Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CBS dancing to Republican tune
Toronto Star ^ | Nov. 9, 2003 | ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

Posted on 11/10/2003 11:11:34 AM PST by holymoly

CBS dancing to Republican tune

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

I'm thinking of having the above photo retaken in order to show the drywall embedded in my forehead. It's a wonder I stopped bashing my head long enough to eke out this column.

It's been that kind of week. First, there was CBS's dumping of its sweeps period biopic The Reagans after a right wing-organized backlash, and then, at Thursday's Canadian Journalists For Free Expression awards dinner, I got into a surreal argument with a TV network foreign affairs producer who made the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq.

The two events are related because it has been my experience in the past two years that, every time you raise an issue that makes those on the right uncomfortable, they change the subject and argue about something else.

And so, in making his case about how the Bushies made their case for killing thousands of people in Iraq, my TV foreign affairs colleague kept shifting the debate the way a desert wind shifts the sands. No, the White House never said the U.S. was in imminent danger of attack by nuke-yule-er weapons wielded by terrorists, he said. It merely "sold'' the war wrong. No, President George W. Bush never mentioned that bit about 45 minutes to annihilation. That was Tony Blair. And so on.

As for The Reagans which, like any docudrama, likely boasts as much drama as doc, it was denounced by one writer for the Wall Street Journal as a "cartoon plot" best summarized as "Mommie Dearest Manipulates President Fuddy Duddy." Meanwhile the paper's deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger fulminated over how the now Alzheimer's-afflicted president was played by James Brolin, who is guilty of being "partner of America's most invested Republican hater," Barbra Streisand. Almost as bad was hiring an Australian actress — Emmy-winning Judy Davis — to be former First Lady Nancy Davis Reagan who, it shall be remembered, was indeed called "Mommy" by her husband.

Naturally, the pro-Reagans, anti-Reagans forces dragged out their favourite burning cross: the sins of the so-called liberal media. The script here is that, when the media report news that the right doesn't like, its defenders counterattack by screaming left-wing bias rather than admit that Bush could be a big fat liar. Last week, one of my favourite cartoonists Tom Toles illustrated this brilliantly by showing a CBS announcer saying the network won't be airing The Reagans "because it's full of inaccuracies, hostile in tone and completely misleading" and then, looking off camera, asking, "What do we do about this Bush press conference?''

Oh the horror, the horror, of allowing travesties of truth, justice and good taste on the corporate-controlled supposed public airwaves. Never mind that Viacom, which owns CBS, is awaiting new broadcast rules that will allow it to expand its considerable media dominion. So duh! It's going to do what the Republicans want it to do.

But the Ronald Reagan-loving critics overlook that, claiming victory over the liberal media, which had merely set out to trash their beloved Gipper and, among other things, his appalling record on AIDS. Even though these critics never saw the show, and even though Reagan never mentioned AIDS for the first six years of his administration. Anyway, do they honestly believe that CBS, which owns the older, more conservative demographic, would risk a single eyeball with a smear job?

So now The Reagans has been offloaded to CBS's smaller cable sister network Showtime. My guess is that Showtime, which says it will follow the presentation with a panel discussion, never runs the now heavily edited and re-edited miniseries.

Meanwhile, the late great Edward R. Murrow who, along with his producer Fred Friendly and CBS, helped bring down Commie-hunter Joseph McCarthy, spins in his grave.

If that's not enough irony for you, consider this: President Ronald Reagan was the guy who, in 1987, vetoed legislation, passed by both the U.S. Congress and the Senate, that would have entrenched the "Fairness Doctrine.'' As a president who was big on keeping government out of the business of business, he did not see the value in a law that would have forced broadcasters to present balanced accounts of controversial issues.

Hmmm ...

This is not to say that the Fairness Doctrine was without problems from a freedom of the press standpoint. But abolishing it led to even more trouble in television land, including the creation of entire "news" networks that spew lots of opinion and little fact.

The Reagans was never meant to be a news program. It was designed as drama, and cheesy drama at that. But its critics seem to be saying that most Americans can't discern between TV fiction and news.

Considering the record lately, they could be right.


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aids; antiamericanism; antibush; barfalert; boycott; boycottviacom; bushbashing; canada; cbs; cheeseandwhine; homosexual; homosexualagenda; mediabias; nowhiningzone; ratherbiased; reaganbashing; ronaldreagan; seebs; showtime; smarmyliberal; technicoloryawn; thereagans; viacom; viacommie; waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: Revolting cat!
He needs to have the photo retaken in his burqa.
41 posted on 11/10/2003 12:44:13 PM PST by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: weegee
He will always be just a peanut farmer to me.
42 posted on 11/10/2003 12:52:41 PM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
>The Reagans was never meant to be a news program. It was >designed as drama, and cheesy drama at that. But its >critics seem to be saying that most Americans can't >discern between TV fiction and news.

OOooohh I get it! The next time I want to slander someone and claim they made remarks they didn't actually make and that shows them in a negative light... I'll just say, "I'm not a NEWSSS PROGRAM!! Therefore I don't have to be accountable to anything!!" Thanks for the legal loophole Antonia!
43 posted on 11/10/2003 12:59:55 PM PST by sunryse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All
BTW, the writer of the article can be responded to at azerbis@thestar.ca. Fire for Effect...
44 posted on 11/10/2003 1:32:23 PM PST by BFM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

First, there was CBS's dumping of its sweeps period biopic The Reagans after a right wing-organized backlash, and then, at Thursday's Canadian Journalists For Free Expression awards dinner, I got into a surreal argument with a TV network foreign affairs producer who made the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq.

