TV Executives in Hollywood admit to pushing Liberal Agenda

I don't think it is any secret that Hollywood has pushed, and continues to push a Liberal/Progressive agenda. In the past you would be hard pressed to find a Hollywood executive to go on record about this, but now an independent investigative journalist by the name of Benjamin Shapiro has many of the top Hollywood execs on tape admitting to it. Ben Shapiro is writing a book titled " Prime time Propaganda", and for his book he sat down with many notable directors and producers to discuss the Liberal bias in Hollywood. Shapiro was given permission to tape the interviews in order to reference them at a later time for his book, but Shapiro actually wanted to tape them so that he could release the videos to the public because the Hollywood execs had no idea that Shapiro is a Conservative.






Link to the story

Bejamin Shapiro's site

If you don't like it, read a book. Seriously, there are plenty of ways to entertain yourself in a proper "conservative" manner. Shoot some guns, spend all night praising Lord Ron Paul on the interwebs series of tubes. This is really a nonissue. Just some fodder to throw to the masses to get their dander up. Commie libruls aren't under your bed and out to get you and your kids to turn to the Dark side of the force. The more you help divide the people, the worse things will become. ALL POLITICIANS ARE BASTARDLY CROOKS. The (R) & (D) show is there to keep you in line.

Vin DiBona?

I always thought AFV had a decidedly "liberal" tilt to it.

All of those testicle hits and cute pets.

I can see that. Talk radio has a right wing slant, although slant isn't strong enough.

I guess Vin DiBona's "liberal agenda" is to show testicle-bashing on AFV as opposed to gay-bashing. AFV is about as bland and vanilla as you can get, how exactly is he pushing a liberal agenda?

Hollywood is Liberal leaning???

When did this happen?


Duh!!!!

Wait...so the guy behind mcguyver and america's funniest home videos, when asked his opinion about hollywood's liberal bias, said he is ok with it speaks for hollywood in its entirety?

heh

(actually, McGyver always seemed to be pushing a conservative agenda...all that survivalist stuff...)

Here is the truth. hollywood pushes stuff that the public reacts to. I remember the neocons were up in arms about the movie Avatar. Well, if that movie was from a conservative perspective...say, written in the spirit of Ayn Rand, it would have been a story about mighty earth warriors that removed the pests of a planet and paved the forest into a shopping center/industrial complex. perhaps kept a few of the blue guys around to serve us.

you know...people probably wouldn't have enjoyed that version as much.

Conservative entertainment is not very interesting, fun, or deep. so far, there is a small handful of good conservative message movies..not from lack of stuff out there, just from the fact that theres very little messaging and depth that can be made from it.

Red Dawn.
Forrest Gump
And 300
erm...actually, thats all that comes to mind.
Some say that Ghostbusters was a conservative movie also (private sector solving a solution and the EPA causing more trouble than good). however, I would point out it was about supernatural elements, pagen gods, and they hired a minority without need...so, would give this a independent entertainment stamp )

Point is, conservative entertainment is..well...typically boring. the movie Atlas Shrugged (based on the Rand book) did very poorly. hollywood is about making money in the end.

Oh man. This is the best:

"Friends, an F You to the Right Wing"



Could it be any more liberal?

The funny thing to me is that a lot of liberals in Washington are always up in arms about conservative talk radio yet anyone with half a brain has known for years that the TV and movie industry are driven by the liberal agenda.

I happen to enjoy all sorts of TV shows and movies and it gives me a kick when I can point out the propaganda aspects. Example; Boston Legal. One of my all time favorite shows was so full of the left's point of view it was absurd.

Bottom line- Don't be an idiot and believe the all the crap you see on TV. Actors, after all are people making millions of dollars to pretend to be someone else, kinda like Washington DC

reply to post by unicomsol


What do pagans have to do with anything?

Oh, you're pigeon holing anyone "conservative" as some bible thumping inbred.

Yeah, well, you might want to stop doing that if you ever want to be taken seriously.

ETA: I had no idea it was already out and reviewed. Shows how up on movies I am.

Carry on. Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by unicomsol

 

What do pagans have to do with anything?

Oh, you're pigeon holing anyone "conservative" as some bible thumping inbred.

Actually, social conservatism is all about pushing forward the "founding christian values" of the nation. this being monotheistic non-secular societys, christmas, etc...
you are actually the one that catagorized conservatives as bible thumping inbreds...I would have just called them theists christians. You are aware of social conservative messages, right?

Yeah, well, you might want to stop doing that if you ever want to be taken seriously.

I probably won't loose much sleep if someone on the internet disagree's with me or misunderstands what I am saying. As far as taken seriously...well, half the time I don't even take myself seriously, and given that track record, I hope nobody takes my views as gospel...however, if I can add a bit to something, then great.

reply to post by unicomsol


I didnt realize this was about "social conservatives."

Was that distinction made in the clip?

The first place I noticed it was in your Ghostbusters critique where it was paired with private enterprise and government regulation.

I took away the impression that to you limited government and bedroom policing were one and the same.

Here's a brief list of all those liberal leaning shows Hollywood has given us over the years from those American-hating liberal gay-promoting Jews; just look at this list of anti-American shows, it's despicable;

Make Room for Daddy
Leave it to Beaver
The Andy Griffith Show
The Dick Van Dyke Show
I Love Lucy
The Bob Newhart Show
Little House on the Praire
Bonanza
Gunsmoke
The Big Valley
Daniel Boone
Davy Crocket
The Gene Autry Show
Gunslinger
Have Gun Will Travel
How the West was won
The adventures of Rin Tin Tin
Lassie
etc., etc., etc...

That's not even close to a complete list of shows that I think everyone would agree are "family value oriented".

Conservatives have compiled their own lists of their favorite shows, like this one here;
The Top 25 Conservative TV Shows of the last 25 Years

Some conservative shows from our "liberal Hollywood";
Walker Texas Ranger (Oh nos, conservative icon Chuck Norris is a Hollywood actor? who'dathunk it?)
Magnum P.I.
CSI (CSI Miami, etc.)
The X-Files
The Apprentice (if you want to call "The Donald" a conservative)
The Cosby Show
Deadliest Catch
King of the hill
The Equalizer
Jag
Mythbusters
24
Tour of Duty
Law and Order
Family Ties (hey Alex met Nancy Reagan, "Just say no...")
Punky Brewster (hey she met Nancy Reagan, "Just say no...")
Deff'rent Strokes (hey they met Nancy Reagan, "Just say no...")
etc., etc., etc...

Counterbalanced by the decidedly non-conservative shows;
Dharma and Greg
Law and Order (too preachy)
Weeds
30 Rock
Designing Women
Sex and the City
etc., etc., (I don't watch that much tv these days...)

I think the point is that you can find just as many "conservative" shows from "liberal Hollywood" as "liberal" shows. Supposedly when Hollywood was in it's 1950's, 1960's "Jew-run" heyday, we got nothing but Westerns and shows about the all-American nuclear family. What does all this mean? Nothing, idiots just love throwing around labels.

reply to post by unicomsol


If you go to the website, you’ll see that the producer’s original wanted Michael J. Fox to be the bad guy, but darn it, he was just too cute.

I only watch movies for free, that way Hollywood gets NO money from me. When is that earthquake supposed to hit?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by unicomsol

 

I didnt realize this was about "social conservatives."

Was that distinction made in the clip?

The first place I noticed it was in your Ghostbusters critique where it was paired with private enterprise and government regulation.

I took away the impression that to you limited government and bedroom policing were one and the same.

There is -no- such thing as fiscal conservatism...there just isn't. sure, there is lip service paid to the concept, but there is not a single electable fiscal conservative out there, period.
its an illusion and code word...
Don't bring up Ron Paul. he is, for right now, just paying lip service the loudest, and is unelectable so he can actually claim he would turn the place into anarchy without fear that he would ever have to put up.

so, the only thing there is, is social conservatism that is real...and that is all about bibles and bullets.

