Should RNC have editorial control over Reagan movie?

[g8rguy]

Argh! You snuck in after my preview! shakes fist at rjung

*Originally posted by rjung *
I dunno about where you are, but I hear about celebrity/tabloid lawsuit settlements on a fairly regular basis (though it might have something to do with the fact that I live somewhat close to Hollywood). I mean, it’s not like there’s a big conspiracy to keep settlements in slander lawsuits a secret.

I believe that is a function of location; that cuts both ways, of course, and I presumably hear both fewer defamatory statements and fewer lawsuits regarding said statements.

In an ideal world, you’d be correct. In the real world, people regularly do make baseless accusations against folks without being able to prove it. Again, just look at the anti-Clinton videos Jerry Falwell was peddling throughout the '90s.

Yes, people do make baseless accusations against others, but no, it does not mean that it’s okay to follow suit. I boycott Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and all the rest; I would similarly boycott CBS over this.

By the way: you’ll note that I said I think they shouldn’t have pulled the thing and should have instead clearly stated that it was not intended to be factual. This is a concession to the real world, I think.

No, my point is that if it was clearly slanderous, the movie would never have gotten as far as it did – at a minimum, someone from CBS’s legal department would have said “We can’t produce this movie, we’d be an open target for a lawsuit.” The fact that no one at CBS stopped the movie suggests to me that they don’t think it is, which means the Slanderious-ness of “The Reagan” is an unresolved issue.

Let me rephrase, then: I care not a whit about whether it is legally slander or not. Indeed, I presume that it isn’t, for precisely the reasons you’ve just mentioned. However, given that CBS has decided to pull it, that they’ve said it is an unfair and unbalanced portrayal, and based also on the quotes which have made it into the public domain, it is unquestionably defamatory. Clear enough?

No, my position is "if it is uncertain whether or not it defames someone, then it is wrong to supress it because it might defame someone."

Does this not then permit defamatory statements which are untrue? Which is what I have been saying all along?

Wow, and people accuse liberals of being elitist? At least I’m willing to let the open marketplace of ideas be the final judge of how trustworthy/distrustful “The Reagans” is.

But here’s the thing: you and I don’t get to determine whether something is true or not. It is not up to you and Guin and Polycarp and the rest of the SDMB to determine whether the accusation that I molest small furry animals is trustworthy or not; either I molest them or I do not, and whether or not the accusation appears to be reliable is utterly beside the point.

[g8rguy]

Correction: the SDMB does get to determine that it deems an accusation trustworthy or not; it does not get to determine that the accusation is, in fact, true.

[Cheesesteak]

*Originally posted by rjung *
Laws are (generally) reactive – when the speed limit law says I cannot drive faster than 35 MPH, that doesn’t mean there’s a mystic force in my car that prevents me from stomping the gas pedal and doing 90. The only preventive aspect of the law is the threat of being caught/prosecuted/busted.

There’s also no magic force stopping a person from shooting into a crowd, doesn’t mean we should accept people doing it just because they’ll get life in prison. Neither should we accept slander just because a legal ‘remedy’ exists.

**I suspect that “The Reagans” (at least as originally intended) inhabits that grey area between slander and truth – e.g., some folks think it’s a hatchet-job, and some folks think it’s an accurate assessment. My problem remains with the fact that the first group pre-emptively blocked the movie, which means folks who disagree with them are not given a chance to form their own opinions. **

You may be right about it being in a grey area, though the clips I heard about would lead me to think more black than white. Either way, the ill will generated within the ‘hatchet-job’ group is likely to be pretty severe, and THAT is what CBS is most worried about.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

Yes, rjung, the Founders thought the proper remedy for bad speech wasn’t suppression, but more speech. However, that’s exactly what happened here.

CBS leaked excerpts of the script to certain people so they could review get them an indication of how the public would react. The excerpts eventually made it on to news programs and talk radio. The excerpts from the actual script – not idle speculation by conservatives – were what prompted the outpouring of protest from conservatives and Reagan supporters.

