censorship, evidence of the fall of the republic, or anything more than that.
It may be that a media company can’t be both provocative and big in a more competitive world – so what? Some company may decide to be boring and big while others are less big and not boring. That’s good.
Great piece in the Wall Street Journal about, not only this, but a long term pattern of severe missteps by Moonves:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004260
This paragraph is a good summary of the blatant, historically verifiable untruths contained in the script:
Leaked copies of the script and distribution of an eight-minute trailer make clear how much poetic license gave way to dramatic distortion. The film portrays Mr. Reagan as callous towards AIDS victims (“They that live in sin shall die in sin”), has him call himself “the anti-Christ,” implies he suffered from Alzheimer’s during his second term (he doesn’t recognize his own national security adviser) and shows him being controlled by a scheming Nancy. On “Hardball” last week, Lou Cannon, Mr. Reagan’s most prolific biographer, said the film’s allegation that Mr. Reagan supplied names to the Hollywood blacklist is “really wrong.” The House Committee on Un-American Activities “was very unhappy with Reagan because he didn’t name names,” he said.
This is what we’re talking about Jeff, not whether or not the script was “bad” or wasn’t flattering to Reagan, but about undeniable distortions of history. In an age when many people get their impressions of history from movies and television it would be hugely irresonponsible for CBS to air this, unless they were willing to have a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen for the entire length of the broadcast.
Sorry, Mr. Jarvis, but there is nothing tyrannical about expressing disapproval of what someone is saying. There is a difference between influence and censorship. Influence is when you try to convince someone not to express himself in a certain manner, or else run the risk of alienating the wrong people. Censorship is a directive from someone in authority that certain views will not be expressed, or else face legal sanctions.
There would be everything wrong with conservatives showing up at CBS studios with U.S. marshalls and a judge’s order to shut down a broadcast of the Reagan movie. There is, however, nothing whatsoever wrong with conservative saying to CBS, “Go ahead and broadcast that trash, and see if you don’t lose market share. See if we don’t boycott your sponsors’ products.”
This, Mr. Jarvis, is not tyranny, but rather its precise opposite: freedom. That is, freedom to speak, as well as freedom to endure the consequences. The First Amendment does not protect me from being fired if I say something nasty to my boss. It does not protect me from a divorce if I say something nasty to my wife. It does not protect me from commercial loss if I say something unpleasant to a vendor. It does not protect me from a slander suit if I say something malicious and untrue about another person. And it certainly does not protect CBS from loss of market share if people don’t like what they choose to broadcast.
Jeff writes: “It is now politically incorrect to criticize the Reagans.Well, tyranny of thought is tyranny of thought no matter which side is complaining and which side is silenced.”
Oh, bull. CBS was not criticizing the Reagans they were SMEARING them. There’s a difference between criticizing and smearing. This time the conservatives had enough power to choke the smear (or at least redirect it). LBJ can criticize Barry Goldwater in a campaign. Putting on a TV ad that shows a little girl picking daisies prior to a nuclear bomb is a manipulative smear. People may well criticize Reagan’s level of attention and policies towards AIDS. Putting words in his mouth that he thought homosexuals were reaping punishment for their sins — which he did not think — is a smear.
If CBS had mounted an honest production that honestly presented Reagan’s views and honestly criticized or presented alternative views, I wouldn’t have cared and I’d venture to guess neither would 90% of fellow Reagan-voters.
This is not tyranny of thought. This is protest against misrepresentation and, for once it was successful. CBS has plenty of cultural leeway to air a responsible production any time it pleases
(and it probably would turn out to be more effective and damaging criticism, not that their cartoonish little minds get that.)However, if CBS tries to pull a fast one, WE CAN ARGUE BACK and now, since they don’t actually have any principles, they have to back down. That’s not tyranny of thought. That’s making the bully finally pay the damned piper.
What bothers me most about this whole affair — and I’m bothered on a lot of levels — is that, whatever its merits or flaws, the miniseries was deemed somehow unsuitable for Viacom’s broadcast network, and yet just fine for its cable outlet. (We’re not talking about violence, sexuality, or obscenity laws here.) That move undercuts the arguments on every side — How truly libellous can it be? — and underscores Jeff’s point that, as a culture, we’re in a mad dash for the lowest common denominator, a race that produces a lot of “winners” if everyone’s racing in their own little niche market. Is it O.K. to be wrong or biased (if that’s what CBS claims the movie is) in front of a smaller audience?
I didn’t see it on this thread, but read elsewhere that Moonves thought the film was completely biased against Reagan. This from a Castro lover! So Jeff, if even Mooves couldn’t be convinced that it was balanced, how can you defend it?
Jeff,
I am nonplussed! You seem to be saying that it is a dangerous development for citizens to demand that those who are responsible for our news and entertainment, have some semblance of respect for factual, and perhaps more to the point, honest…representations of what is. Jeff, that is itself a frightening position, and it strikes me that it’s a twist (perhaps a sub rational one?) on a morally odious meme which is in fact the very source of productions such as this one that are meant to manipulate the perceptions of the public in order to suit those who have the power to do so. I would submit that the fact that there is a stranglehold on the public discourse must be addressed for there to be a truly free public discourse. Note the rising prevalence (and polarization effect) of “newsatorials” and faux “documentaries”, and you will get an idea of what I’m referring to. The outcry against CBSs production of The Reagans was based on the fact that it was an attempt to re-assert, and cultivate an “IMAGE”, and a grotesquely caricatured one at that, which serves the ends and satisfies the urges, of a particularly narrow political agenda. One could easily make the case for instance that West Wing, is similar in context (it creates imagery that seems to attach everything from honesty to unselfishness to a narrow set of ideologists, and even implies that such noble characteristics are non-existant in human beings who think differently!) but it does not get challenged for its right to air. WHY? Because it is after all… FICTION. The story of the Reagans is not, and what is more, the vehicle of “dramatization” is being used again and again as a blunt cudgel with which to assault Classic Liberal and Conservative thought about the head. Surely you don’t doubt that the writers and producers of so called “docu-dramas” are aware of this as they make such pieces. It is probably relevant to note that in the case of Bowling for Columbine for example, great care was taken by Moore and the Movies distributors and sponsors that BfC was “entertainment”… and not to be taken “too seriously”. YET… the movie was in rapid succession given award after award as… a Documentary! This includes the Academy Award and Cannes!!! I’m not sure whether to think of this as merely surreal, or outright Orwellian, but I do know that it is dangerous to the service of truth in the public discourse, and that it validates leftist elite perceptions of the vast majority of the masses… as a herd. And I …. resent that.
I am quite certain, that had this “miniseries”, not fallen prey to outright arrogance on the part of those involved in it… and had they managed to keep their frothy preconceived notions to a minimum in its productions… there would have been no outcry. Indeed, they could have achieved their ends by more subtly assaulting the mans character and beliefs rather than being so overt. But arrogance and stupidity go hand in hand, especially among those whose stupidity is raised to high art by the belief that they are innately smarter than everyone else.
Like you, I have read enough of the script in the public domain to see this for what it is. This has NOTHING to do with artistic integrity. The outcry against it was for the most part, a popular outcry to a rub out job by those who are entrusted with such power as to require more responsible behavior. This was an act of democratic will enabled by the internet as a free exchange f ideas. It provides me with hope that authority without accountability among the elite media establishment is coming to an end, and THAT is a public service of extreme importance to civilisation at the moment.
Kevin McDonnell
“We live for controversy. We should welcome it precisely because we’re smart enough…”
This is not about embracing controversy. If the Liberals did not control the bulk of Old Media, and there were a level, fair and balanced playing ground, you would have a point.
However, the playing ground is not fair, and you do not have a point.
Also, please note. This is a culture war. This is not a preening place for blogistas to groom themselves. This is a culture war with a very real enemy and a very worthy outcome, should “we” win.
Either you’re part of the victory or you’re part of the losers.
Josh —
Who says that it’s suitable for Showtime? Moonves does.
I think that those who deem it unsuitable for CBS broadcast for reasons of *smear* believe it unsuitable for Showtime for the same reason.
Whether it was the Reagan’s or the Oliver Stone movie JFK or so called historical “Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan” by Edmund
Dan writes:
“As much as I find Mr. Clinton’s presidency regrettable, I would be just as opposed to a movie where he was portrayed as saying .. “Just shoot ’em. They’re just redneck trash.” about the Weavers.”
Dan may want to check the dates of Ruby Ridge. It is unlikely that the Governor of Arkansas would not be commenting on it.
Forget the Reagan series, let’s get Andy Rooney off 60 minutes. Quickly or else, one pretty Sunday evening, my skull will explode.
Andrew — re: Reagan and AIDS, read Patti Davis’ piece.
Jeff — As much as it hurts me to take what appears to be a majority position, I’ve got to say that you’ve completely lost your mind on this topic. Not only is it pretty despicable to produce the kind of malicious untruth that even Moonves agreed wasn’t acceptable, it’s even damaging to their own cause. Consider by example the increasing backlash against Michael Moore’s fabrications, or the serious consideration apparently being given to rescinding a Pulitzer for what’s now clearly pro-Stalinist agitprop. Every time this sort of thing happens, the Big Media — or more to the point, the currently popular media — lose more credibility. Not just for their fiction, but for their news coverage; how many people actually make a distinction between “entertainment” and “news” so long as the Big Black Eye is on it?
I think Moonves — to his credit! — realized that the Reagan miniseries was hurting CBS’s brand more than any temporary burst of viewership could help. Result: put it on Showtime, which is “edgier”, and which doesn’t have a news operation to be affected.
Amen my brothers and sisters! Beautiful posts all around.
