Saturday, September 09, 2006

Democrat Political Power Trumps Free Speech

It seems that Variety.com is attempting to draw a comparison between The Reagan movie that CBS was going to air and the recent brouhaha over "The Path to 9/11," in Variety.com - Pols pound 'Path...' :

"The Path to 9/11" is looking a lot like "The Reagans, Part II...."

...But much in the same way right-wing groups mobilized to attack CBS' "The Reagans" a few years ago, Democratic partisans were doing everything they could to discredit ABC's "The Path to 9/11."


...and Philly.com in ABC's 9/11 Movie :


"It's the same lame argument that conservatives raised in high dudgeon in 2003 over CBS's unflattering miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Unfortunately, in that case, CBS and its commercial sponsors did cower in the face of an orchestrated conservative campaign. The network dumped the miniseries onto cable channel Showtime, where it was seen by a much smaller audience. (But it did at least see the light of day, and the republic is still standing.)"


There is however, a major difference between what happened regarding the Reagan film and what is happening today regarding "The Path to 9/11."

As noted in 'Reagans' filmmakers: CBS ruined movie - Nov. 25, 2003 from CNN.com it was the fans of Reagan who caused CBS to decide not to air the movie on network television:

"...CBS' decision not to air "The Reagans" came after weeks of complaints by fans of the former president that it would distort his legacy...."


Or was it? BBC on the Internet reported CBS denies folding over Reagans:

"Mr Moonves stated that the decision to pull the drama was his alone. He added that he was not influenced by the Republican outcry over the mini-series or pressure from Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone or president Mel Karmazin.

"Unfortunately, in this instance, some of the criticisms, although coming from obviously one political perspective, I felt were somewhat well-founded," Mr. Moonves said."



Am I the only one who sees the huge difference between fans uniting to point out the disrespect shown to the Reagan family and members of a party's leadership making veiled threats to ABC in reminding them more than once that they will be in a position of needing their broadcast license renewed at some point in the future? This is not a good comparison at all. Show me where leaders in the Republican party issued letters to CBS and offered veiled threats about their broadcast license renewal, show me comparable outcry among the LEADERS of the Republican party calling for this movie to be canceled if "changes are not made."

After all these years of Bush bashing is the Democrat leadership so defensive that they'll try to censor a broadcast network rather than take a little of the blame upon themselves for the tragedy of 9/11/01? I believe we have our answer.

This is all about politics and politics should not rule over the freedom of press, speech, expression and dissent rights of Americans. Democrats have a nasty habit of letting political power trump all.

5 comments:

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

I pointed this out on my blog: That some of the Dems flexed their legislative muscles by way of threatening ABC's broadcasting license if they didn't pull the "offending" scenes.

I don't recall the Repubs doing the same, and they have one of their own on the Communications committee...

Not that I like either party, mind you.

Jacke M. said...

Ahhh, so you aren't a dread "Bush apologist?" Heh, heh.

I read your post on the subject and you were right. I could find nothing about party leaders, including a past President, mind you, "flexing their legislative muscles" in the way the Democrat leaders did in this case.

As far as the press comparing it to the reaction regarding "The Reagans" I do NOT feel it was a legitimate comparison and in translation I took it to be an attempt to change the subject to...."humph, the Republicans do it too," sorry, no dice.

I have utmost respect for the Libertarian platform except for that pesky little legalize ALL illegal drugs thang...wish you guys would drop it, I might join you. As it is I choose the lesser of evils from the two leading parties, the one I can agree with on the majority of issues. I reserve the right to change my mind. ;)

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

Jacke,

I would wish the LP to change it to "make drug legalization/decriminalization a states' rights issue", although "states' rights" has dirty connotations... none of which are deserved. Darn statists.

No, I lost my flavor for Republicans when it was down to Bush Version 1.0 and Clinton. Actually, Bush 1 and Dukakis was probably the kernel, but it flowered four years later.

And, so, here I am... tilting at the windmills, running for the House, stirrin' the gravy to get out the lumps, banging on the castle gate with a stick...

Why do we do this, anyway? Is it some vain, faint glimmer of hope that we'll somehow change the outcome? Will I have to waste my vote on a Republican in 2008 to help keep the Hildabeast at bay?

Anyway, thanks, and remember: Have a government-approved day! :)

Jacke M. said...

I happen to like State's rights and wish the courts at the Fed level would quit trying to interfere so much with them.

Are you a FairTax supporter?

I'll be checking you out. What district are you running in? I'm not beholden to any particular political party BUT the far-leftist take-over of the Democrat party definitely keeps me voting Republican when it counts.

You know Boortz, I'm a big fan btw, thinks we ought to teach them a lesson and that now, before the 2008 election is the time to teach, at least those representing us in the House, a lesson.

I voted for the Libertarian candidate running against Roy Blunt. :)

Mother is staying here with me a couple of days. I picked her up today. I thank you for the well wishes.

Jacke M. said...

I meant to comment on this:

"Why do we do this, anyway? Is it some vain, faint glimmer of hope that we'll somehow change the outcome?"

Yep, I do think that's what it is. Egotistical of us, ain't it? ;)