Nicklas Johnson · morons.org - "Liberal" Media Banishes Reagan Docudrama

Editorial: "Liberal" Media Banishes Reagan Docudrama

Please Support our Featured Partners!

YouHaveBO.com: The Internet's Premier Anonymous BO Notification Service
Overheard in SF: Heard inbetween the rabbit squeezing and the carrot munching
Want Your Link Here?: Find out how to get free advertising with our partnership program!

Responding to demands from the far-right, CBS won't be showing a docudrama about the Reagans, clearly because of a "liberal" media bias...
Posted by spatula on Nov. 10, 2003 05:29 UTC
33 comments from readers. Join the discussion!

This controversy must have broken out while I was out of the country. As best I can tell, CBS had produced a "docudrama" about the Reagans unimaginatively called The Reagans. They had the gall to attempt to make it somewhat historically accurate, which of course meant stirring up a bunch of things the far-right wish would have just stayed settled to the bottom. Things like letting AIDS go unmentioned for six years until it started killing heterosexuals. Things like Iran Contra (which incidentally means things like arming Iraq). Things which spoilt the image of Reagan that the right wing would prefer to remember: the greatest leader the world has ever known, incapable of doing any wrong and exempt from any criticism.

But let's make one thing absolutely clear: nobody in this country is exempt from criticism. No matter how rich or powerful or respected by many, our country was founded on the notion (among others) that nobody is beyond reproach and we all have the same right to criticize and the same vulnerability to criticism. Freedom works like that.

Unless, it seems, you're the Reagans. See, the far right has set Reagan up among the gods, and any attempt to suggest that he may have been a human being who did in fact make mistakes must be met with a modern-day march of Jericho. That's why "liberal media" outlet CBS won't be showing the documentary in response to pressure from the right. And the reason why isn't terribly hard to understand.

CBS's parent company, Viacom, naturally wants to expand its empire. To do that, it needs the proprosed relaxation of FCC rules to go through so that it can acquire more media outlets in each market. For that to happen, it needs the support of Republicans in the government...

...and that means no Reagan docudrama aired on CBS which might offend the far-right. Aren't you glad that "liberal media" is looking out for your interests?

---Nick

Find similar articles

You must wait 7 minutes, 30 seconds before posting is permitted (59 seconds remain).

Posted by dockboy from Atlanta, GA on Nov. 10, 2003 05:40

From what I've read, the movie was far more inaccurate than you describe here. He was presented as a violent man throughout the movie. He is portrayed as having Altheimer's as early as '84. The list goes on.

Reagan is not above criticism, noone has said that. But the portrayal of Reagan in this movie wasn't close to being historically accurate.

Also, keep in mind that the advertisers who would normally sponsor this movie dropped it because they didn't want to be associated with the 'docu' drama. If advertisers aren't going to pay, CBS would have to run the movie with no revenues. Consumers killed this movie, not sensorship.

spatula: Since when has historical inaccuracy kept a docudrama off the air? And how can...

dockboy: The issue goes deeper than mere inaccuracies. The movie contained blatant lies....

GKar: for an intelligent commentary on the controversy, check this out:...

Kat o Nine Tales: The series being moved to a Viacom cable subsidiary would seem to contradict...

Robguy: Were you an adult during his second term? I think it was fairly obvious that he...

Posted by dockboy from Atlanta, GA on Nov. 10, 2003 05:42

I will say this. It's doubtful CBS intended to portray as a bumbling idiot. James Brolin can't help but portray anyone like that. He's not acting.

Posted by Aqua Marine on Nov. 10, 2003 06:20

They've been talking about this on BuzzFlash for the last week. I heard that some movie channel (Showtime I think) picked it up.

Posted by peter from Chicago on Nov. 10, 2003 06:45

I am not particularly in favor of "docudrama" anyway -- especially not with recent events. The only way to make real life play as drama is to screw with the details for dramatic effect. And then the revisions play as history. If you want to do a documentary, do one. If you want to blatantly rewrite history, make it thinly disguised "fiction" like "Primary Colors." But don't make stuff up and call it history.

Want to bet the miniseries had the standard disclaimer at the end that "any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is coincidental"?

Kat o Nine Tales: I note the "especially recent," but you don't exempt older history; how do you...

Posted by BluJayLax from Columbia, MD on Nov. 10, 2003 06:48

1st point - I'm glad its gone. Not that I would have watched it, but mindless drivel like that shouldn't be on the air in the 1st place.

