It looks like CBS won't be airing that hatchet job on Reagan after all. I haven't said much about this, but this is one aspect of the story that I've found galling from the beginning:

CBS lawyers had reviewed the miniseries and given it the go-ahead, but Moonves ordered lawyers to give it another look and for CBS to cut out certain portions.

This is most disingenuous. I assume that we are supposed to come away from this statement with the idea that it was fact checked. But in real fact, lawyers have nothing to do with facts--the only reason for a lawyer to look at it would be to determine if airing it would put CBS in legal jeopardy, not to determine whether it was factual or not.

Since Ronald and Nancy Reagan are public figures, there's almost nothing that CBS could have aired that would have gotten them into hot water, from a libel standpoint. Having lawyers "give it a look," is meaningless, because said lawyers would do so, and then simply inform the network execs what I just did--that they could air it without fear of a lawsuit, and facts be damned.

Had Moonves been honest, rather than a duplicitous worm, and wanted to reassure people that it was truly fair, he'd not have talked about lawyers. He'd have said, "we've had the script reviewed by historians and people who knew the Reagans closely, and they've assured us that it is historically accurate."

But of course he couldn't say that, because it would have been an outright lie, easily disprovable by talking to people like Lou Cannon. So instead he prevaricated, and hoped that no one noticed. Fortunately, he hoped wrong.

Not knowing anything about their procedures I might have guessed they regularly have a legal review of any story about an actual person. OTOH, it would seem to me the only reason you'd need lawyers to look at something is if you suspected libel (which is really hard to commit with regard to a public figure.)

In any case, from the talk radio I've been listening to, it really does sound like a serious hachet job going on.

What I find disingenuous is, CBS not airing it but Showtime "licensing" and broadcasting it. Like that makes it any better. Both are subsidaries of VIACOM for petes sake! They could show it on MTV or VH1 ( Or Nick at night) and it wouldn't make a difference. Now maybe if the licensed it to HBO-- (Time Warner) or NBC (GE) then they could "wash their hands of it". But thats not likely to happen.

(Probably didn't help that they couldn't get big advertisers like FORD or Merck to cough up money either. The laweyers were probably called in to get them out of the commercial time bought by the democratic party......HAR HAR HAR..

It has become pretty clear that this was a nasty piece of work, but I was uncomfortable with the ?boycott CBS? types. It is one thing to ask that the movie be made available to a wide audience of reviewers before showing on the network, but another thing to talk of boycotting a company based on a movie few have seen. It is too close to calling for banning books you never have read. Having said that, the bits that were reported were terrible. And I suspect that CBS found that after they cut the nasty bits, there wasn?t much left. But we?ll find out after it airs on Showtime.

Incidentally, Barbra Streisand?s comments were great. She said she didn?t have anything to do with the movie, then insults Republicans in the same breath, saying they think of Reagan as a god. Er, yeah, Barb. Just a little biased, are we? Really makes me trust your answer. I wonder if she was one of the ?sources? they checked with? ?Hey, Barb, did Reagan call himself the AntiChrist? He did? Great!? Heh.

Since Ronald and Nancy Reagan are public figures, there's almost nothing that CBS could have aired that would have gotten them into hot water, from a libel standpoint.

How does that follow? Does libel law only protect non-celebs, or is there some other principle at work?

I don't know about celebs, but it's pretty hard for a public figure (e.g., a former president and his wife) to win a libel suit.