It is particularly enlightening to read Washington Post’s take on the Regan biopic supposed to be aired on CBS, but might not be due to the controversy surrounding it.
‘The Reagans’: Too Hot for CBS to Handle? (washingtonpost.com)
Take a look at this snippet for instance -Though no one at the RNC had seen “The Reagans,” the letter insisted that either a panel of Reagan pals and historians screen the project before broadcast for “historical accuracy” or the network run a disclaimer crawl at the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the movie, advising viewers that “the program is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans and the Reagan Presidency, and they should not consider it to be historically accurate… .So, the RNC wants the project to be whetted by a panel consisting of historians - why should the words “historical accuracy” be enclosed in scare quotes? Why shouldn’t “Reagan’s pals” be afraid of inaccuracies, considering that James Brolin (playing Reagan) is Barbara Streisand’s husband and an admitted liberal as is Judy Davis (playing Nancy Reagan), who actually said patriotism is an awful thing? The producers of the show are also admitted liberals. Would Clinton’s people keep quiet if CBS aired a supposed biopic about him produced by Rush Limbaugh? And then, take a look at this -
“If your series contains omissions, exaggerations, distortions or scenes that are fiction masquerading as fact, the American people may come away with a misunderstanding of the Reagans and the Reagan Administrations,” the letter said ominously.Excuse me, but what was ominous about the above words? Is someone threatening to beat up CBS in some kind of code I cannot seem to fathom?
Some reporters watching the CBS party taking place below marveled that the Republicans hadn’t jumped on the Reagan project a long time ago.Umm…I dunno, maybe because they are really not the overly sensitive types as you guys are trying to portray them to be and needed that leaked script that contained outright fabrications to actually rile them up?
So, there it is - the RNC is really this big, bad mafia sending out “ominous” letters and registering websites called “supportreagan.org” and selling videos on the website. I get the feeling I am somehow supposed to get a sense of dissent-crushing from that article, but personally, I leave it wondering at the bone-headedness to refuse reality of some writers.
Posted by shanti at November 4, 2003 9:56 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2952
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That liberal media!:
? CBS CANCELS REAGAN BIO-PIC from niraj
No one is more spineless than a television executive who runs at the slightest hint of controversy. How else to... [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2003 11:53 AM
How come there was none of this hue and cry about Nixon (“All the President’s Men”) or JFK — surely there’ve been far more TV shows and movies made about these two Presidents
Can someone enlighten me?
BTW, I’m just a humble green card FOB and have no political affiliations. At least, not yet.
Posted by: Prashant P Kothari at November 4, 2003 2:13 PM
Prashant, I think pretty much both parties agree that Nixon was a crook, while JFK conspiracies only serve to make the “opposition party” look bad, so the Democrats won’t complain much.
As for Reagan, I think his suffering from Alzheimers’ right now is another thing that adds to the sympathy factor and makes people come on strongly against any perceived maligning.
Posted by: Shanti at November 4, 2003 2:32 PM