TV execs admit pushing liberal agenda

[Shooshmoo]

I think it's much more interesting that the television industry is so exclusionary towards politically conservative people. Liberal actors are more vocal about their beliefs, and the conservative ones just keep their mouth shut to stay in the business. Charlton Heston and Arnold are the only confirmed pub actors I can think of, off hand.

Bruce Willis
Mel Gibson
Jon Voight
Patricia Heaton
Bo Derek
Tom Selleck
Stephen Baldwin
Gary Sinise
Andy Garcia
Chuck Norris
Kirk Cameron
Ron Silver
Fred Thompson
Angie Harmon
Dennis Miller
Jim Caviezel
Kelsey Grammar
Denzel Washington

And there are many more. There are a ton of them, and they're not exactly quiet about their beliefs. To the extent some have difficulty getting work, it's because they're kind of shitty actors, not because they're being blacklisted.

Also, here' s a list of purported Pub celebrities. They don't seem to have any trouble getting work.

http://www.mypalal.com/aboutalan/ConservativeCelebrities.cfm

 

[jhmd2000]

I think it's much more interesting that the television industry is so exclusionary towards politically conservative people. Liberal actors are more vocal about their beliefs, and the conservative ones just keep their mouth shut to stay in the business. Charlton Heston and Arnold are the only confirmed pub actors I can think of, off hand.

There are a few more that spring immediately to mind. Most of them are incognito b/c they know it is bad for business (as you point out). What's interesting is the number of political/social libs in the entertainment industry that pick up a loyalty to the military and its mission once they get involved with USO tours, etc. They shed a lot of the hostility towards the military once they actually see it work up close, and good for them. Dozens of examples come to mind, but Jeff Ross (comedian) has written about his evolution on the issue.

 

[Shooshmoo]

There are a few more that spring immediately to mind. Most of them are incognito b/c they know it is bad for business (as you point out). What's interesting is the number of political/social libs in the entertainment industry that pick up a loyalty to the military and its mission once they get involved with USO tours, etc. They shed a lot of the hostility towards the military once they actually see it work up close, and good for them. Dozens of examples come to mind, but Jeff Ross (comedian) has written about his evolution on the issue.

If they were hostile to the military they wouldn't get involved with USO tours to begin with - no one is hostile to the military (other than, maybe, Jane Fonda 30 years ago). The opposite is true, libs would rather pay for their body armor and vet benefits, and not have them die in sham wars. you know, something more than just putting a ribbon or flag bumper sticker on their car.

 

[jhmd2000]

If they were hostile to the military they wouldn't get involved with USO tours to begin with - no one is hostile to the military (other than, maybe, Jane Fonda 30 years ago). The opposite is true, libs would rather pay for their body armor and vet benefits, and not have them die in sham wars. you know, something more than just putting a ribbon or flag bumper sticker on their car.

Yeah, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the hostility front. I heard a story from a very credible source (fellow POW) that Jane Fonda literally got a POW killed in one of the most disgraceful acts of treason imaginable. The streets were full of people who spit on Vietnam vets and called them babykillers.

I'm afraid your mishistory is the product of some wishful thinking.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Yes, I mentioned Jane Fonda and 30 years ago (and should have said 40). Thanks for reiterating. Anything else?

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

The Vietnam War era was pretty much an anomaly in terms of the public perception of our troops themselves.

 

[pourdeac]

I think it's much more interesting that the television industry is so exclusionary towards politically conservative people. Liberal actors are more vocal about their beliefs, and the conservative ones just keep their mouth shut to stay in the business. Charlton Heston and Arnold are the only confirmed pub actors I can think of, off hand.

It's the same drivers as seen here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3&hpw

Being a generationalist, it's not surprising. The dominant dogma in this country since the 1930s has been big government liberal (new deal). The institutions are all centered around that dogma as "standard" or "centrist" even though it's liberal....so news, entertainment, academics, etc are all predominantly liberal and they believe big government views are center. So anything truly politically center (as measured by extremes) is right and anything right is extremist.

That dogma has run it's ~80 year course (a generation) of dominance though and will be shortly be replaced with a new one that will counter/address many of the problems created during it's reign, like the New Deal dogma did as it rose and became dominant. Unavoidable. That's the good thing.

 

[RJKarl]

Hollyweird has never been more corporate. With movies costing $15-200+M to produce and millions to promote, the ONLY thing that matters is the bottom line.

For decades TV has had beaten whatever the hot trend is to death. Again it's about RATINGS which means MONEY.

Something else that's being lost is that there are more and more reality shows. The reason is they are cheaper to produce and create easy demographics.

the right needs to grow up and realize this is a double digit billions of dollar a year industry. Money is what matters not politics.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Speaking from experience, when you're pitching pilot ideas the network execs, studios, and exec producers don't give a flying fuck about ideology. They are looking for both the next West Wing and the next 24 (read: a show that will receive high ratings, period).

 

[RJKarl]

Speaking from experience, when you're pitching pilot ideas the network execs, studios, and exec producers don't give a flying fuck about ideology. They are looking for both the next West Wing and the next 24 (read: a show that will receive high ratings, period).

And this is EXACTLY what they ask you. What is it like?

Try pitching something completely new.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

the right needs to grow up and realize this is a double digit billions of dollar a year industry. Money is what matters not politics.

You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse. TV industry is super lib, and therefore pushes a liberal agenda through tv, some tv shows get good ratings, some fail. No connection is ever made between good ratings and liberal agenda.

