Reagan, that is. 
We went through this in 2001, remember? A U.S. citizen has the right to express his or her support for the candidate(s) of his/her choice (subject to appropriate public-employment conflict of interest laws). If a celebrity chooses to campaign for a candidate and gets press as a result, bully for him/her! As to whether it’s a negative or not, it depends on the audience you survey. Clearly you and Debaser see it as having a significant backlash effect; my impression is that those offended by “leftist celebrities campaigning” were already in the rightist candidate’s camp. I think we can agree to disagree on that one.
The point I was making, though, is that one “leftist Hollywood star campaigning for a Democratic candidate” (which he was and did) evolved into a very competent leader who revitalized the conservative movement and effectively spearheaded making it into the force it is today. If it is somehow bad for “leftist Hollywood stars” to get involved in politics and campaign for the candidates of their choice, then Reagan should have retired on his G.E. Theater royalties and never done what he did. (Hmmm–maybe you’ve got a point! Without Reagan, the conservative movement wouldn’t have been anywhere as strong or popular… ;)) For all of that, I’ve actively defended Arnold S. in these threads; he’s been involved in California politics since before Guinastasia was born – he’s “paid his dues”!
And all this is a hijack from the OP topic, anyway. But it occurs to me – we’re in Great Debates, where unless we’re arguing about God’s existence and nature, odds are we’re discussing politics. And there seem to be a large coterie of people here with us. Too, there’s something referred to as “the blogosphere” which is largely people ejaculating their political views to whoever is willing to take the time and read.
Given that, are we to believe that no TV character has views on political issues? Do they live in a world where nobody ever discusses capital punishment, or abortion, or non-custodial parent child abduction, or religious morality vs. personal freedom? I think realistic characters will have views on these issues, and express them in the right circumstances – and if their views don’t happen to match those of the viewers, well, that is life. I agree that we should not be “force-fed” a given viewpoint, but it seems that for some people, being exposed to it at all is being forcefed it. (No slam on Evil One or other posters intended; there’s a fine line there, and I have no idea which side of it the instance he describes lies on.)
I’m fully capable of dealing with the existance of points of view that do not equate to my own. What irritates me about the the issues I raised in the OP is the apparent arrogance that an entertainment platform is viewed as an opportunity to “educate” viewers instead of entertaining them. It’s one thing to give characters views needed to generate conflict…it’s quite another to concoct almost an entire hour of alleged entertainment that would be better served as a reeducation tool for pro-death penalty “Red Staters”.
What do you think about Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s work?
Team America had a political message, and so do many (if not most) episodes of South Park. Two weeks ago, South Park viewers learned that it’s silly to want to change your body to reflect who you feel you are on the inside. Last week, they learned that hippies are lazy vermin who’ve been indoctrinated by college professors into hating capitalism (with an obvious reference to Ward Churchill). Is South Park entertainment or a “reeducation tool”?
Well, as far as Boston Legal goes, I’m not so sure about your premise. This week was a wrongly-decided death penalty case, but it’s not like they never show an acquital of some particularly unpleasant serial killer(in MA, so no death peanlty, but that’s hardly the point). A couple weeks ago they had Shore argue against a HS pricipal’s banning Fox News in his school.
About the general point, I say, if it’s a political POV well-expressed, then great. The point of good writing is that it conveys some of the author’s personal thoughts or opinions. Of course some of them are going to be political, and I don’t see a reason for the author to censor those.
While shows tend to take a liberal angle. Whether I agree with their spin on the issue, I have to say that I have always felt that spinning political issues was the primary focus, and the fun of Kelly’s shows (Pratice, Boston Public, Boston Legal, Picket Fences). That is what his shows are all about. If you don’t want to see tv talk about issues, his shows are certainly not ones to watch. What he seems to like to do is take an issue and put an unusual spin on it. I may or may not agree with the issue, but I have always enjoyed the unique spin, and is one of the reasons I enjoy his shows. There is always plenty of humor( dry or otherwise) for me not to take it too seriously.
The show managed to mock Fox for it’s lack of fair and balanced reporting, but came down strong in support of First Amendment rights. Was that show objectionable to anyone on the right?
I think the crux of what **Evil One ** objects to is not so much issue advocacy, but rather BAD issue advocacy. A show that argues for a political viewpoint honestly and intelligently is good, even if you disagree with the viewpoint. A show that argues stupidly or dishonestly is bad, even if you agree with the viewpoint. Take as an example, the much maligned Kevin Spacy anti-death penalty movie, “The Life of David Hale” vs, say “Dead Man Walking”. One movie stupidly attempts to manipulate your emotions and makes a totally incoherent case against the death penalty, the other succeeds in honestly manipulating your emotions. I don’t mind movies that manipulate emotions, that’s what movies are supposed to do. What I hate are movies that try to manipulate your emotions and FAIL.
