|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 8 |
 |
Another victory for the Gipper
PAT ROCKEFELLER
COLUMNIST
"Those who live in sin shall die in sin," former President Ronald Reagan said in regards to AIDS patients. This shouldn't bother us though, and may in fact be a compliment, considering he also claimed "I am the anti-Christ." Who's the anti-Christ to complain about a little sinning?
Of course, this never actually happened. Neither of the above phrases were ever used by Ronald Reagan. They are, however, included in the controversial CBS two part miniseries, The Reagans, which has come under heavy fire. It stars James Brolin, husband of celebrity liberal activist Barbara Streisand as Ronald, and Judy Davis as Nancy.
Recently, The Reagans script was leaked to Internet journalist Matt Drudge (www.drudgereport.com), the online phenom who originally broke the Monica Lewinksy scandal after Newsweek spiked the story back in 1998. This precipitated a backlash against CBS for what many believe to be a recklessly inaccurate portrayal of the widely regarded former president, who now suffers from Alzheimers Disease. Faced with this outpouring of righteous anger from Reagan supporters, Les Moonves, head of CBS, made the decision to cancel the series. Instead it will be played on Showtime, which has a much smaller audience. CBS and Showtime are both owned by Viacom.
There seem to be three main issues here. The first is what is the responsibility of CBS in creating a miniseries, as compared to a documentary to stick to the truth? Second, how has the vigorous outpouring of Reagan supporters been mobilized, and would the show have been cancelled without them? And finally, is this censorship?
As for CBS's responsibility: This was never intended to be a documentary, and therefore a certain amount, perhaps even a great amount of liberal artistic license can be taken in the portrayal of the characters and events. According to the Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, who has screened the series, it includes a scene where she was attending an all girls' boarding school when her father was elected Governor of California. Only, Patti never attended an all girls' boarding school. Hardly a damnable fiction in and of itself, but the end result of so many falsities is that, as Patti wrote in Time, "everyone is a caricature, manufactured and inauthentic."
Accuracy taking a back seat to a storyline is hardly original, but this does, however, leave the writers open to charges of aggressively hateful bias, especially against a man who has been rendered incapable of defending himself. It probably wouldn't have been as big an issue, the inaccurate quotes, settings, et cetera, except that the producers claimed no major event in the miniseries was done without being confirmed by two sources.
While the same standard did not apply to statements for obvious reasons (how are you going to get two sources to confirm a conversation between Ronald and Nancy?), those who knew the Reagan's are quick to point out that many of the statements made on the show, such as the AIDS remark and the anti-Christ statement do not reflect the type of comments they did or would make. In fact, in the New York Times, on October 21st, one of the writers said that the AIDS remark was completely made up. Patti Davis points out that the writes never contacted anyone in the family. So, CBS's responsibility is unclear. On the one hand, it does not claim The Reagans to be an accurate documentary style depiction, but it clearly isn't pure fiction either. The confusion and overlap is where the problems lie.
Perhaps the most interesting part of this whole mess, however, the part that will outlast the relevance of the miniseries itself, is how it all came to the spotlight. The growing importance of small media outlets, as compared to the once impregnable fortresses of network television is startling. Speaking on the MSNBC show, Scarborough Country, Matt Drudge said "It's the beginning of a second media century...where it's much more of a people-driven media. And I say that not lightly. It was the Internet, it was talk radio, it was cable that put pressure on CBS, and heretofore, there's never been this kind of pressure applied to one of the big titans, one of the big three [CBS, NBC, ABC]."
Whether Drudge exaggerates is open to question, but this isn't the first big story to break not from the major news outlets, but from online journalists, and individual blogs, conservative and liberal alike. The Lewinsky affair is perhaps the most famous example, and it rocketed Drudge to fame. The big media players also largely ignored that whole Trent Lott Strom-Thurman-Was-Right affair until a number of Internet writers picked up on it, including Andrew Sullivan (andrewsullivan.com), and Joshua Micah Marshall (talkingpointsmemo.com). How is it that the power of the mainstream media organizations are declining, even as they merge and grow larger? A fascinating question for another day, perhaps.
Just as Howard Dean is garnering support through the globalized high tech grass-roots potential of binary code and widespread internet access, Reagan faithfuls were able to spread the word, and organize their threatened boycotts of CBS sponsors. Moonves, as head of CBS, claimed that the show was not sold off to Showtime because of the proposed boycotts, but because the show was in fact, biased. It's reported that he told staffers, "Listen, we are not afraid of controversy, we'd go out there if it came in at 50-50, pro and con, but it simply isn't working. It's biased."
Not for a second do I believe that the threatened boycotts had nothing to do with the decision to cancel, but for Moonves, a self described liberal democrat who has sat and talked and had meetings with Fidel Castro, to describe the show as biased, one can imagine how the Reagans come off. But the cancellation itself raises an issue. Was this censorship?
Barbra Streisand, wife of the actor who plays Ronald, writes on here website (barbrastreisand.com) that "This is censorship, pure and simple. Well, maybe not that pure. Censorship never is." She also throws in the partisan angle, suggesting that Republicans are trying to "muscle the First Amendment." Barbra is, as usual, completely 100 per cent wrong.
This is not about censorship. Censorship is an action taken by the government to prevent certain statements, images, performances, et cetera. When it is done in the private sphere by a newspaper, a television station or radio station, it's called editorial discretion. CBS is owned by Viacom, and Viacom is a private company. Nobody prevented the writers from writing, the actors from acting, the producers from producing. The turned out a product that the head of CBS, along with millions of others, called biased, and they decided not to air it. Or, rather, that it would be aired on a different station. Essentially, their product was faulty. Because of this, it wasn't going to go on the air.
Keep in mind, boycotting companies is certainly not new, or an inappropriate use of individual spending power. The threat to do so probably had an effect on CBS's decision. Negative feedback (in the form of protest and low ratings) as well as positive feedback (in the form of support and good ratings) is necessary for companies. That is how we private citizens influence the content of huge national corporations. That is the essence of democracy. We vote with our remote.
If anything, this process can be considered a success on many levels. A product was freely produced and marketed. That product was flawed, biased and was therefore not supported by many people, including the head of the company that produced it. Relevant information was disseminated by a variety of small media sources on a scale and with speed unimaginable a decade ago. As we worry about the increasingly concentrated power of media giants, individuals were able to check the power of these conglomerates, and force them to take action. The end result is a more responsive, and responsible company, all because of a bad mini-series about an ex-president. Mark one more victory for the Gipper.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |