Politics: A new beginning

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
You mean he's still lying even while he's on his deathbed?! That bastard!

[as an aside, I still believe that some other healthier former president will die before Reagan. Not sure if it will be Carter or Ford.]

Or Clinton. As an aside, apropos of none of that, is syphillis deadly?

edited to add: please note that my heart for you transcends my dislike of discussing politics in a public forum.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A bad way for a market to operate is for producers to decide not to offer products that many consumers would want because a small subset of consumers gets bent out of shape and wants to restrict the options available to others. The marketplace of ideas is now going to have fewer options available, and that's even before you get to the chilling effect. What part of this do you not understand?

If it was merely a small subset, the show would air. Nice bait and switch, but the market place of ideas is not the same thing as the television market place. The television market place has determined that this should not air on CBS. It will still air on Showtime, and cable TV has traditionally been the place for more risky shows to air.

No offence Ty, but I don't exactly equate you with Milton Friedman when it comes to market forces.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Or Clinton. As an aside, apropos of none of that, is syphillis deadly?

I see Ann Coulter is still writing. As an aside, for no apparent reason I have this feeling that the answer is no.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
I don't think it's unheard of for people to boycott advertisers if the programs they advertise on do something that someone considers tasteless. (In)Accuracy aside, does no one find it tasteless that Streisand's husband and her like-thinking clones decide to put together a mud-slinging portrayal as Reagan is dying of Alzheimers? The disease is probably in it's late stages (he hasn't been seen publicly for a few years now) and while I don't know if he is on his death bed, he is at the very least defenseless.

I put this show on par with the also-cancelled show about the six bachelors competing for the date with the woman who turns out to be a pre-op transsexual. Neither of them passes the smell test and whoever approved it should be fired for making their employer spend millions on something that no-one will ever watch.

I agree that the fact that Reagan can't respond certainly increases the outrage factor and the sliminess factor. I'm not sure that this is "precendented" -- although boycotts surely are - the new thing here is that it is purely political. Boycotters and protestors have every right to do that -- but I still think they'e dicks for raising such a hullaballoo just b/c the show is unkind to their hero. For God's Sake, before CBS announced they were pulling it, the RNC had _demanded_ a private screening before it aired.

OTOH -- think of the likely reaction from the left if someone produced a network miniseries on the life of MLK, Jr. which focused heavily on the rampant marital infidelity.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'm missing the part where you said you and millions of others had called CBS to voice your concern. Otherwise how would they have known?

I won't because it's not pertinent to my point. My point is that I don't think the cancellation was due to millions of Reagan fans calling CBS to bitch. I don't think that happened.

That's a pretty high standard of proof you are asking for, no? Regarding the viewers, my assertion is that they are afraid of what millions of us will do to their advertisers. According to CNN, their advertisers have spaketh about this.

And according to TY, there is at least one line protest that was being formed.

And that is just addressing the potential viewers.

There are also the owners of Viacom. Their voice counts too. Or should owners not exercise discretion when someone is planning on putting distasteful smut and lies on their medium?

So no, I'm not going to point you to millions of viewers. I think Viacom's statement and the CNN et al. articles have made my points about an economic decision pretty clearly. Hell, even Club seems to have come my way on this one, rather than sticking to his libel... theories.

So aside from the scope of this, how does it differ from the editorial control that is made millions of times a day by owners and employees everywhere?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Or Clinton. As an aside, apropos of none of that, is syphillis deadly?

edited to add: please note that my heart for you transcends my dislike of discussing politics in a public forum.

Well that is good. I am glad to be the inspiration for your performance of your moderator duties.

As an aside, he did practice pretty safe sex with Monica.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
...but I still think they'e dicks for raising such a hullaballoo just b/c the show is unkind to their hero

S_A_M

Yeah, the marketplace really sucks, doesn't it? That'll be the last time I fill out a survey to voice my complaints. Or the last time I call or email any business to register a complaint. No more switching services for me either. They are entitled to my business.

In fact, I'll just send my money to whoever asks for it. They probably deserve it. No more private decision-making for me. And no more sharing my concerns about products with others. That would just make me a dick.

Hell(more logic please)o

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If it was merely a small subset, the show would air.

So if one heckler stops a conservative from speaking on a college campus, that's bad, because it's a small subset of the campus, but if a lot of hecklers stop a conservative from speaking on a campus, that's OK. I don't think so.

Nice bait and switch, but the market place of ideas is not the same thing as the television market place. It will still air on Showtime, and cable TV has traditionally been the place for more risky shows to air.

People who don't get Showtime (like me, not that I want to watch the thing) now will not be able to see the miniseries. This was the aim of the boycott -- the protesters did not like the substance of what CBS was going to say, and have pushed the show to another forum where it will get less of an audience. The whole point is to keep the miniseries from being seen. Don't you get that?

Why do you think there's an important difference here between "the market place of ideas" and "the televsion market place"? Is a TV just a toaster with pictures? The whole point of this boycott is that it isn't, never mind what Reed Hunt says.

No offence Ty, but I don't exactly equate you with Milton Friedman when it comes to market forces.

In light of your posts on this topic, I could hardly take offense at this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Why? If someone here disparages the New York Times, isn't that like saying dont' read it? The National Review? The Wall Street Journal editorial page? Cinemax?

What exactly is the problem with encouraging others, even as blatantly as this, to avoid a particular form of private media and its supporters?

I'm not sure you addressed the point I made earlier, but I'm also not sure my stomach allowed me to make it clearly. How is organizing a boycott any different from things that literally happen millions of times a day otherwise? On the FB, they are constantly badmouthing shows. If that is encouragement for others not to watch, then what exactly is different? Aside, of course, from the fact that this is being done before (I think) the reviewer has actually had a chance to watch the show.

These people disagreed with the depiction of Reagan, and so they set about to ensure that the show would not be seen. (I suspect their aim wasn't to shift it to Showtime.) That is different from disagreeing with something in the NYT, or saying 'don't read The National Review.' It's trying to prevent other people from having the opportunity to read the NYT or The National Review because you disagree with what those publications say.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
In fact, I'll just send my money to whoever asks for it. They probably deserve it.

Hello, you don't know me but for I am representing an uncle who was very important in the former government of Nigeria. Unfortunately for him, he sadly passed away several months ago without designating anyone to who should get several hundred millions of US American dollars worth of money in one of our banking institutions. I need for your help to transfer this money out of this bank and into safe bank, perhaps in Switzerland or the Antilles of Dutch. If you send me your bank account number, we can facilitate this process immediately. Thank you, my loyal friend.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So if one heckler stops a conservative from speaking on a college campus, that's bad, because it's a small subset of the campus, but if a lot of hecklers stop a conservative from speaking on a campus, that's OK. I don't think so.

The proper analogy would be if one one heckler stopped the campus from inviting the speaker. Once invited, it's a separate issue. It would be the same thing if CBS aired the show and one hacker disrupted the picture with fuzzy lines and muted the sound. That's the proper way to look at this.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop People who don't get Showtime (like me, not that I want to watch the thing) now will not be able to see the miniseries. This was the aim of the boycott -- the protesters did not like the substance of what CBS was going to say, and have pushed the show to another forum where it will get less of an audience. The whole point is to keep the miniseries from being seen. Don't you get that?

It's called the MARKET Ty. If you want to see the show, order Showtime. Or have someone tape it. It's not that difficult.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Why do you think there's an important difference here between "the market place of ideas" and "the televsion market place"? Is a TV just a toaster with pictures? The whole point of this boycott is that it isn't, never mind what Reed Hunt says.

Because the television market place is just that, a market place. Meaning that there are economic factors that play in. Airing the show is not a good business decision, in CBS' discretion. The market place for ideas is only a "market" in that differing ideas compete against one another, hopefully for the "truth." There is no direct economic component to it.*

*This is not to suggest the purveyors of ideas cannot make money off them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
These people disagreed with the depiction of Reagan, and so they set about to ensure that the show would not be seen. (I suspect their aim wasn't to shift it to Showtime.) That is different from disagreeing with something in the NYT, or saying 'don't read The National Review.' It's trying to prevent other people from having the opportunity to read the NYT or The National Review because you disagree with what those publications say.

boycotts are legitimate ways to express a political point. you are right that there are reasons to not buy domino's pizza based upon the quality. however, many others boycotted domino's for years because the former owner was using his money to fight gay rights inititives around the country. this was a legitimate thing to do, and if i didn't already not buy domino's for quality reasons, I may have joined in the boycott.
Ty, most of your neighbors over 50 didn't eat grapes from 1965-1980 or so because of a boycott.
I don't know if there was a threatened boycott of CBS, or if CBS would take such a boycott seriously. but, surely the networks have been threatened with boycotts before and will be again, and it is not a "republicans are bad" issue. many people use the boycott to intimidate.

ps the guy sold domino's so don't boycott it for political reasons

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
boycotts are legitimate ways to express a political point.

I didn't say it was illegitimate. Note the difference between this and the grapes boycott. That was to get farmers to change their policies. This was to prevent consumers from seeing a view of Reagan with which the boycotters differed. You can like Reagan, and still think that we would all be better off if you didn't have to buy Showtime to have the opportunity to see this miniseries. (This latter point is the one that sgtclub is unable to get through his thick skull.)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Well that is good. I am glad to be the inspiration for your performance of your moderator duties.

My muse, if you will, and I think you will

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
As an aside, he did practice pretty safe sex with Monica.

Yes, thus thwarting any chances that my pregnancy fetish would be inspired. Another reason I am so bitter.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(This latter point is the one that sgtclub is unable to get through his thick skull.)

As you've said to me before, bitch please.