Less reasons to watch ABC all the time

[PLC1]

What "Liberal agenda", was the motivation for "General Hospital", "The Young and the Restless", "Lost", "Two and a Half Men", "The Bachelor", "Everyone Loves Raymond", "Survivor", et. AL?

Only one that can be perceived by those with such a left vs right viewpoint that they can't see straight ahead.

TV programming is not determined by a liberal vs conservative sort of a view, but a profit vs no profit one. The execs give people what they want.

 

[Dr.Who]

What "Liberal agenda", was the motivation for "General Hospital", "The Young and the Restless", "Lost", "Two and a Half Men", "The Bachelor", "Everyone Loves Raymond", "Survivor", et. AL?

I am not saying that every single show on the tv is an example of a liberal agenda. Just that many are. I suppose that even a show that is not primarily about advancing an agenda could include segments that do.

Do you think that there are any shows that take social-political stands of any kind when it would be safer to avoid doing so altogether?

 

[dahermit]

Do you think that there are any shows that take social-political stands of any kind when it would be safer to avoid doing so altogether?

How is that then, taking a "Liberal Agenda"?

 

[Dr.Who]

Only one that can be perceived by those with such a left vs right viewpoint that they can't see straight ahead.

TV programming is not determined by a liberal vs conservative sort of a view, but a profit vs no profit one. The execs give people what they want.

The safest and most profitable course would be for execs to never create shows that take sides so obviously shows like "The West Wing" never existed.


Likewise 30 Rock and Gossip Girl never aired.

Additionally, no show ever includes gay characters when it does not fit the plot.

And Boston Legal never showed Denny Crane as a gun carrying right wing racist week after week in contrast to liberal character Alan Shore full of compassion and who never lost a case and showcased legal cases in such a biased way that the liberal point of view was always right.

Of course Boston Legal was well written and received many awards from the left so maybe it is profitable to create left wing shows.

A couple of years ago we were debating whether or not news media were liberally biased and eventually everyone had to capitulate and agree that they are. Now we get to debate whether or not tv is liberally biased. Fortunately no one questions Hollywood itself and all of us already accept that it is biased.

 

[Dr.Who]

How is that then, taking a "Liberal Agenda"?

It's not. That is a broader question asking of you think shows take any agenda at all. Do they?

 

[PLC1]

The safest and most profitable course would be for execs to never create shows that take sides so obviously shows like "The West Wing" never existed.

Or wouldn't have had people not wanted to see them.

Would Glenn Beck be on the air if people didn't want to see him?

 

[Dr.Who]

Or wouldn't have had people not wanted to see them.

Would Glenn Beck be on the air if people didn't want to see him?

There is a niche for Glen Beck and Rachel Maddow.

Does that apply to mainstream shows that attempt to appeal to the largest demograpic?

Shows like "Will and Grace" fill a niche. Shows like "Modern Family" attempt to set an agenda, namely to redefine the family. Can anyone deny that the purpose of Modern family is to push an agenda first and make money second? All the characters in it are ok except the gay couple who are cardboard characters of stereotypes and fail to deliver or add to the show. Why would the producers include characters who fail to add to the show? (in contrast "Jack McFarland" did add to the "Will and Grace" show and his inclusion was natural)

My problem is not that they included gay characters but that they obviously did so as a means to push an agenda.

 

[PLC1]

There is a niche for Glen Beck and Rachel Maddow.

Does that apply to mainstream shows that attempt to appeal to the largest demograpic?

Of course. If people didn't watch them, no one would sponsor them, and they'd go off the air pretty quickly.

One thing I heard about Charlie Sheen and his idiocy was that "Three and a Half Men" was "the most popular sitcom on the air."

Good grief.

Did that one have a liberal bias, a conservative bias, or just a retard bias?

 

[Dr.Who]

Addition to post on "modern family"


Here are some exerpts from a pretty neutral entertainment article on the show:

"It was supposed to be original. It was supposed to be edgy. It was supposed to not suck.[] This dynamic made for hilarious storylines during its first year on the air. [] Unfortunately, the most recent episodes have fallen victim to formulaic plot points and preachy, overly sentimental concluding speeches, which overshadow the quality elements that are still there. So let this serve more as a warning to the writers than anything else. [] But somewhere around the Halloween episode it became clear that this season lacked imagination. [] Coupled with other overly touted plotlines and repetitive character quirks, “Modern Family” is in a slump halfway through its second season. [] One might ask how the creative forces can fix this. For starters, they could do a bit more showing. The grand monologues about life and what it means to be a family with which the episodes still sometimes conclude are out of place and only hinder the show’s progression. One only needs to look to other examples of the “mockumentary” genre (like NBC’s “Parks and Recreation” and “The Office”) to see that this formula works best when used to enhance the storylines, not to bash the viewer over the head with sentiment."

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/modern-family-mid-season-review

 

[Dr.Who]

Of course. If people didn't watch them, no one would sponsor them, and they'd go off the air pretty quickly.

One thing I heard about Charlie Sheen and his idiocy was that "Three and a Half Men" was "the most popular sitcom on the air."

Good grief.

Did that one have a liberal bias, a conservative bias, or just a retard bias?

I personally did not think that one had a bias. (unless you count not approving of Charlie's womanizing lifestyle. It violated the number one liberal rule: "do not make value judgments about sex") But it was really funny despite its flaws.

If no one watched a show it would go off the air. But the networks are not pushing shows that are so bad no one watches them. They are pushing shows that are good enough but could be better if they did not include an agenda.

 

[PLC1]

I personally did not think that one had a bias. (unless you count not approving of Charlie's womanizing lifestyle. It violated the number one liberal rule: "do not make value judgments about sex") But it was really funny despite its flaws.

If no one watched a show it would go off the air. But the networks are not pushing shows that are so bad no one watches them. They are pushing shows that are good enough but could be better if they did not include an agenda.

In the highly competitive world of TV? Hardly.

Oh, yes, and Three and a half men sucks, big time. The "humor" never rises above the junior high school level.

 

[Dr.Who]

In the highly competitive world of TV? Hardly.

Oh, yes, and Three and a half men sucks, big time. The "humor" never rises above the junior high school level.

If in the "highly competitive world of tv" a show that "sucks big time" can be so highly rated then clearly there is room for a show that sacrifices only some of its quality in order to advance a liberal agenda to also be aired, or even to be highly rated.

But if the makers of those shows were to abandon their commitment to an agenda and focus more on quality then perhaps they could earn even more money.

 

[Gipper]

In the highly competitive world of TV? Hardly.

Oh, yes, and Three and a half men sucks, big time. The "humor" never rises above the junior high school level.

The shows name is two and half men. Not three and half men. I have watched it few times, but the sexual innuendos and perverted situations are too much and often disgusting.

The show seems to reflect Charlie Sheen's real life.

But, the show follows Hollywood's tradition of glamorizing a sex addict who treats women solely as sex objects.

 

[Apathy]

TV entertainment is run almost entirely by liberals and they do try to shape America rather than just produce entertainment so his comment is not out of line.

It is also true that they often put on programming that is not as profitable as other programming in order to advance an agenda.

Umm how does a show like no ordinary family "shape" America?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Only you could make a thread about TV into an attack on liberals.

maybe he meant jews?