So despite your attempts to characterize the protest against the CBS docu-drama (or whatever) as “censorship,” they were nothing more than the “more speech” which you claim to advocate. Nobody got an injunction against the speech; they spoke out against the series as inaccurate and unfair. As pointed out by Shodan, CBS listened to the protests and came to the conclusion that the series “carried a liberal political agenda and treated the Reagans unfairly.” The fact that CBS decided their series was unfair and imbalanced does not amount to censorship; it merely shows that the “more speech” remedy works. According to CBS, the truth prevailed.

And Diogenes, if Reagan’s actions so clearly showed him to be an asshole, then why do you have to resort to putting words in his mouth to show that he’s an asshole? In fact, wouldn’t it be a more accurate portrayal of his Presidency to show him saying the right things, and doing the wrong ones?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
However, given that CBS has decided to pull it, that they’ve said it is an unfair and unbalanced portrayal, and based also on the quotes which have made it into the public domain, it is unquestionably defamatory. Clear enough?

Considering that CBS just went ten rounds with the GOP steamroller, I seriously doubt they’d come out and say “Yes, we’re pulling the movie because we got strong-armed into it.” And considering that the movie “does give Mr. Reagan most of the credit for ending the cold war and paints him as an exceptionally gifted politician and a moral man who stuck to his beliefs, often against his advisers’ urgings” (as reported by the New York Times), I think it’s hardly as one-sided as the critics have been saying.

Does this not then permit defamatory statements which are untrue? Which is what I have been saying all along?

No, because your position assumes the statements are defamatory, whereas my point is that we cannot judge that until after viewing the evidence.

the SDMB does get to determine that it deems an accusation trustworthy or not; it does not get to determine that the accusation is, in fact, true.

Well, with the SDMB, if someone were to accuse you of molesting small furry animals, a dozen Dopers would demand cites inside of ten minutes. Whether or not those cites are credible would then be used to determine if the accusation is true or not.

Similarly, if “The Reagans” made an outrageous claim against Ron or Nancy, we – meaning the populace – can look up the facts and determine if the accusations are true or not. Nitpicking over whether or not Ron actually said “they that live in sin shall die in sin” is to ignore the bigger picture, which is what the Reagan Administration did (or failed to do) in response to the AIDS crisis.

Originally posted by Age Quod Agis
So despite your attempts to characterize the protest against the CBS docu-drama (or whatever) as “censorship,” they were nothing more than the “more speech” which you claim to advocate. Nobody got an injunction against the speech; they spoke out against the series as inaccurate and unfair.

Sure, in the same way the mob boss is merely exercising his free speech rights when he walks into your new store and says, “Nice place you got here … would be a shame if something bad were to happen to it, knowwhutImean?” :dubious:

Let’s not forget that the RNC was trying to dictate terms to CBS on how to present the movie (including running a disclaimer every ten minutes, and having the movie pre-screened by a RNC-selected board of historians); I think the line separating “opposing speech” and “active interference” was crossed.

The fact that CBS decided their series was unfair and imbalanced does not amount to censorship; it merely shows that the “more speech” remedy works.

Considering that we, the “audience”, have just been prevented from hearing CBS’s side of the matter (in the form of actually watching the movie and drawing our own conclusions) and have only been given one side’s view of the issue, I’m amazed you can make this claim with a straight face.

[Muad_Dib]

Originally posted by rjung *
**IIRC, according to a book() on the backstage history of SNL, when Siinead did her bit in the pre-show rehearsal, producer Lorne Michaels warned her that tearing up the Pope’s picture would probably piss off a lot of people, and Sinead told him she’d tear up a piece of white paper instead. So apparently someone did know about her stunt beforehand, but didn’t outright censure her for it.
**

That is not true. Check out the “Saturday Night Live Uncensored” interview. They had no idea what she was going to do and were seriously pissed off that she had lied and tricked them.

[g8rguy]

*Originally posted by rjung *
Considering that CBS just went ten rounds with the GOP steamroller, I seriously doubt they’d come out and say “Yes, we’re pulling the movie because we got strong-armed into it.” And considering that the movie “does give Mr. Reagan most of the credit for ending the cold war and paints him as an exceptionally gifted politician and a moral man who stuck to his beliefs, often against his advisers’ urgings” (as reported by the New York Times), I think it’s hardly as one-sided as the critics have been saying.

Indeed, on the latter point; a qualified agreement on the first. Were I a news organization getting strongarmed, I’d probably publicize the strongarming. But perhaps I have more regard for truth and less for money than do the execs at CBS.

But of course saying a thousand nice things about someone fails to excuse your saying a single mean thing about him, unless what you say is, to the best of your ability to determine, true. Of course, telling nice lies about someone is also not a good thing, but telling defamatory lies about someone is worse.

No, because your position assumes the statements are defamatory, whereas my point is that we cannot judge that until after viewing the evidence.

I believe I see your confusion. I am not basing my position on the assumption of defamation at all; I am basing my position on the assumption that it is suspected to be defamation and not known not to be such. And if it is defamatory, your position would allow it to be broadcast anyway. Which is what I’ve been trying to say all along: your position permits defamatory and untrue things to be said, and my position prohibits defamatory and also untrue things. Whether this particular instance is one which I would prohibit and you would permit remains, of course, to be seen.

Well, with the SDMB, if someone were to accuse you of molesting small furry animals, a dozen Dopers would demand cites inside of ten minutes. Whether or not those cites are credible would then be used to determine if the accusation is true or not.

Nonsense! Whether those cites are credible would then be used to determine if the accusation is believable. But they don’t determine whether the accusation is true. Not all things which are one are the other; someone might for some nefarious purpose frame me, allowing, then, for credible cites. You may even choose to believe those cites. But you do not get to determine if I actually did anything; either I did or I didn’t, and your opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant in determining the actual truth of the accusation.

I say again: truth is not determined by consensus. If 99% of the people of the world decided that the earth was flat, it would not make it so. Why need I even argue this?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

rjung:
Sure, in the same way the mob boss is merely exercising his free speech rights when he walks into your new store and says, “Nice place you got here … would be a shame if something bad were to happen to it, knowwhutImean?”

You don’t believe any of the people that saw the program or read the script (including CBS), who said the program was unfair and imbalanced. And you don’t believe either CBS or the protesting groups, who say that the protesting groups didn’t intimidate CBS into passing the show off to another network. So what’s your basis for believing that the Republicans strong-armed or censored CBS? Do you have any basis for your conclusions other than idle speculation and an assumption that Republicans are jerks?

rjung:
I think the line separating “opposing speech” and “active interference” was crossed.

Why? Because the opposing speech was effective? Again, all that happened was that people opposing the show spoke out against it, and CBS ended up agreeing with the protestors.

rjung:
Considering that we, the “audience”, have just been prevented from hearing CBS’s side of the matter (in the form of actually watching the movie and drawing our own conclusions) and have only been given one side’s view of the issue, I’m amazed you can make this claim with a straight face.

And I’m amazed that you continue to call this censorship. As has been pointed out numerous times, the “audience” hasn’t been prevented from hearing anything. The movie has been shuttled off to Showtime (another Viacom subsidiary). Given the tremendous amount of publicity this thing has received, I feel fairly confident that it will air there. In other words, nothing has been censored.

Second, where are you getting your assertion that we’ve “only been given one side’s view of the issue”? From the fact that everyone that’s seen the program seems to agree that the program is unfair and imbalanced? In fact, the articles cite numerous people (including Barbra “Republicans Are Evil, But My Voice Is Eviller” Streisand) arguing that the program was fine, or was simply using poetic license, or whatever. In fact, you’re obviously getting a little loose with the truth yourself, since you also said:

that the movie “does give Mr. Reagan most of the credit for ending the cold war and paints him as an exceptionally gifted politician and a moral man who stuck to his beliefs, often against his advisers’ urgings” (as reported by the New York Times)

Regardless, the mere fact that the show isn’t airing on CBS does not mean it was censored. Any 8th grader armed with a dictionary could tell you that the show was not censored because it will probably air on another network. Plus, CBS decided not to air the show. Self-censorship is something that should be encouraged. While we’re all free to say just about anything we want, that doesn’t mean that we should.