It’s amazing how an historically inaccurate hit job on a great American figure being moved from network to premium cable because of widespread grassroots outrage over it is an example of “tyranny of thought”. However, if Mr. Barbara Streisand, Castro-loving Les Moonves, Judy “ugly spectre of patriotism” Davis, and the rest of the small group of leftists responsible for this calumny had been allowed to air their fiction-trumpted-as-fact on free TV, and thereby succeeded in resorting to outright fabrication and untruth in order to promote their rabidly anti-Regan worldview to millions upon millions of viewers, while those who knew the real facts were left with nothing to do but impotently complain “online”, most likely to a much smaller audience, as you solicitously suggest, this would somehow be a victory for free speech. It would not, of course, be the continuation of the Left’s unfettered exercise of “tyranny of thought” in academia, Hollywood, and on NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc. etc. which has continued unabated for over 35 years and is only now being slightly contested. It’s much like how Big Media types inevitably refer to those using their First Amendment rights to create a film or an art exhibit that some deem offensive as being on the side of free speech, whereas others using their First Amendment rights to protest the film or the artwork are somehow advocating “censorship”.
IMHO, CBS can make and air any movie they wish. The problem is that too many people are getting their history lessons from made for TV movies. How many people think the movie JFK was a documentary? If CBS wants to air a Reagan hit piece, let them call it “The Brolins”, and label it a parody of the Reagan years.
Jeff, you’re totally wrong. In every way, this was a battle fought on an old battleground, by old soldiers, on something that is old news.
– Reagan’s term ended 15 years ago.
– This battle pitted Reagans (old), Merv Griffin (old) vs. Barbra Streisand (old and annoying) and various coots at the networks and media (the ones who now lament
– CBS is the grey-haired, “Murder She Wrote” network. In the minds of the warriors involved in this issue, what CBS says still matters. They grew up with the old CBS. The rise of cable and the diversification of the media marketplace is irrelevant.
“The Reagans” was a mean-spirited attempt to change the historical record. When you see it in a TV-movie, it HAS to be true, it’s the conventional wisdom, it’s the Roots-like sharing of common understanding. Except “The Reagans” wasn’t that, and rightly, CBS figured that out and bailed at the last minute. CBS, which skews older, doesn’t want to piss off its viewers to the point where they stop getting a warm fuzzy feeling and start changing the channel. Duh.
I would be more concerned if executives exercised content control that favored certain ideas over others and stopped controversial issues (like homosexuality, for example) from getting to viewers. Oh wait, that happens every day. Or does it?
In the end, killing “The Reagans” is no more cruel, disheartening or disturbing than choosing one movie over another at the video store, a Hollywood executive greenlighting a project while sending another into turn-around, or a producer pausing to scratch his ass instead of coming up with an idea for the next blockbuster.
PS If CBS had a mini-series produced by David Irving that “explores” whether or not the Holocaust happened while following the lives of Germans at home during the war, would a boycott led by Jewish groups be disturbing?
PSS Attacking that homophobic fiend Dr. Laura and boycotting her TV show sure opened one hell of a Pandora’s Box, didn’t it? You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Dwight-
You are correct. Ruby Ridge occured in August of 1992….5 months prior to Mr. Clinton’s Inauguration.
Thank you and my apologies.
-Regards
By the way, you also totally mischaracterized Treachout’s take. He doesn’t see it as “ominous” at all. Last graf:
Five years ago, opponents of The Reagans would have failed to sway CBS because of their inability to make enough noise. The network would have taken the “high road” and stared them down, and been praised for its courage by other Big Media outlets. And if it were only a matter of noise, CBS would have done the same thing today
“When you see it in a TV-movie, it HAS to be true, it’s the conventional wisdom, it’s the Roots-like sharing of common understanding. ”
So, can we expect the same standard of truth to be applied to the Jessica Lynch fairy tale that NBC plans to broadcast?
C. U. Farley:
So you have a leaked script for the Jessica Lynch movie, or its contents have been reported somehwere?
If so, what specifically are the inaccuracies that you allege it contains?
I don’t understand how it can be a free speech issue. Yes, CBS had a right to make & show the movie. But people also have a right to complain about it and boycott CBS.
The right to free speech just guarantees the government won’t stop you from speaking, it doesn’t stop people who disagree with you.
And it’s just being moved to Showtime. I’m sure Barbra will also be selling uncut DVDs of it from her website.
I agree with Jeff’s posting. At the rate we’re going, nothing with even a modicum of political content will be allowed on the regular networks. I don’t care much for these sort of docudrama-type stories, but the amount of outrage being expressed is just too much. I agree that people have a right to boycott what they want, but Jeff indicates why right now this sort of threat seems to cause a disproportionate amount of effect, and rather than call attention to a difference of opinion, attempts to silence it altogether. I thought we were supposed to distrust political correctness?
Not that it matters for the posting, but I have to say: Whatever Reagan’s leadership virtues, personal empathy to AIDS victims was not one of them. If you hadn’t read any biographical material, you could at best indicate indifference from the public record.
Buck: Ypu mean, like pournig millions and millions of dollars into the fight against AIDS? That public record? As far as political content being removed from television: with all rights come responsibilities. If the networks cannot portray political figures honestly-if, in short, they cannot refrain from abusing their First Amendment rights- I have no problem with them being taken away. Answer me this: if the topic of the teledrama in question had been Barney Franks, and had had extended scenes of him raping six-year-old boys… would you still be so upset that it was taken off of the air? Why is Reagan’s right to honesty less than Sen. Franks?
“This takes the ethos of political correctness and spreads it to the right: It is now politically incorrect to criticize the Reagans.”
Yes and if anyone was upset over criticism that actually had a basis in solid fact, that would be it. Instead, the offending portions of the script were things that were based on rumors, distortions or based on nothing but the authors’ imagination. This is like comparing “Bill Clinton was misleading under oath” to “Bill Clinton fathered a love child.”
David, that’s Congressman Frank, not Senator Franks (the Senator represents Oscar Mayer’s interests, together with Congressman Wiener of New York).
Buck:
I’ve read multiple Reagan biographies as well as his letters and multiple articles by people who know the record well or knew him personally. He was neglectful regarding AIDS but he did not harbor malice towards gay people. One account I read told of an episode where a far right California Republican was telling him to start using anti-gay rhetoric in a Governor campaign, and he strongly refused, saying that he’d worked in Hollywood and had many gay friends. The letters collection that has just been released show someone who is not at all puritanical or judgemental regarding sexuality. The idea that he was hostile towards gay people is a persistent slander that many believe in spite of the truth. If this miniseries had had a wide audience it would have strengthened the lie so much that it might have been impossible to correct it. I’m glad the truth was served, though I wish they weren’t getting the chance to continue to spread the libel on Showtime.
I don’t see how this is a free speech issue. This is capitalism, pure and simple. CBS exists for one primary reason, to make money for its shareholders. If the movie was not going to make money, (due to advertisers pulling their ads fearing the boycott), then it makes good financial sense to not air it on network TV.
All… Well thanks for the many comments. Let me just say this: We should all fear programming by the mob. This time, it may be the mob you like. Next time, it will be the mob you hate. We should all be adult enough now to manage to tolerate a crappy TV movie with which we disagree and then say so and move on. Beware mobs: They can turn on you. They start riots.
Controversy is great, but at some point you have to make a decision. When the blogosphere called to attention the Trent Lott comments, obviously we thought they were awful, Big Media took notice and publicized it to the point where he had to resign his post. We weren’t terribly hurt when Trent Lott stepped down, so if this was a hit piece and CBS belatedly realized that, knowing full well that people watch TV documentaries in much higher numbers than they read serious historical books and think they are the truth, why is this such a tragedy? Are you against the truth? I do agree that there are too many conservatives who make Reagan into an idol like Norquist but CBS obviously saw that they had fucked up and made a correction.
Jeff,
“Beware mobs: They can turn on you. They start riots.”
Thats all well and good, and if it were in fact the case that, as Peter jennings seemed to allude earlier, that the outcry was based on the fact that the picture painted of the Reagans wasn’t “rosy enough” for conservatives, I would agree with you. But… and this is important…. thats NOT what this was. And more to the point… the likes of Jennings know EXACTLY what it was. Mobs such as that to which you refer are a real phenomenon… but this was not a mob. Mobs form generally when demogoguery is involved, and a large enough group of people are led to believe in imagery… and it is rare indeed when that imagery is not gross caricature, deliberately distorted by the orchestrator of the mobs inception. Often enough, it is to profit from the ensuing chaos.
You see where I’m going with this don’t you? Let me be clear. First of all, the outcry against CBS was not the result of demogoguery. It was the result of an informed mass of individual citizens who felt indignant at the obvious posturing of a select group who they felt were abusing their power… and ultimately them. The kind of character assasination this movie engaged in amounts to historical revision of the worst kind, and say what you will, but the intent is to influence that dumb “herd” to which we all ostensibly belong. By relentlessly portraying such imagery on the walls of our American Plato Cave, the idea is to get us to believe in them… regardless of what really IS. It is abuse of the truth, and those who love the truth revolted. That is the very essence of a precious ideal in America, and the result was that CBS was … hold your breath…. called to account!
That is NOT a mob rule Jeff… you cannot make it so with a sense of faux concern that their right to say whatever they want has been impinged, because such a right never existed. If there were a right to rewrite history with no accountability, it would amount to a “right” to intellectual tyranny on the minds of the general public. The media must be free to speak… up to the point where such freedom impinges on the publics right to know… what really IS. This may be problematic, but such is life, and NO right is unfettered by responsibility, lest freedom is meaningless. (Unless we wish to have the faux freedom of either the “Noble Savage”, or the Marxist Utopia… both of which are mere images which are the product of intellectual elitism and whose reality is ruthless tyranny for the “masses”).
I would also like to note for the record regarding your comment “This time, it may be the mob you like” that had there been a hack job of such magnitude done on Bill Clinton (and we should take note that this is not even remotely possible among those who control the media today), I would have been equally indignant. EQUALLY! (albeit somewhat less personally angry since admittedly, I am fairly secure in the opinion that Clinton, though a good politician, is an odious human being). And I would have fought to see those responsible called to account in that case as well. Because I love the truth Jeff… and I am sure it is not awash in subjective solipsism, but actually meaningful as a reasonably attainable standard. Its not an abstraction in this case… it has to do with honesty. The makers of “The Reagans” know quite well… that honesty was not even remotely their main concern (though I’m sure from my knowledge of such people that they had eloquent privately discussed motives wrapped around easily recast words like “Progress” and “Social Justice” to make them “feel” good about their work).
Does that sound like the soul of a mob? I resent being cast as such by you. You come across like Peter Jennings when you do so. Its personally unbecoming and intellectually arrogant. Have a care.
Kevin McDonnell
Mr. Jarvis wrote:
“If the movie was bad, CBS should have never made it. If it was bad and CBS still made it and aired it, then thanks to online, everybody’s a critic and everybody has a megaphone; everybody could criticize it. But killing it? That’s downright undemocratic. It’s unAmerican.”
1. As noted above, it wasn’t “killed;” it’s going to air virtually unedited in all of its defamatory glory, on Showtime.
2. But if we accept that it was “killed,” who killed it? Not me. Not Matt Drudge, BoycottCBS.com and the NYT. No, the “killers” would be Les Moonves and CBS generally. They could have chosen to play the faux censorship card (as Ms. Streisand does on her site), make the same argument Mr. Jarvis makes, etc., but chose not to do so. Why didn’t they? Could it be that the mini-series is as unfair as Moonves wrote in his statement?
3. To suggest that one has the right to criticize, so long as it does not actually affect anything, seems far more undemocratic and unAmerican to me than anything said about the mini-series.
I used to annotate scripts for a living, for ABC and FOX, and I would never have been able to pass the “live in sin, die in sin” scene. THere’s not way that anyone can prove such a thought ever passed through RR’s brain, much less came out his mouth. I think that Moonves finally figured out that his producers and writer tried to set CBS up for a big fat lawsuit.
As for personal empathy for AIDS victims, well, Ronnie and Nancy were pals of Billy Haynes and Rock Hudson until the deaths of both. But that’s not the point.
Nobody shot anybody to get this cancelled, no one was rounded up and sent to work camps for making this movie. What happened was alot of people told CBS that they would stop watching their network, and buying their advertisers goods for being a bunch of crude rude lying buttheads. CBS counted the money and said, ok, we would rather not lose money this year, show’s over.
This was voting with dollars this was not stifling free speech, or a big bad nasty trend of censorship ruining the media of this country.
The show still goes on, go watch it on showtime if you want. No advertisers to lose there.
Suppression of diverse discussion? Hardly.
CBS is forced into producing pablum only by
their bloated production costs and their
dying business model that, as Teachout observes,
requires lowest-common-denominator appeal to
the broadest audience. They realized that a
narrow audience of like-minded Reagan haters
had no chance of selling enough advertising.
Nothing has been suppressed here; rather, the
market has spoken.
Another thing: Beware mobs, they can turn on you…
Who says the mob is wrong to do so?
Being a mob does not make it bad or good, a mob can riot and do damage, a mob can also ignore genocide. To bad the mob of the german people didn’t turn in WWII eh? Good thing the mob of the colonials turned on the British.
Jeff writes: “Well thanks for the many comments. Let me just say this: We should all fear programming by the mob. This time, it may be the mob you like. Next time, it will be the mob you hate.”
Okay, maybe you’re just tired of the subject and want to move on, but “programming by mob” is not an argument, it’s an assertion, an ugly characterization. Are you always this sloppy? I hadn’t thought so.
The lazy, slipshod distortion that seems to be setting in among liberals, apparently shared by Mr. Jarvis, is that this episode means that “you can’t criticize the Reagans” or “you can’t engage in risky, edgy political speech.”
1) The complaints/boycotts/etc., against CBS are because the program was going to be a gross distortion and smear. NOT BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE CRITICAL. Got that?
2) Everyone who protested was simply expressing their opinion. No one here or anywhere represented the government breathing down the Tiffany network’s neck. If they believed in their product, they could have taken the hit. They don’t believe in their product — they got caught taking a cheap shot and when it turned out not to be so cheap, they cut their losses (which turned out to be significant. Too bad for them) They had other choices all along the line. Who knows? Maybe they’ll think twice about irresponsible programming next time.
