Politics: A new beginning

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
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.)

Oh, so grapes and television are really completely different, but shouting down a speaker in front of his guests who are already present and asking the speaker's host not to host the speaker are pretty close?

Or have you moved away from this mischaracterization yet? The analogy with the shout-down isn't enough. I need to see reasons why we should accept it as valid. And you have not presented any.

As noted, in the shout-down, the guests are already there. They were invited. The speaker, audience and host have made investments of their time and/or money.

In this, CBS appears to believe they are saving money by not airing the program. And the audience hasn't lost a dime or a moment. The speaker? Well, I presume they all got paid.

Smells again like the hideous moral equivalency arguments here.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

What, pray tell, should the Demos move right on? Where has the DLC-run Democratic party gone left of the mainstream on social issues? Abortion rights? Gun control? Confederate flags?

1. Religious/cultural issues, especially harmless shit like supporting the pledge, opposing flag burning, supporting displays of the ten commandments, opposing public funding for bizarro-art like "piss christ" or paintings done with a mixture of blood and cum
2. Supporting enforcement of the immigration laws.

[sgtclub]

More on the decision

http://www.drudgereport.com/rr7.htm

[Moonves, a self proclaimed liberal democrat, made the decision because the film was biased. At least that's his proffered reason]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Oh, so grapes and television are really completely different, but shouting down a speaker in front of his guests who are already present and asking the speaker's host not to host the speaker are pretty close?

Or have you moved away from this mischaracterization yet? The analogy with the shout-down isn't enough. I need to see reasons why we should accept it as valid. And you have not presented any.

As noted, in the shout-down, the guests are already there. They were invited. The speaker, audience and host have made investments of their time and/or money.

In this, CBS appears to believe they are saving money by not airing the program. And the audience hasn't lost a dime or a moment. The speaker? Well, I presume they all got paid.

Smells again like the hideous moral equivalency arguments here.

I agree that the parallel is generally not quite right. I was only responding to sgtclub's specific suggestion that somehow the boycott was OK because there was a critical mass of boycotters, but that it would have been wrong if the number of boycotters is smaller. The parallel to hecklers illustrates why that's a poor argument.

CBS is no doubt doing what's best for its shareholders. But that does not change the fact that people who would have watched the miniseries now will not be able to see it because the boycotters disagreed with it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As you've said to me before, bitch please.

You have to make up your mind whether (a) no one has been affected by this because anyone who wants to watch it can buy Showtime, or (b) CBS's decision to drop the miniseries means that the market has spoken in some meaningful way. The two contentions are contradictory. Just pick one, and stick with it.

The idea that this whole episode is one of market forces producing an optimal result is really pretty weak, since the vast majority of those in the market will never get to see the miniseries -- I know GAs all get Showtime, but its share is much smaller than CBS's. If cereal manufacturers pay supermarkets a slotting fee to ensure that only their products get shelf space, and that consumers do not have the opportunity to purchase other brands, it may be legal, but that does not mean that the market is maximizing consumer welfare.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
I agree that the parallel is generally not quite right. I was only responding to sgtclub's specific suggestion that somehow the boycott was OK because there was a critical mass of boycotters, but that it would have been wrong if the number of boycotters is smaller. The parallel to hecklers illustrates why that's a poor argument.

CBS is no doubt doing what's best for its shareholders. But that does not change the fact that people who would have watched the miniseries now will not be able to see it because the boycotters disagreed with it.

On a more Macro level, Viacom is doing a win-win for its shareholders by (1) moving this idiocy from its CBS label, which, but for its CSI, Survivor and Big Brother franchises, has a older, conservative, mid-America viewing constituency [remember - this is the network of 60 Minutes, Dr. Quinn and Saved by a Angel] and would have gotten killed by negative viewer responses and losses in advertising revenue, and (2) further making its Showtime network stand out from HBO because of its "edgier" original programming, like Queer as Folk, Dead Like Me, etc. and where they can openly brag about it being shown "uncut" - with the Ronnie curses and all.

As a matter of fact, I'm guessing Redstone is loving all this crap.

s4(um...he still is the head of Viacom, right?)e

[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.

and earlier

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
ignore my pizza boycott parallel to distinguish grape boycott

I only mentioned the grape boycott because I knew you'd be familar with it, wasn't sure if the Domino's boycott was as well known. I'm assuming in SF elementary school you learn about the great socialist victories of Chavez, ho Chi Minh and Mao early on*.

The Domino's boycott was intended to prevent people from hearing something (vile and hateful, but still....). The point was to convince Monaghan to stop funding a group that went into cities and fought against gay rights. the hope was the crap these people spread would not be heard, or at least not be as widely heard (on Showtime!).
I suppose you could distinguish a boycott to generally change future behavior (Pizza boycott, your "don't buy the Times until it changes") from A boycott to prevent specific things- "don't air Reagan or we'll not watch your network/ not buy the product you advertise." If this is your point, maybe you could explain what difference this distinction makes.
As with most other important issue of the day, Howard Stern brings the best perspective. He points out that if Reagan fans simply let the show go, no one would have watched it. He agrees it's wrong to invent things like "Reagan had disdain for gays", but felt that the press will ultimately increase viewership. This is probably true, and probably the Reagan fans should have simply gotten ABC or NBC to do a positve look at Reagan. Picture it, tearful scene where he calls old friend Rock to say goodby and rails to Nancy against his inability to stop AIDs or some such.

