paul@phs.UUCP (11/16/83)
Recently, Mike Clifford (ihuxb!mcal) asked why conservatives might be opposed to the showing of "The Day After" by ABC-TV. Below is the response I mailed to him; forgive me for not dressing it up further, but I've already lost enough time today as is. Let us, for the moment, take National Review as the voice of conservatives. On September 30, National Review ran a column: "ABC-TV Backs Deterrence," a "whimsical" piece which suggested that ABC was running "The Day After" "as a strong statement in favor of nuclear deterrence, reminding us that we do not want to see Lawrence, Kansas, nuked, and also reminding us that the best way to prevent that from happening is to make it prohibitively costly to do so" (quoted portion from a second piece, "ABC-TV II", in the October 14 issue). This is, of course, not the case. "The date of the broadcast, November 20, immediately precedes the scheduled deployment of the U.S. Pershing missiles in Europe. Peace groups both here and in Europe have been cranking up for six months to make a final convulsive effort to prevent that depolyment. The Day After, to be shown in prime time, is simply ABC's contribution to this political effort. As the New York Post asked editorially, 'Why is ABC doing Yuri Andropov's job?' It is a pertinent question. A principal goal of Soviet policy over the past two years has been to prevent depolyment of the Pershing missiles, and thus freeze the nuclear situation into one of Soviet regional superiority. ABC has now spent $7 million on a film that reinforces this Soviet political goal and helps to generate an ignorant public hysteria at a time when calm resolution to preserve a credible deterrent is called for." So it would appear that conservative sentiment against the showing of this movie is based on the perception that the time of the showing of the movie, immediately before the deployment of the Pershing missiles in Europe, is no accident, and is intended to increase resistance to the deployment of same. Now, one may ask whether that perception is correct. In an editorial in the November 11 issue, Buckley wrote: "...some people had seen the film, and guess what. To quote Sally Bedell Smith in the New York Times (Oct. 6): 'Although the film never makes clear which side initiated hostilities [the film is about a few survivors in post-nuclearized America], two references are made to Soviet concern over the deployment of Pershing missiles. One, a fragment of a radio broadcast, quotes a Soviet official as saying that it was "the coordinated movement of Pershing II launchers that provoked the original Soviet" action.' That's ABC's idea of not politicizing a film." One may finally ask whether ABC is justified in showing this movie, with its political intent, at the time it will be shown; i.e., is the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe a genuine error which will lead away from peace, i.e., which will not serve as a deterrent. Here, some comments from a few conservatives and others: Buckley (Nov 11 National Review): "Of all the strategic decisions made since the formation of NATO in 1949, the most important is the decision to deploy theater weapons of the Pershing- and cruise-missile type in Europe in December, as planned, as called for by our allies. It is clearly the intention of the Soviet Union to attempt to abort that deployment. To that end, it has marshaled a) its agents and b) its dupes to ventilate the biggest non-sequitur in military history, namely that development by the United States of its defensive arsenal makes nuclear war likelier, rather than unlikelier." James Reston (quoted in the Oct 28 National Review): "Twice Europe told us, in 1914 and in 1939, that if only America had committed itself in time to the defense of Western civilization, the two world wars might have been avoided. Now, having committed ourselves, we are being told that the present conflict is merely a struggle for power between two clumsy giants. Nothing could be further from the truth... President Reagan, for the third time, has amended his proposals for a nuclear compromise at Geneva, but so far without anything but a 'nyet' from Moscow, or even a recognition by the leaders of the German peace movement that he tried." It maybe that "the most intelligent and idealistic members of our societies cannot tolerate the struggle for anything less than an ideal solution of the nuclear menace... But there is no perfect security. There is only the struggle, with friends at our side, doing the best we can." (Nov 25 National Review): "The ABC-TV movie, a sort of consciousness-raising version of The Towering Inferno, is meant to do to Kansas what Orson Welles inadvertently did to New Jersey in 1938. Not for nothing did Francois Mitterand recently observe that all the missiles are in the East, all the peace movements in the West." One could, of course, go on. However, the above should be sufficient to indicate that, whether one is conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, there may be reason to deplore the political message and timing of the movie. Regards, Paul Dolber @ Duke U Med Ctr (...!duke!phs!paul).
franka@tekcad.UUCP (11/20/83)
#R:phs:-215200:tekcad:1500001:000:2513
tekcad!franka Nov 20 10:55:00 1983
There is only one reason for the "timing" of this movie. This is
the November "sweeps" season. For those of you unfamiliar with the television
industry, this is the time that the advertisers look at network and local TV
to decide advertising rates. Since this program will probably be the highest
rated TV event in history, ABC would be damned foolish from an economic stand-
point not to show it now. You see, the guiding hand of the free marketplace
can work both ways.
In regards to the "timing" of the program with respect to the de-
ployment of the P2 missles: Why couldn't we have moved up the deployment by
two weeks (or delayed it by two months)? Surely RR knew about the movie's
production (and with his experience in TV knew about sweeps month) and had
a pretty good idea of when it would be shown. Why is the network in the wrong
for scheduling it at this time? Couldn't the president simply have mistimed
the deployment of the missles?
For those of you who look askance at this show from a political view-
point: This is a free country. ABC can show pretty damned near anything it
likes as long as it passes by the network's Standards and Practices department.
The networks (and many local stations) are devoting slots afterward to panel
discussions of this show. I am sure that we will have equal representation on
these panels. Even if they didn't, the media has given enough coverage of the
opinions of the people who disagree with the movie that most of us know why
they don't like it.
In closing, the movie will be shown. This makes most of the discussion
about whether or not it should be shown moot. This is not the USSR. Just be-
cause you don't like it doesn't mean it should not be shown. If one movie can
have so much impact that you fear it and actively fight against its showing,
maybe the subject hits so close to home (pardon the pun) that what is needed
is the showing of this movie so that people will start thinking about pre-
venting nuclear war, be it by deterrance, high-frontier, or disarmament. If
you are afraid of the discussion of means of prevention that this movie might
cause, I guess that that's just the price you pay for living in a free country.
So, get out the popcorn, send the kiddies to bed, snuggle up with a
good friend, and watch the world come to an end, 'cause its movie time tonight!
From the truly menacing,
/- -\ but usually underestimated,
<-> Frank Adrian
(tektronix!tekcad!franka)