wOOt! (Reagan CBS travesty yanked)

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it was well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

Thanks for the disclaimers Did you read the script? How do you know this was revisionist history?

It's a he says-she says kind of case here:

...the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script...

By the way, where does it say that a miniseries on TV has to be 100% historically accurate? It's not like CBS is the History Channel, is it? Suddenly, every program aired on the networks has to portray history exactly as it happened? I don't think you'd find a single network program based on a true story that meets that standard.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it was well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

Thanks for the disclaimers Did you read the script? How do you know this was revisionist history?

It's a he says-she says kind of case here:

...the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script...

By the way, where does it say that a miniseries on TV has to be 100% historically accurate? It's not like CBS is the History Channel, is it? Suddenly, every program aired on the networks has to portray history exactly as it happened? I don't think you'd find a single network program based on a true story that meets that standard.

It doesn't have to be historically accurate, but then CBS must accept the consequences, whether good or bad. CBS has obviously chosen its course of action...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it was well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

Thanks for the disclaimers Did you read the script? How do you know this was revisionist history?

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2003/col20031023.asp

The Times also reported that the script accuses Reagan of not mere apathy in facing the outbreak of AIDS, but of "asserting that AIDS patients essentially deserved their disease." During a scene in which his wife pleads with him to help people battling AIDS, fake-Reagan says, "They that live in sin shall die in sin" and refuses to discuss the issue further. This is not only fake history, but terrible Christianity. We are all sinners, and we all die requiring the grace of a forgiving God.

Well there is no way to prove if he felt that way or not. I can understand why Reaganites wouold be hostile to him being portrayed as such a homophobe even though back then it wasn't so uncommon for people of his poiltical beliefs to be Homophobes and unsympathetic to their plight.

 

[Gaard]

a) It was inaccurate.
b) It made Reagan look bad.
c) Reagan has PD and is unable to defend himself.
d) This a full out assault on Reagan.
e) This is an attempt to cater to an agenda.

Did I miss any? IMO, the real answer is 'f'.

f) I'm a Republican and this movie is unflattering to a fellow Republican.








ps - cumhail quotes funny.

 

[outriding]

How many people here have read nancy's book ??

i have read bits and pieces of it and after reading part of it i cant believe anybody would think that he

was a good president. she points out things in the book that is pretty damaging to ronnies character.

but anyways the truth hurts.

 

[Nitemare]

Cumhail

I have not seen Lieing for Columbine, nor have I read his books. I have seen the man on late night TV as well as seeing him make a spectacle of himself in public appearances. The man reeks of hate the same way the ultra right homophobe, holier than though reek of it. I have read quotes from him and seen captions of scenes from BfC. I choose not to rent it to not give that blowhard a single dollar of my money. It won an academy award as a "documentary" from the same organization that gave out awards to both Denzel and Halle based solely on the color of their skin not on the actual film. Halle has never made a movie worth a damn and I can think of 10 other "true" African-American women who are more deserving. Training Day was not even in the 10 best of Denzel's acting performances. The Academy awards are like Hollywood an absolute joke and media whoreage. BfC appeals to those that like to blame everything on someone else and take no accountability for their own actions. The KMart scene is a classic example...people don't kill people; Gun and ammunition manufacturers & retailers kill people

I have read the snippets from a readily admitted "biased" source and due to their "We don't really know what happened, but since Ronny forgot and is on his death bed, and Nancy would not return our phonecalls because she was too busy talking to Mrs Cleo" approach to re-inventing the truth with fallacious sensationalisms in an attempt to boost sagging ratings, I have like I said before chosen to boycott it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it was well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

Thanks for the disclaimers Did you read the script? How do you know this was revisionist history?

It's a he says-she says kind of case here:

...the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script...

By the way, where does it say that a miniseries on TV has to be 100% historically accurate? It's not like CBS is the History Channel, is it? Suddenly, every program aired on the networks has to portray history exactly as it happened? I don't think you'd find a single network program based on a true story that meets that standard.

DM - why didn't you post the rest of the statement by CBS

*************
"CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.

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.

A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.

This was not an easy decision to make. CBS does tackle controversial subjects and provide tough assessments of prominent historical figures and events, as we did with films such as 'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler.' We will continue to do so in the future."
**************
Bolding is mine

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Question: Now that CBS seemingly won't air it, however Showtime most likely will, does that mean the republican protest will shift to pressuring Showtime into also not showing it? Or does the fact that it's been taken off the networks mean "Mission Accomplished?"

 

[Red Dawn]

Maybe we can download it from Kazza!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Question: Now that CBS seemingly won't air it, however Showtime most likely will, does that mean the republican protest will shift to pressuring Showtime into also not showing it? Or does the fact that it's been taken off the networks mean "Mission Accomplished?"

Woot, maybe Drudge and the originator of boycottcbs.com should land on a carrier with that banner

I would assume that the boycott efforts will shift to Showtime and all of Viacom.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Question: Now that CBS seemingly won't air it, however Showtime most likely will, does that mean the republican protest will shift to pressuring Showtime into also not showing it? Or does the fact that it's been taken off the networks mean "Mission Accomplished?"

Woot, maybe Drudge and the originator of boycottcbs.com should land on a carrier with that banner

I would assume that the boycott efforts will shift to Showtime and all of Viacom.

CkG

Right, but Showtime won't be easily pressured as they have no advertisers to worry about. That's what I like about Showtime, "No Limits." Anyway, it doesn't matter where it ends up, because if it's shown anywhere, I'll be watching it. And I'll be laughing at your beloved figurehead. You hear that? I'll be laughing so hard at Reagan, milk will come out my nose! And I don't even LIKE milk!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Question: Now that CBS seemingly won't air it, however Showtime most likely will, does that mean the republican protest will shift to pressuring Showtime into also not showing it? Or does the fact that it's been taken off the networks mean "Mission Accomplished?"

Woot, maybe Drudge and the originator of boycottcbs.com should land on a carrier with that banner

I would assume that the boycott efforts will shift to Showtime and all of Viacom.

CkG

Right, but Showtime won't be easily pressured as they have no advertisers to worry about. That's what I like about Showtime, "No Limits." Anyway, it doesn't matter where it ends up, because if it's shown anywhere, I'll be watching it. And I'll be laughing at your beloved figurehead. You hear that? I'll be laughing so hard at Reagan, milk will come out my nose! And I don't even LIKE milk!

Sure that is milk?

Sounds like you have been getting something more than sheep heiny if you ask me. Maybe you need to leave the flock and do your own research

 

[cumhail]

Now that's just plain funny...

Originally posted by: A Black Pot Named Nitemare

Sounds like you have been getting something more than sheep heiny if you ask me. Maybe you need to leave the flock and do your own research

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Sounds like you have been getting something more than sheep heiny if you ask me. Maybe you need to leave the flock and do your own research

Yeah, coming from a guy who forms his decisions about movies, books and god knows what else without seeing them first.

 

[SuperTool]

The rightwingers writing to CBS weren't just saying they weren't going to watch it, they were saying they were going to boycott the sponsors advertising on the program. So they were trying to make sure noone else watches it either.
Not sure how they were going to find out who the sponsors were without watching the show, but regardless, I think CBS should have aired the show, even if it was fictional, because it's not a network of historical record.
Basically they gave in to a vocal rightwing minority who are idolizing Reagan, just like some other network gave in to a vocal left wing minority with the Dr. Laura situation. Which of course means that we are only going to hear boring unopinionated, equivocating opinions on network television, and watch politically correct and unoffensive shows.
I remember during the coup in Russia in the early 90's, the media was running "Swan Lake" while USSR was collapsing. This is where we are headed.

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: cumhail
Now that's just plain funny...

Originally posted by: A Black Pot Named Nitemare

Sounds like you have been getting something more than sheep heiny if you ask me. Maybe you need to leave the flock and do your own research

LOL... I can't believe he of all people said that

 

[Drensch]

http://www.house.gov/dingell/Reagan.pdf

"As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling."

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I have not seen Lieing for Columbine, nor have I read his books. I have seen the man on late night TV as well as seeing him make a spectacle of himself in public appearances. The man reeks of hate the same way the ultra right homophobe, holier than though reek of it. I have read quotes from him and seen captions of scenes from BfC.

I have read the snippets from a readily admitted "biased" source and due to their "We don't really know what happened, but since Ronny forgot and is on his death bed, and Nancy would not return our phonecalls because she was too busy talking to Mrs Cleo" approach to re-inventing the truth with fallacious sensationalisms in an attempt to boost sagging ratings, I have like I said before chosen to boycott it.

Hmmmm, yes I see. Do you get your news and political information from Letterman, Leno or Conan?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: cumstain
Now that's just plain funny...

