Dan K. Thomasson: Trashing the Reagans

As reluctant as I was to interrupt a discussion that was intellectually above the usual conversation about girls, sports and rock stars, I felt compelled to question the source of their intimate knowledge of the event and its subsequent investigation, already suspecting that I knew the answer.

It took only seconds to confirm what I thought was correct. Their information had come from a then-popular movie that was in the main a shameless rehashing of outlandish suppositions carried to the extreme. While there was a core of accuracy, the notoriously biased director had surrounded that with a web of made-up quotes, unfounded rumor, utter fiction and outright lies. It was in fact little more than outrageous propaganda justified by claims of "dramatic license" and neatly presented with the clear implication of "now you know what really happened." The same director was to make an equally discredited film about another president, Richard Nixon, whose tumultuous tenure made him an easy target for any distortion one would like to make.

That my son and his friends had taken much of what the movie presented as gospel is the real reason that the so-called biopic of "The Reagans" should have been cancelled by CBS -- not because of the demands of outraged conservatives. It is distorted, fictionalized history that presents impressionable youngsters, and obviously some adults too, with a dishonest portrayal that gains credibility the more often it is told.

Among the more despicable examples of what makes this production unworthy is a wholly made-up quote that paints President Ronald Reagan as unsympathetic to those who have AIDS. "They that live in sin shall die in sin," Reagan tells his wife in one scene.

Don't misunderstand. This is not a call for censorship -- far from it. It is a demand that when dealing with important figures in history, particularly when there are adequate records and any number of surviving witnesses to be interviewed, even dramatized versions should measure up to some standard of integrity. When that seems to be impossible for the director or producer, those exhibiting the work should at the very least insist that disclaimers of its accuracy be included at several stages -- beginning, throughout and at the end.

Even with warnings, the truth often fails to catch up with the fiction. Orson Welles' brilliant radio production of "The War of the Worlds" carried with it just such disclaimers, announcing that it was fiction both at the beginning, during and after the production. But it didn't stop outright panic in some areas of the East where the Martians were depicted as invading. The CBS pay channel, Showtime, which will air "The Reagans," should also cancel it despite the fact that one would think the public must have been adequately warned by now.

All this controversy, of course, is swirling around a former president who has no clue that it is going on. Ronald Reagan is in the most severe stages of Alzheimer's and completely unable to defend himself. For that reason alone it is unfair. If he were in control of his faculties, it is doubtful that the show's creators would have had the courage to take the liberties they did. But why did they under any circumstance? Were they merely interested in controversy?

It seems obvious that there are other agendas here. James Brolin, who portrays Reagan, is married to Barbra Streisand, among Hollywood's most politically active and doctrinaire liberal Democrats. She immediately tried to picture CBS's decision as a cataclysmic disruption of freedom of expression. It appeared to matter not at all to her that it is dishonest artistic expression. What clearly matters is that it reinforces the view of Reagan long held by those on her end of the ideological spectrum who never have come to grips with the fact this lesser movie actor could be a successful president.

Also, the show's producers have been in the forefront of those making films about the ravages of AIDS. Liberals long have considered Reagan insensitive in this area, often blaming him for failing to provide the funds they believe -- without evidence -- would have eradicated the disease at an early stage.

I am not sure I convinced my son and his buddies of the Kennedy movie's inaccuracies. I know I provided the necessary books to them to reinforce my arguments. But, alas, this is the electronic age. Enough said.

Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.