Posted on 09/07/2006 7:02:21 PM PDT by hipaatwo
Here's the Democratic National Committee's take on CBS's decision to kill a slanderous, unfounded attack on Ronald Reagan:
"CBS has decided to pull its miniseries about Ronald Reagan after a Republican National Committee-organized campaign complaining that it didn't lionize their favorite president enough.
"CBS's decision is — to put it mildly — disturbing. Essentially the network has given the ruling party veto power over the content it puts on the air.
"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right.
"But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs."
Yeah, that's easy to imagine all right. Currently the "power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history -- including news programs" is almost 100% in the hands of Democrats. Frankly, none of us is imaginative enough to picture a world in which the American media are controlled by conservatives.
On the positive side, it's nice to be referred to by the DNC as "the ruling party."
The difference is between a well-researched ABC fictional miniseries, and an unresearched, slanderous, biographical film by cBS.
And what about Spike Lee's propaganda piece on Katrina last week on PBS?
The other thing I thought about this morning that is different is that Reagan was dead, and couldn't defend himself.
I'm certain the 9/11 movie has scenes that are made up, and the people being portrayed think they are false. But since they are alive, they can simply provide their version of events. Reagan couldn't do that because he was dead.
Gee, I guess that explains why Merv Griffin was one of his pallbearers. /s
Actually, he wasn't dead HOWEVER, you are right that he could not defend himself because of having Alzeimers (sp?). I have yet to see whether or not high-ranking Republicans attempted to have the Reagan bio squashed...I only remember Patty Davis writing an article (or being interviewed?) about the inaccuracy of the portrayal about her Dad...that says a great deal too, I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.