Populism and the mob

Populism and the mob
: In the most lively discussion on the Reagan mini cancellation below, some folks think they’re tweaking me, the self-proclaimed populist, because I’m complaining about the mob that went after the network to get this show killed.

No gotcha here, guys.

Populism in weblogs is about everyone having a voice now, about listening to many viewpoints and having the opportunity to answer, about having the platform from which correct mistakes, about having the opportunity to convince an audience, about having a choice.

But this mob was about shutting somebody up, killing a voice, not listening, not allowing others to hear. That is dangerous.

I have not seen the Reagan movie so — unlike so many others — I will not comment on its quality or veracity because I cannot credibly comment. But knowing its venue and its source, I have little doubt that it’s a stinker.

I’m not afraid of that stinker. Let it air. Let the bloggers and critics and columnists and talk-show hosts — all of whom will add up to a much larger audience — have their say in response. Let them use this as an opportunity to saint Reagan faster than Mother Theresa. Fine. I’m not scared of that, either.

But I am scared of pressure groups — mobs — triumphally stopping somebody from saying something because they don’t like what will be said.

That is antithetical to free speech in a democracy.

But more to the point, it is — or it should be — abhorrent in this weblog world, where we believe in the value of all viewpoints having their opportunity to be heard, where we believe in the power of publishing now in the hands of the people and the equal power of linking (or not) and responding to what is said.

This time you kill the cheesey Reagan movie. OK. But what about the next time, when an opposing mob sees what happened here and manages to kill, say, an anti-Clinton movie; I can hear you now screaming “censorship” and “media bias.” Or what if people try to shut you up, blogger, because they don’t like what you say or how you say it? Argue: Yes! Absolutely! Muzzle? No!

That’s not what democracy is about. That’s not what weblogs are about. That’s what mobs are about.

26 responses to “Populism and the mob”

  1. Eric Deamer Avatar

    Again, the movie is airing on Showtime. Speech has not been suppressed or censored. The movie was not “killed”. This has nothing to do with “free speech”. You keep repeating this same distortion. You are correct that there can be disagreement, but you owe your audience some minimum level of intellectual honesty. You should be able to make your point without continuing to repeat this lie.
    The miniseries was not killed.

  2. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    CBS killed it from the CBS schedule. Showtime then picked it up. But CBS still killed it.
    If the corporation thought this was such utter drek that it did not want to be associated with it, then, in fact, it should have been killed (before they filmed it!). But instead, it’s just being put on a venue with a much smaller audience. Bet hedged.

  3. Sgt Rock Avatar

    Not sure I understand why you are targeting those who went after CBS. If part of their expression of free speech is to pressure CBS to reconsider its decision to air a program, then what’s wrong with that?
    CBS should be the target. What were they thinking? What were they trying to achieve. Why did they bail? Why didn’t they defend the movie? If their current position – upon further review – is that the picture isn’t really a balanced account, is not up to their standards, and should not be broadcast, then that is their call to make. You want to call them wimps or whatever, go ahead.
    Look at the Mel Gibson situation. He believes in his movie, he’s fighting back against the criticism and the movie is going to be distributed.
    So you deal with the pressure or you fold. Why argue that people shouldn’t apply pressure. That’s what America is about. Battle it out. If you believe in something, stick to it. If you don’t, well, there’s always Showtime.

  4. KMK Avatar

    It will still undergo more revisions/censorship. No set date to show it yet.
    If you check out Showtime here:
    http://www.sho.com/site/announcements/current.do
    You’ll read this:
    “In spite of the fact that no one has seen the finished film, Showtime acknowledges that there is controversy surrounding THE REAGANS. As a result, the network is planning to provide an on-air forum in conjunction with the airing of the film that will provide a dialogue for those who agree and disagree with its content.
    Showtime will collaborate with the filmmaker to create a final film that will be the kind of quality programming its subscribers have come to expect from the network.”
    If you check out the message board you’ll see there are already 332 comments:
    http://showtime.infopop.net/1/OpenTopic?a=cfrm&s=5131954363&f=5611923386

  5. HT Avatar

    This point has also been made before, but CBS did not drop the miniseries from its schedule for any reason other than that it (belatedly) remembered its own audience demographics, re-looked at the program, and figured out that to air it would have been to set off a ratings stink-bomb right in the middle of sweeps week. If it had been a single show then simple notoriety might have given it decent ratings, or if it had just been a case of a few misleading scenes it could have been edited, but an historically inaccurate, badly produced show that stretches over a few nights could have been a career-ender for Moonves. He may be in charge at CBS, but he does report to someone at Viacom, after all.
    Along similar lines, the move of the show to Showtime was not because the audience there is smaller. But the demographics are different and no one is going to cancel their Showtime cable package over this. So the financial exposure is much less.
    Although I’d feel that CBS management was more competent if they’d figured this all out for themselves behind the scenes, the fact that audience feedback saved them from a disaster should not be looked on as censorship or “mob rule”. It’s just the dynamics of commercial television in action, albeit a little more publicly than would normally be the case.

  6. Dann Avatar

    Jeff-
    So you are opposed to those people that show up at KKK rallies hoping that their counter protest will effectively shut down those KKK organized events?
    The same principle is in play with respect to the Reagans; immediate opposition to outright distortions and lies.
    -Regards

  7. Eric Deamer Avatar

    CBS killed it from the CBS schedule. Showtime then picked it up. But CBS still killed it.
    If the corporation thought this was such utter drek that it did not want to be associated with it, then, in fact, it should have been killed (before they filmed it!). But instead, it’s just being put on a venue with a much smaller audience. Bet hedged.

    Fair enough. However, may I respectfully suggest that if you consider every time a given film or TV show doesn’t get the widest possible distribution an egregious violation of free speech worthy of getting exercised about you’re not going to get a lot of sleep.
    What about the practice of test marketing films and TV show? These are things that have already been filmed. They are focus-grouped before an audience that is chosen to be a statistically representative sample of “the mob”. If that audiencethinks that what they’re watching is a complete piece of dreck the movie/TV show/miniseries/whatever will most certainly be completely dropped, given a less wide release, or at least significantly retooled. I honestly don’t see how anything different has happened here. CBS filmed the piece of dreck already, but that’s meaningless. Movie studios have many films in the can that never see the light of day or anything beyond direct-to-video. Have all those filmmakers had their right to free speech suppressed? These days, anyone can be media savvy enough to realize how this stuff works (Project Greenlight anyone?) Projects, be they TV shows, albums, movies or anything else, can be killed by executive fiat at any point in the process at which it’s contractually allowable to do so. It certainly sucks for those involved, but their speech is not being suppressed, especially if they’re lucky enough to find another distributor.
    Okay. Last point I swear. And I’m truly sorry if anything I said went over the line.

  8. KMK Avatar

    Our right to free speech applies only to the act of speaking words, not the content of those words. (the whole screaming fire in a crowded theater thing) Trying to tie this to the KKK is one heck of a stretch.

  9. Dann Avatar

    KMK-
    Hardly.
    The KKK protesters know that the KKK will say some things that just plain are not true. They know that the KKK advocates policies that are harmful for and hateful towards minorities.
    Rather than letting the KKK have its rally in peace and THEN protesting with letters to the editor and such, the current trend is to show up and make a bunch of noise so that the boyz in their hoods won’t be able to speak.
    Based on what is known, the movie about the Reagan’s certainly contains several fundamental lies and one could reasonably argue is written in a spirit of ill-will towards the Reagans.
    The two instances may appear at different points on the scale, but the same qualities are applicable to both.
    -Regards

  10. infamouse Avatar
    infamouse

    A better comparison would be: what would happen if a movie about Martin Luther King portrayed him negatively including blatantly false information all the while ignoring his accomplishments? People would howl. Those expressing their distaste for a political hitjob like the Reagan film are the living embodiment of free speech.

  11. Tim Avatar

    There is no censorship here. Jeff should be more incensed that CBS backed down. The Reagan movie was a political act, and merited a political response. CBS has no spine. More to the point, CBS is old news.
    I’m not worried about any of this — as we move away from commercial-supported TV to a more PPV model, viewers will get more choice, both in terms of content and how they view it. Maybe then, movies for adults that have to go out unrated (instead of being edited to appease Southern theater chain owners) will become more common. Maybe then publishers will put whatever they want in magazines, thanks to growing digital distribution via companies like Zinio and Newsstand, instead of being silenced by Wal-Mart.
    Stop craving these collective viewing experiences — the USA isn’t a classroom. Just be patient and wait. More choice = more freedom in every way (witness the Internet and the diversification of viewpoints on blogs).