My views on government personally? what does it matter? I am a computer tech with a single vote...my views and 2 dollars will get me a cup of coffee...but since I have the coffee, then I might as well state
I want government big enough to create infrustructure for emerging new technologys, repair old infrustructure still in use, and perhaps tell large industries to stop dumping toxic sludge into the lakes I eat fish from.
I want it small enough to force parents to moniter their kids verses have the state monitor them, and for them to not care what I talk about on the internet..

so, midsized logical and smart government to me seems best..enough to serve its constitutional duties, and perhaps one or two pet projects that benefits the growth of the states longevity and relevance (nasa, etc)

I would also wish in a idealistic world that government take over healthcare completely...not because I think they do a spot on job, but because the focus would shift from treatment to cure (cheaper to cure someone)..

I am out of coffee now...so, my government rant is over.

Who ya gonna call?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
I only watch movies for free, that way Hollywood gets NO money from me. When is that earthquake supposed to hit?

I actually watch movies for free also...however, if there is a brilliant movie, I will pay the money to watch it in high quality. I don't reward mediocraty..Lord of the rings, I seen each one of those movies twice in the theater, then purchased the extended version box set...job well done, money earned

Its important to fund things you find worthy...thats how market analysis is done and more movies under that general subject is created..if you watched a good movie online...rent it out on dvd...if only to "tip" the producers and click the meter in favor of more. Hollywood caters towards money...and if computer savvy intellectuals never weigh in, then the only one ticking the meter of success are the ones that lack the intellectual fortitude in using the computer to watch for free...aka, more brain dead movies on the way.

Rent the good stuff, deny the crap.

Push a liberal agenda -- you say that like its a bad thing.

Baggers push a social conservative agenda -- that is a bad thing.

Originally posted by unicomsol

There is -no- such thing as fiscal conservatism...there just isn't. sure, there is lip service paid to the concept, but there is not a single electable fiscal conservative out there, period.

Because the concept isnt "electable" by a mass of voting morons it doesnt exist?

Why does a concept have to be electable at all to exist?

You understand that this country, this government, these "elections" and laws and regulations and prisons and all of these things are simple man-made fantasies floating on a sea of man-made currency with a man-made value, right?

The only reason any of this exists in any sense at all is because the majority accepts it.

That isnt reality. That's virtual reality with real consequences. Imagine suffering imprisonment, starvation, beatings, death because of some virtual system imposed upon you by your neighbors.

That's all this is.

Sounds like you're just one of the imposing neighbors.

Got to get out of the box they built.

This may seem real but it's not absolute.

No one has to be elected for me to believe what I believe or know what I know. None of this virtual system has to be here at all for me to believe what I believe and know what I know. The opinion of the voting mass doesnt sway mine.

Paul, as a popular example, doesnt have ever had to exist. Could die tomorrow. Could become ruler of the world tomorrow. Whatever. It isnt going to change what I believe.

To tell me that you believe liberty is a non-existent dream is terribly sad.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


But now your dealing in fantasy and dreams...if I am going to dream, I won't be dreaming about fiscal conservatism, I will be dreaming of technocracy and a full removal of the monitary system in general, to create a technological socialism/barter with a capitalistic flavor for encouragement. focused like a lazer on advancement, progression, pushing edge science that benefits the world, and gets us into space colonization.

if your going to dream, dream big..of course, my vision is limited by, ironically enough, lack of technology for the moment.

The reality of the situation however is simple. we have two partys. one party likes big government spending with no income to support it, the other likes big government spending with income to support it. thats the only difference between the two party system that the super duper epic majority of the people have agreed upon.

meaning, the only real difference (between funded verses unfunded) are social issues.

Dreaming of a different universe will not solve the issues in this universe...even if you have a million people thinking like you, you still have 300 million thinking the old ways.

reply to post by unicomsol


I like the way you think, though I don't always agree. I believe that we would be great neighbors though. Beer, BBQ and lively debates.