Originally posted by: A Black Pot Named Nitemare

Sounds like you have been getting something more than sheep heiny if you ask me. Maybe you need to leave the flock and do your own research

I left the flock long ago and will likely not be voting for Bush next go round unless the Democrats can mount a legitimate non-prentender and make a credible run. I disagree in his appointing and continued support of Asscroft as well as him not having a backbone and selling his parties principles for fringe votes. I disapprove of his letting the Democrats filibuster and refuse to accept any of his judicial appointments. I disapprove of his making the 80 billion dollar support package a grant instead of a loan. I disapprove of the increased spending and bloating of the federal government. As a matter of fact, I don't agree with Bush on many things except his stance on terrorism. It is this that is selling me on Bush. The Dems are so blind to the party beliefs and the constant attacking of Bush on every issue, that they cannot see the threat to our country that appeasing terrorists or the total inaction causes. Keep your head in the sand and hope no one shoots your ass all you want, I would rather keep my enemies on the run.

I support Reagan for his Reaganomics and recovering from the disaster that is known as Carter.

It's Reagan that kick started the economy as well as assisting Gorbachev in ending the Cold War and nuclear proliferation. He has my respect and gratitude for doing that.


Baaaaaaaahhhhhh!

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Drensch
http://www.house.gov/dingell/Reagan.pdf

"As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling."

LOL ketchup as a vegetable. you're right after those ridiculous eight years of shamanomics, and four years of bumbling bush, clinton did have it easy, we had nowhere to go but up.

 

[outriding]

I support Reagan for his Reaganomics and recovering from the disaster that is known as Carter.

uhh i dont understand...

reagan liked carters plans soo much he kept most of the carters financial advisors.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: outriding

I support Reagan for his Reaganomics and recovering from the disaster that is known as Carter.

uhh i dont understand...

reagan liked carters plans soo much he kept most of the carters financial advisors.

They were already in place and knew the system. They are advisers not decision makers

 

[0roo0roo]

censorship by a bunch of twits that haven't even seen the movie, and cbs caves. both parties are pathetic.

just remember, reagan negotiated with terrorists. blatently lying to the american public about it. clinton might have lied about "that woman" but "that woman" isn't going to end up blowing up buildings. consistently rewarding behavior like terrorism gets you what?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it was well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

Thanks for the disclaimers Did you read the script? How do you know this was revisionist history?

It's a he says-she says kind of case here:

...the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script...

By the way, where does it say that a miniseries on TV has to be 100% historically accurate? It's not like CBS is the History Channel, is it? Suddenly, every program aired on the networks has to portray history exactly as it happened? I don't think you'd find a single network program based on a true story that meets that standard.

Why does it have to be accurate? Well for starters because lying is supposed to be a bad thing. Remember? Secondly the problem with "historical" mini-series is that most of the uneducated slack jawed yokels in this country take what they see on TV as the gospel and have never bothered to read a newspaper let alone a real history book in their lives. I can't tell you how many times I've heard some dimwitted slug at work tell me they saw some movie, etc...that was "based on a true story" and thought everything in it was 100% accurate. Hell, show the great troglodyte masses of this country a "based on a true story" movie about why the Columbia blew up and have a gremlin on the wing ripping it apart and they would probably believe it. Especially if they had Shatner looking out the window at it and freaking out.

Bottom line? TV is a huge influence, wrongly so, on the majority of people in this country. Show them a movie about how an "evil" Ronald Reagan didn't care about AIDS patients and the next thing you know they will be marching through the streets with pictures of him dressed as Hitler. I'm not just talking about the Berkley whackos here, I'm talking about your ordinary, every day, Wal-Mart shopping, McDonald's eating, mini-van driving, Survivor watching Joe.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
censorship by a bunch of twits that haven't even seen the movie, and cbs caves. both parties are pathetic.

just remember, reagan negotiated with terrorists. rewarding terrorism gets you what?

censorship? How so? According to CBS it was their decision...not all the hubbub by the "twits" ...or is CBS lying?:Q

Also there is plenty of the script available to know that if those parts were aired it would be trash. I heard portions of it - most definately trash. Don't you think that if someone wanted to tell a story - no matter how "dramatic" - that they'd maybe ask the people they are trying to portray for their input or atleast let them ask them about things that actually went on? Nah...couldn't ask any of the Reagan's how things actually happened or what went on...that's be too easy

CkG