  12. Trevor Avatar

    Sgt Rock and Tim hit the respective nails on the head. Couldn’t have said it better myself. The real blame falls squarely on CBS’ shoulders. If they want to make a distorted movie assailing Reagan, that’s fine. In fact I’d rather they go all the way with a slanderous movie than just be anti-Reagan and push their bias in a less conspicuous way. The problem was they didn’t even believe in their movie enough to stand behind it.

  13. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Tim, Sgt, Trevor: Yes, I am mad at CBS. As Barry Diller said at Foursquare, if the movie was so bad, it should not have been made in the first place. The timing of the move is what makes CBS’ action both reprehensible and dangerous.

  14. Paul Siegel Avatar

    This IS about free speech.
    I don’t go for most of the analogies presented. I like to compare this situation with one where a controversial person is invited by students to a University to speak. Some students don’t like this person and they use their influence with the authorities to disinvite the speaker. Now, this is a violation of free speech, and it does not matter what the speaker was going to say.
    Republicans who love Reagan did essentially the same thing. They got after the authorities at CBS to cancel the show. Showtime has a much smaller audience.
    What the students should have done is demonstrate outside the meeting place or run a meeting with a speaker representing their side. Similarly here, the Republicans should have demonstrated or prepared another show that expressed their viewpoint.
    That would have qualified as free speech. What the Republicans did qualifies as bullying.

  15. Greg Avatar

    It’s called slander. It’s not like this “mob” went out and threatened their family or career, they just gave the cbs crew heat for making such wild accusations in thir movie.

  16. KMK Avatar

    Dann
    I still disagree. CBS was strong-armed into not airing the show. If that doesn’t worry you then so be it. As for the KKK, they have the right to freedom of speech and so do the protesters. As long as they both uphold the law I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is special interest groups telling me what is viewable and what isn’t. That’s a very dangerous path and now we have a precedent.

  17. Jason Thomas Avatar

    Jeff:
    Two points here …
    First, I keep wondering why no one is asking the question: What was CBS thinking when they bought this project? Before this was a political fiasco it was a business decision. So what the hell were they thinking? Was it maybe that viewers who elected the guy to 8 years in the White House would be excited to see some Hollywood yo-yo’s dump on their hero? I personally didn’t like the guy a whole lot, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what this kind of primetime pulp was supposed to accomplish from a business standpoint.
    Second, I’m a little lost on your “mob” versus “democracy” distinction. Pure democracy and mob are interchangable in my book. We only get to free speech by putting some limits on democracy.
    Painful as it may be to contemplate for those of us with Lefterly leanings, I suspect if the matter could have been put to a vote, the mob would have given the Reagan flick a solid thumbs down. Our problem as Liberals these days is that the Conservative mob is now large enough to foist its views on us in a valid democratic fashion.
    Come to think of it, if the Reaganistes wanted to inflict some real damage they would have shut-up and let the thing run. CBS would have been coughing up make-goods for the rest of the season to cover the lousy ratings.

  18. PJF Avatar

    I can’t escape the feeling that Jeff’s reaction to this “mob rule” is some sort of bizarrely displaced TV critic’s guilt. Jeff made his living informing people about the merits of TV shows, in the full knowledge that his opinions will have swayed viewers into watching or avoiding those shows. Jeff’s opinions undoubtedly made an impact on the survival and prosperity of TV productions, and on the careers of those involved.
    Well, now the blogosphere is a TV critic; deciding the fate of productions – and Jeff doesn’t seem to like it.
    A brief but hopeless stand was made on the grounds that the “mob” were criticising something without seeing it, whereas in fact the “mob” were justifiably criticising the bit they had seen. So we’ve now moved on to a supposed threat to democratic free speech – as if a popular reaction resulting in a voluntary change of mind in those in charge of a populist medium is somehow undemocratic!
    What I’d like to know is, if Jeff suddenly pulls a surprise convincing argument out of his hat and manages to change the “mob’s” mind enough to make it voluntarily withdraw its protest against “The Reagans” – will Jeff’s persuasion amount to an attack on democratic free speech?