The two events are related because it has been my experience in the past two years that, every time you raise an issue that makes those on the right uncomfortable, they change the subject and argue about something else.

I'm trying to figure out where in the article he shows that conservatives are changing the subject when he points out something about The Reagans. Or for that matter on Iraq. Or was that just some unrelated observation? This guy should cut down on the bong hits.

45 posted on 11/10/2003 2:05:20 PM PST by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
The Toronto Star is arguably the most far-left major daily paper in the Northwestern Hemisphere. The bias isn't pink-it's deep scarlet red.
46 posted on 11/10/2003 2:52:12 PM PST by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
He will always be just a peanut farmer to me.
What do you have against peanut farmers?
47 posted on 11/10/2003 3:20:04 PM PST by oh8eleven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
It's a wonder I stopped bashing my head long enough to eke out this column.

The rattling sound coming from inside the head sounded like a baby's rattle. A big, loud one full of marbles.

You should put some ice on that.

48 posted on 11/10/2003 3:27:42 PM PST by Allegra (CBS has canceled this tagline. It was "not due to controversy." Tom Daschle is disappointed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
I have nothing against peanut farmers. But I'll bet those peanuts were real impressed by his degree in Nuclear Physics.
49 posted on 11/10/2003 4:19:19 PM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
....the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq.

I've been hearing this accusation for months, but am still waiting to hear what exactly they lied about.

50 posted on 11/10/2003 5:44:42 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I wouldn't mind a shot or two hitting him in the head with drywall.
51 posted on 11/10/2003 5:54:36 PM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
"If that's not enough irony for you, consider this: President Ronald Reagan was the guy who, in 1987, vetoed legislation, passed by both the U.S. Congress and the Senate, that would have entrenched the "Fairness Doctrine.'' As a president who was big on keeping government out of the business of business, he did not see the value in a law that would have forced broadcasters to present balanced accounts of controversial issues."

Translation: The left is still pissed about losing control of radio and television 16 years later.
52 posted on 11/10/2003 6:40:34 PM PST by Beck_isright (Socialists are like cockroaches. No matter how many die, 300 more are born under every cowpile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BFM; dirtboy
And so, in making his case about how the Bushies made their case for killing thousands of people in Iraq, my TV foreign affairs colleague kept shifting the debate the way a desert wind shifts the sands. No, the White House never said the U.S. was in imminent danger of attack by nuke-yule-er weapons wielded by terrorists, he said.

Subj: Imminence Front

Ms. Zerbisias seems to be Canada's answer to Molly Ivins. I've engaged her in an e-mail exchange over the above quote, pointing out that the TV producer was 100% correct.

She disagreed, contending she was, at that moment, watching a videotape of him saying just that. When I asked for the specific cite and context, she responded with:

A script for PBS Frontline

Upon reading the entire script (composed of sound bites) I noted out that, in no statement, had President Bush claimed Iraq constituted an "imminent threat" to America (though Bill Clinton certainly had, back in 1998-9). She then changed her point of reference to the following phrase:

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: The Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.

Which, I reminded her, had originally been cited by Tony Blair, come from British intelligence sources -- and, in context, had referred only to Iraq's neighbors.

I eagerly await Ms. Zerbisias' next riposte.

She apparently hung an entire column on one willful mischaracterization. And, of course, she won't give it up -- just like dear Molly.

Makes one wonder, though, if the DNC's talking points memos have international distribution...

53 posted on 11/10/2003 6:43:52 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"...how the Bushies made their case for killing thousands of people in Iraq..."

Well they've got a looong way to go before they catch up with Saddam.

54 posted on 11/10/2003 6:50:50 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
Can't measure up to the Mpls Star Tribune.
55 posted on 11/10/2003 7:02:04 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (they're a special kind of leftist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
TRUST me on this. I've been living in Minneapolis myself for the past three months (as a graduate student), and while the Red Star Tribune is obnoxiously liberal, it doesn't compare with the virulent and strident radicalism of the Toronto Star. The Mpls Star Tribune is basically the Detroit Free Press with a slightly higher level of writing (sixth-grade level, as opposed to the Dreep's-I refuse to call it the Freep- third-grade level).
56 posted on 11/10/2003 7:24:23 PM PST by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
No matter. I can't decide who is uglier!
57 posted on 11/10/2003 7:51:40 PM PST by manic4organic (An organic conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I'm thinking of having the above photo retaken in order to show the drywall embedded in my forehead. It's a wonder I stopped bashing my head long enough to eke out this column.

He quit knocking his head before any sense got in. He needs to continue bashing his head for as long as it takes.
58 posted on 11/10/2003 7:59:41 PM PST by Wolfhound777 (It's not our job to forgive them. Only God can do that. Our job is to arrange the meeting--N.S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
bttt
59 posted on 11/11/2003 1:10:40 AM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
We lived in the Twin Cities from 1986-2001. The Strib is beyond anything from other northern cities I visited.
60 posted on 11/11/2003 6:28:54 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson