From what I'm reading, William Randolph Hearst had a great deal to do with the vilification of Ismay. If you've read anything at all about Hearst, you know that he wielded considerable power with his publishing company and was known to destroy the reputations of people who "crossed him."
Hearst went so far as to call him "J.
Brute
Ismay," and to list him as the sole survivor of the Titanic disaster in his papers. A clear attempt to destroy the man's reputation.
Watta ya lookn here for?

Your welcome.
Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?

Well I'm glad to hear at least somebody cut him some slack.
I'll keep an eye out for that 1979 version from now on to see what you mean, and thanks for your response

Well admittedly, it's been a while since I saw it too, but, from what I remember, the tragedy is played out via his own memories.while he is on the
Carpathian
, he & another officer see some folding chairs, floating in the water, & believing that they were from the
Titanic
, he laments "Beautiful ship."
Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?

Does it really, CLUSIUM? I must admit it has been quiet a while since I've the 1979 version.
Can you describe the portrayal and why it is sympathetic?
Thank You

I am aware that it runs counter to what we've all been conditioned to think about Bruce Ismay.
Not necessarily. The 1979 TV movie,
SOS Titanic
portrayed him in a sympathetic light.
Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?

It may be a natural impulse to try to save one's own life, but Ismay made sure to save himself even as over one thousand five-hundred others were left to die on the ship or in the freezing ocean.
It's not true, as someone said, that Ismay's "crime" was to survive. Had he stayed aboard and later been rescued from the water as some were (like Lightoller) there would have been no problem. It was his using his influence to jump into a boat, knowing no one would order him out, that's reprehensible. His actions might be understandable on a primeval level but that doesn't make them forgivable.
It was Ismay's decision to remove the extra lifeboats Andrews had originally planned to have on board (enough for the ship's capacity) because all those extra boats spoiled people's view from the boat decks. And as chairman of the line he had a responsibility to see to the welfare of his clients, which in this case meant putting their lives over his own. Ismay did indeed have a moral, if not legal, duty to remain aboard until everyone was off safely an impossibility on the Titanic thanks to him. The seat he took could have gone to a woman or a child. The majority of First Class men died even though many if not most might have been able to force their way into a boat. The whole point of civilization is to set a standard of behavior that goes beyond mere natural impulse. Ismay was an irresponsible coward. He deserved all the public opprobrium he experienced the rest of his life.

I don't blame Ismay for getting in that lifeboat. Wanting to stay alive no matter what is one of the most primal and natural urges concerning human nature.
I've been chasing grace/ But grace ain't easy to find

In that day and age, Ismay was looked upon as a coward and a scoundrel for having survived. He should have had the good graces to go down with the ship.

I don't feel that it's responsible for us to deem his actions reprehensible when we don't know exactly what happened. The problem with the situation is that he had multiple opportunities to clear his name and state what really happened, but he didn't. What we do know, based on letters, is that from the moment he stepped into the lifeboat, he felt an intense guilt that stayed with him for the rest of his life.
Those feelings aren't the feelings of someone who jumped in while no one was looking, like in ANTR and Titanic 97. I think that anyone can see that Ismay wasn't the type of man who acted on impulse. And he was intelligent and educated enough to weigh his options before making a decision.
Or, as has been suggested, was the decision made for him and he was ordered off the ship?

Thank You for the book recommendation, THEGUYWITHTHEFEET, I've actually ordered that book the other day.
I guess what the initial post is supposed to mean is that, Ismay might as well have acted as reprehensible as he does in the fantasy story for how bad he was treated. The man did nothing wrong, he only trusted his staff to do what they were well paid for. But it seems like almost every movie or documentary portrays him as in some way responsible. He had the required number of lifeboats on board, With 4 extra. He Personally assisted in the loading of several lifeboats, helping women children and sometimes men into them safely. When he entered collapsible C there were no women passengers around, and empty seats in the boat as it was about to be lowered. William Carter, the only other passenger around, entered the boat at this time as well.
I just feel sympathy for the Man. One TV show called "VOYAGERS" from the 1980s actually had him dressing as a woman to get off the ship. That's pretty Bad. Also his life was WRECKED afterwards from what i do know about him.
I don't know if I made any sort of point or not, but I'll end by saying I would just hate to be sleeping soundly one night, and woken up to be told my life's work has been destroyed through no fault of my own, and I'm expected to be willing to die in less than 2 hours when an opportunity for safety was right there that he was not officially bound to reject. He was a Better Man than me, I would have been Real Mad at Smith, Andrews and Murdoch.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. But read this. It's a great book about Ismay and really takes a dive into his mindset and a look at the various stories of his behavior that night (and later). Very interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-Titanic-Sinking-Bruce/dp/B00BQBNT1Y