 

[Shooshmoo]

It's the same drivers as seen here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3&hpw

Being a generationalist, it's not surprising. The dominant dogma in this country since the 1930s has been big government liberal (new deal). The institutions are all centered around that dogma as "standard" or "centrist" even though it's liberal....so news, entertainment, academics, etc are all predominantly liberal and they believe big government views are center. So anything truly politically center (as measured by extremes) is right and anything right is extremist.

That dogma has run it's ~80 year course (a generation) of dominance though and will be shortly be replaced with a new one that will counter/address many of the problems created during it's reign, like the New Deal dogma did as it rose and became dominant. Unavoidable. That's the good thing.

Wow -- what a load of bullshit.

 

[RJKarl]

You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse. TV industry is super lib, and therefore pushes a liberal agenda through tv, some tv shows get good ratings, some fail. No connection is ever made between good ratings and liberal agenda.

Not at all. if the PUBLIC didn't like what the "liberal agenda" the industry put forth, they would vote with their ratings.

What this also shows is that conservatives are pussies. They don't want to invest their money is a business where you have a better chance of losing than making money.

It's the golden rule baby. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Put up some money and pick your properties.

 

[sailordeac]

The fact that Hollywood is pushing a liberal agenda has to be the biggest HAAS of all time.

And the phony-baloney efforts to excuse it, or defang it, because of capitalism have been around since we were all falling out of our cradles. Yawn!

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse. TV industry is super lib, and therefore pushes a liberal agenda through tv, some tv shows get good ratings, some fail. No connection is ever made between good ratings and liberal agenda.

If "conservative" shows had more appeal to the viewing public than "liberal" shows, the airwaves would be full of conservative shows. The market dictates, because money dictates. These are publicly-traded companies that are solely interested in market share and stock price. To think that they'd sacrifice either in order to drive political agendas is simply not accurate. And I can assure you that from the developmental side, all a producer wants is a show that will get an audience, run 4+ seasons, and make syndication. And if "The Fountainhead: A Miniseries Event" could do that, there would be a bidding war for it.

As RJ said, Fox wants 24 and Glee, and they have only one thing in common.

The red herring is the average political observer thinking that the mainstream corporate entertainment industry operates with any bottom-line other than money.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Yawn!

Oxymoron

 

[RJKarl]

If "conservative shows" had more appeal to the viewing public than "liberal" shows, the airwaves would be full of conservative shows. The market dictates, because money dictates. These are publicly-traded companies that are solely interested in market share and stock price. To think that they'd sacrifice either in order to drive political agendas is simply not accurate.

As RJ said, Fox wants 24 and Glee, and they have only one thing in common.

I am absolutely amazed that some conservative hasn't raised $500M-1B to create a conservative studio.

There is a market out there as have been shown for decades with shows like Touched By An Angel, Dawsons Creek, Walker Texas Ranger, NCIS, 24 and many others. You have movies like Die Hard, Terminator, VanDamm's, Rocky, Bruce Almighty and many others.

But conservatives are too weak in cajones to do it. Hell Arlington, let's raise money and call the studio -America's Studio and do it.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

The reason conservative shows are generally less popular -- and certainly less numerous -- has to do with the dynamics of what people find entertaining to watch. Generally, liberal ideas imply conflict, struggle, change, and tension with the past and the status quo. These themes tend to have more entertainment appeal, if not social or political appeal to all. Conservatism is more a belief in the bedrock principles of the past, and favors stasis or a reversion to older values over change. When these themes convert to entertainment, liberal show ideas just tend to have more entertainment value -- more pop -- on the whole.

I'm not judging either philosophy, I'm just saying that broadly, there's more material to work with in liberal entertainment ideas than in conservative ones. Exceptions abound, but I think that accounts for the disparity more than anything. Multi-culture shows about changing cultural mores tend to have broader appeal than conservative shows about retaining the mores of the past. They certainly have more entertainment value, as most entertainment revolves around conflict.

Just my two cents.

 

[pourdeac]

Wow -- what a load of bullshit.

Ya think? Read "the 4th turning" then. It'll blow your mind. Its always funny reading responses like yours. We as a country need to think "out of the box" but people like you make sure that doesn't happen. Anything out of your populist norm is "bullshit".

The New Deal dogma was in response to what happened (or was uncovered) in the previous dogma, what I call the Manifest Destiny dogma, driven by unprecedented economic freedom. It was in place from ~1860s to the 1930s.

Abuse of less advanced cultures led to civil rights.
Abuse of land and resources led to environmentalism.
Abuse of industrial labor led to the union movement.
The desire of woman to be equal economically led to women's rights.
Urbanization led to the social movement.
Abuse of capitalism led to corporate regulation.

The movement served it's purpose and ran its' course...then went to an extreme to continue to justify itself which is why conservatives wonder how things are so whacked while people like you think it's the norm. The people who lived when the dogma was needed are now gone. There is no institutional memory of the need because those generations are gone, so the believers now invent issue, like equating every thing racial to slavery, just to continue the movement. But it then gets absurd...see football players = slaves.

Now it's time for governmental restraint, which forms the basis of the next dominant dogma. Government competition, smaller government, etc. Inevitable.

Still think it's bullshit? Consider this. G Washington, Abe Lincoln and FDR all ushered in new dogmas during Crisis moments. Andrew Jackson, Teddy R and Reagen all championed the emerging dogma while under previous dogmas. Each member of the group is roughly 80 years apart, or a generation and they are all our "great" presidents. Bizarre, eh?

 

[WhatUTalkinBout Willis]

in other news: water is wet.