  19. Dann Avatar

    Paul –
    You are correct. Analogies are imperfect at best. The problem with yours is that the gentleman in question, David Horowitz (sp?), was present his conservative views. The word ‘conservative’ does not mean ‘liar’. (occasionally misinformed and misguided….but the same is true of modern liberals)
    This movie contained outright, blatant lies. It would have been different if Mr. Reagan had been depicted as being uncaring or disinterested in AIDS and/or gays. That would be an opinion.
    But to depict Mr. Reagan as hating gays when it is crystal clear that he had supported gay rights issues in the past, was comfortable working and socializing with gays, and had issued specific instructions to “leave them alone” is indefensible.
    KMK –
    The difference, IMO, is that we are talking about a series of outright, blatant lies vs. debatable opinions. There is a line that was crossed that separates opinions about the Reagans and the deliberate misrepresentation of their lives.
    I, too, have a problem with special interest groups telling me which opinions are fit for public viewing. Unfortunately, the special interest group that is the Big/Old Media has been telling me for years that conservative (and even worse libertarian) positions ought not to be given the same standing as modern liberal positions.
    -Regards

  20. Eric Deamer Avatar

    Jason Thomas:
    Thank you so much for that. It’s good to see some intellectual honesty and consistency coming from the left, but I must say, depressingly rare. I’ve tried to answer the “what were they thinking when they bough the project” question in other threads. But, it’s good that you bring up that issue here because it’s germane to latest and perhaps most facile “meme” (if we’re still saying that) going around, which is that it’s all about the timing. Somehow, if the miniseries had not been made in the first place, or if the plug had been pulled at some earlier point out of the sole judgment of the network in a behind-closed-doors process, that would be preferable to the decision being the result of public outrage. It this is your view, let me present you with two possible scenarios:
    Scenario 1: CBS orders the miniseries. As good liberals, they view Reagan as the anti-christ, and just assume that the hired guns and Mr. Streisand will give them the negative portrayal that they want. However, as the dailes start coming back, Moonves realizes that the project is turning out to be so over-the-top, with so many outright lies, that his older, conservative viewership will not stand for it, and decides to pull the plug. This all happens behind the scenes.
    Scenario 2: What actually happened. Moonves bought a miniseries designed to smear Reagan. Someone at the network thought it went too far with the “I’m the anti-christ” (You thought I was exagerrating about the anti-Christ thing), the “those who live in sin shall die in sin” line etc. and they leaked to Drudge. There was a public outcry so great that Moonves realized it might mean the end of his job if not the network if he actually aired the thing, so he decided not too.
    Anyone who buys into this “It’s all about the timing” argument please explain to me how the two scenarios above are substantively different. How is one, perfectly fine while the other is “tyranny of thought” or “mob rule” or whatever?
    If anything, I would say that the second scenario is preferrable, because it’s more transparent and more public. The second scenario does show much greater ineptitude and stupidity on the part of Mooves. You could also perhaps argue that it was a cowardly move. I don’t think there’s anything particularly brave or admirable about promoting libel about a beloved American president. However, it shows cowardliness in the sense that Moonves wants to have it both ways. He wants to have repugnant views that are totally counter to those of his audience, but instead of really sticking up for his views, he’d rather keep his job, which of course depends on the viewership of the public whose heroes he would gladly libel.
    You’re right aboout everything though, Jason. The left is used to having free reign to foist its views on everyone else. Now that they are such a small minority they’re no longer able to do that. That’s what leads to these kind of cries of “crushing of dissent” and the rest of it.
    You’re also right that the left really made a smart move by not airing the thing. I honestly think that if the thing had been aired the backlash would have been so great that it would have been the end of the networks as we know them, or at least CBS. And, the left’s dominance over a major media institution finally would have been challenged.
    Jeff,
    You now say you would not defend the hypothetical “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” movie, but you simply say that it shouldn’t have been made. Well, it’s unlikely that it would ever be made. (Though the way the left’s anti-Semitism is going we’ll see 10 or 20 years from now). However, viruatlly any movie or TV show that portrays any Republican/conservative/person with religious faith, portrays them as insane/stupid/evil or all three. Lies about Republicans are acceptable. While lies about Jews/blacks/anyone else or not. It’s,as I say, no suprise that this film was made. You refuse to answer any of the hypotheticals about the Clinton/MLK/holocaust denial movies on a major network. You simply say they shouldn’t be made in the first place. Well, it’s too late for this piece of revisionist propaganda. It’s already been made. The question is what to do about it now. The real question is this. If you, as the head of CBS, were in the same position. The movie had already wrapped. You knew for a fact that it contained scenes of outright fabrication about a beloved president whom your key dempographic revered. What you do?
    “It shouldn’t have been made in the first place” is a cop-out. It also doesn’t answer the question of why lies about Jews are unacceptable (the Elders of Zion hypothetical) while lies about Republican presidents are okay.
    Never forget. It bears pointint out again and again and again, because you keep diverting attention from that uncomfortable point. The issue was not that it was poorly done, or didn’t paint an heroic enough portrait of Reagan. The issue was that it contained outright lies about a major historical figure.

