It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CBS STATEMENT REGARDING 'THE REAGANS'
"CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.
Although the mini-series 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. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.
A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.
This was not an easy decision to make. CBS does tackle controversial subjects and provide tough assessments of prominent historical figures and events, as we did with films such as 'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler.' We will continue to do so in the future."
taken from the Drudge Report
Originally posted by Kai-Raega
It would be like making a Clinton Mini-series and then casting Sean Hannity's dad as Bill and Ann Coulter as Hillary.
[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ignoring AIDS? If you remember - maybe you're too young to -
...snip....
Maybe you are too young to remember his presidency..
Originally posted by Flinx
Originally posted by Kai-Raega
It would be like making a Clinton Mini-series and then casting Sean Hannity's dad as Bill and Ann Coulter as Hillary.
[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]
Yeah, but the difference is that they would have allowed that movie to show...
Originally posted by Kai-Raega
Originally posted by Flinx
Originally posted by Kai-Raega
It would be like making a Clinton Mini-series and then casting Sean Hannity's dad as Bill and Ann Coulter as Hillary.
[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]
Yeah, but the difference is that they would have allowed that movie to show...
Bingo.
The first person who actually "Got it".
Congrats Flinx!
Originally posted by Kai-Raega
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ignoring AIDS? If you remember - maybe you're too young to -
...snip....
Maybe you are too young to remember his presidency..
ECK, you can quit the act. I think we all know what is up with you. I'm 27, and I act like I'm 27.
Although I do not know your age, you act, and type, and write, like a 15 year old. This isn't a flame, nor is it some sort of comeback to get the mighty "EastCoastKid", the brave and heroic Gulf War Veteran, off my back.
It's just a fact.
You may be well into your 30's son, but you simply do not have the mental acumen or maturity to talk and act like one.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Most people are already aware of how despicable Reagan was (Breaking of unions including the dissolution of the airline workers union, declaring Ketchup a vegatable in kid's school lunches, trading missles for hostages with Iran, calling Russia an evil empire, ignoring the plight of our inner cities, ignoring aids, and having a very weak anti-drug campaign)
- Kai-Raega
Kai-Raega, I have no problem with the notion that you disliked Reagan. That's your right. But as with every president, he had to make some tough choices as in the breaking of the aircraft controllers' strike. It had to be done. An opinion should not be confused with fact - Reagan had nothing to do with trading missiles for hostages. (If anything, BUSH I was behind it.) The proof is out there if you do the research. And yes, he did call the former Soviet Union the evil empire. He stood his ground and had the courage of his convictions to speak the truth before the world. (Rare is the man these days.) The truth is there was no better man for the time.
As for these vague claims:
ignoring the plight of our inner cities, ignoring aids, and having a very weak anti-drug campaign)
Reagan came into office at a very economically depressed and stressed time. Industry was shifting away from the North, moving South. He can hardly be blamed for trends that began long before his administration took office.
Ignoring AIDS? If you remember - maybe you're too young to - AIDS was a new epidemic back then. Nobody knew anything about the disease well into his presidency. He did what he could once he became aware.
WEAK ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGNE? Please.. he was hard-core. Remember who started "Just say no to drugs?" NANCY REAGAN. Maybe you are too young to remember his presidency.. Although Richard Nixon began it, there really wasn't much of any anti-drug campaigning goin' on till Reagan took over. It was mainly because of the explosion of coke use in the '80's.
He made some decisions that made life more difficult for some, for sure. And I don't fault anyone for their likes or dislike of Reagan. I just don't like hearing falsehoods applied. That goes for any president, too.
[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]
Originally posted by Bout Time
This is a resounding example. Or does anyone think that scheduled programming, other than live events, gets yanked on anything near a regular basis?