I find it hard to believe that you think CBS should air a program that they think is not fair or balanced. You’ve certainly called people on these boards for posting things that are clearly false or mischaracterize the evidence. You’ve certainly attacked Fox for broadcasting programs that you think are unfair or imbalanced. Why should CBS be held to a lower standard?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
I am not basing my position on the assumption of defamation at all; I am basing my position on the assumption that it is suspected to be defamation and not known not to be such. And if it is defamatory, your position would allow it to be broadcast anyway.

You are not allowing for grades of defamation – an item that has a 2% chance of being defamatory is treated equally as an item that has a 98% chance of being defamatory, according to your description.

My position is that the existing setup of laws and corrections already prevent the blatant examples of defamation to take place, while allowing for the fuzzier examples to come forth. And IMO, that’s part of having a free and open society, that people can say things which might be unflattering to others. Unpleasant ideas ought to be countered with opposing views, not with threats to muzzle the speaker before he has a chance to speak.

I say again: truth is not determined by consensus.

Yes, but in the absence of definite proof, truth is determined by consensus, such as Occam’s Razor and probable cause – and that requires seeing – and judging – from all of the evidence available.

We can definitely prove the Earth is not flat; we can’t definitely prove whether or not Ronald Reagan was a homophobe, so we must work with fuzzier bits of evidence, such as his health-care policies in the '80s. Just because the result is one that the RNC doesn’t care for doesn’t mean “The Reagans” gets to be tarred as a “hatchet job.”

[g8rguy]

*Originally posted by rjung *
You are not allowing for grades of defamation – an item that has a 2% chance of being defamatory is treated equally as an item that has a 98% chance of being defamatory, according to your description.

Almost; I have no problem with saying something which has a chance of being both defamatory and false as long as I am quite willing to admit up front that what one is saying may well be false. Run around all you want saying that Ronnie Raygun may have had sexual relations with an orangutan in his youth, as long as you ALSO run around saying at the same time that you could just be making this up. Do not run around saying that Ronnie Raygun had sexual relations with an orangutan in his youth without saying that you might be making this up, unless you have credible proof that your accusation is true.

And IMO, that’s part of having a free and open society, that people can say things which might be unflattering to others. Unpleasant ideas ought to be countered with opposing views, not with threats to muzzle the speaker before he has a chance to speak.

You are welcome to say things which might be unflattering to me. You are, in fact, welcome to say things which ARE unflattering to me. You are not welcome to say things which are both unflattering to me and false. And if you can’t prove that the unflattering accusation is credible, keep it to yourself.

Yes, but in the absence of definite proof, truth is determined by consensus, such as Occam’s Razor and probable cause – and that requires seeing – and judging – from all of the evidence available.

This is astonishing to me. I must have old and outdated notions of truth, apparently.

Look, let me take another example, one for which we cannot provide definite proof. The universe is, according to current theory, either positively curved, negatively curved, or flat. We can provide no definite proof as to which it is. A survey of all qualified scientists will reveal some consensus based on the best and most credible evidence. And you know what? That consensus may well be wrong.

We can take every human being on the entire planet and ask them if they believe George Bush is a drooling idiot. A consensus to the positive would undoubtedly emerge. This does not mean he IS a drooling idiot, just that we think he is.

We can take every person on the boards and ask if december was a homophobe. A consensus on the issue will emerge, one way or the other. This in no way means that the consensus will be accurate.

We are all free to use the available data to determine what we believe is the truth about any particular issue; we are never free to declare that our belief on that issue is correct by fiat.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
You are welcome to say things which might be unflattering to me. You are, in fact, welcome to say things which ARE unflattering to me. You are not welcome to say things which are both unflattering to me and false. And if you can’t prove that the unflattering accusation is credible, keep it to yourself.

And if I want to say things that are unflattering to you that I believe are true (“g84guy secretly wants to be J Lo’s love slave!”), then what? Must I double-check my words with you before being allowed to speak? No one I know lives that way, and I’d wager you don’t, either.

We are all free to use the available data to determine what we believe is the truth about any particular issue; we are never free to declare that our belief on that issue is correct by fiat.

Yet isn’t that what the RNC was doing when they protested the movie?