  21. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    PJF: As they say in California, you’re projecting….
    No, when I was a critic I always said that, in fact, critics — especially those criticizing free TV as opposed to expensive movies or plays or books or CDs — have no impact. I did not make or break shows; I said that I was merely another member of the audience who got tapes early and got to have my water-cooler conversation first. I have always said that everybody is a critic.
    But more to the point: I never tried to break a show. I didn’t scream and shout and stomp and say that something should be taken off their air. I called crap crap, in my view.
    The problem here is that the audience does not have the chance to watch this movie on free TV and, if it’s their wish, call crap crap. That’s because somebody yelled about taking this off their air (and, yes, there was pressure put on the network execs) and the network caved under that pressure. So now the audience doesn’t have the chance to be their own critic. They were robbed of that by a loud mob and a chickens**t network executive, a bad combination. I would far prefer to have seen the people choose to watch or not watch the show and then give their bluntest opinions based on what they saw instead of what they heard about. That would be honest criticism and good debate. But that was cut off. And I hate that.

  22. Art Krannawitter Avatar
    Art Krannawitter

    CBS enjoys the most valuable government handouts on offer in the US. Through it

  23. Dave F Avatar

    Ahem, Egyptian TV has made a miniseries about the “Protocols of Zion” and aired it.

  24. Jason Thomas Avatar

    Eric –
    You missed another timing scenario. But not to worry, Daniel Henninger sums it up in his Wonder Land column in this morning’s WSJ.
    “People are now asking what CBS President Les Moonves was thinking. CBS leads the ratings largely with programs that appeal to people who get membership offers from AARP. What would be the upside of putting on a movie seemingly designed to enrage at least half of this money-in-the-bank viewership?
    The reporting suggests that Mr. Moonves never quite focussed on “The Reagans” until two weeks ago, four weeks before the airdate, leaving time for just one of two command decisions: Blow up the network’s audience or blow up the movie. In an industry tethered to 5,000 Nielsen boxes, this was whatever is easier than a no-brainer.
    … Any executive … can guess what happened … If Les Moonves couldn’t focus on what his people were doing to a movie … until a month before airing, then everything else he was “managing” was more important. It always is. In this high-wired managerial world, you accept that on some days the glop will hit the fan. What we’re finding … is that increasingly the powerful man himself gets to clean up the glop in public.
    … The single greatest breakdown at CBS was in failing to provide adult supervision.”
    I love Henninger’s stuff. I only wonder how he can sit through editorial review meetings given the intellectual dishonesty that permeates the rest of that OpEd page.

  25. KMK Avatar

    Dan
    I see it differently. What we are talking about is a supposed series of outright, blatant lies vs. debatable opinion. I haven’t seen the series. It was decided through use of strong-arm tactics that I, a member of the masses, would be to stupid to assimilate truth from lie, fact from fiction. This was a made for TV miniseries not a documentary. Just because you feel persecuted in the past doesn’t make this right. It makes your argument more understandable but not right. I happen to believe in free speech for all irregardless of content unless a law is broken.

  26. Dann Avatar

    KMK-
    Don’t libel laws count?
    -Regards