....CBS, which was said to be pleased to see Gernon booted, also went into full disassociation throttle: "We found Mr. Gernon's comments to TV Guide to be insensitive and outright wrong," the network said in its e-mail. "His personal opinions are not shared by CBS and misrepresent the Network's motivation for broadcasting this film.
"It is very important that viewers understand that these views are not reflected in the tone or the content of the mini-series, which recounts the rise of Hitler to power and portrays him as the ruthless, maniacal force he was.
"We have done everything we can to make this an important historical film that will help people to never forget how the Nazis came to power and the barbaric atrocities they committed."
CBS also wanted to make sure that we knew the miniseries would air on Sunday, May 18, and Tuesday, May 20. Duly noted. Though both are in the entertainment biz, baseball would appear to be less PR conscious than TV, or perhaps it is the actual CONTENT of the opinion expressed that makes the difference: the fact that I believe strongly in the War on Terror in its various manifestations doesn't make me any happier that our country appears to have an "acceptable" and "unacceptable" set of opinions that happens to coincide with that of our government.
Article comments
1 - Brian Flemming
There's a clear difference between Gernon's behavior and Petroskey's.
Gernon made a comment without claiming he spoke for any organization.
Petroskey actually cancelled an event on behalf of an organization.
Making a comment and cancelling an official event are clearly in two separate categories, or separated at least by degree. One is a comment. The other is an official action. Gernon can plausibly claim he was only speaking for himself (in fact--it's pretty clear he was). Petroskey can hardly claim he wasn't acting in an official capacity.
I don't see what is so controversial about Gernon's comments anyway. Germany reduced civil liberties and adopted an aggressive military posture as a result of fear. That doesn't seem to be in dispute.
The United States has publicly adopted a new, aggressive military doctrine (preventive war) and is passing legislation that reduces civil liberties. These facts are not in dispute either. What is in dispute--that we're doing it out of fear? That we should learn from history?
2 - InMarin
I'd like to dispute the claim that the HOF is "a non-political organization".
Cooperstown Museums Collaborate on Third Annual Winter Cultural Series
Well, it appears that the HOF doesn't mind politics as long as it's Republican politics.
3 - Jim Carruthers
Y'know what would be kewl? Get Fidel Castro nominated to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
If flashing a peace sign endangers troops, imagine what having Fidel in the HoF would do? Viva la revolucion!