History Channel Kills New kennedy Bio-Censorship?

See the story here:http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2011/01/08/history_network_pulls_plug_on_kennedy_project/
My question: it looks like this bio would be very embarrassing to the Kennedy clan-is there any evidence that they caused the channel to drop it?
Will we be able to see this?

Plenty of show ideas get dropped every day by channels; this almost certainly isn’t “censorship” in any reasonable sense of the word.

The article itself says that the owner of the rights to the series in the US has sold rights to this to other networks, so expect for it to turn up elsewhere soon.

Maybe it was just bad - acting, directing, editing. Doesn’t this happen a lot?

They dropped it because it didn’t “fit the History brand”. I’ve read that it’s supposedly very controversial and the script is disputed by people who were actually involved in the Kennedy administration. My guess is that it portrays people in a less-than-positive light. This likely has something to do with it being dropped.

Or maybe it just didn’t measure up against such other fine, historical programming like Pawn Stars, American Pickers, Ice Road Truckers, Swamp People and Ax Men. They have high standards at the History Channel, y’know.

It has the likes of Katie Holmes, playing Jacqueline Kennedy. See here, or Google it- the top ten or so hits are about the series getting the ax from the History Channel.

Unless they were ordered to drop it by the government, it’s not censorship.

Hey now, those shows fit in perfectly. After all, the History Channel’s motto is “History made every day.”

Right. Because the Kennedy family has been so completely successful at banning negative portrayals over the last 47 years. You almost never ever see one. Or at least more than one a day.

How bad can it be for the channel that brings us daily Ancient Aliens?

All I’m saying is that there seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding the series and I think it’s likely that this may have had something to do with it getting pulled.

I wouldn’t blame the Kennedys specifically without real evidence. On the other hand if it was controversial enough the channel might have decided it did not want to upset that many viewers. Remember what CBS went through with The Reagans in 2003.

I saw an ad for it on (Canada’s) History Television just this morning.

I’m guessing the miniseries failed to addresses Nostradamus’ prediction of the Kennedy assassination.

I’m assuming the OP’s “they” is the Kennedy family. Do they really have any influence left nowadays? None of them hold a political office at this point.

Depending on your definition of Kennedy, Robert Shriver is a member of the city council in Santa Monica, California.

And I’d be astonished if some are not still in the Illuminati.

It won’t be long now before the Kennedys come for Canada.

So, how should we then understand a situation when there is a possibility that many viewers might be upset but the channel decides to broadcast anyway: an intentional rabble rousing or exercising freedom of speech?

Image is everything. In other words, it’s not about what you did but rather how it is portrayed.

Now if someone were accusing the Kennedy’s of being lizard people, or hiding a ghost conspiracy, then it would fit the history channel brand…

On the History Channel; Were John, Ted, and Bob really ghost lizards? Was Ted amphibious, which is why he didn’t drown at Chappaquiddick? Find out on the History Channel. History made every day.

Why does it have to be one or the other? There’s no Constitutional issue here anyway, but the right to freedom of speech protects most kinds of rabble rousing. What should be understood here is that TV networks are wary of alienating their viewers because it will hurt their bottom lines.

Well, it has just come out that Caroline Kennedy wrote to the producers, requesting that the broadcast behalted. So I’ll have to see it in Canada.
Question: why would anyone in Canada be interested in this? It concerns events almost 50 years old.