Aaron Vehling

I am extremely disappointed with CBS’s decision to pull the miniseries “The Reagans” from its network lineup and move it to the less-watched Showtime Network, due to pressure from conservative political action committees.

CBS basically admitted one of two things. Either the miniseries was inaccurate and the producers were unwilling to back up parts of the controversial script, or that CBS, one of the longest running and most well-respected networks on television, can be censored by political groups, thus, associating themselves completely with one political party and alienating the rest of the nation.

CBS probably spent millions of dollars for this controversial miniseries and now is willing to bow down and accommodate the wishes of family members and conservative political groups.

Bad scriptwriting
From what I read about the script in The New York Times, the miniseries was in poor taste and probably very insensitive to a man who is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Since CBS has such an outstanding reputation, I’m disappointed it even created the miniseries with a script that would taint the former president’s reputation. Although former President Reagan was the poster boy for the conservative movement, it should have taken the positives and the negatives from Reagan’s administration.

However, it sounds as though this miniseries’ sole purpose was to ruin Reagan’s reputation, not to educate and clarify the Reagan administration’s effect on American society.

The miniseries’ entire creation, as a dramatized and fictional account of historical facts, was a terrible idea.

Overall, the general public would have really enjoyed an accurate and truthful series about Reagan. I’m sure there were enough indiscretions and mix-ups from his administration that would have had enough drama for desirably high ratings. Every president seems to have them.

CBS should have brought historians or Reagan biographers in to clarify the extreme and inaccurate parts of the script. The parts that include Reagan’s comments about the HIV epidemic in Africa and the portrayal of Nancy Reagan as a domineering, power-hungry first-lady, while each may be rooted in some truth, they were overstated for the sake of drama and increased ratings.

People didn’t think less of Hillary Clinton’s position in the White House, who was equally, if not more so, as active as Nancy Reagan.

President Reagan is a real person with family members who care about him. He’s a man with a disease that renders him unable to defend himself against these actions. He is not a fictional character who needs to be dramatized and have his reputation tarnished with lies for the sake of increased ratings during sweeps month.

Television networks have a responsibility to the public, especially in areas of historical accounts, to air quality programming rooted in truth and accuracy. I have to believe that truth and accuracy can be just as entertaining to the public as controversy and scandal. Our networks just haven’t been providing the alternative.

When did television become a medium for lies and deceit instead of information and educational growth?

Political favoritism evident
Once CBS started getting pressure from political action committees, it took an even bigger step in the wrong direction. The two wrongs certainly did not create a right.

There have been many instances of these types of docudrama on television networks.

For instance, you did not see networks pulling docudramas about members of the Kennedy family or Rudy Giuliani. These docudramas also were insensitive and unnecessary. “America’s Prince: The John F. Kennedy Jr. Story” aired only a few years after his death. “Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story” aired within a year after his term as the mayor of New York City, not to mention his battle with prostate cancer.

At least these docudramas were admittedly based on biographies of the individuals.

While these political docudramas were equally as insulting and insensitive as “The Reagans,” the networks never had so much pressure as to censor their programming to preserve the reputation of a well-respected politician.

This seems to be a battle of liberal attacks and conservative stronghold.

The two need to find some way to balance each other in programming before reputations are damaged and the loved ones of real-life-people-turned-fictional-characters are hurt.

Not only has CBS now attempted to tarnish the reputation of Reagan, it also has set a precedent of admitting that some docudramas on television can be historically inaccurate and television networks can be influenced by political action committees.

With this new precedent, I foresee a whole swarm of soccer moms across the United States hopping in their minivans, dropping their kids off at practice and then darting off to some grassroots organization meeting in hopes they will now be able to end violence, sex and overall moral disdain on television, just before they get dinner on the table.

I can’t agree with any of the events that have taken place surrounding “The Reagans” miniseries, but I do know this: Our television networks need to get their acts together and look at the bigger picture.

Are ethics and integrity rooted in truth now being replaced by advertising revenue and Nielsen Media ratings as the networks’ utmost priorities?

Tumanic is a senior electronic media major and an assistant photo editor of The Spectator.