In any event… the following quote comes from another person on another web site. I wish I had written it:

The bottom line is:

CBS produced a dramatization about Reagan that (gasp!) portrayed some aspects of his presidency negatively. Instead of confronting it with positive things about Reagan, they attacked the show’s sponsors. O’Reilly even made some not-so-thinly veiled threats that “the people” would make CBS “pay” for their crime against St. Ron. Their goal was prevent “the people” from being able to see it make up their own mind about it.

That is wrong. It is wrong for this movie and it was wrong when people tried to stop showings of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” or the “The Last Temptation of Christ.” It’s not only wrong but it’s insulting. O’Reilly and his ilk are telling me that I’m too stupid to able to see what is fact and what is sensationalized fiction. They will decide what is fit for me to view because only they understand the “truth” of the Reagan legacy.

[g8rguy]

*Originally posted by rjung *
And if I want to say things that are unflattering to you that I believe are true (“g84guy secretly wants to be J Lo’s love slave!”), then what? Must I double-check my words with you before being allowed to speak? No one I know lives that way, and I’d wager you don’t, either.

You would wager correctly. Of course, the key is that you believe what you say to be true, that you are willing to admit you might be incorrect in your belief, and that you have credible evidence to support said belief. If you can’t satisfy all three criteria, then shush about my secret lusts, will ya?

Yet isn’t that what the RNC was doing when they protested the movie?

So an ungenerous interpretation would say, yes. A more generous interpretation would be to say that it made statements which were defamatory (witness the script releases) and which were admittedly fictitious. Even the RNC, you’ll recall, was quite happy to stop protesting if CBS was willing to proclaim that the account was fictionalized.

Regarding the quote from another website: I think you’ve done a thoroughly adequate job of expressing your opinion, in fact. If I’ve done a remotely reasonable job of expressing mine, it should come as no surprise that I disagree just as much with the bloke on the other website as I do with you.

By the way: I am going to be leaving town tomorrow morning, and probably won’t be able to post until I get back on Tuesday night, if I don’t respond to any of your rebuttals, understand that I’m not blowing you off. I wouldn’t do that because I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this exchange.

[elucidator]

Hey, kids! I know! My uncle has an old barn, we can build some sets, sew some costumes, and put on our own Reagan mockumentary!

Here a scene we can leak…

(Sunday morning, Oval Office. RR is seated, engrossed in the TV Guide crossword. Nancy appears, stage right,…)

Nancy: Perhaps we might go to church this morning, dear.

RR: Aw, Mommy, you know I never go to church. Not after I filmed those scenes of the concentration camps…

Nancy: (vexed, but patient) Try to remember, dear. You never left California in WWII.

RR: Weren’t we together on that aircraft carrier? Fighting the Japs?

Nancy: Thats the Japanese, dear. No, we weren’t.

RR: Yes, we were! Thats when I went down with that doomed belly gunner in the bomber, I remember, I said “We’ll take this ride together, son”… Maybe it was Jane Wymann…

Nancy: Never heard of her.

RR: (suddenly animated) You know, I had a great idea. We got those eggheads working on our Death Ray, say they only need a few more billion. We could put a mirror on the moon and reflect it back wherever we want!"

(Nancy is overcome by his brilliance, and begins to pant feverishly, tearing away her clothes from her lithe and supple body…)

Nancy: Take me, Ronnie! Take me like I was Grenada!

Maybe this will lead to a big time career in media! Lots of dough, expensive liquor, expensive drugs, and hot young women who don’t call me “sir”!

[rjung]

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
A more generous interpretation would be to say that it made statements which were defamatory (witness the script releases) and which were admittedly fictitious.

The specific quotes may be fictitious, but if the overall attitude is correct (a point which is debatable), then that’s certainly within the realm of “creative license.” After all, Humphrey Bogart never said “Play it again, Sam,” either.

As for the script releases, let’s remember that we are still talking about excerpts from the script, reported by Reagan’s defenders. The idea that those bits are a representative example of the work as a whole is dubious at best, especially since said defenders have a vested interest in casting the movie in the worst light possible. And again, according to the New York Times (see earlier message), the movie apparently does portray Reagan positively in several areas.

Even the RNC, you’ll recall, was quite happy to stop protesting if CBS was willing to proclaim that the account was fictionalized.