But ultimately controlling how Reagan fans deal with the movie is a violation of free speech. We might find some speech offensive (Monaghan's guys), or ill-advised (perhaps this protest), but it ain't for us to prevent any of it.

As an aside, its not like this thing is art. James Brolin actually hit an artistic high water mark with Marcus Welby and has been drifting down since. One could say the "in love " with Barbra thing is pretty damn good acting, but that's a job, not art.

As another aside, bios of presidents with made up facts have interesting potential. think about our grandkids, what they will know about Nixon is probably mostly from Oliver Stone's Nixon (except for Atticus' grandkids, who will be well read). The 18 minute gap was for nat'l security to protect the bay of pigs, i think he drank JWBlack because of the movie.

*how does Club get through the day out there? are there groups of right thinking people he can huddle with? I can't imagine how he controls his reaction to routine things, like the ballot inititives each year.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
*how does Club get through the day out there? are there groups of right thinking people he can huddle with? I can't imagine how he controls his reaction to routine things, like the ballot inititives each year.

It hurts to say this, but that was a well-reasoned post.

P.S. I imagine Club focuses on the positive aspects of life in California, like the frequent group sex.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You have to make up your mind whether (a) no one has been affected by this because anyone who wants to watch it can buy Showtime, or (b) CBS's decision to drop the miniseries means that the market has spoken in some meaningful way. The two contentions are contradictory. Just pick one, and stick with it.

They are not contradictory at all, and this comment shows me that you really do have no concept of economics. The market has spoken in that it has decided that this show is not a show that should be broadcast on network television free to television viewers. The market has also decided that this show is appropriate for Showtime, a pay television network. Those that have Showtime will be able to watch. Those that don't have to make an economic decision - is my desire to watch this particular film worth the cost of getting Showtime (or as I suggested, finding someone who has it).

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop The idea that this whole episode is one of market forces producing an optimal result is really pretty weak, since the vast majority of those in the market will never get to see the miniseries -- I know GAs all get Showtime, but its share is much smaller than CBS's. If cereal manufacturers pay supermarkets a slotting fee to ensure that only their products get shelf space, and that consumers do not have the opportunity to purchase other brands, it may be legal, but that does not mean that the market is maximizing consumer welfare.

You pull a classic Ty bait and switch again by equating "optimal result" with the majoriy being able to view the film or, as I understand you, "consumer welfare." The market's purpose is not to maximize consumer welfare, though it often times has that effect. The market's purpose is to divide labor (the "invisible hand") on an efficient basis.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

In other words, this is the lowest-of-low, knock-off cheapo production and unthought out bid for viewers from the Hallmark crowd. This is two cuts below reality TV.

(1) What does the world expect of a mini-series? Of course it was biased. Just not in the way most of them are biased, to be sickly sweet and cloying.

(2) So what? It would be forgetten before it was over.

(3) When was the last time CBS, or anyone, got this much press for a mini-series? They don't even have to pay for advertising.

(4) Slave's right, Redstone's lovin' it. (Edited to add: He's a big Dem supporter. I'm betting he's getting real pleasure out of using the Reagan fan club to give this dog a new life).

(5) I think Penske is behind the whole thing. Brilliant move, Penske.

(6) Let's talk about something else. Partial birth abortion, anyone?

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I see Ann Coulter is still writing. As an aside, for no apparent reason I have this feeling that the answer [to whether syphilis is deadly] is no.

Al Capone will be happy to hear that. Oh, wait...

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(6) Let's talk about something else.

Okay. does the Senate Dems' memo suggesting timing an investigation into pre-war intelligence and its alleged misuse to co-incide with the run up to the election sicken any of the Dems here?
I mean, if an investigation is in order, and the Pres. did do bad, shouldn't the investigation happen just as soon as possible? If the Dems are acting to investigate something they should as guardians of our democracy, it just seems that playing with the timing is not keeping with their supposed duties.
At long last, will this cause some of the Dems here to vote Republican?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Okay. does the Senate Dems' memo suggesting timing an investigation into pre-war intelligence and its alleged misuse to co-incide with the run up to the election sicken any of the Dems here?
I mean, if an investigation is in order, and the Pres. did do bad, shouldn't the investigation happen just as soon as possible? If the Dems are acting to investigate something they should as guardians of our democracy, it just seems that playing with the timing is not keeping with their supposed duties.
At long last, will this cause some of the Dems here to vote Republican?

On point 1, can you give me a cite to an aritcle - I seem to have missed this news.

On point 2, no.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On point 1, can you give me a cite to an aritcle - I seem to have missed this news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102206,00.html

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102206,00.html

So you don't think anyone in DC should ever strategize about what the best timing is for blowing up issues? I believe I issued a memorandum on this board perhaps a month or so ago outlining precisely the same timing.

But, a nice move for the R's to find the memo and get it to Fox. I'll bet they had trouble convincing more reputable outlets that this was news.