CBS Won't Air 'Reagans' Miniseries

[TitanTiger 20,510]

CBS Won't Air 'Reagans' Miniseries

Tuesday, November  04, 2003

NEW YORK  — CBS announced Tuesday that it won't run the controversial miniseries "The Reagans" later this month.

The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay-cable network owned by CBS parent Viacom.

"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.

A broadcast network has different standards than a pay cable network, CBS said.

CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.

The flap over the $9 million miniseries, which was set to air on Nov. 16 and 18, began late last month with a story published in The New York Times revealing portions of the script that were unflattering to President Ronald Reagan and former first lady, Nancy.

That led to a firestorm by Republican-based political groups and Reagan supporters, some of whom threatened to boycott CBS and the products advertised during the program.

The Media Research Center (search) asked major advertisers to review the script and consider not buying commercial time on the show.

In an unusual move, CBS officials said last week that portions of the movie were unfair and the film was being re-edited.

It is rare for a network to substantially rework a completed film just weeks before it is scheduled to be shown.

As soon as CBS made the decision to cut portions of the film, director Robert Allan Ackerman opted out of the editing process and lead actors James Brolin and Judy Davis — who were to play President and Mrs. Reagan — refused to do any publicity interviews for the miniseries, according to a report in Newsweek magazine.

That left the editing process in the hands of CBS executives, Newsweek reported.

Though no one who protested the miniseries has seen it, it was condemned by the former president's friends and supporters as unfair and inaccurate.

Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, told CBS President Leslie Moonves (search) in a letter that historians should review the miniseries for historical accuracy, or the network should run a disclaimer that the program is fiction.

Gillespie said the miniseries might have omissions, distortions and exaggerations that could cause Americans to "come away with a misunderstanding of the Reagans and the Reagan administration."

Some questioned airing any dramatization of the 92-year-old's life while he struggles with Alzheimer's disease (search).

Gillespie said he hasn't seen the full miniseries but was uneasy because of news reports and brief clips that have been made public.

He said he resents particularly how the miniseries reportedly depicted the Reagans' unsympathetic attitude toward AIDS victims and how it was said to portray Nancy Reagan.

CBS lawyers had reviewed the miniseries and given it the go-ahead, but Moonves ordered lawyers to give it another look and for CBS to cut out certain portions.

Among the parts that were snipped, according to Newsweek, were the inflammatory line "They that live in sin shall die in sin," which is Reagan's reply to Nancy when she asks him to do more for AIDS victims in the miniseries.

Those involved with the project admitted having no proof that Reagan ever made such a statement.

Newsweek reported that footage of Ronald Reagan Jr. doing ballet was also cut.

I recently read a quote from Barbra Streisand (wife of James Brolin who portrays Reagan in the film) that she only agreed for him to do the film if they told "the whole story" about Reagan. Yet they insert lines in the film that are that controversial and inflammatory without a hint of proof that he ever said such a thing. And they have the nerve to be upset that editing was demanded?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

On another note. Tiger Al, this is one reason that I say places like CNN and the NY Times shade things with a liberal bias. The above story is from FoxNews. They include the specific line showing an example of words being attributed to Reagan that are hurtful and inflammatory with no proof that he ever said them.

CNN, ABC, The Washington Post, USA Today and the NY Times on the other hand went with an AP wire story that simply says:

"There has been a concern, since part of the script was published, that Reagan is portrayed as being uncaring and judgmental toward people suffering with AIDS."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/c...s.ap/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/business...-REAGAN.html?hp

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20031104_786.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/20...s-off-air_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...7-2003Nov4.html

Leaving it at that, without showing a concrete example, leaves it up to interpretation. Showing what was actually in the film and that they have no proof he ever said it casts CBS's decision to ask for editing in a much different light.

To the credit of FoxNews and MSNBC, they gave the fuller description of the controversial AIDS issue.

[mattd 3]

I can't understnad how the media can tarnish a man's reputation just for ratings. With out a shred of evidence any of it was ever said.

[bammanmr 0]

I can't understnad how the media can tarnish a man's reputation just for ratings. With out a shred of evidence any of it was ever said.

what do you mean? The 'publicans have been doing it for decades now!

[MDM4AU 336]

I can't understnad how the media can tarnish a man's reputation just for ratings. With out a shred of evidence any of it was ever said.

what do you mean? The 'publicans have been doing it for decades now!

"Hello, Pot? This is the Kettle. YOU'RE BLACK!"

Political parties attack one another all the time, and without mercy. Carter-Iran, Reagan- Everything that went wrong in the 80's, Clinton-Interns, Lack of character, Gore-Creating the internet, dumb as a stump, Sen. Byrd - Former member of the KKK, Lott, Dean, Daschle, Condit (sic) and the list goes on.

How do you compare the media (who is supposed to be objective) to a certain political party (Generally biased left or right) on this subject?