3) Programming by cocooned elite coterie that dishes out half-truths and insulates itself from criticism or debate is better than “mob” programming?
4) It’s odd to have a liberal and a Democrat talking about “mob programming” and “beware mobs” etc., calling up the vision of mob frenzy. Usually that’s us starchy law ‘n order types, or at least attributed to us. What happened to the zest for a lively exchange of views? Did the conservative mob get a little too effective in our exchanges?
5) How, exactly, are you defining “mob,” anyway? Just the fact that there are many people who share this opinion? Does that make it a mob? You’re smearing the behavior or those who disagree and many of whom are your readers and I’m pretty sure I’m not a bit mob-like in my attitude or behavior.
What, exactly, moblike has been done? A bunch of emails to CBS and sponsors? And this disgraceful outbreak of mob behavior is going to lead to…what? More emails? More blog posts? Riots in the Comments section? D’ya think we can bear it? I tremble for my countrypeople.
Beware mobs: They can turn on you. They start riots.
It’s amazing that someone who claims to be a “damned, rabid populist”, as I remember you have in the past, would think of the historically informed citizens who pointed out the historical inaccuracies in the miniseries as a potentially violent mob.
Up to this point instead of “programming by mob” we have had programming by elite, an elite with narrow, monolithic, intolerant politics, that they’ve rammed down the throat of the “mob” of which you are so contemptuous, and the citizenry lacked the power to do anything about it. Now, the paradigm has shifted, for various reasons the citizenry now actually has power to influence Big Media and not just accept whatever the elite forces on them and then wail about it impotently after the fact on some talk radio show. Now that you see the actual consequences of empowering the “citizens” who you excitedly speak about empowering two posts above this one, you downgrade the citizens to a “mob”. These citizens should know their place after all. The elite decides on content and gets the public airwaves to promote their untruths, and those damn citizens should wait until the elite has had their say and just complain about it on their blogs or something. Nevermind that the elite gets their say on network television for an audience of millions, and that millions more people will see the miniseries and not see some blog post pointing out the inaccuracies than will.
All that has happened is that Les Moonves has realized that there are limits to how far he can go in promoting lies and smear campaigns to force his worldview on the “mob” that, he, like you apparently, I’m sure despises. (Again, see the Wall Street Journal article from earlier today for more examples) This is good. This is free speech and free market economics combining to stop our national political discourse from being further cheapened and to help the cause of truth.
But, without all the highfalutin’ stuff, it’s a simple, sensible business decision. Are you saying that network executives should put whatever the hell they want on the air, and damn what the audience thinks? They’re just a “mob” after all. This may have a sort of rebel chic about it, but it doesn’t seem to me like an attitude that would get you far working in mass culture. By that logic, anytime an exec decides not to pick up a pilot, or a movie exec decides to send a project straight to video instead of to the theater or to a smaller number of screens, because of historical fabrications and the potential audience outrage at them, it’s some egregious violation of free speech and the beginning of mob rule. You know what? I bet that happens every day. It’s probably happening right now. You better get cracking, you’re going to have to write a screed like this every time a movie or TV show doesn’t get the widest possible distribution because the suits think it might piss the audience off. It’s apparently “tyranny of thought” every time.
Oh, and I remember a while back you said that the editors of some German news magazines should have killed some pieces on 9/11 conspiracy theories because the conspiracy theories are, you know, untrue. Better go back and update those posts. Turns out those editors were jsut brave crusaders for free speech who know better than to listen to the ignorant “mob” with their stupid fixation on historical truth.
(Someone may raise some facile distinction becaue that was journalism and this is a TV miniseries. Give me a break. It was a docudrama about recent history. It inherently is made with the pretense that it’s presenting historical truth)
PS- Still waiting for the correction on “cancelled” and “killed”
PPS-Still waiting for an honest, non Peter Jennings style description of the problems with the miniseries.
This particular “mob” keeps CBS on the air… or perhaps Hollywood elites should determine what should be shoved down their throats.
My, the right wing does whine.
If the movie was libelous, sue.
If not, make your own better movie. (Bush is raising $200 million for a nonexistent primary battle; maybe you can use some of that.)
Crying and stamping your feet till CBS caves is not behavior to be proud of. Republicans are turning into the Left of the late 80s.
Yeesh.
And the people aren’t just people; they are influencers, marketers (who better to convince you to buy a new cell phone than a user of that cell phone), critics, creators. We are people who matter.
This is from your post above. What you fail to realize is that for the people to really matter the people (or the “mob” depending on the context apparently) must not only be able to create their own media but have some power over the direction of Big Media. Phenomena that you defend or even evangelize for at times such as Drudge, Fox News, and weblogging, are the very beginning of that process. However, all of these media combined do not have the power, influence or audience of even CBS taken by itself. How much do these people really matter if CBS can broadcast a miniseries filled with lies and their only recourse is to correct the lies on their blogs to a much smaller audience? (This seems to be your suggestion for what the people’s proper behavior should be. Please correct me if I’m wrong). You engage in rhetoric which seems to indicate the you support “citizen’s media” and that you are a “populist”, but now when you see the consequencs of that rhetoric you side with Barbara Streisand and Peter Jennings, just as you sided with Howell Raines in the past, and do not side with Drudge, FoxNews, and the power of the blog. This is not that big a deal now, but in the long run it will be shown to be the wrong side of history.
