Expect a wave of censorship hysteria from the left wing of the blogosphere today because CBS is cancelling the miniseries the Reagans.
Under pressure from Republican and conservative groups, CBS is expected to announce as early as today that it is canceling its plans to run a two-part mini-series in November deconstructing the Ronald Reagan presidency, two people close to the decision said last night.
They said the film would most likely instead be handed over to CBS’s pay-cable sibling, Showtime.
The announcement would perhaps the first time a major broadcast network has ever removed a completed project from its schedule because of political pressure and under the threat of an advertising boycott.
Not sure how this is censorship or any different to the successful attempts to get rid of Dr. Laura and that other idiot (whose name escapes me at the moment).
At any rate, everything I read about it seemed like they were just flat out making shit up about the Reagans, so I am not sure what the point was. Of course it was a fictionalized portrayal of the Reagans, but you would think there would be enough actual stuff to fill the miniseries without just creating stuff. And besides, having Streisand’s husband play Reagan was just idiotic. How would Democrats feel if Grover Norquist’s wife was portraying Hillary Clinton in a miniseries rife with factual error and derisive innuendo. I daresay they might object.
*** Update ***
The idiot I was thinking of was Michael Savage.
*** Update #2 ***
Patti Davis discusses some of the lies and outright fabrications.
JKC
John-
Color me agnostic about the Reagan miniseries, since I haven’t seen it and didn’t read the script. (That the same is probably true of most of the conservatives with their knickers in a twist is another subject.)
But the idea that James Brolin (Mr Streisand) shouldn’t be allowed to work* because of who he’s married to… I can’t decide if that’s just silly or a bit Saddam-ish.
*News Flash for some readers: An acting gig is a job… just like a temp contract with Microsoft, GE, or a government agency. Do we really want a person’s political affiliation to be used against them when they’re seeking employment?
greg
JKC,
Nobody said he shouldn’t be allowed to work. I think the point is just that having the spouse of perhaps Hollywood’s most prominent liberal doesn’t do a lot for the credibility of a movie that many people felt didn’t have any in the first place.
And to use a different example than John did, supposed Dennis Miller’s wife was tapped to play Hillary. Would that make SOME on the left a bit uneasy? And Miller isn’t anywhere near as conservative as Streisand is liberal.
I personally couldn’t care less and think this whole controversy is waaaaay overdone in the first place, since I wasn’t gonna watch it whether it presented Reagan as an angel or the devil.
But the point is, nothing is being “censored”. People exercised their right to write CBS and threaten a boycott of the advertisers. If CBS got cold feet, that’s on them.
bg
I agree with greg – this isn’t censorship. Expect numerous conservative commentators to tell their readers to expect claims of censorship from the left.
M. Scott Eiland
“But the point is, nothing is being “censored”. People exercised their right to write CBS and threaten a boycott of the advertisers. If CBS got cold feet, that’s on them.”
Besides, I’m sure the makers of the miniseries will make it available on VHS and DVD for moonbats and the French for those lonely evenings when regular porn just won’t do the job. . .]:-)
*Scott wanders away in full gloat*
JKC
Scott, I can’t imagine the Reagans having ever done anything remotely pornographic (at least in the erotic sense.) The French ain’t gonna watch this when they’ve got Jerry Lewis’s body of work to enjoy, anyhow.
As I said before, I’m not entitled to an opinion on the merits of the project, not having seen the film or read the script. The same is true of you, Scott.
Kimmitt
This isn’t government censorship. It is, however, horrifying.
John Cole
What is horrifying about it? The people producing ‘The Reagans’ are notthe only ones with the right to free speech, yu know.
David Perron
CBS cancels historically inaccurate, poorly scripted portrayal of an ex-President. The horror…the horror.
Kimmitt
It’s horrifying because it’s the echo chamber — “Don’t show anything that we don’t agree with, independently of its truth value.”
I get the idea of boycotts of long-running shows that people have issues with. And if it turns out that they really did just “make stuff up,” I’ll be mollified. But at first blush, this looks like people being upset that a profile of their favored historical figure is non-hagiographic, and in that direction lies yet further degredation of the national discourse.
John Cole
Kimmitt- It was a six hour miniseries (I think) in which every conversation between Ronald and Nancy Reagan was created, because according wo reliable sources (Nancy and Michael Reagan), neither was EVER contacted about the movie.
In other words, they flat out made shit up. I understand the need for dramatic license- how the hell are they supposed to create the dialogue between the two to fill this lengthy movie. However, I understand that I would have at least asked one of the two parties above to see if the fabricated dialogue was even plausible. In this case, both Nancy and Michael claim it was nonsense, and ever close friend of Ronald and Nancy is screaming that this was a hit job. Is that enough to mollify you?
JKC
John-
I for one will lose no sleep over the torpedoing of “The Reagans.” One has to wonder, however, where all the conservative umbrage over the “fabricated dialogue” in the recent 9/11 movie. (Confession: I didn’t watch it, so this is conjecture.)
HH
Of course with that movie, the people involved were contacted. Not really the same.
David Perron
Ah, boycotts are ok once the product is on the market?
What a marvelously convenient moral construct. Completely undefended by logic, though.
I wasn’t aware that network miniseries fell under the protection of “national discourse”; I’ll try to keep that in mind in the future.
JFTR, I don’t do boycotts, and I don’t agree with them in general. Still, no boycott actually took place. And, given that the target audience was certainly liberals, it’s not clear what effect (if any) a boycott might have had. But alas, it’s too late. You’re going to have to have Showtime to see this one.