http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/index.html "NEW YORK (AP) -- Following a storm of protest and threatened advertiser boycott, CBS announced Tuesday it was pulling "The Reagans" miniseries off the air." In related news: http://www.medialens.org/articles_2001/dc_propaganda_model.html "The fourth filter is 'flak', described by Herman and Chomsky as 'negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, law-suits, speeches and Bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action'. Business organisations regularly come together to form flak machines. Perhaps one of the most well-known of these is the US-based Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - comprising fossil fuel and automobile companies such as Exxon, Texaco and Ford. The GCC was started up by Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations companies, to rubbish the credibility of climate scientists and 'scare stories' about global warming (see Chapter 4). In her 1997 book Global Spin, Sharon Beder documented at great length the operations of corporations and their hired PR firms in establishing grassroots 'front movements' to counter the gains made by environmentalists. One such coalition, the Foundation for Clean Air Progress, is 'in reality a front for transportation, energy, manufacturing and agricultural groups'. The Foundation was established to challenge the US Clean Air Act by 'educating' the public about the progress made in air quality over the previous twenty-five years. As Beder notes, the Foundation's 'focus is on individual responsibility for pollution, as opposed to the regulation of industry to achieve further improvements.' The threat - real or imagined - of law-suits can be a powerful deterrent to media investigation. In the UK, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell notes that, 'Britain's archaic libel laws prevent much of the real truth about the destructive nature of many of [the] UK's leading companies from ever being published or broadcast. Very few people within the media will take on the likes of Shell, BP or [mining company] RTZ'."
They say that they've optioned it to Showtime, so it's not totally dead. Then again, being on Showtime is as close to dead as you can get. Nobody outside of the network has seen the finished product, so like the furor about "The Passion", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "Monty Python's Life Of Brian", and countless other religious-themed films, there's a certain amount of ignorance here that should be embarrassing for the people protesting it. I do like the idea of running shows with disclaimers across the bottom that says it's fiction. Can we get that running across the bottom of Fox News?
"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement. As a broadcast network, CBS has different standards than a pay cable network, CBS said. I don't know where to begin there are so many inherently contradictory and asine statements in this paragraph. So what exactly are the different standards between broadcast and cable? It seems to me from the quality of original programming coming out of cable networks like HBO and Showtime that the standards are in fact much much higher. Also what is their judgement a "balanced portrayal" for "CBS and it's audience". Does that mean Showtime's audience deserves an unbalanced portrayal? Additionally if there are sources to back up every scene how then is it "unbalanced"? They admit that the content is factually correct. So it must be that the production value is limited? Nope they praise that. Unbelievable. Stunning example of self-censorship as driven by the right-wing flak machine.
Well I was just going by exactly what CBS said in their release which is that they "producers have sources to verify each scene in the script". If Reagan never said that (which given his Admin. attitude toward the AIDS epidemic in the '80s makes me think that he did say that but that's just conjecture on my part) then they have a legitmate beef. But when the GOP chairman is bullying CBS execs I think we have a problem dont you?
Funny, last time I checked, TV movies of the week were fictional. It's not like they're airing this on the History Channel. (Which does, come to think of it, often show historical fiction films).
I think the movie 'Evita' should never have run. It is factually incorrect. I know the facts are wrong. While it is true that Argentines tend to sing and dance more than Americans, it is an absolute falsehood that our political figures sing their speeches to their audience.
bah! you're full of crap. we all know argentinian leaders only communicate through singing in English.
Loney is just sore that Reagan gets to live in Santa Barbara while he has to fight the scorpions in Palmdale
It's not the same, but the message is pretty clear. According to Reagan's authorized biographer, "Dutch" author Edmund Morris, what Reagan actually said about AIDS was that "maybe the Lord brought down this plague" because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60101-2003Nov3_2.html
How about the same disclaimer for Al Jazeera? (The "Death to Satan" network) The BBC? ("Our motto: We'll elevate the importance of anyone whose 'knowledge' fits the ideololgical axe we're grinding). The New York Times? ("All the made-up stuff that's fit to print"). Really, the least we can do is be consistent.
Look, let's get real here. Five will get you ten that there are three reasons, all interrelated, this show is being cancelled, in reverse order of importance. 1. The portrait it paints of RR is so unflattering that CBS will alienate its very small audience of older middle Americans (and let me tell you, it has needs every single one of them happy). 2. Advertisers are VERY reluctant to alienate the purchasers of their products. 3. The movie is really REALLY bad. Number 3, I bet, is the overriding reason. In fact, I bet it is SUCH a stinker, probably equivalent to the Gigli or Ishtar of biopics, that whatever "credibility" it may or may not have as an historical perspective would be completely laid to waste once you watched it and rolled your eyes is disbelief, over and over and over again.
What they should do for Fox is just have a crawl regarding the study proving watching FoxNews makes you stupid.
Not that I particularily care about the NYT, but I do read its online edition regularily, (amongst other papers), so... Do you mind pointing out for me what you know is made-up in today's edition? I'm not that clever, I just can't see it.. http://www.nytimes.com/
Which network showed the Bush propaganda film about 9/11? IMO I don't think it's right to make docu-drama's about historical figures who are still alive, no matter what vegetative state they may be in. (I'm talking about Bush here, not Reagan )
"baited"? Why? You wrote "The New York Times? ("All the made-up stuff that's fit to print")" I'm only asking you to point out to what you know is made-up. Could be that my poor understanding of the English language prevents me from reading between the lines.
How about this "Saving Private Lynch" movie that is coming out next week on NBC I think? I saw a trailer for it and they showed this Iraqi slapping her around. How many liberties with the truth in that one? Think Mr. Gillespie is going to mew about that?
Fish, Jayson Blair got fired from the New York Times for getting caught at doing what everyone at Fox News does every hour of every day - making up stories. Actually, the New York Times also made up the Whitewater stories in the 1990's...I guess because they're a liberal rag, or something.
New controversy! Now that CBS canned the Reagan movie, they decided to use that time slot to show a movie about Bill Clinton. Critics are saying that the movie is biased. They point out that the script was written by radio show host Rush Limbaugh, and they object to the fact that conservative author Ann Coulter plays the part of Hillary Clinton. They also object to a scene in which Clinton tells Monica Lewinsky: 'You know, I was always for sending gays to the military. In fact, they should all go into the military. I wish my lesbo wife would go into the military, so you and I could spend more time together playing with that cigar.' To which Monica responds: 'Aaaaaaaaahhh, yes'. Sources close to Bill Clinton assert that such an exchange never took place, and that it is part of the right wing conspiracy to defame the former president.