I meant The Reagan fiction in that last paragraph…
I suck
**
But if it were potentially libelous (and the Clinton one, based on the 10 minutes or so I’ve seen, sure seemed to be) I’d bet they wouldn’t broadcast it either.
**
**
Mostly true. My side o’ the aisle tends to have hissy fits when icy contempt is called for. Lookit the flap over whatshisname…that moron…Franken…‘s new anti-FOX book*…Lying Poopie-heads that Lie or whatever it’s called. It was heading towards the remainder bin, then O’Reilly had his tantrum and propelled it into the spotlight and the best-seller slot. :rolleyes: "Lor’ save me from my so-called allies"
Honestly, spooge, I got no idea what O’Reilly thinks of it, 'cause I don’t listen to O’Reilly at all. He’s dumb as a rock and a humorless jackass. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is scared of it. I have little beyond contempt for him.
Frankly, I agree with you: were I in a position of authority in the Republican party, I’d say prety much what you said.
Fenris
*I make no comments on the book itself, but I’ll stand by the fact that Franken is a moron based on interviews I’ve seen.
**
I figured that out! 
No you don’t. 
CBS is a corporation that derives its revenue from advertising. If a show doesn’t get sponsors to buy ad space during the breaks, there is no reason for that program to go on. In addition, if there is reason to believe that the program is a heavily biased piece of crap, there is the additional incentive not to show it. At any rate, the mini-series WILL be shown on Showtime, so go get cable already.
There is a difference between censorship and exercising editorial judgement, and it is dispiriting to see that the OP does not understand the distinction between the two.
And yes, Reagan was one of the most despicable presidents ever IMO, but attributing factitious quotes and incidents to him is even more despicable. If the makers had merely stuck to the actual, documented story of his life, that alone would have been quite damning and honest, to boot.
History is never served by lies. That’s why we have fiction.
What members of the gov’t?
Can I get a ruling here? This isn’t an ad hominem, is it? That IS attacking the argument, right?
CBS is totally chickenshit but as long as we mention the First Amendment, people have a right on their talk shows to whip their blissfully ignorant audiences into a partisan frenzy, and suggest that they make calls and write threatening letters concerning boycotts of products and services, should someone dare to tell a story they don’t like.
Ok, is this a typo? Cause I think it’s a great word for this sort of situation.
From m-w.com
I used “factitious” to emphasize the artificially manufactured, shambolic (yes, it’s a word) aspect of the show rather than the merely fictional elements.
From m-w.com
I used “factitious” to emphasize the show is artificially manufactured, history that has been twisted, rather than mere fiction.
Thanks gobear, I had never heard that word before, of course now I’ll hear it a dozen times a day.
I think it’s hilarious that the radical right is damning CBS for portraying Reagan as condemning people with AIDS as sinners when that’s exactly what the radical right spent the Reagan administration doing. Had Reagan said it publicly he would have been lauded by the very same people who now claim that he’s being smeared.
Well, thanks for that gratuitous slam on people who were never even teens during the Reagan years and didn’t have an opinion on people with AIDS, Otto. Very classy of you. I applaud your great insight into my character.
The CBS CEO, evidently.
All that means is that he had no balls. He was reacting to pressure and trying to make it ‘less offensive’ to those who were complaining, while at the same time, trying to keep it’s edge. This is, of course, impossible. And it should serve as an example of why suits should stay out of the ‘creative’ end of programming and just stick to the decision of whether or not they want to buy it.
“the suits”. Jesus…next thing you know you’ll be blaming “evil corporations” for this. After all…isn’t that plays #1 and #2 in the liberal playbooK? Corporations bad, suits who run them even worse?
You mean the suits who run the business? The suits who sell ad time to organizations to pay the bills at these networks? Those profit watching bastards. How dare they try to stop the “creative” process to avoid public and corporate boycotts because of the reckless product of the liberal Hollywood elite and it’s damaging effects on CBS’s ad buying rates.
Those suits? You mean Les (I’m the biggest liberal in NYC…which BTW is saying a lot) Moonves?
Bullshit. 100% Complete and utter bullshit.
Les Moonves is driven by the one thing that has made the liberal elite, the liberal elite…MONEY. Cash. Profit. Capitalism, baby. In the TV business cash=ratings.
He correctly realized that middle-America (i.e., the people that live between LA and NYC) would not stand for this “cross(ing) the line from entertainment to advocacy and caricature” and it would hurt CBS’s ratings would reduce the ad buying amounts it could charge ad buyers.
Now before you liberals start blaming the neo-cons and/or those evil corporations for this “censorship” realize that Moonves himself pulled the plug on this nightmare…not the bible-thumping neo-cons, not the CEO of P&G…but Moonves himself…why?
He made a correct business decision to correct the notion that the management of CBS (and more than likely, all of the liberal elite in NYC and Hollywood), once again, doesn’t understand public sentiment in Middle America.
Were the neo-cons going to flip out about this mini-series? Of course. You could have set your watch to it. Reagan is “their boy”…they weren’t going to let anyone slap him around, especially “Streisand and her hootie tootie Hollywood, Beverly Hills crew”.
But the neo-cons flipping out isn’t the story. They flip out all the time…mostly for stupid things that middle America ignores. It’s only when middle America responds to their flipping out does it work.
This time middle America responded…that made Les pull the plug…plain and simple.
You can blame the suits all you want on this one…but I think you are way off base. The producers could have taken a few vicious swipes at Reagan, Nancy, etc. and gotten this product through…but they went too far for middle America and it bit them in the ass.
Get bent, fuckie.
Sean Hannity wasn’t a teenager during the Reagan years, was he? Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh certainly weren’t, nor were the leaders of the radicla religious right. In point of fact, many of us who were in our teens and younger during the Reagan “administration” were able to form opinions about people with AIDS during that time, and for those, apparently like yourself, who lacked that capacity, a cursory glance at the statements made during the Reagan “administration” by the same ranks of people lathering over the idea that CBS portrays Reagan as condemning gay people with AIDS as sinners themselves throughout his “administration” and beyond condemned gay people with AIDS as sinners.
Gee, do you note the qualifier in there? I don’t. Could that be because it doesn’t exist? In other words, if you are going to slam people who are defending Reagan, it behooves you to be selective about where you spew your bile.
Look, if I were to say “the same people who are talking about gay rights are the ones who were busily spreading HIV throughout the world 5 years ago,” I would, rightfully, get flamed. That undoubtedly it would be true about some subset of the people who talk about gay rights is utterly irrelevant: I would get flamed, and rightfully so.
The same principle applies here.
I hasten to add that said subset is no doubt quite small, but I suggest not empty. Surely one gay rights activist over the years has infected someone else with HIV, although I admit freely to having no cite. Similarly, undoubtedly one anti-gay rights activist has infected someone else with HIV.
Lest you decide that I’m actually trying to promote the belief that HIV is a gay disease or something. Perhaps I should have chosen a less controversial example.
Here’s an interesting look into Reagan’s “condemnation” of sinner gays with AIDS:
http://frontpagemagazine.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10632
Read the letter towards the end of the article 