Kennedy Series Cancelled

The History Channel, an American network, recently produced a mini-series on the Kennedy White House. Unlike obsequious portrays of the Kennedys, the several episodes offer a dramatization of the lionized president which is reported to be less than favorable.

s kennedys large z5bfy 19672 X2dXy 19672

This has led liberals to rise in uproar over the supposed smearing of the late president and to protest the very airing of the mini-series. Liberal activist and documentarian Robert Greenwald branded it as revisionist history and as lies, and his successful attempt to cancel the airing as a one-man citadel in the name of democracy.

It is ironic that Greenwald, who must surely treasure his artistic freedom, would call for censure against another. The History Channel is not presenting the series as a impartial documentary or one of their normal programs, but as a dramatized portray of an administration which may naturally present certain events in a manner which may come across as excessive critical for fans of President Kennedy. But that is art. Not every picture Hollywood produces on an historical figure is always laudatory or beyond objection because it is based on diverse interpretations. The very contention here is that a film should not be allowed to present images in a critical manner if that character is a liberal individual.

This is liberal hypocrisy. A few years ago CBS cancelled its own 3-hour film on President Reagan because of conservative compliment and liberals mocked CBS for cowing to the right-wing which revers Reagan and guards his reputation. This was sense as a symbol of the right-wing machine’s ability to intimidate. But the left has now mimicked that very act. For shame. Greenwald is not standing for democracy, he is simply a zealot who believe that anything artistically presented contrary to his sensibilities should be banned. He has a right to criticize it night and day, but to actually call for the suppression of the actual product is incredibly illiberal. I am sure more than a few people find his advocacy documentaries, which are emotionally laced to provoke certain political views and actions, as offensive and seek his censorship. His move is a callous act and a smear against artistic freedom.

People should be allowed to present films as they wish. To say that the Kennedys can not be critically presented is absurd. And what’s the objection? Where’s the evidence of revisionist history? Kennedy was in many ways a decent president and certainly rhetorically inspiring, but his history does have a lot of bad spots: C.I.A. covert actions, setting the stage for the Vietnam War, ties with the mafia to assassinate Castro, and a surfeit lascivious nature.

Is it revisionist history to note this things, or is the offense the very mention of a president’s misdeeds? Greenwald’s standards would lead to never ending censorship encompassing himself.