Point B - You are of course right. Anything that shows our glorious leader, his father, or his grandfather (come on, we all no those repelicans feel that Reagan is Dubya's adopted granddaddy) as anything but perfect leaders and winners of freedom, peace, and liberty isn't the truth, it's the liberal media going out and bashing people for ratings.

TOokie ToOkie

BJL! 7-9 IHF

dockboy: I'm not sure who you've talked to, but most Reaganites don't elevate Bush to...

splorp!: I remember Bush Sr talking about Reagan's "Voodoo Economics". I thought it was...

dockboy: I was 17

Posted by Pansy Bedwetter on Nov. 10, 2003 07:01

"And the Band Played On" effectively smashed any misconceptions that I had about the Reagan presidency and was a terrific movie. As a younger person at the time, I didn't realize what was going on in the 80s and just kinda bought in to the hype. This was a great, historically accurate movie that showed to me just what the Reagan administration was all about. I'd recommend it for viewing by anyone here. It doesn't directly attack the Reagan administraion but rather shows the results of the policies and beliefs of that presidency and the impact that they had as AIDS came to light.

It's pretty tragic and may hit really close to home with the audience here but it really is a great movie.

Posted by AngelsAreGay from Miami on Nov. 10, 2003 08:17

That movie was great..ahh for a simpler time when AIDS was the less hetero-friendly GRIDS or Gay-Cancer but really ronnie was a great guy keepin those guns away from blacks and giving guns to those that would be our enemies..what a saint

Posted by gr00vey on Nov. 10, 2003 09:39

So is there any truth that he was the first to make LSD illegal, on october 6, 1966, as Governor of california?

dockboy: No, the British were the first to make it illegal. Bad, evil Brits!

Posted by VTMechEngr from Va Appalachian Mountains on Nov. 10, 2003 09:52

Ah Reagan, remind me again who was in office from 1981-1989 and gave iraq weapons, Iran weapons, Finded the conta terrorists so they could fight for "freedom" while chopping womens breasts off and bashing there babies on rocks. And ofcourse, we all can't forget the kicker: His admin supplied Osama bin Laden with weapons and organizational training. That training really worked well on 9/11. May satan be able to stoke the fire of hell hot enough for yah ronnie ray-gun.

dockboy: Historians tell us Carter's administration was the first to arm Iraq. This was...

Joseph V. Djugashvili: Ask Carter about East Timor...

VTMechEngr: But reagan sold weapons to both sides, even though Iran was our enemy. Most...

Posted by Chickenhead on Nov. 10, 2003 10:12

Well of course they had to censor it! They wouldn't want to make Peggy Noonan and her magic Elian-saving God-fearing dolphins CRY now would they? SHOCKED! SHOCKED I AM!

I don't care whether this "docudrama" was historically accurate or not. The point is, they had no problem airing propaganda like "DC-9/11" did they? I didn't see "liberals" lined up trying to prevent it from being aired. (I caught about five minutes of this abomination...it was enough for me to want to brick my TV. Instead, I just changed the channel.)

I have a lot of problems with these "made for TV movies" that are coming out based on stuff that is barely a year old. DC-9/11 is a great example-- Dubya's place in history has not even been put in PRINT yet and already they are making so-called "documentaries" about it? That's not a documentary--that's propaganda. Same for the Jessica Lynch "story". The facts are not even close to being known on that particular one, and already they're making a TV movie out of it (even with Jessica coming out and saying they propagandized her suffering).

Douglas Adams was right--we aren't homo-sapiens, we're the descendants of Golgafrinchins, who spent their time making documentaries about each other.

TransgressingBinaries: No, the Golgafrinchans died! Remember how homo sapiens had 42 in thier...

Julie D: Chickenhead had it right the first time. It's never properly explained, but...

DoctorMelkor: This has nothing to do with the subject, but are you quoting Oliver Wendell...

DoctorMelkor: Sorry, I "mutually."

DoctorMelkor: Never mind...I can't write this early on a Monday.

Posted by kemosabe on Nov. 10, 2003 10:59

"See, the far right has set Reagan up among the gods"

There's other gods besides the Reagans?

Blasphemer!/sarcasm

kemosabe

Posted by dockboy from Atlanta, GA on Nov. 11, 2003 05:55

CBS now states they did not cave in to pressure from Reagan supporters, and that anyone saying so is a liar. They probably mean Barbra Streisand, first and foremost.

spatula: Corporations say a lot of things that aren't true.

dockboy: I was being sarcastic. Of course they won't admit succombing to pressure.

Posted by ESD from Laurel, MD on Nov. 11, 2003 15:49

Screw that-I wanna know about Regan's life when he was a young, strapping movie star, not when he was an old, wrinkled, brain-disease-addled politician.