You are correct that the American people are intelligent and are not afraid of opinion, as you’ve said in the past. They are, however, sick of having the opinions of a small elite dominate Big Media. When that elite resorts to outright lies to bolster those opinions they have gone too far.
V-
The problem with your suggestion is that CBS (and the rest of the Big Media) isn’t inclined to air a “better” movie about the Reagans. In their opinion, the Reagan administration marks the modern low point in American history. Anything suggesting otherwise won’t be considered.
The opportunity to correct flawed presentations by the Big Media at the same level and with the same impact as the Big Media are non-existent. Were the viewing public able to correct such flaws, we wouldn’t have gotten FoxNews, Rush, etc.
-Regards
“Beware the mob”!!?? That’s the best you can come up with after the beating you just took?
“So you have a leaked script for the Jessica Lynch movie, or its contents have been reported somehwere?
If so, what specifically are the inaccuracies that you allege it contains?”
Oh, I dunno….just all the same patriotic/heroic fictions that the Bush administration was spitting out at the time she was captured and the “rescued”.
I guess the right is comfortable wallowing in their own lies while railing at those they perceive from others.
[B]Kang as Dole: Abortions for all!
Crowd: Booooooo!
Kang as Dole: Abortions for NONE!
Crowd: Booooooo!
Kang as Dole: Very well, abortions for some, little American flags for ALL!
Crawd: Yayyyyyy!!!!!![/B]
Eric,
I don’t want to live in a censored society. I don’t want someone deciding for me, part of the mass, what is a truth and what is a lie. This is about freedom of speech and there is not an honor clause in the amendment. The wonderful thing about freedom of speech is it has consequence i.e.: stock is down, the media consolidation issue, boycotting, advertisers pulling commercials and last but not least the threat of a lawsuit. All of those things and probably more caused CBS to kill the show. Pressure was applied and I, part of the masses, was not involved in any of that. It was decided for me. Are you saying the masses are to stupid to realize what is viewable because we might believe a lie? If CBS had aired the miniseries, I have no doubt there would have been talk show after talk show addressing it and Barbara would have gotten a Nancy interview from it. There would have been plenty of time allotted for rebuttal, not to mention the blogsphere rebuttals, because controversy sells. Your comments, while honorable and emotional aren’t upholding freedom of speech. Aside from a few sound bites I don’t know what was in the miniseries and even those sound bites are censored to show the worst of the show. (I’m guessing) It was decided by pressure groups, that I, part of the masses would be to stupid to realize a smear or a lie. I don’t call that freedom. I call that censorship.
Beware the mob”!!?? That’s the best you can come up with after the beating you just took?
Exactly. It’s also worth noting that this is the most comments on a single post I’ve seen here in a long time, and they are virtually all against your position Jeff. That should mean something to such a “damned, rabid populist”.
Someone asked you earlier “are you always this sloppy”. And, I’m afraid, on reflection, that you are. Like your hero Howard Stern, perhaps as schtick perhaps not, you use your platform to land low blows and to rile yourself and others up. (“Hot Media” if you want to get all Jay Rosen about it). I keep coming back because this is quite gratifying when I agree with you, which is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the time. It’s like when you agree with Howard and he’s slamming someone you don’t like in this totally mean and unfair way. It’s fun to see you slam moronic lefties and terrorist sympathizers etc.
However, if you listen to a shock-jock or read a shock-jock style website like this one often enough you realize that there’s no intellectual depth or coherence to the worldview of the “host”. For example: You say that bloggers celebrating Howell Raines’s forced resignation from the Times are “dancing on graves” which is “most unbecoming”, however celebrating Rush Limbaugh’s far more serious plight of debilitating drug addiction and likely prison time is fun for the whole family. You say that you are a “damned, rabid populist” yet characterize the actual populace as a conetemptible mob. I could go on and on. The examples are legion.
Anyway, you make all these strident and self-contradictory proclamations, I don’t know if it’s for schtick, or for contrarianism or as a desperate attempt to crack the technorati top 100 or what, and you make them with close to zero in the way of rational argument, but instead with a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, even the ones I agree with.
If someone calls you on it, and rationally presents a differing viewpoint backed up by facts and rational argument most often you do not engage them at all. If you do, I’ve never seen you engage the substance of their objection but instead you react with snide sarcasm,(witness the fourth-grade-like “review” rebuttal above), or you simply rathcet up the inflammatory rhetoric even further (“mobs can cause riots etc.) This is, of course, much like the way Howard would treat a caller who was disagreeing with him.
I’ve never, ever seen you back down in the slightest from the inflammatory rhetoric, even when someone presents a very compelling argument as to how you’re wrong. In fact, I get the idea that you think you’ve never been wrong about anything. The one time I’ve ever seen you make an addendum that was a reaction to good comment feedback, you did in the most snide, condescending manner possible, “I guess ‘bubba’ isn’t a PC term.” (Remember that?)
So, my point to everyone is: If you’re looking for intellectual substance or consistency, or for good discussion or gracious behavior on the part of the blogger, this is not the blog for you, as you’re quickly finding out. If you’re looking for cheap shots at whomever or whatever you can’t stand, this is the place for you.
My point to Jeff is: This kind of blogging will ultimately be less popular than a model in which there is significant respectul, give and take between the commenters and the blogger, and in which the blogger does not shoot off his mouth before thinking, (I believe they call that “pulling an Easterbrook”), but instead uses the post more as a taking off point for discussion than a pontification from on high. Of course, you don’t have to give a rat’s ass about that. I know, I know. You’re your own man. It’s your blog. I might even be trying to impose “tyranny of thought” or “mob rule” for all I know. However, you seem very concerned with the popularity and influence of your blog. It’s my hypothesis that it will not significantly increase until you learn to relent a little and admit when you’re wrong.
Eric:
You are the one turning this into personal insult. Douse the torch, whydontcha? I can disagree with you and others can disagree with me — hey, I have comments on my blog and many/most others do not — and that’s great; that’s what this is all about. But it’s not a forum where you can go and try to pick a fight and leave. This is my online home. So let’s pull back from the personal insults, eh?
Please show me where there was a personal insult. Honestly, I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t think I personally insulted you. If I did, I’m truly sorry, but if you could, could you please show me what you took as a personal insult?
My point was only to say that your blog with becoming more and more like a blog version of Howard Stern, which brings with it strength (entertainment value) and weaknesses (lack of reasonable discussion). I honestly thought you might take it as a compliment. If you took it as a personal attack, I’m truly sorry.
I could also point out that there’s a far more direct case to be made that referring to potentially thousands of your readers as a mob that’s a step away from turning violent is a simultaneous personal attack on many, many people, as was your “bubba” comment and subsequent non-apology etc. Also, saying that someone who disagrees with you on the CBS decision is “unAmerican” is quite a personal insult. You are correct though, ideally one should maintain certain standards of manners regardless of one’s surroundings. Also, this is your home. So you have the right to set up unfair rules. It’s just human nature that one take’s cues for one’s behavior from the host is all.
One of the best lines that I’ve ever read before came from a comments section on Tacitus.
“Tell ya what, Katherine: I’ll stop questioning the patriotism of those who oppose the war when Democrats stop questioning the humanity of those who oppose welfare, affirmative action, and gun control.”
Such a sentiment seems appropriate for this discussion as well. Perhaps Godwin’s rule ought to include a subsection for accusations regarding patriotism, humanity, etc.
-Regards
It was decided by pressure groups, that I, part of the masses would be to stupid to realize a smear or a lie. I don’t call that freedom. I call that censorship.
Ridiculous. You need a civics lession. Censorship is by definition the restriction of free speech or behavior by government. Complaining or boycotting the sponsors of a perceived offensive product is free speech by citizens. CBS had an offensive product. Offended people told them to shove it. CBS capitulated. It was a business decision on CBS’s part. They were in no way a victim of censorship. The government had no role in their cancelling the program.
Imagine, if you possibly can, a CBS fictional portrayal of Martin Luther King that puts in an actor’s mouth nasty words that MLK never uttered (“burn whitey”, say). What would happen? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and a supporting cast would demonstrate, castigate, and phlogisticate until the project was scrapped and its perpetrators were fired and blacklisted.
Would that be a mob action? Of course not, because liberals boycott and protest for noble reasons and mobs are never noble. Remember, if liberals do it, it is “sensitivity”; when conservatives do it, it is “censorship” – right?
Like it or not, Jarvis, conservative folks have figured out that they no longer have to take the insulting crap that the media dishes out and have the same rights to be heard as lefties and have access to the same tools of persuasion. Live with it.
PofC: No, I would say the exact same thing.
Jeff-
Does that mean that you would never protest anything?
Protests are nothing but a voice objection to a (supposedly) bad idea. The Fed decides to raise interest rates and some group protests due to the costs involved to consumers. The protest is held with the obvious objective of persuading the Fed to reverse that decision. Is that a bad thing?
Analogies are usually flawed…including mine…but the your comments suggest that no one should ever protest any action without letting those actions reach their ultimate conclusion.
Or are such sentiments reserved only for the media?
-Regards
this is why i drink.
you know what?
The public doesnt give a fuck about this reagan mini series stuff..
the media keeps talking about it but we the public really dont care.