This request by the RNC is shocking. Why doesn’t Bush just set up a Ministry of Information to inspect all broadcast content (and to cover all sculpted boobies)?
Shouldn’t that be the Ministry of Truth?
I’m confused…
How is this any different than Jewish groups wanting to review ‘Passion’ for accuracy? Or the NAACP wanting to review films?
Great point! Imagine the howls of protest from the NAACP if, say, Fox decided to make a movie about the ‘dark side’ of Martin Luther King…
The NAACP does not hold the Presidency and control both houses of congress. See the difference?
That said, no one has the right to censor stories because they don’t care for the way they are told. If this Reagan film is filled with lies, let Mrs. Reagan sue CBS for libel. Maybe Bill O’Reilly could advise her.
I think it’s more likely the case the Republicans are looking to insure that Reagan is presented as the paragon of virtue they hold him to be today. In any event, they have no right to demand a preview.
Er. Not really. 
Key words in the OP: “asked for”. Of course the RNC has the right to ask for these things. And in turn, CBS also has the right to ignore their requests. Which they probably will: If they cared what the republican party thought about this movie, they probably wouldn’t have made it in the first place.
I don’t think they really want anything changed, they’d rather have it air as is so Bill O’Reilly and his ilk have more ammo for their tired and ridiculous “liberal media” rants. Although I bet if CBS was making a movie that took liberties with Bill Clinton’s sex life, the same folks would be saying “it’s about time” and such.
I have gone onto the CBS website and, in the feedback section, let them know what I think of their gutless wonder act in the face of Republican bullies.
Honestly - I hated Ronald Reagan for lots of reasons - especially his total lack of caring about AIDS. Who knows how many lives could have been saved, or prolonged, if the government had jumped on this disease at the onset. And the fact that it is now painfully obvious Ray-gun had Alzheimer’s while still in office, it only further proves the evil behind the RNC in hiding the fact and putting the country in jeopardy.
But if they had just let the damn mini-series run, it would have gotten mediocre to crappy ratings, no one would remember it by the following Monday morning and that would be that.
Now Showtime stands to benefit, and am sure there will quickly be a DVD version in you local Blockbuster.
All this whole hooplah has done is once again prove that the Republicans really feel like they own the USA, and they are determined to beat the shit out of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
And as a direct result of reading your post, DMark, I went to the site and told them how much I appreciated them pulling what was clearly an attempt to significantly modify history to their own ends. We all get to vote friend. Thanks for reminding me to.
Wow. So, you wouldn’t find it offensive if a so-called documentary was made where someone you admired was seriously slandered and important facts were obviously (and dramatically) changed? You wouldn’t take steps to correct what is clearly lying?
I have no problem showing Reagan’s warts, and there are a few. But flat out lying in the name of drama is wrong.
What specific lies were being told about Ronald Reagan in this mini-series? I keep hearing that this thing is supposed to be choc-a-block with pernicious untruths, but other than that one line about gays “living in sin and dieing in sin” (or somesuch), I haven’t seen anyone say precisely where the miniseries is dishonest.
As for the concept of “flat-out lying in the name of drama being wrong,” I offer the general reminder that Richard III was not a hunchback, and wasn’t that bad of a monarch, relatively speaking.
No, I wouldn’t. Assuming the guy’s still alive, he can fight his own fights. And if he’s dead, it doesn’t much matter what anyone says about him. And for all intents and purposes, Reagan is in Group #2. Although I generally don’t go in much for hero-worship. I can’t really think of any public figure that I would care enough about to join a boycott, or even write an angry letter, over an unflattering portrayal.
Well, that’s not entirely true. I wrote an angry letter to an airline that wouldn’t let Salman Rushdie on one of their planes, but that was more of a civil rights thing than a slander thing.
But the mini-series isn’t a documentary, and isn’t intended to be one. It’s a historical drama, and that means it’s going to be fictionalized. People are going to say things they didn’t say, do things they didn’t do, all for the sake of the story. We allow movies to be fictional for entertainment, and the most you can get from something like that is “based on a true story”.
Look, for example, at the movie “Braveheart”. It purports to tell the story of William Wallace and Robert Bruce, and their war against Edward I of England. It doesn’t. Braveheart makes the Ronald Reagan movie look like documentary footage. It has people showing up where they weren’t, where they couldn’t have been, it has people doing things they didn’t do and saying things they didn’t say, and the story has
William Wallace having an affair with a woman who was in real life 6 years old and in France at the time, making him, in the movie, the real ancestor of future English kings.
In short, as history, Braveheart is complete bullshit. But it was still made, people loved it, and it still made money. If you’re complaining that this picture is unfair to Reagan, why aren’t you complaining that Braveheart was unfair to Edward I and Edward II? (because they come off worse in Braveheart than Reagan seems to come off in this movie)
Because there isn’t a political party running in the 2004 elections that stands to gain if CBS can get away with lying.
And Reagan is still alive, and it will make a difference if the revisionists can work their magic.
“Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.”
Regards,
Shodan
Why, I bet the CBS movie doesn’t even include how Reagan liberated those concentration camps during WW 2!
It just occurred to me that in War & Peace Tolstoy uses Napoleon as a character. He has Napoleon saying all sorts of things he never said in real life. Perhaps a boycott should be organized against stores that sell this lying book! Get the RNC on this!
It just occurred to me that in War & Peace Tolstoy uses Napoleon as a character. He has Napoleon saying all sorts of things he never said in real life. Perhaps a boycott should be organized against stores that sell this lying book! Get the RNC on this!
Okay. The Republicans control the FCC and the FTC not to mention numerous congressional committees which have considerable power over Viacom and CBS. If CBS refuses to play ball the possible ramifications are clear. By making this intrusion into the airing of this film the Republicans have crossed a line that should make Americans of all persuasions nervous.
By the way, I would not support the NAACP nixing a warts and all look at King either, but it’s just not the same. They have far less power.
So, you’re saying, basically, is that Republican voters are dumb enough to change their minds about who they want as president based on a James Brolin performance of a guy who was president fifteen years ago? Also, what lies are you talking about? Be specific, please.
He’s still alive. So what? Dick Nixon was alive for decades, and people still said bad things about him. And he, at least, was mentally capable of understanding what was being said about him. To say nothing of Clinton! I hope, when the inevitably equally-slanted anti-Clinton biopic is finally released, you will comdemn it just as strongly.
Pretty sure our side has best claim to the Orwell quotes in this debate.
Replace “weapons of mass destruction” with “lies” and “Iraq” with “the Reagan miniseries”.
Eerie, huh?