IT Employment

General discussion



By maxwell edison ·
From the Drudge Report:



CBS will issue press release early in morning; Robert Greenblatt, head of SHOWTIME will announce that SHOWTIME will air the telepic.

Bob Ackerman the Director has said he will re-edit some portions of the film for SHOWTIME.

CBS to write-off $9 million...


Way to go CBS! Kudos to you.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A Glorious day for Conservatives

by JimHM In reply to CBS CANCELS 'REAGANS'

It is a Glorious day for us Wacko-Right-wingers, us Sicko-Conservative Talk Radio listeners - Us free thinkers...

Yes - CBS is eating hard the 9 million they spent on lies and half truths. Yes, they realized that they were ****-off 98% of their core viewing market. (****-o no viewers no station)... I guess the few million tons of emails, letters, fax's and phone calls pay off.

CBS could of released that to TV and distroyed a much loved X-President, and distroy themselfs in the process. They can try airing it on ShowTime or Skinamax - but it will be view by very few - and if they do ... we can still stop watching CBS...


Let CBS Eat Dirty ... Yea For the Conservative Right... The quite Majority

Collapse -

I sent CBS a letter

by maxwell edison In reply to A Glorious day for Conser ...

I sent a letter to CBS president, Les Moonves, a couple of weeks ago over the issue.

I'm sure that was the "one" that did it, right? Actually, it was everybody's "one" that did it.

I was pretty torqued over the issue. (Remember my initial messages?**&start=0

CBS deserves some credit as well as all those letter writers. It may have been the outcry that led them to re-evaluate their original position, but they did re-evaluate where others would not have. And I'm sure the fact that they were having trouble holding onto their sponsors had a lot to do with it.

I saw CBS president, Les Moonves, on Charlie Rose the other night. (Quite a coincidence, I thought.)He seems like a decent guy, although he certainly is ratings driven. But he also seems like a (somewhat) principled guy as well.

I remember when whacko Martha Burke and her merry band of feminist was trying to pressure him (CBS president, Les Moonves) to cancel the Masters golf tournament because of Augusta National Golf Club's all-male policy. He didn't succumb to their pressure. In fact, he threw her threats of boycotting advertisers right back at her, figuratively speaking. CBS released all advertisers from their commitments, and showed the Masters commercial free. Augusta National, The Masters, and CBS aired that golf tournament commercial free, and they all shared in bearing the cost of the broadcast.

Now If we can just get him to get rid of Dan Blather (Dan Rather) and replace him with someone like Britt Hume or Tony Snow.

Maybe some more letters?

Collapse -

Was it a good thing?

by jkaras In reply to I sent CBS a letter

I dont know the full story of the special or the facts about what really went on with Ronald or any other president. I really dont care whether he was truly great or not, in control of his faculties, or the greatest. The truth was he inspired many to prosper due to his congenial personality despite the crazy spending by the government.
To me this "protest" only shows to the power of the masses saying it's offensive so shut up. What happened to free speech that allows even offensive stuff said? How can it be free speech if it's suppressive? I say if they are lies let them show their ignorance. If you dont like it dont watch. Yes I understand that people will take their word for it as fact and not investigate for the actual truth, but that happens everyday in the news and newspapers etc... Why cause it's about ratings and advertisement not "the public's right to know" that the media hides behind in their despicable tactics. I like people to be real rather than fake to appease like celebrities do to make a buck.

Collapse -

You Don't Understand

by JackOfAllTech In reply to Was it a good thing?

I get SO tired of people tossing the phrase "free speech" around when they don't understand what it really means.

The intent of the amendment was to insure the right of the people to voice their opinions about their GOVERNMENT without fear of retribution. It does NOT give anyone the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, it does NOT give anyone the right to say vulgar, profane things in public, and it most definitely does NOT give anyone the right to lie or besmirch someone else's reputation in speech or in print, which are known as slander and libel respectively.

Although our system of government is technically a Republic, it is based on democratic principles - loosely defined as "majority rules". If the majority of the viewing public would rather not have this shown, that is not censoring 'free speech'.


Collapse -

JKaras - Do you understand what that means?

by JimHM In reply to Was it a good thing?

JKaras - do you understand what freedom of speech means? Or Freedom of expression; which is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy in the USA.

It is fundamental to our existence as a democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. It is the right of the people to comment and complain about their government. As others have posted here and before.

The Miniseries was filled with lies and half truths the lead actor was the husband of a very active socialist actress (Barba S.).. The motives were vandictive - before the protest CBS seen nothing wrong with it. Then after all the protests they changed their mind, and to make it look as if they didn't bend to the pressure - they said it was the script that they didn't agree with.

Collapse -


by jkaras In reply to JKaras - Do you understan ...

No one has seen this. We dont know the level of truth to lies other than what was reported to sell the controversy. Was this a great victory for the US? WE worry about a made for tv movie vs our problems in our country. Imagine how much better our lives would be if everyone made the demands that was made over this movie.
Everyday false stories are printed and reported in news briefs and newspapers and magazines that tarnish many people's reputation that never get a real retraction or apology, does anyone care? No. Just ask the security guard that got painted as the responsible one in the Atlanta Olympics bombing who did his job and was accused with a hero complex so the F.B.I. could save face that screwed the pooch. He got a back page 5 line apology vs. when the story broke in big letters on the front page for a couple of days.

Also I heard that they actually pulled it due to pissing off the republicans who are in control of the FCC. They wanted to buy more markets but Colin Powell's son is head of the FCC that was blocking it. What ever the reason I could care less. Next to nobody was going to watch it anyway, I wasnt. We have a choice to listen to ignorance or not that is the beauty of our society to me that's free speech. It was talking about our government in a negitative way whether factual or not and it got censored, so was it free? We will never know the whole truth in anything reported, it's biased and wasnt witnessed by who reported the story. It is about selling the story not the facts, that's reality. Everytime an accident that involves fatalities they all report fake statistics claiming "according to sources". The point was what was more important tv fantasy or real life? The answer was apply tv, rather funny and pathetic over the celebration of this "victory".

Collapse -

I would not disagree with you about the media

by JimHM In reply to Hey

I would not disagree with you about the liberal media - and its attacks on people without having the evidence. And then nothing is done unless you take them to court. Then the Liberal court comes down with some stupid ruling ...

Collapse -

You're proving my point

by maxwell edison In reply to Hey

You said, "We don't know the level of truth to lies other than what was reported to sell the controversy."

Well, there have been releases of clips from the movie as well as the entire written screen-play, so we do know. Moreover, CBS head Les Moonves, who is a self-described liberal Democrat, said, "the film was "biased" against the former president." Moonves also said, "He made up his own mind after seeing it".

You said that you, "heard that they actually pulled it due to pissing off the Republicans who are in control of the FCC."

Please share your source for that information. Let's get to the bottom of it and see if that's REALLY the case. I'll bet $100 to your $1 that it's not true. (And if you prove it is, I'll really pay up.)

Quite frankly, I'm tired of the way Conservative Republicans and their ideas are constantly being deamonized by the Hollywood left-wing.

Let me name just a few who HAVE been unjustly deamonized: Arnold Schwarzenegger, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Charleton Heston, Dan Quayle, **** Cheney, Newt Gingrich,......

Name ONE Republican who is mentioned in favorable terme by those idiots - just ONE.

If the Hollywood agenda isn't obvious, you're not looking very hard - or with an open mind.

Collapse -

Viacom's business

by Cactus Pete In reply to You're proving my point

Viacom, the owner of CBS, also owns a lot of other media. In fact, they own more than the law currently allows. New regulations would relax the market restrictions such that Viacom would no longer be in violation, and so they are lobbying for this change. It would not make much sense to **** off the the Republican majority which could ammend the rules to allow for Viacom to own what they do. I'd take the 9mil writeoff too!

Interestingly, no one is commenting about the fact that Viacom is currently in violation of regs NOW. There must have been a clause allowing them to temporarily overown media outlets until they could sell some off - I imagine that would have been in the terms of their last purchase.

Of course, they have elected to not sell off, expecting the laws to catch up to them instead.

Personally, I think Viacom should be fined for defying the rules. If they think it's cheaper to pay he fines, well then ... fine. But they should have it as a cost of business.

Of course, this whole thing may have been a ploy to look good in conservative eyes of congress, helping push through the changes they want...

Collapse -

It's become SOoooo obvious to me

by maxwell edison In reply to Was it a good thing?

That many people can be misled into believeing things that are just not true. And the way the extreme left faction that resides in Hollywood continually distorts the truth and, in some cases, outright lies and gives the public impressions that are false is downright shameful.

I've always been a proponent of being informed by being well read on ALL views of an issue, knowing ALL sides of an argument, and generally getting a balanced perspective of how things are. I've often mentioned how many people don't get that balance. But how many people never read a newspaper or view a news broadcast at all? Too many. How many get ALL of their "perspective" from sitcoms or movies or the comedians on Leno? Too many. Oh, it must be true. I saw it in a movie. Yea, right.

"Free Speech", as you wondered about, is indeed being exercised. The government, from whom our "free speech" is protected, did not stop the ones making the movie, nor did it silence the ones speaking out against it.

Related Discussions

Related Forums