[Gunder]

Well, what do you know? A poster over at DU actually wrote something that made sense! (Well, at least the first part.)

mbartko (181 posts) Mon Nov-03-03 10:51 PM
Response to Original message

40. Did it?

"CBS, who is in the business of selling advertising, made a strategic decision not to show a documentary. That's not a free speech issue - the documentary will still be shown via another outlet. Not as accessible, true, but that's not exactly the same as the GOP demanding that all copies of it be collected and burned. Nor is it the same thing as forcing something off of public access cable. The producers are free to make the documentary. CBS, as a corporation, is free to choose what it wants to air.

Meanwhile, all the fuss that the whiners put into getting this taken off of CBS will generate tenfold the interest that there would have been for what promises to be a mediocre-at-best documentary (James Brolin?? Is there ANYTHING good with James Brolin in it?) while at the same time gives the American people the realization that the GOP will employ strongarm tactics to intimidate networks when it doesn't like what it sees, the benefits of which are MUCH greater than any revelations about an 92-year-old man who means nothing anymore.

That's MY perspective. I don't care if the GOP runs NFL football off the air, as long as a Democrat is next in the White House."

[Hildy]

Until he married Babs, I actually liked Brolin. I still think one of the main reasons he married her was because he was in dire financial straits when they met. She took care of it all for him when they married. I mean, really, can you imagine what it's like to be married to her?

[Yaelle]

James Brolin?? Is there ANYTHING good with James Brolin in it?

I am too polite to go there.

[CyberAnt]

What the idiot doesn't understand is that the network is calling it an accurate "documentary" - which requires accuracy. This is a hit piece - if they wanted to make a movie which is a fantasy, then say it's a fantasy.