As opposed to whom? There’s ample evidence of “ordinary Americans” dismissing the views of “well-informed people” with whom they disagree. It’s pretty much the driving force behind climate change denial, the anti-vax movement and Donald Trump’s entire campaign.
As I said above, everyone is used to their bubbles - celebrities, blue collar workers, you, me, and certainly the OP. Some of us make the effort to pop them now and then, but I assure you we’re a minority.
Very little of anything on television is “true to life”. That’s the point under discussion.
Bad scriptwriting aside, what you’re seeing here is confirmation bias in action. We’ve just had a month of Christmas shows of all varieties. How many of them portrayed Christians and Christianity in a bad light compared to the neutral or positive portrayals? I guarantee you without even checking that the latter far outweigh the former. Hell, just the fact that we’ve just had a month of Christmas shows is evidence of pro-Christianity bias. How many Very Special Diwali episodes have you seen?
Then it’s not much of a rule.
Which is my point. Christianity is the default. Christians are not persecuted by their portrayal in the entertainment industry, no matter how much some of them whine about it.
And yet the shows and films are almost always about Christians, not Jews. Funny, that. And good luck finding many positive portrayals of non-believers.
As for the “why”, it’s for much the same reason Jews have traditionally been overrepresented in certain trades for more than a century, such as the jewellery trade or banking. It’s the same reason that Jews dominated the moneylending trade in the Middle Ages. It’s not because they’re a secret cabal working together to dominate certain industries; it’s the exact opposite - for a long time Jews were excluded from the vast majority of trades by Christians and so were forced to work in trades that either Christians wouldn’t do (e.g. moneylending) or which the Jews themselves built (e.g. the US film industry). What you’re seeing is not the by-product of discrimination by Jews but of discrimination against them.
To be frank the barriers against Jews in many areas have only significantly fallen in the last 50 years and, as in all things, cultural inertia tends to persist so change is slow. Jews dominate Hollywood because Jews built Hollywood and most of the major studios are the ones who have been around since the early days. There’s nothing sinister about that, and nothing to stop other studios from being developed beyond the usual market forces.
Are you implying there are no well-informed conservatives? If so then fair enough but the assertion is polemic rather than fact.
I am neither asserting nor implying that, nor do I believe that.
The point I responded to specifically said, as I read it, that Christianity was relatively more realistically portrayed than other religions. I don’t think so.
It wasn’t about how often Christianity was depicted which seems to be mainly your theme and fine but irrelevant to what I said. As is the idea that a ‘Christmas shows’ counts in how realistically Christianity is portrayed.
Again not relevant. I didn’t say the statistical over representation of Jews in the entertainment industry resulted in most religious topics in entertainment being related to Judaism which obviously they are not.
Nor did I ask ‘why’ Jews are over represented in the industry. I basically said I don’t care why, but I’ll say it more clearly: I don’t care why, nor care per se that they are, but they are. And again my post was in response to one saying Christianity was more realistically represented than Hinduism, Islam or Judaism. I simply noted that the industry making the content, in the US, is heavily Jewish (as well as heavily non-believer*, with relatively few devout Christians, Hindu’s or Muslims in positions of power in mainstream ‘Hollywood’) and so the Jewish community does not find itself lobbying from the outside as to how Jews and Jewish topics will be portrayed to the extent they are. In contrast to the minority religions not much represented inside Hollywood (Hindu, Muslim etc) and also differently from devout Christians though obviously yes Christianity is the societal ‘default’ in the US (and West generally). That explains why it’s portrayed more often, and also goes somewhat to explaining why it’s more socially acceptable to negatively portray it. Criticizing Christianity is still viewed as a sort of societal ‘self criticism’ in the West.
*who are not portrayed positively? you must be joking. The hero whose tough experiences in life, witnessing unfairness and cruelty, has led him to conclude religion is nonsense and God couldn’t exist, is the standard type now, in drama where the question is relevant, even anachronistically in period pieces where the hero, a basically good person, ‘puts up’ with listening to the ‘reverend’ (Deadwood I’m thinking of among many examples). And most entertainment never deals with religion in any way, which religious people (of any faith) could view as downplaying it.
It seems like you strongly disagree with the words in that post, then. They talk about people in general, while you’re only talking about the effect on yourself.
You’ve claimed that (technically speaking, this isn’t so; you first claimed heavy representation, with no mention of the “in positions of power” you’ve brought in now). You still haven’t provided any cites. Cites, please.
Speaking as a non-believer, I would call a character like that very much not a positive portrayal. The stereotype of the angry athiest, led to their position not by reason or argument or thinking about the matter but by repeated bad shit in their life, is just that; a stereotype. That you consider it to be a positive portrayal seems like a good example of how that works.
As best I can tell, the main reason you’d infer that is if you believe there are no conservative celebrities.
I suppose it depends on how angry the character is, and at what. I can picture, for example, someone being quite angry at the RCC for its actions, and for good reason. Any hint that the character is angry at God, though… screw that.
To answer the OP - no, Hollywood celebrities are not good spokesmen/spokeswomen, because, like it or not, ad hominem does exist and is a real thing, and Message X delivered by a Hollywood celebrity perceived as rich, privileged or out of touch with common-folk America will probably be received far more poorly than if it were delivered by a more relatable speaker.
Sarah Michelle Gellar and Salma Hayek are spokeswomen for vaccination campaigns.
Too bad they don’t get as much publicity as a certain foul-mouthed B-movie celebrity.
Except the OP is an anti-vaxxer.
I find the OP’s position, and the comments of some of our right leaning brethren, to be disingenuous. They have no problems with celebrities advocating for causes. They have a problem with* left-leaning* celebs doing it. When it comes to right-leaning celebs, they areA-OK with it.
Of course they make good spokesman. Advocating for causes employs many of the skills that they have been cultivating over the years. They are used to being interviewed, they can appear personable and don’t get flustered under the lights and they tend not to trip over their own lips. And they have face recognition. People already think they know them from their work. To suggest that they are not good spokesman for any cause they take up , right or left, is ludicrous on it’s face. Their skill sets are what makes them the best spokespeople. Which, I expect, is what the OP has a problem with.
You know what’s funny? I had no intention of listening to Meryl Streep’s speech. Couldn’t care less. Nor do I care that she took a swipe at the Donald. Who cares? Low-hanging fruit, IMO. A one day story, at best. Trump’s reaction, though, has given it legs. You’all have actually elevated Meryl Streep.
It isn’t really reasonable to apply the standards of some people within a group to the standards of others within that group and declare a mismatch. You can’t claim disingenuous and be fair without actually pointing to examples of the people you’re talking about being fine with right-leaning celebrities, not merely “right leaning brethren” doing so.