Liberals don’t know the definition of “censorship”
What a difference a few years makes. Just a few short years ago, CBS would have happily slandered the ailing Ronald Reagan. They would have bounced along happily with their fictionalized miniseries The Reagans, pushing their liberal agenda and attacking a president near-death who cannot even respond to charges against him.
My how times change. Enter Fox News, enter talk radio, enter conservative blogs, and the liberals are on the run. It’s called accountability, kids. Get acquainted with it.
And to you Hollywood types who’d pass this off as “censorship?” Yeah Babs, I’m talking about you. “Censorship, pure and simple”, you say? Let’s try out the ol’ dictionary:
censor: to examine and expurgate
Hmm. So when conservatives put pressure on the media, that’s censorship. When liberals put pressure on the media, that’s activism. Looks like we need one more definition:
consistency: agreement or logical coherence among things or parts
p.s. You really gotta poke around Barbra’s site. What a kook!
November 7th, 2003 at 7:48 am
Well, I’m one of your so-called “liberals”, and while it doesn’t make me feel good to say so, I don’t mind if conservatives stamp their feet and cry about something enough to alter it or have it “censored” or removed. Seriously. That’s how things work sometimes in a free society.
What bothers me *this* time, however, is that the RNC got involved. It’s one thing if Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan or any regular conservative joe (or jane) schmoe sits up in protest. But the RNC is a little, well, “official”. Know what I mean? It’s getting a little too close to real government politics, for my tastes.
I just think we have to be careful here, is all. Besides, a number of tawdry TV movies about the Kennedys have been made, and “liberals” haven’t cried and whined and had THOSE banned. Not that it excuses those movies, but still.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Hope you’re doing well, Tom. It was good seeing you at Cowboy Monkey last month.
Take it easy.
November 7th, 2003 at 11:14 am
Matt: Thanks for responding. I think you raise a good point, especially because the RNC is not the “gatekeeper” of the Reagan legacy (is anyone?). I cannot gauge with great accuracy how “grassroots” the outrage about The Reagans miniseries was, but I’m sure some was orchestrated and some was not. To me, the less orchestrated, the more legitimate.
All in all, however, what I saw was a fictionalized miniseries that portrays an ailing man in an unflattering light. It made no disclaimer before the fact about its lack of factual basis. Basically, it makes up some nasty shit about a guy about to die who cannot right the record. I think that’s pretty low.