[Y3a]

Been to her web site? Seen her diatribe about the failed Reagan Bashing flic? How can it be censorship? The government is the only entity that can be guilty of censorship, and the government was NOT involved.

You have a right to speek freely. You DO NOT have the right to be heard. A public outcry is NOT censorship.

She has more mis-information than you would think possble!

A poorly educated singer is all she is.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Y3a:
The government is the only entity that can be guilty of censorship, and the government was NOT involved.

Seriously? The government is the only entity that can be guilty of censorship? I'll let you rephrase that. Say I write a piece about the Iraq war for the Washington Post and it is heavily edited, removing all the bad stuff. Was I censored?

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

I agree, this Reagan/CBS thing may not be censorship, but it is politics at its worst.

American broadcast giant CBS has caved into pressure from powerful right-wing lobbyists and dumped plans to screen a controversial mini-series on the life of former US President Ronald Reagan.

The $12.8 million, two-part series The Reagans, starring James Brolin as President Reagan and Australia's Judy Davis as wife Nancy, was due to be aired in America on November 16 and 18.

However, a deluge of criticism and threats from Republican Party members, none of whom have seen the mini-series, caused CBS to crumble.

The move sparked fierce debate about political censorship of free speech. Controversy flared on October 21 when the New York Times reported the movie contained unflattering scenes, including one where Nancy asks Ronald to do more for AIDS victims. He replies: "They that live in sin shall die in sin."

Conservative critics embarked on a campaign accusing CBS of smearing their idol who, at age 92, is debilitated by Alzheimer's disease.

Mrs Reagan released a statement saying the timing of the series was "staggering". "Obviously it's very hurtful," she said.

[Y3a]

<< Seriously? The government is the only entity that can be guilty of censorship? I'll let you rephrase that. Say I write a piece about the Iraq war for the Washington Post and it is heavily edited, removing all the bad stuff. Was I censored? >>

No, you were edited. When you 'gave' the piece to the Post, it became their property, unless they have a specific contract with you stating they won't touch a word.

A couple of Federal Agents going to the Post and taking the article from them and warning them not to reprint is censorship.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Y3a:
No, you were edited. When you 'gave' the piece to the Post, it became their property, unless they have a specific contract with you stating they won't touch a word.

I've never seen censorship so narrowly defined. Again, per Merriam Webster:

"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by petehammer:
I agree, this Reagan/CBS thing may not be censorship, but it is politics at its worst.

That is for sure.

[NYCFarmboy]

Well...for her to pretend to be a pontificator of the holy truth is just rediculous.

I'm glad her husbands hateful anti-Reagan show will be shown on Showtime though. That way..if you really want to watch such drivel..at least you are having to pay to see it.

Of course they have the right to produce anti-Reagan movies forever and ever. But no one has the right to FORCE such hateful and patently false portrayal of the Reagans onto the American public.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
But no one has the right to FORCE such hateful and patently false portrayal of the Reagans onto the American public.

And CBS would be doing that how?

Oh, and how hateful is it? When did you see it? I hear the lighting is very good...

prejudice: (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, technically I suppose it is censorship, but not what we might commonly call censorship (top-down, authoritarian, thought police). CBS is removing something that could be controversial and objectionable and seems to be clearly doing so under political pressure--not from the top down, perhaps, but from the ground up. I'm not sure which has been more effective.

Its true that prominent conservatives got involved in this, but I don't think its simply a matter of authoritarian censorship. Rather, the ugly economic realities of corporate television. We often associate the mainstream media with "free speech", but it isn't. Never has been, never will be. Every second of speech is bought and paid for and if the people holding the purse strings don't like it, it doesn't get said.

I'm not sure if CBS execs caved to political pressure from above, or just public pressure from below to pull the plug on the mini-series. Probably some of both. Although, I'm not sure ther would have been much public pressure if prominent figures hand't organized it.

I'm bothered by the attitude that considers some public figures "off limits" to anything that might show them as fallible and human. For some reason, people are threatened by complexity and nuance and prefer to think of prominent historical figures as either wholly good or wholly bad rather than very human people with very human frailties. Personally, I'm much more impressed by a person's accomplishments and more forgiving of their mistakes when I consider them as ordinary people doing the best they can with what they know under less than ideal circumstances. But I guess no one wants to hear about the Reagans as real people with real problems, only as Icons.

Somehow people's worldview gets threatened when anyone wants to suggest that their historical Icons and Heroes might just have been ordinary people with ordinary problems who did great and terrible things just like the rest of us.

[boots]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Seriously? The government is the only entity that can be guilty of censorship? I'll let you rephrase that. Say I write a piece about the Iraq war for the Washington Post and it is heavily edited, removing all the bad stuff. Was I censored?

Not in a constitutional sense. I think he (and by extension, Ms. Streisand) is referring to censorship ala the first amendment. That's usually what people mean by censorship.

Me? I have to censor myself all the time or they'd fire me for vulgar language. But that's not a constitutional issue...that's professionalism.

[Y3a]

A couple of Federal Agents going to the Post and taking the article from them and warning them not to reprint is censorship.

folks who got a copy of the script, showed it around to others WHO KNEW REAGAN, and complained about it's slander enough to have those cowards at CBS sell it. the script is out there, the film will be out in January on cable, so where IS the censorship???

Just like the Dixie Chicks. You CAN buy the CD's right??? No censorship here either.

Perhaps you need to understand what censorship really is.

Classified documents are not censored either as some with credentials CAN see them.

Even cancelling TV show isn't censorship, unless TOLD TO DO IT BY THE FEDS.

[finboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
And CBS would be doing that how?

CBS uses public airwaves, a common good, to broadcast. We have a right to protest how they choose to use it. In some markets, I'd bet that CBS is one of one or two broadcast alternatives. The monopolistic implications are important.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by finboy:
CBS uses public airwaves, a common good, to broadcast. We have a right to protest how they choose to use it. In some markets, I'd bet that CBS is one of one or two broadcast alternatives. The monopolistic implications are important.

So when the WB shows the 700 Club wit Pat Robertson and friends, I'm FORCED to watch it?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Y3a:
A couple of Federal Agents going to the Post and taking the article from them and warning them not to reprint is censorship.

folks who got a copy of the script, showed it around to others WHO KNEW REAGAN, and complained about it's slander enough to have those cowards at CBS sell it. the script is out there, the film will be out in January on cable, so where IS the censorship???

Just like the Dixie Chicks. You CAN buy the CD's right??? No censorship here either.

Perhaps you need to understand what censorship really is.

Classified documents are not censored either as some with credentials CAN see them.

Even cancelling TV show isn't censorship, unless TOLD TO DO IT BY THE FEDS.

I think that is a narrow view. I consider censorship to be an act of authority control over information. That authority doesn't have to be the Federal Government.

However, I would agree with you that this case isn't what we'd typically call censorship. Maybe only in the most technical sense, but even then it would probably be best described as self-censorship.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think that is a narrow view. I consider censorship to be an act of authority control over information. That authority doesn't have to be the Federal Government.

However, I would agree with you that this case isn't what we'd typically call censorship. Maybe only in the most technical sense, but even then it would probably be best described as self-censorship.

A friend of mine who's a writer for a paper in Phoenix said it was because of the Reagans threatening to sue for slander if the series was released on broadcast TV (don't know if they'll still sue if it's aired on Showtime) and because of protests from major advertising clients, particularly; Target, Coke, Wal-Mart, and (strangely) Anheiser-Busch.

Barbera? Of course she'd gripe, it's her hubby and the series doesn't show Reagan in a positive light. There's political bitching on both sides of this issue.

[Y3a]

"CBS uses public airwaves, a common good, to broadcast. We have a right to protest how they choose to use it."


Don't Watch. The ratings will be low and sponsors won't buy ads. Thats a protest that will be heard. It's really stupid to protest about something you have a choice about. You were NOT forced to watch CBS?

The on-off switch on your TV DOES WORK, right???

[finboy]

Originally posted by Y3a:
"CBS uses public airwaves, a common good, to broadcast. We have a right to protest how they choose to use it."


Don't Watch. The ratings will be low and sponsors won't buy ads. Thats a protest that will be heard. It's really stupid to protest about something you have a choice about. You were NOT forced to watch CBS?

The on-off switch on your TV DOES WORK, right???

Or, folks can protest ahead of time. That "just turn it off" sh*t doesn't fly. After all, they could broadcast live footage from a slaughterhouse and the response would be "just turn it off." Nope -- the public airwaves can have standards, and they can be enforced by the outraged public, before the fact, saying "no thanks."

I think what many folks are missing is that telling outright lies about someone doesn't constitute free speech. Defending this obviously biased, piece of sh*t movie doesn't enhance the credibility of those who call themselves free speech advocates. It makes no difference if Reagan is dead or ill, telling lies about someone, making up things that contradict fact in order to promote an agenda, isn't free speech.

Regardless of your feelings about "censorship" (which can't take place outside of government actions, anyway), defending lies and propaganda is a poor way to promote freedom of expression. When people get beyond their partisan biases, I hope that comes through here.

[finboy]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
A friend of mine who's a writer for a paper in Phoenix said it was because of the Reagans threatening to sue for slander if the series was released on broadcast TV (don't know if they'll still sue if it's aired on Showtime) and because of protests from major advertising clients, particularly; Target, Coke, Wal-Mart, and (strangely) Anheiser-Busch.

Barbera? Of course she'd gripe, it's her hubby and the series doesn't show Reagan in a positive light. There's political bitching on both sides of this issue.

I'm not sure that the Reagans, as public figures, could successfully sue for slander. It would be a tough road. But if that threat was effective, it was probably because the trial itself would expose the inherent bias in the development -- [zorg] everyone's [/zorg] role would come out under subpoena. Can't have THAT happening; that was the real threat here. Plus, the sponsor thing. Hey, freedom of speech applies to THEM TOO.

[thunderous_funker]

Has Primary Colors ever been shown on broadcast TV? Anyone know?