DVDizzy Forum

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't discrimination wrong no matter who the one doing it is and who the one being discriminated upon is? Just saying...

http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/tv-executives- ... enda--3086

When the "liberal agenda" stops getting ratings, then Hollowood will have an incentive to go conservative.

And if Fox News is so successful than conservatives should have no problem producing entertainment content elsewhere if they want to.

On a side note the local Christian station plays the "agenda pushing" Happy Days here and I'd like to know more about the "pushing" done on Sesame Street too. If even that show is "too liberal", why bother trying to please these people?

I guess there's a stigma that conservatives are too intolerant and bigoted to get along with fellow workers/castmates. I do wonder where that idea could come from...

True, it is unfair. However, showbusiness has always been somewhat personality-driven. Perhaps conservative viewpoints are generally unpopular with viewers, and that's the reason less people want to hire would-be celebrities with conservative viewpoints. However, I don't think it's such a crime that writers of their own shows expressed their political views within the writing of those shows, like criticizing the Vietnam War. I would consider that freedom of speech.

Regardless, I'm hardly going to trust a book labeled "How the Left Took Over Your TV" or a writer who talks about media as a "weapon" in the left's "political arsenal." Seems hypocritical to call fowl on bias with language like that. The victim-card he's playing seems hollow by the end of the article.

After reading that article I felt there was a lot of arrogance coming from those being interviewed. I don't have a problem with shows touching on controversial matters but if there's an agenda behind it like what was described in the article it alienates viewers and personally I don't care to have any agenda whether it be conservative or liberal shoved down my throat especially when there is such arrogance behind it.

I think it's laughable that Hollywood, as morally inept and out of touch with reality as they are, of all places should be trying to push political agendas.


After reading through the comments I found one of particular interest that I would like to share and get your thoughts about:

"The point is "Liberals" aren't "liberal" at all. They are the most intolerant people of all. AND if you dare to differ in ideology they are lethal in their attempts to humiliate, destroy, demean and discredit you. They are incapable of discussing the points of disagreement on the basis of facts and reason--it's all gut emotion with them. They will never respect any differing point of view."

The Iceflash wrote:After reading that article I felt there was a lot of arrogance coming from those being interviewed.

Arrogance? I see some discriminatory statements, but--arrogance?

I don't have a problem with shows touching on controversial matters but if there's an agenda behind it like what was described in the article it alienates viewers and personally I don't care to have any agenda whether it be conservative or liberal shoved down my throat especially when there is such arrogance behind it.

That's what the remote is for.

I think it's laughable that Hollywood, as morally inept and out of touch with reality as they are, of all places should be trying to push political agendas.

So are billionaire politicians (right and left), and they run the country.

After reading through the comments I found one of particular interest that I would like to share and get your thoughts about:

"The point is "Liberals" aren't "liberal" at all. They are the most intolerant people of all. AND if you dare to differ in ideology they are lethal in their attempts to humiliate, destroy, demean and discredit you. They are incapable of discussing the points of disagreement on the basis of facts and reason--it's all gut emotion with them. They will never respect any differing point of view."

You mean Republican mouthspew? I rarely take it seriously, because I would say most conservative points of view are gut reactions (like this huge generalization of a post you quoted) and have little to do with facts.

The only thing conservatives don't like is that, according to liberals, those who are anti-human rights are bigots. There isn't "two sides" to that. But, let’s be fair, according to conservatives, anyone that doesn’t agree with their ideology is considered an atheistic, unpatriotic, communist/socialist (not that they would care about the difference ), “morally inept,” evil and dangerous pervert. I see no difference.

Hollywood pushes a liberal agenda?

Pardon my french, but are they fucking kidding?

For one thing, Hollywood is the biggest closet in the world. If they were so liberal, why won't they just let Kevin Spacey and the gazillion other gays just be themselves instead of threatening to end their careers? Acting is the gayest craft in the world, yet they're somehow invisible in Hollywood. It's laughable.

And besides, sure most TV shows depict some sort 'liberal agendas' yes, Glee being the most prominent one. But they're still discriminatory stereotypes. So if that is this supposed 'liberal agenda' then I fear for the liberals. Yes they apparently hire each other and run this TV business with a bias towards republicans and conservatives. But their liberal agenda is a parody in and of itself.

And how does a right wing show like 24 fit into this then? That show has been labeled as right-wing propaganda. And seeing as how it glorifies torture and stereotypes arabs, I'd say it probably is.

This whole matter is way more complex than this.

Uh oh. Somebody call the WAAAHMbulance! Big bad liberals are out to get you.

...

There are *plenty* of successful conservative/republican Hollywood people, namely:

Clint Eastwood
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Mel Gibson
Heather Locklear
Tom Selleck
James Woods
Robert Duvall
Bruce Willis
Chuck Norris
Mr. Hannah Montana
Kelsey Grammar
Sarah Michelle Gellar
that actress from "Ghost Whisperer"
Dr. Phil (not an actor persé, though he does a good impression of a doctor)
Ben Affleck
Adam Sandler
Jessica Simpson


... from the top of my head. And those are just actors. I'm sure a lot of producers, CEO's, or high ranking executives are republican, also. Why would they not be? I assume a lot of them would earn enough money to get some sort of tax break, no? On top of that there's Rupert Murdoch who owns News Corporation. Pretty sure he's not a big Obama fan himself. Regardless of the disdain a lot of those people mentioned in the article have for conservatives, Liberal Arts is the collective term for almost every creative thing that happens in Hollywood, so it can't be that much of a surprise that most are going to be liberal. The point is, if you don't like the message, or feel that they're pushing an 'agenda' on you, then there are various ways to stop that message from reaching you, number 1 being the off-button on your tv-set (along with various other methods: pull the plug, throw out window, baseball bat, etc.). Pretty sure most of the cable news channels like CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc. are not Hollywood, though -so those don't count.

With that said, the person who wrote that book is obviously a bit too paranoid (Sesame Street, lol). Not everything is a conspiracy to rid you of your political beliefs. I do appreciate the irony though. They are arguing that Hollywood is shoving a liberal agenda down everyone's throat, but isn't the purpose of this entire book to do exactly that, only for conservatives.

The majority of the comments on that article are obviously insane, probably because the link was mirrored on a conservative site, like Drudge Report or something like that. No surprise there.

The_Iceflash wrote: After reading through the comments I found one of particular interest that I would like to share and get your thoughts about:

"The point is "Liberals" aren't "liberal" at all. They are the most intolerant people of all. AND if you dare to differ in ideology they are lethal in their attempts to humiliate, destroy, demean and discredit you. They are incapable of discussing the points of disagreement on the basis of facts and reason--it's all gut emotion with them. They will never respect any differing point of view."

As a true liberal, he's got it wrong. We *have* facts to back up our views and I am perfectly capable of discussing and debating in a civilized and logical manner that many conservatives(not all) have failed to do. I stepped back and looked at these issues then chose.

You can tell him that from me if you want. Im not gonna bother arguing with him myself. I've learned that all too many conservatives on the internet are blinded by bitterness and tend to have anger-management problems.

Duckburger wrote:Clint Eastwood
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Mel Gibson
Heather Locklear
Tom Selleck
James Woods
Robert Duvall
Bruce Willis
Chuck Norris
Mr. Hannah Montana
Kelsey Grammar
Sarah Michelle Gellar
that actress from "Ghost Whisperer"
Dr. Phil (not an actor persé, though he does a good impression of a doctor)
Ben Affleck
Adam Sandler
Jessica Simpson

Are you sure about that list? I know for certain that Clint is a libertarian and that Willis has a libertarian lean (although, I'm not sure what he's registered as). Many of the other people listed I'm iffy on too. Kelsey Grammar, Robert Duvall, Chuck Norris and one you didn't mention, Jon Voight, are outspoken conservatives but I'm not sure about the others. Either way, that's kind of a pathetic list but is it really news to anyone that Hollywood is liberal? Next question, does anyone care? As long as they don't let the politics affect the quality of the show/movie, no one will give a shit.

I should note that back in the studio system days, Hollywood was ultr-conservative. Movies haven't changed much, have they?

REPUBLICAN ACTORS: Matt LeBlanc, Rick Schroder, Tony Danza, Charlton Heston, Mel Gibson, Danny Aiello, Kirk Cameron, Bruce Willis, Ricardo Montalban, Stephen Baldwin, Bruce Boxleitner, Jimmie "JJ" Walker, Will Smith, Robert Conrad, Clint Eastwood, Alan Autry, Drew Carey, Jason Priestley, Tony Sirico, John Travolta, Mickey Rooney, James Caviezel, Mike Connors, Rip Torn, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Adam Sandler, Kelsey Grammar, Denzel Washington, Richard Roundtree, Andy Garcia, Tom Selleck, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ron Silver, James Caan, Wilford Brimley, Jim Nabors, Leslie Nielsen, David Spade, Sylvester Stallone, Robert Davi, John Malkovich, Vincent Gallo, Joe Pesci, Fred Thompson, Dennis Franz, Fred Grandy, Jack Palance, Paul Sorvino, Fess Parker, Dean Jones, Gerard McRaney, Dennis Quaid, John Schneider (Dukes of Hazzard), Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., Patrick Wayne, Zachery Ty Bryan, James Burrows, Kevin Sorbo, James MacArthur (Hawaii Five-0), Vince Vaughn, Tom Berenger, Jeff Conaway, Jameson Parker, Yaphet Kotto, Hal Holbrook, Dennis Hopper , James Woods, Chuck Norris, Robert Duvall, Ken Osmond, Clarence Gilyard, John Rhys-Davies (Lord of the Rings), John O'Hurley, Orson Bean, Gary Oldman, Mark Basil Vafiades, Chad Everett, Jamie Farr, Gary Sinise, Jonathan Jackson, Richard Jackson, Jerry Doyle, R. Lee Ermey, John Gavin, Scott Baio, Ernest Borgnine, Jon Voight, Michael Moriarty, Dean Cain, Dwight Schultz, Billy Bob Thornton, Freddie Prinze Jr.

REPUBLICAN ACTRESSES: Bo Derek, Angie Harmon, Cheryl Ladd, Shannen Doherty, Kathie Lee Gifford, Raquel Welch, Stephanie Zimbalist, Jaclyn Smith, India Allen, (ex-playmate), Lara Flynn Boyle, Pia Zadora, Susan Lucci, Barret Swatek, Tracy Scoggins, Shirley Temple Black, Nancy Davis Reagan, Heather Locklear, Cindy Williams, Laurie Caliguire (Phantom of the Opera), Cheryl Felicia Rhoads, Patricia Heaton, Jane Russell, Shirley Jones, Chelsea Noble, Mary-Kate Olsen, Ashley Olsen, Yvette Mimieux, Maureen O'Hara, Emma Caulfield, Morgan Brittany, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Rachel Hunter, Dixie Carter, Eva Gabor, Lisa Hartman-Black, Paula Prentiss, Nancy Cartwright, Hilary Duff, Lisa, Whelchel, Janine Turner, Laraine Day, Catherine Hicks, Susan Howard, Nancy Stafford, Hunter Tylo, Leslie Easterbrook, Joan Allen, Ann Wedgeworth (Three's Company), Sarah Michelle Gellar, Laura Prepon, Julianne Morris, Catherine Bell, Anne Lockhart, Delta Burke, Julie Bowen, Ann Margret.

This is the list I found on most websites. Not sure how accurate it is, but then again, I don't really care.

The_Iceflash wrote:"The point is "Liberals" aren't "liberal" at all. They are the most intolerant people of all. AND if you dare to differ in ideology they are lethal in their attempts to humiliate, destroy, demean and discredit you. They are incapable of discussing the points of disagreement on the basis of facts and reason--it's all gut emotion with them. They will never respect any differing point of view."

That's funny. So that makes Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage and all those other Fox/talk radio people 'liberals'?! 'Cause those were the first names that popped in my head when I read that description. I've seen 'liberal' hosts (or what has to pass for 'liberal'; even Obama is considered a 'liberal' these days) and conservative hosts on American tv many, many times and you know what struck me? (Aside from the fact that it's very hard to find the few token 'liberals' in the sea of conservatives?) That the opposite of the quoted message is true. Seriously. When is the last time you saw Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O'Donnell go into a rage? (Forget about Ed Schultz. He's just a tool.)

I haven't read the article, to be honest, but the idea that Hollywood is 'liberal' seems laughable to me. If it were, it would be promoting actual liberal ideas. If Hollywood would *really* be pushing a liberal agenda...

... it would have movie with gay or lesbian protoganists, instead of reducing them to the obligatory 'funny' supporting roles, in which gay guys are always effiminate and lesbians always have crewcuts and behave manly. Where is the first action movie, or comedy, or drama where the main character just happens to be gay? Without his/her being gay being an issue in the movie? I haven't seen it.

... it wouldn't celebrate the status quo all the time. Every action flick is the same: America is the defender of the free world, they rock and are awesome and fight and die for democracy all over the earth. Just take Stallone's The Expendables: a bunch of American action heroes is dropped into the jungle of Bolivia (was it?) to depose a tyrant who's brutally oppressing his people. Had Hollywood given a crap about pushing liberal agendas, it would have changed the plot to fit historical accuracy and have Stallone and his homies destabilize and overthrow a democratically elected and beloved leader in Latin-America to install a military dictatorship to do the bidding of the US.

... it wouldn't make 99% of movies about white people. African-Americans are rare in Hollywood productions, and if they're there, they're mostly gang members, murderers, drug dealers etc. There are a few exceptions (Sam Jackson, Wes Snipes), but they're far and between. Not to mention Arab-Americans. They're always the terrorists. Always. They're the only minority left which we think is okay to dehumanize in the movies. If Hollywood was liberal, it would make a movie with Arab-American lead characters who are just like any other American movie heroes.

... it wouldn't always, in romantic comedy, confirm the ideal of the traditional marriage and nuclear family. I'd like to see the first romantic comedy in which the guy at the end doesn't 'reform his bad ways' or 'grows up to responsibility', but instead says: "Screw it! I'm not marrying anybody! I'm just gonna continue partying, drinking and fucking everything that moves until I drop dead!" And the guy is happy with that kind of life, instead if 'feeling a void inside of him' which is 'filled' by his one true love.

Now, *that* would be pushing some liberal agendas.

It's worth noting that liberalism isn't an inherently left-wing ideology. In America there are liberals in both of the main political parties.

Flanger-Hanger speaks the truth:

When the "liberal agenda" stops getting ratings, then Hollywood will have an incentive to go conservative.

It's a supply and demand thing. Hollywood producers don't tell people what to think - people tell the producers what they want to see by voting with their wallets.
To have a liberal society doesn't mean that all media must be unbiased - partly because no individual will have the same opinion of what is unbiased - but that everyone should be free to express whatever they want; as long as there are lots of different channels of opinion out there, you'll inevitably get a variety of viewpoints, and individuals are more likely to come to their own conclusions when presented with such a spectrum.
There's nothing stopping those of other opinions from making their own films and media, and they do. Fox News is, last time I checked, the only news channel that makes a profit, and generally pretty right-wing. South Park, one of the best comedy shows out there, is mostly Libertarian in ideology.
In this day and age, with the internet, it's not even limited to those with money to be able to reach a mass audience. I'm not familiar with the American blogosphere, but in the UK there are enough blogs to present virtually the entire political spectrum, from Die-hard Socialist to Anarcho-Thatcherite.

MagicMirror wrote:It's worth noting that liberalism isn't an inherently left-wing ideology. In America there are liberals in both of the main political parties.

It's true that liberalism is not a left-wing ideology. In The Netherlands, it's used to describe the right-wing party/politicians. That's why extreme free-market ideology is often described as being 'neo-liberal'. In the US it's mostly used to refer to left-wingers. I think that's because politics in the US are often framed as a clash between different cultures: liberal (freewheelin', individualistic, sexually liberated stuff) and conservative (authoritarian, Bible-thumpin', traditionalist stuff). While the Democrats are right-wing on economic policies, they're often (more) liberal when it comes to cultural (life-style) issues. And because the media still puts forward the wrong-headed idea that the Democratic Party is left-wing (which they stopped being after Carter), 'liberal' has become associated with 'left-wing'.

MagicMirror wrote:Flanger-Hanger speaks the truth:

When the "liberal agenda" stops getting ratings, then Hollywood will have an incentive to go conservative.

But the problem with that remark is that it's accepting the idea that Hollywood puts forward a 'liberal agenda', which it most certainly does not.

MagicMirror wrote:Fox News is, last time I checked, the only news channel that makes a profit, and generally pretty right-wing.

That's true, aside from the fact that it's not a news channel, since they don't bring actual news.

Goliath wrote:But the problem with that remark is that it's accepting the idea that Hollywood puts forward a 'liberal agenda', which it most certainly does not.

I put the term in quotes because that's what the article claimed. In reality the "agenda" is any view, opinion, outcome, situation or content they disagree with, regardless of how "liberal" it actually is. Even Sesame Street was on the list of "agenda pushing" content.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:I put the term in quotes because that's what the article claimed. In reality the "agenda" is any view, opinion, outcome, situation or content they disagree with, regardless of how "liberal" it actually is. Even Sesame Street was on the list of "agenda pushing" content.

Yeah, I recognize that. We have a political party in The Netherlands that sees left-wing conspiracies everywhere, in all the media. They have copied the false 'liberal media'-claim from the Republicans, actually, to gain political profit (underdog role, acting like they're the victim of a vastly biased left-wing media).

"Shapiro says he also had another point to make. 'I want people to know, by seeing an Orthodox Jew like me on places like 'O'Reilly,' that Jews are on both sides of the aisle and that Jewishness isn't just tied to socialism."

Liberality and socialism are not the same thing. But you clearly can't expect conservatives to own a dictionary. It's their new buzz word to condemn anything that doesn't agree with them.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Liberality and socialism are not the same thing. But you clearly can't expect conservatives to own a dictionary. It's their new buzz word to condemn anything that doesn't agree with them.

Yeah, 'socialism' to them is just a term to frivously toss around to scare the crap out of people, because they have conditioned people to be afraid of it. Socialism has given Latin-America booming economies and lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty over the last decade... but we don't want it in the US! That would be so scary! Just look how evil Senator Sander is!