Politics: A new beginning - Page 77

Atticus Grinch · 11-04-2003, 02:22 PM

washingtonpost.com

The New Dull
Congress Has Lost Its Colorful Characters, Overtaking the Faceless Bureaucrats as the Most Boring Bunch in Town

Sexual Harassment Panda · 11-04-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I doubt it.

I don't care.

Quote:

Try this. It the miniseries were to air, it would be offensive to a large number of regular CBS viewers, and therefore to a large number of regular CBS advertisers.

Yes, of course CBS made this decision entirely on economic grounds, notwithstanding the fact that they had previously approved the script, as reported by Drudge. The outrage of Nancy Reagan had absolutely no influence on CBS' decision that this was not for them. Because, as we know, it's the liberals who control the media.

Quote:

Did you seriously say to "change channels"? Well, you see, that is what the advertisers don't want to happen. Moreove,r, some of the viewers may be outraged enough to keep the channel changed.

Okay, I'll admit that was a Dennis Miller moment. You got me there.

Quote:

Am I wasting my time here or do you see the words I'm typing on my screen?

For Chrissakes, you're posting on a chat board during work hours. How is that not wasting your time? Unless you have nothing else to do...

Quote:

Is this supposed to be some kind of humor?

Cause if it's not...what?

Aloha Mr. Learned Hand · 11-04-2003, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

What's the Streisand connection?

Drudge describes the producers as "frequent Streisand collaborators", and her husband James Brolin plays Ronald Reagan. Her website denies involvement and claims she never even read the script, but she was reportedly on the set for weeks at a time...

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-04-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Puhleeze. One is a public institution, the other is a private institution that depends on the market for, e.g., advertising. The second is also beholden to its, e.g., owners, who might not have agreed to a common constitution to guarantee things like free speech.

The market has speaketh.

Right -- conservatives never get upset about the PC crowd at private institutions like Ivy League schools -- it's always limited to public schools.

Give it up. Markets don't usually function with a heckler's veto.

Hank Chinaski · 11-04-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Right -- conservatives never get upset about the PC crowd at private institutions like Ivy League schools -- it's always limited to public schools.

see if we had an intern program, this would be the kind of slow pitch argument we could let a new guy handle.

sgtclub · 11-04-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
see if we had an intern program, this would be the kind of slow pitch argument we could let a new guy handle.

My thoughts exactly.

I have a different take on this whole thing. I don't think it was sensitivity to advertisers. Contraversy = viewers = advertising dollars. Rather, I think there were some libel/slander threats made, the CBS legal department reviewed the movie and asked for appropriate back up, and when none was forthcoming, decided the risk wasn't worth it.

sgtclub · 11-04-2003, 03:52 PM

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/7179928.htm

[Article regarding mayorial vote in Philly today]

Atticus Grinch · 11-04-2003, 03:53 PM

denver post

Soldier chooses family over Army
Woman faces punishment for refusing Iraq duty to avoid losing custody of children

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-04-2003, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
My thoughts exactly.

I have a different take on this whole thing. I don't think it was sensitivity to advertisers. Contraversy = viewers = advertising dollars. Rather, I think there were some libel/slander threats made, the CBS legal department reviewed the movie and asked for appropriate back up, and when none was forthcoming, decided the risk wasn't worth it.

You're on crack. Public figure? Hello?

I like how you guys are so willing to absolve boycotters (i.e., hecklers) when they have your views. So much for free speech. The boycotters are trying to ensure that speech that they don't like won't be heard by others. I guess that's OK if it's in Reagan's name. Anyone who wanted to see the show has to buy Showtime now.

Aloha Mr. Learned Hand · 11-04-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So much for free speech. The boycotters are trying to ensure that speech that they don't like won't be heard by others. I guess that's OK if it's in Reagan's name. Anyone who wanted to see the show has to buy Showtime now.

And I like it when liberals get up in arms when some of their same tactics are used against them. Pot. Kettle.

So moving it to another network is censorship? Does that make putting a book in another part of the library bookburning?

Aside from limited regulations re: public service announcements and children's programming, I'm unaware of any obligations that television networks have to show or not show anything. No one is denying the producers free speech. They just have to get their own forum. Sounds like straight to video is appropriate.

By the way, Ty. What does the minister of "Potsage" do? Sounds like a dope-smoking hippy job to me...

sgtclub · 11-04-2003, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You're on crack. Public figure? Hello?

I like how you guys are so willing to absolve boycotters (i.e., hecklers) when they have your views. So much for free speech. The boycotters are trying to ensure that speech that they don't like won't be heard by others. I guess that's OK if it's in Reagan's name. Anyone who wanted to see the show has to buy Showtime now.

Is there now a free pass for public figures? I understand that the scrutiny is higher, but I also understand that parts of the movie come pretty close to that line.

TV is not = to free speech. It is a pay service where the costs are obsorbed by the advertisers. If those advertisers do not want to pay the costs for a particular product, it is there choice.

If the makers want to air this for free in whatever media form they can garner, I say go right ahead.

Bad_Rich_Chic · 11-04-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
denver post

Soldier chooses family over Army
Woman faces punishment for refusing Iraq duty to avoid losing custody of children

How the hell is it legal to remove children from custody or find someone an unfit parent based on military service? I thought active service people can't even be penalized for failing to pay their debts.

Man, don't even get me started on how fucked up family law is.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-04-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
How the hell is it legal to remove children from custody or find someone an unfit parent based on military service? I thought active service people can't even be penalized for failing to pay their debts.

Man, don't even get me started on how fucked up family law is.

I think this is the Army screwing up, not family law. In family law, the focus is supposed to be on the kids and all the judge did was say, look, I've got one parent able to take them and another who is not, for whatever reason.

But the Army is saying, screw you guys and your family commitments; you women want to be in the Army (forget that this is his kid) instead of staying home, you have what you want, pay the price.

And that price is .... your kids.

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-04-2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
And I like it when liberals get up in arms when some of their same tactics are used against them. Pot. Kettle.

We free speech types don't like it when people don't get to speak on campuses, no matter what their views. You have to go to the Thottam Left to find people who support the kind of mau-mauing that conservatives are doing to CBS.

Quote:

So moving it to another network is censorship? Does that make putting a book in another part of the library bookburning?

It's not censorship -- we're not talking about any kind of state action here. We're just taking about private action designed to suppress speech because you don't agree with its content.

Quote:

By the way, Ty. What does the minister of "Potsage" do? Sounds like a dope-smoking hippy job to me...

Nothing to do with pot, and everything to do with Thurn & Taxis and the Tristero. Read The Crying of Lot 49 -- it's a Pynchon reference.

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-04-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is there now a free pass for public figures? I understand that the scrutiny is higher, but I also understand that parts of the movie come pretty close to that line.

Cite, please. I just can't believe that a CBS miniseries could come anywhere close to libel of a politician.

Quote:

TV is not = to free speech. It is a pay service where the costs are obsorbed by the advertisers. If those advertisers do not want to pay the costs for a particular product, it is there choice.

If the makers want to air this for free in whatever media form they can garner, I say go right ahead.

You are willfully missing the point. I am not complaining about CBS, or its advertisers, or the government. I am complaining that the conservatives who are threatening a boycott of this programming because they disagree with it are acting in a way that we all ought to condemn. They are trying to exercise a heckler's veto.