The problem is that dramatizing the Hollywood left version of Reagan is very difficult. The only watchable movie about an amiable dunce that somehow triumphs is Being There, and Peter Sellers is not available.

It's funny how the left's vision of Bush (dumbell who has everyone snookered) looks so much like the left's version of Reagan. The Demos never figured out how to cope with RR, and it doesn't look like they will figure out GW.

Most "malugnant" [sic] *undeserved* portrayal of a presidential offspring in my memory was when SNL had Madonna blow kisses to the Presidential box, and *both* Bill and Chelsea responded...

Anyone who read the script (and for those who would rather not, I summarized it here) won't be surprised to find that it stunk. Maybe if they had sold it as a comedy they would have had more luck.

And the irony is, of course, that those who tried to censor it have only succeeded in ensuring that people would want to watch it to see what the right wing of the Republican party didn't want them to watch.

Without that boost, it would likely have sunk without trace. One more proof that censorship is never effective...

CBS probably lost ad dollars -- because they probably had to run reruns in the spot the show was going to occupy. So they won't be likely to do this again.

The buzz that the miniseries was both biased and lousy got broadcast far and wide, causing embarassment to its producers, directors, and actors, which could have subtle and not-so subtle career consequences for the participants. The producers, in particular, may have more trouble getting their projects approved. If the miniseries had got mediocre ratings, and sank without a trace, I doubt that particular impact would have been the same.

So I think the attack on the program by conservatives was probably quite effective -- not in supressing this particular piece, but in supressing future TV attacks on beloved conservatives. The lesson in all this? I'm not sure.

“The problem is that dramatizing the Hollywood left version of Reagan is very difficult. The only watchable movie about an amiable dunce that somehow triumphs is Being There, and Peter Sellers is not available.”

This is a totally false characterization of Ronald Reagan. The exact opposite is actually the case. President Reagan may very will have been among the best read leaders in our nation’s history. He most certainly was more knowledgeable and insightful than Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reagan truly understood the achilles heel of the former Soviet Union---and took full advantage of it. This man ran the White House and was not a amiable dunce like Chauncey Gardiner.

Why do so many share the above bizarre sentiments regarding this great President? That is a very simple question to answer: the lying “mainstream” media dominate how most citizens normally get their news. On top of that, the liberal “elite” hold decisive power within our academic institutions.

“And the irony is, of course, that those who tried to censor it have only succeeded in ensuring that people would want to watch it to see what the right wing of the Republican party didn't want them to watch.”

The right wing of the Republican Party? One needn’t be a conservative to find fault with this interpretation of Ronald Reagan. Also, the protests were very effective. A cable movie station usually doesn’t draw the same audience numbers as a major network like CBS.

Hey David T. You misread me. The Barbra Streisand types DO think of Reagan as an idiot. They happen to be wrong.

But my point was basically "how do you make a coherent interesting drama when your main character is going to be portrayed as a moron with no real connection to the events swirling around him?" Your drama is likely to be disconnected as the main character is blown place to place by events he does not control. Since this is not a political point, maybe I should have kept it out of this blog...But the idea interests me. Maybe Mr. Simon will comment...

Ronald Reagan was not perfect (who is?). The United States was gravely damaged by his decision to pull our troops out of Beirut. This action emboldened our enemies in the Middle East. The irony is that liberals rarely criticize Reagan’s well meaning mistake. I suspect that the movie didn’t even mention it.

Dan's comments reinforce my view that it can never be a bad thing when a miniseries gets pulled. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Let's face it, during the heyday of the mini-series era on network TV, most of them were just over-the-top awful, including some of the most popular.

At the same time I have the sad thought that the one person whose critique of this miniseries might have been worth something is Reagan himself, who knew a lot more about what makes a good script and a good story than any of the other people commenting on this.

I'd agree with Jesurgislac, except for the niggling little fact that pretty much all his premises are false.

1) The idea that there were things in the movie that annoyed Republicans is in no way an indication of the accuracy of those portrayals.

2) No censorship actually occurred, unless you twist the definition of censorship so that it no longer bears any resemblance to what's in the dictionary.

3) As a certified, documented VRWC Deathbeast, I can state authoritatively that anyone who watched the movie and thought that it was in any way accurate deserves the ridicule he or she receives as a result. In that respect, it's a good thing.

Most "malugnant" [sic] *undeserved* portrayal of a presidential offspring in my memory was when SNL had Madonna blow kisses to the Presidential box, and *both* Bill and Chelsea responded...

Actually, my take on that was that the joke was about Madonna's sexual proclivities, not Chelsea's. Chelsea's response was more of an "oh no, is she looking at me?"

So I think the attack on the program by conservatives was probably quite effective -- not in supressing this particular piece, but in supressing future TV attacks on beloved conservatives.

Fair point.

The lesson in all this? I'm not sure.

God knows. Look at Slartibartfast, refusing to acknowledge that what happened was a form of censorship. The problem with this kind of censorship is exactly that it's so insiduous - and perfectly legal, since no government agency is involved. But the idea that there are political figures who are somehow to be above criticism is straightforwardly dangerous.

Time magazine, hardly a conservative mouth-piece, had an article recently that was front page concerning the collection of correspondence and letters written by Ronald Reagan. It showed him as a human being of above average intelligence, passion, and a not insensitive tolerance for people of different backgrounds.

That having been said, the last years of his Presidency may have been marred by his extreme age, increasing senility, and emergent Alzheimers. His tenure was not without fault or controversy, but it must be remembered at the time that AIDS was verboten for much of mainstream America and not just Reagan. His failing there is plain and inexcusable, but it is also human and understandable as an imperfection of a man not without claim to greatness.

People are not perfect, and sometimes they disappoint us. However, Reagan was a far better President than the present one. He genuinely stood for conservative principles whether or not you disagreed with them, rather than just being a political opportunist like the contemptible present political heads of the so-called modern conservative movement.

This is not merely my opinion, George Will hardly known as a *liberal* commentator in this opinion piece dissects the betrayal of conservative values for crass political advantage.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/999364.asp?0si=-

Unfortunately, you forgot to link to Tom Shales, one of the most influential TV critics, who questioned why CBS even greenlit this trash in the first place.

God knows. Look at Slartibartfast, refusing to acknowledge that what happened was a form of censorship.

I refuse to acknowledge it, therefore it must be there. How delightfully circular.

Would you also characterize the market's failure to have purchased the Edsel in quantities that would keep the assembly line going to be censorship? Based on your previous thinking, I'm guessing the answer is yes.

In this case, CBS was perfectly free to air its product as it saw fit. It just got a great deal of pre-release feedback indicative of negative reaction on the part of roughly half the potential viewing public. If this constitutes censorship, you've (as I noted in my original post) twisted the word quite out of its dictionary definition.

I refuse to acknowledge it, therefore it must be there. How delightfully circular.

Good God, Slarti, you have an ego bigger than I thought! No, the point is that though you prefer not to acknowledge the censorship, it is still there. Your acknowledgement or otherwise of censorship does not affect the censorship's existence. I hate to break it to you, but you're just not that important.

Likewise, your assertion that censorship has occurred in this case, sans evidence, is no case at all.

I don't think I'm important. More to the point, I don't even think my opinion is very important. That's why (pay extra attention here) I place a great deal of importance on evidence, as opposed to opinion. I'm more inclined to think that your expectation that I ought to just take your word for things is a strong indicator of egoism. But hey, that's just my opinion. And that's just where the preference for motivation over fact will lead you.

Likewise, your assertion that censorship has occurred in this case, sans evidence, is no case at all.

To the contrary, Slarti: the evidence is right there in front of you, you are just refusing to look at it, sticking your fingers in your ears, and going la la la la la this isn't happening. This is why your claim that you only pay attention to evidence rather than opinion looks kind of amusing: rather, you are focussing on your opinion that no censorship took place, rather than the evidence of censorship.

Heh.

To the contrary, Slarti: the evidence is right there in front of you, you are just refusing to look at it, sticking your fingers in your ears, and going la la la la la this isn't happening.

Doubly easy, then, for you to simply point it out, rather than indulge in mindless ad hominem.

This is why your claim that you only pay attention to evidence rather than opinion looks kind of amusing: rather, you are focussing on your opinion that no censorship took place, rather than the evidence of censorship.

Still waiting for you to actually provide some of that abundant evidence. It couldn't be that hard now, could it? I doubt it's as fun as the smug attempts at psychoanalysis, but it'll likely stand you in better stead in the credibility department.

Maybe that evidence was a little better hidden than Jesurgislac thought. Well, I'm a patient man.