Yes, but every ten minutes? And would CBS have to submit their disclaimer to the RNC before they receive a blessing? :dubious:

[jayjay]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**(Nancy is overcome by his brilliance, and begins to pant feverishly, tearing away her clothes from her lithe and supple body…)

Nancy: Take me, Ronnie! Take me like I was Grenada!
**

This? Was gratuitous, uncalled-for, and will haunt me in the quiet places of my mind for months.

goes to wash out his cranium with bleach

[g8rguy]

*Originally posted by rjung *
The specific quotes may be fictitious, but if the overall attitude is correct (a point which is debatable), then that’s certainly within the realm of "creative license."

Sure. Yet… maybe I’m just an idiot with no sense for the artistic, but surely there must be things he actually did say that could have been used instead? I mean, if there’s credible evidence to think that I molest small furry animals in my frustrated longing to be J Lo’s loveslave, there’s just got to be something nice and juicy that I actually did or said. Even if it wasn’t “oh, Jennifer sob, how I love thee, wherefore hast thou abandoned me? Oh well, I guess it’s just you and me, Fluffy. insert sound of cat yowling to the backdrop of rising hysterical laughter”

The idea that those bits are a representative example of the work as a whole is dubious at best, especially since said defenders have a vested interest in casting the movie in the worst light possible. And again, according to the New York Times (see earlier message), the movie apparently does portray Reagan positively in several areas.

So 'twould appear. Which is also wrong (the truth being kind of an important thing, and in great danger of being lost these days), if not as wrong. Truth to be told, I highly doubt that the excerpts are representative; I’m going to take a flier and say that I’d lay odds that most of the portrayal is unobjectionable. Although I have no way of proving that.

**Yes, but every ten minutes? And would CBS have to submit their disclaimer to the RNC before they receive a blessing? :dubious: **

shrugs There, you run into editorial policy or some such. I certainly wouldn’t say you should submit a disclaimer to the RNC, but who listens to me anyway? As far as every ten minutes goes, I’m not sure why you’d want to do that. Maybe when you have major commercial breaks or something (on the hour, say?). Or maybe just at the beginning; I’m not worried too much about the mechanics of how you’d do such a thing.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
Yet… maybe I’m just an idiot with no sense for the artistic, but surely there must be things he actually did say that could have been used instead?

Maybe, but are there any suitable quotes that Reagan actually said at the time/location/environment desired by the scriptwriter? For example, if I’m the writer and I’m trying to convey a private bedroom conversation between Ron and Nancy, I probably can’t use a quote from a speech Ron gave six months later before 5,000 donors (and I’m sure the RNC would complain about that, as well ). We’re not talking about merely gathering a bunch of quotes and stringing them together for 4 hours, after all.

I’m going to take a flier and say that I’d lay odds that most of the portrayal is unobjectionable. Although I have no way of proving that.

Well, if CBS would air the darn thing, then we could prove it one way or another…

As far as every ten minutes goes, I’m not sure why you’d want to do that.

I don’t either, but that’s what the RNC wanted. Maybe the Republican leadership figures the Reagan-lovin’ folks who would watch “The Reagans” are so feeble-minded that you have to repeatedly remind them that it’s a dramatization, and not a documentary…

[John_Mace]

rjung wrote:
Well, if CBS would air the darn thing, then we could prove it one way or another…

It’s all an evil plot by CBS and the RNC to get you to subscribe to SHOWTIME in order to watch it.

I’m sure there will be a nice juicy thread started about the program as soon as it airs on that channel. THen we’ll have a better perpesctive from which to argue. It’ll be interesting to see if the “lives by sins…” quote survives in the SHOWTIME version.

[jayjay]

Originally posted by rjung:
I don’t either, but that’s what the RNC wanted. Maybe the Republican leadership figures the Reagan-lovin’ folks who would watch “The Reagans” are so feeble-minded that you have to repeatedly remind them that it’s a dramatization, and not a documentary…

Maybe they don’t want Reagan to accidentally catch it and become convinced that it’s the way things actually happened?

[Typo_Negative]

We should all remember that in TV-speak, ‘based on true events’ means ‘we got some of the name right’.