Name a sick and/or dying person the 'publicans have attacked in the mainstream media or attempeted to portray in an unkind light false accusations.

[Tiger Al 0]

Name a sick and/or dying person the 'publicans have attacked in the mainstream media or attempeted to portray in an unkind light false accusations.

Any homosexual dying of AIDS.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Ah, TigerAl has seen this thread. Care to address the original post?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I listened to a news show on this subject while driving in this morning. I have NO problem with them airing a miniseries on ANYONE's life, AS LONG AS THE STORY IS FACTUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The writers of this show have ADMITTED that they made stuff up! Regardless of whether it is Reagan or Carter, if you make stuff up, you CANNOT hold it as fact!! DUH!!!! If everything the movie claimed about Reagan was backed up by fact, I would totally support it being aired.

The other good point one commentator made this morning was that even tho some of us remember the Reagan years like they were yesterday, the kids that are graduating college this year were only 5 when Reagan left office. This may be the first and perhaps only look they have at the man that is already considered by many to be one of our greatest presidents ever and who presided over extraordinary events in the history of our nation and our world. It is only right that they get a FAIR and FACTUALLY correct look at this man and his family. Yes, he had flaws, but this was not a straightforward accounting of the man and his life.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ah, TigerAl has seen this thread. Care to address the original post?

A question was asked and I answered it.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Name a sick and/or dying person the 'publicans have attacked in the mainstream media or attempeted to portray in an unkind light false accusations.

Any homosexual dying of AIDS.

NAME one, Al.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Sorry TigerAl, second post...regarding the lack of liberal bias in the mainstream media.

[Tiger Al 0]

Name a sick and/or dying person the 'publicans have attacked in the mainstream media or attempeted to portray in an unkind light false accusations.

Any homosexual dying of AIDS.

NAME one, Al.

I can't...they were always "class-action" condemnations.

[MDM4AU 336]

Love the blanket accusation with no proof, Al! You along with everyone else (CShine, DONUTHOLE, DNC, Michael Moore) that spews your party line BS would love for everyone to beleive that is how Republicans think.

The point of the matter here is that they are attributing words and actions to a dying man that are untrue. Obviously that doesn't bother a good ol' democrat like you since it is about a Republican. If this were about someone who wasn't connected to the Republican party and was portrayed by a staunch Republican supporter, you would have your panties in a bunch and begin to chafe you would be so outraged!

[Tiger Al 0]

Here's an interesting case where the silence was deafening: Reagan's FIRST public address on AIDS was in 1987. It was declared an epidemic in 1981 by the CDC.

LINK

If my memory serves me from 15-20 years ago, until HIV/AIDS moved from a 'gay' problem, sin, to a 'normal' problem, disease, the government really wasn't in any hurry to offer help.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

How many other diseases have been declared epidemics where the President at the time didn't speak on it for years after the CDC made their announcement?

This is still a far leap from the words the miniseries put in Reagan's mouth without any proof he ever said such a thing.

Red herring.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Here's an interesting case where the silence was deafening: Reagan's FIRST public address on AIDS was in 1987. It was declared an epidemic in 1981 by the CDC.

LINK

If my memory serves me from 15-20 years ago, until HIV/AIDS moved from a 'gay' problem, sin, to a 'normal' problem, disease, the government really wasn't in any hurry to offer help.

Let's also remember that in the 80's, the conventional wisdom/public perception WAS that it was a gay man's disease - IF Reagan actually felt that way, he was certainly not alone. Cases like the little Ryan White boy started swinging people's thoughts arounds, but it was still perceived by most folks - including the general public (aka VOTERS), politicians and many in the medical profession - as a GAY problem AT THAT TIME.

You have to keep a politician's comments into historical perspective - some of the things the Founders said seems VERY backwards when seen in the light of 2003. Doesn't make them any less right for their time.

[Tiger Al 0]

How many other diseases have been declared epidemics where the President at the time didn't speak on it for years after the CDC made their announcement?

This is still a far leap from the words the miniseries put in Reagan's mouth without any proof he ever said such a thing.

Red herring.

By the end of 1987, 59,572 AIDS cases had been reported in the U.S.; 27,909 died. That's a serious Red Herring, Titan.

Shall we compare Presidential reactions/actions with, say, SARS?

[Tiger Al 0]

Let's also remember that in the 80's, the conventional wisdom/public perception WAS that it was a gay man's disease - IF Reagan actually felt that way, he was certainly not alone. Cases like the little Ryan White boy started swinging people's thoughts arounds, but it was still perceived by most folks - including the general public (aka VOTERS), politicians and many in the medical profession - as a GAY problem AT THAT TIME.

You have to keep a politician's comments into historical perspective - some of the things the Founders said seems VERY backwards when seen in the light of 2003. Doesn't make them any less right for their time.

Yes, and at one time lynchings were a 'negro' problem, but apathy and indifference are poor excuses for not doing the right thing.

One of the main points of the story of the Good Samaritan was the fact that the Samaritans were loathed by the Jews and vice versa. Yet, when one crossed paths with the other who was suffering, instead of crossing the road (apathy/indifference) the Samaritan helped the Jew (action/right thing).

Most of the people condemning the homosexuals were/are doing it based on the book this very story came from. Same as with the lynched negroes.

[MDM4AU 336]

TigerAL, I don't quite fully understand the discussion (disagreement, etc) of you and Titan, but how does all this make it right for the series to be blatantly incorrect? Not to mention the anti-republicans portraying the parts. You never answered any of my questions, just conveniently ignored them.

Again, if the tables were turned on a sick, disabled, say...Howard Dean, you would probably combust right there in front of your computer. We could get Pat Buchannon to play Dean and Ann Coulter to play Ms. Dean. We could say that the rebel flag comment was actually from a man (dean) who was actually a former Grand Dragon. But it would be ok because he did after all mention the Confederate Flag in a speech. And we will say that he hates the Christian Right and everything they stand for, because after all he is a far left Democrat. ANd since he opposed the war we will also say that he hoped the US failed.

I don;t know why I am trying to argue this point with someone who would rather shave with a cheese grater than admit something from the "left" was simply wrong.

[TrueTiger 0]

The media has been always crazy. They have to do crazy things to get some crazy stories for some crazy news lol.

WARR EAGLE

[Tiger Al 0]

TigerAL, I don't quite fully understand the discussion (disagreement, etc) of you and Titan, but how does all this make it right for the series to be blatantly incorrect? Not to mention the anti-republicans portraying the parts. You never answered any of my questions, just conveniently ignored them.

Again, if the tables were turned on a sick, disabled, say...Howard Dean, you would probably combust right there in front of your computer. We could get Pat Buchannon to play Dean and Ann Coulter to play Ms. Dean. We could say that the rebel flag comment was actually from a man (dean) who was actually a former Grand Dragon. But it would be ok because he did after all mention the Confederate Flag in a speech. And we will say that he hates the Christian Right and everything they stand for, because after all he is a far left Democrat. ANd since he opposed the war we will also say that he hoped the US failed.

I don;t know why I am trying to argue this point with someone who would rather shave with a cheese grater than admit something from the "left" was simply wrong.

I don't know whether Reagan said it or not. I don't know whether he's getting a fair treatment in this movie or not. Neither do you. All we've heard is one group of biased people claim that the other group of biased people did it wrong!!! If Rupert Murdoch were producing it, you'd believe it would be historically accurate and I'd believe it would be another whitewash. If Murdoch were producing the 'Dean Saga,' I believe Dean would be smeared across the screen. Unless he switched parties!!! Peace.

[MDM4AU 336]

From the article:

"Those involved with the project admitted having no proof that Reagan ever made such a statement."

This was my whole point!

PEACE, Dude!

[Weagle98 119]

http://www.drudgereport.com/rr7.htm

CBS head Les Moonves made the ultimate decision to pull THE REAGANS off the November schedule after concluding the film was "biased" against the former president, top sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

...If Rupert Murdoch were producing it, you'd believe it would be historically accurate and I'd believe it would be another whitewash. If Murdoch were producing the 'Dean Saga,' I believe Dean would be smeared across the screen. Unless he switched parties!!! Peace.

while you're thinking for us all, why not tell me what i think about this week's West Wing episode...that way i can figure out whether or not to bother watching it...or are you gonna figure that out for me, too?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I don't know whether Reagan said it or not. I don't know whether he's getting a fair treatment in this movie or not. Neither do you. All we've heard is one group of biased people claim that the other group of biased people did it wrong!!! If Rupert Murdoch were producing it, you'd believe it would be historically accurate and I'd believe it would be another whitewash. If Murdoch were producing the 'Dean Saga,' I believe Dean would be smeared across the screen. Unless he switched parties!!! Peace.

My whole point in all of this TigerAl is that they inserted a line in a movie that is incredibly insensitive and even blatantly cruel with no proof he ever uttered such a thing or even held such a belief. You've dodged this over and over with cop-out statements like "I don't know whether Reagan said it or not" and trying to make some inference about when Reagan first addressed the AIDS epidemic versus when the CDC labeled it as such. That is weak. I don't know if you've ever said you believe all conservatives should be executed by firing squad either. But you've said some pretty harsh things about conservatives in general. Would it be fair to do a movie about you and insert a line with you saying "conservatives deserve to be executed"? Would you start to believe I might have a serious inability to offer a balanced portrayal of you?

The other issue you've dodged though I've asked you to address it at least twice is the difference in coverage this got in the press. Every news outlet except for Fox and MSNBC omitted the specific fabricated line and went with the AP wire story that just gave a much more generic description of the problem. Leaving out the concrete example of them MAKING STUFF UP WITHOUT PROOF changes the reader's perception of what's going on.

You seem like an intelligent person. I'm surprised you keep evading.