Go ahead and make an anti-death penalty show, or a pro-death penalty show. Just make a GOOD one, not a stupid one.
I’m thrilled.
To me, there are three issues when I see entertainment type shows expressing political views.
-
“Aaagh, they are preaching something I disagree with.” My reaction - get over it. Turn the channel. Ignore it. Yell at the TV. Whatever, they have the right to say it.
-
The bait and switch - You tune into a show for escapism or pure entertainment, and they jump in with a moralizing political lecture. I object a little more to this, mostly because its harder for someone to escape or avoid it if they want. No big deal, though, the producers are just driving away part of the audience. Besides, if I’m tuning into a Kelly show, or a Sorkin show (except Sports Night, which totally threw me when an episode went political), Law and Order, 24, or a show dealing with political, legal or medical issues in a serious way, I expect some politics, and enjoy it when it’s treated well. (It is different when it comes in a comedy or a chidren’s show.) That leads me to . . .
-
The strawman problem - it’s easy to set up fictional characters in political situations so that it appears that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil moron. A show can be great if you can dramatize people honestly, reasonably, and sympathetically disagreeing with each other, even if you demonstrate a bias toward a point of view. The problem is that some “politainment” doesn’t honestly show the other side. That’s just bad, politically driven television. Then I object.
Sorkin’s West Wing is the ultimate example of this straw man problem. The conservative point of view is always represented. It’s just that it’s made to look foolish and/or evil. That’s why I can’t watch the show, despite it being well written generally and about a subject that interests me greatly.
I love Law and Order, though. A few episodes back the older detective who replaced Lenny mentions he enjoys hunting. He says he prefers a bow and arrow to a gun because it levels the playing field. The LT responds “What type of gun does the deer have?” He answers “Same as the cow.” They just leave it at that. Good stuff.
Being a life long Texan, in the episode of Boston Legal the the OP mentioned, I fell neither shame nor support for the situation the condemned man was in. I realize that this setup could truly exist and that there are strong feelings both ways on whether or not justice was being served by executing this man.
What did bother me was Alan Shores manipulation of the man. The man had a somewhat limited IQ, but was fully aware of what crime he had been charged with and why he was being executed. He admitted commiting other criminal acts before and even he was not sure that he didn’t commit the crime he was sentenced to death for. It was never proven that he hadn’t commited them. But he had a conscience and accepted the sentence. He had made his peace with God and decided to be brave and take his punishment with dignity.
Alan Shore urged him not to do so but to fight and defy to the end. To do so was human and would make him a “hero”. I’m sure Shore thought that the reporters covering the execution (there was only one) would see him fighting it and report on how the man fought to the end. Of course, it was obvious that few would read about the excution and even fewer would care about the mans struggle as they strapped him down.
I rather thought that Alan Shore did a diservice to the man by compelling him to act so. No good came of the actions and it helped no one else on death row. The man was at peace with himself and his God and was prepared to die with a quiet dignity and inner strength that I thought impressive. He was not afraid. Even when struggling, he showed no fear. He was only doing what he thought was right based on what Alan said he should do. Because of Alan’s suggestion, the man was denied his accepted and dignified death all for the sake of the audience.
The fact that there is a viewpoint expressed is NOT the problem.
The problem is that it is done badly.
On some occasions West Wing rose above preaching to show that there were real complexities and that both sides did indeed mean well, and that simultaneously both sides were conflicted. Once that was done, it didn’t bother me that the mantle of correctness invariably fell on Bartlett, because at least they were playing fair artistically.
What is so annoying, on an aesthetic level, are plotlines where political opponents are cartoon characters with Snidely Whiplash voices. It’s why Mallard Fillmore and Tom Tomorrow are equally inane. It’s why no-one should take political cues from a Schwarzenegger movie.
In re: Boston Legal, all that really need be said is that the (singular) conservative character is a senile old man who smokes a cigar, played with full bombast by William Shatner. We are to believe that this man seriously opposes the Bill of Rights, and is prone to saying “Red States, yeah!” while waving a fist.
It’s not wrong, morally. It’s just shitty writing that undermines otherwise witty repartee.
Well put, Reloy3. Thank you for clarifying what I was trying to say in the first place. Points two and three are spot on. It’s the bait and switch and the clumsy portrayal of the “wrong” view in the eyes of the writers that’s very difficult to take. I feel like my intelligence is insulted when they resort to your point number three to try and make a point of their own.
You know, that’s legitimate. Except that, TV scriptwriters not being the best and the brightest, they often will produce caricatures thinking that they’re actually representing people accurately. It’s a species of cultural myopia, and it’s endemic to the two places that most TV decisions are made: New York City and Southern California.
I saw a draft of a treatment once, which I don’t think was ever produced, concerning the gay son of a small-town Baptist preacher, and the conflicts between them. It was emphatically liberally themed; the preacher “came around” to a sense of acceptance and Christian love for his son. But the characterization was not a strawman; he sincerely believed he was trying to do the right thing for his son in precipitating the conflict between them, and the frustration and love he felt was clear in the write-up of the scenes.
My points are these: drama, and even comedy, should not shy away from controversial topics, though it should not heavy-handedly beat those issues into the ground in every episode. And I don’t think it’s offensive for it to take a stance, even one I disagree with, when it does address a controversial topic. But it should be willing to treat the side of the issue with which it disagrees fairly, depicting those who hold it as civilized human beings with different agendas, doing the best they can to stand by what they feel is right.
And having written all that, I now see that furt said it better.
Your point would be valid if Religious = Conservative. But it doesn’t.
I tend not to watch much TV, so the only two examples I can think of are Homicide’s “Doll’s Eyes” episode where a young boy has gone brain dead, and the parent’s have to decide whether to let him die. The other is the Sopranos episode where Tony had to decide whether he was going to kill a child molester.
Homicide actually discussed the topic, presenting arguments for both sides (except religious views–I assume because the concerned family did not have strong religious beliefs concerned with the topic.) Of course they had to come to a conclusion in the show–and it did feel like they were preaching a bit at the end when the father comes around looking to see if the other children who had been organ donors were doing well–but in general, I felt like they had done a good job presenting their case. And it didn’t feel like this was something entirely out of the scope of the show.
But the Sopranos case… 1) What does this have to do with the story? 2) We were rooting for more when Tony cut Ralphy into little pieces, and now it’s immoral for him to kill a child molester?
I have no problem with rule of law–but suddenly coming in to The Sopranos with a big message about how it is evil to kill seemed entirely out of place and unrealistic.* Really they are best to let their characters be those characters and not just turn that off to give some PC message to the general public. I am not watching a show about a bunch of mafia goons sitting around in a strip club this for PCness.
- I would also note that Dr. Melfi getting raped and that entire ordeal just ending with the episode with no further emotional consequences as seeming very, very unlikely to me.
I also don’t watch a lot of TV, but I understand EO’s annoyance. I very much enjoy programmes or films that successfully avoid preaching when they’re covering a politically hot topic.
If I were to watch a programme or film billed as a “courtroom drama”, I would expect to see insightful coverage of both sides of a case, a defendant who may well be guilty but isn’t a 1-dimensional bad guy, and a feeling that “wow, that got me thinking”.
If I sit down to watch a political satire, like Team America, or South Park (both of which I knew were going to have a political message), I’m not surprised to be preached at. And if I disagree, I’ll switch off. My fault for watching a programme with political content.
I think EO’s point is that you can sit halfway through a programme and then find that someone’s trying to convince you that the death penalty’s bad, or that we should all pay less tax. Whether you agree or not, the feeling is “hey, I didn’t sign up for this”.
I realise of course that 24, Law and Order etc. all consider political points, and it would be ridiculous for the writers to avoid them in some contrived way. I just consider a programme to be better if they can cover the particular hotspot of that week’s episode without a heavy-handed bias.
At the risk of a hijack. I pleasantly notice an occasional right-of-center tilt to KING OF THE HILL. Of course, there is a left-tilt with which I differ but I expect in THE SIMPSONS. Just as long as both are well-written & semi-fair, I don’t mind any tilts, especially in obvous parodies.
If something purports to be thoughtful drama or even humorous social commentary and falls into caricatures & baiting, that’s when it’s disappointing.
OR if it is a bait & switch- lets say a SEVENTH HEAVEN ep in a couple years in which Ruthie gets an abortion & then becomes actively bi-polyamorous, OR a WILL & GRACE in which Jack finds God & becomes a reparative therapist (with a special appearance by Dr. James Dobson*). That’s just pissing on a faithful audience.
- OK, I admit I’d watch that & howl with glee.