New CBS Ronald Reagan movie appears wildly biased - What does CBS gain with this?

New CBS movie portrays Reagan as judgemental buffoon and the creators freely admit the liberal slant of the project. What the hell is CBS thinking giving this blatant character assassination piece the green light?
CONTROVERSY SWIRLS AROUND CBS REAGAN FILM; SCRIPT REVEALED

For every critical piece about Reagan, there’s three movements to get him up on Rushmore or name something after him in every last stinkin’ county in the US. Fair and balanced.

For me, nothing could be more scandalous than watching actual documentary footage of an old man who is so blatantly mentally decrepit, haggling with the Queen of England over whether the coffee is decaf or not, as we see in the film Elizabeth R. Scary.

Obviously, the one and only thing any TV network has to gain by doing anything is ratings.

One must ask if Drudge has anything to gain by creating contoversy about this film. The objections seem over-blown.

If it wasn’t produced by the CBS News Division, then shut up.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by astro *
What the hell is CBS thinking giving this blatant character assassination piece the green light?

That maybe not everyone agrees that Reagan was the greatest president ever and a story could be told from the other side?

How would you react to a soft-core sleaze story about Bill Clinton?

Drudge would have chastised the kid in the story that pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, which is exactly what CBS is doing.

I think the media and Hollywood would scream bloody murder.

Since Reagan is unable to defend himself, I think it is pretty poor form. If the producers are so sure of their opinion, why are they afraid to show the good along with the bad?

Same as always–they sell more soap. Or used cars. Or whatever gets advertised.

They have no real commitment to truth.

hear, hear, RTA! bravo!

the near-deification of Reagan by the Republicans is pretty annoying. if i see one more building, airport or whathaveyou renamed for him, i may just scream. hell, they’re giving him more splash than LINCOLN, for Og’s sake!

so i’m all in favor of something that reminds the Great Unwashed Masses that the guy did have a few warts on him, after all.

It sounds like a fair and honest portrait to me. Reagan was a pretty lousy president and the AIDS thing is true as well. Just because it doesn’t buy into the contemporary, conservaytive mythology about Reagan doesn’t mean it’s not fair.

The first paragraph of the drudge story basically betrays a slanted take on this. Reagan did not “create wealth” for anyone other than a handful of billionaires. He destroyed the economy. He was a judgemental buffoon. Nancy was a pill-popping, hypocritical loony. And let’s not forget that whole Iran-Contra thing.

It’s about time that Reagan was exposed as far as I’m concerned.

Are we not forgetting that The Drudge Report is a never ending love letter to the right-wing?

Wait till the movie airs, THEN let the let the right wing get all indignant about it AFTER they have seen it. This film is getting the same kind of reception that the Satanic Verses got in Iran. Of course, the Ayatollah never bothered to read that book before condemning it either.

First off, Diogenes:

We can argue over how much he helped or hurt the eeconomy, but Reagan very obviously did not “destroy the economy.” I don’t know what you define “destroy” as, but the economy was not any worse off in 1989 than it was in 1980. If it was destroyed then why is the USA’s economy not more like Mozambique?

As to the OP…

If people don’t like this portrayal, why not get some investors together and produce a movie showing the other side? Isn’t it a free country?

That’s the beauty of free speech. They’re coming out with an “Alamo” movie that, from what I can tell, is almost totally whitewashed, flag-waving fiction. Want a different side of that story? Make your own movie.

What’s so whitewashed about a group of rednecks defending their right to enslave black people?

Oh, yeah…

What,

again?.

I dunno, what the hell was Showtime thinking when they put out that ass-kissing pro-George-W.-Bush propaganda piece, “DC 9/11: Time of Crisis”?

“In the upcoming CBS telefilm on President Ronald Reagan producer fail to mention the economic recovery”

Uh, because there wasn’t one.

What exactly is untrue about the film?

Funny that you would think that, since they already made that movie, and nobody gave a shit. But don’t let that detract from your liberal media persecution fantasies.

Right. Because no one should ever make a biopic about a historical figure unless that person is able to rebut the film. This is exactly why Hollywood never, ever makes movies about dead people. :rolleyes:

Which presupposes that there’s something good to say about Ronald Reagen.

Why would Reagan have a right to defend himself? The biopic is about a historically important person and is merely presenting what the producers think to be the marketable truth. Many former presidents are presented in bad lights, but they can’t defend themselves; it’s up to the historians and those who rename airports to rise to the defense.

As for the “fear” of showing the good along with the bad: It’s persuasive film-making. It’s no different then writing an op-ed piece selectively using documentation or planning a war on inadequate intelligence; it’s persuasive argumentation. It’s allowed. That doesn’t mean, however, that what is produced will be good or notable; it’s not good when someone gets all their information from an obviously slanted source. People <i>should</i> get their information from all sides of the spectrum but that doesn’t mean biased opinions are inherently bad; they’re just incomplete.

Is there any evidence that the movie will portray anything that isn’t true?