Book Review: 'How Hollywood Uses TV To Brainwash Our Children'
That may sound like an overblown title, but if you read Ben Shapiro's new book, "Primetime Propaganda, The True Hollywood Story Of How The Left Took Over Your TV," you will see it isn't overblown in the least. Ben doesn't just speculate here. He goes to the source.
He interviews the movers and the shakers of Hollywood who admit their own bias and their own agenda. You may have heard Ben's interview with Glenn Beck this morning. Glenn asked him how he got access to these big wigs. Ben said it was because of his last name (Jewish) and the fact that he went to Harvard. They just assumed he was "one of them." The few that did bother to google Ben, declined to be interviewed. So, this fascinating book takes us into the minds of the people who bring television into our home. They clearly state how they want to influence our kids with their political views.
I sat down to read Ben's book thinking it wouldn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, but I was wrong. This book isn't just about looking at the actual shows that are influencing our kids, it takes us backstage in the industry and gives us a glimpse of the people who create these shows and why. First and foremost, there is a blacklisting in Hollywood regarding conservatives. They as much as admit it in Ben's interviews. Ben himself had Leonard Goldberg, a former head of programming at ABC, ask Ben to write a pilot for a series about Harvard Law, and got Ben an agent. But someone found out about Ben's conservative politics, and that was end of that.
Ben explores the generational change in TV. I'm sure if you ask your grandparents what they think about TV shows today, you will get a look of disgust. We went from the 'G' rated Leave It To Beaver to Modern Family. This wasn't by accident. Even my childhood was filled with shows that didn't try to change the societal landscape, but were just fun to watch. Shows like The Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres.
Ben says that in the 1960s, television was for the most part conservative. By late 1960s and 70′s, it had turned liberal. CBS was winning big time in the ratings because they had affiliates in rural areas as well as urban. The rest did not. So the other networks went to their advertisers and made the case that those who live in rural areas don't really matter. They don't buy your products. They said what who you really need to appeal to are the young hip urbanites, who are liberal and like liberal programming. The advertisers bought it. CBS saw the gain in revenue with the other networks with their liberal fare, and so they changed as well.
Ben gives us all the details of the presidents of the networks, the producers, and the writers, and how they were determined to systematically bring liberal views to television family shows. But most disturbing to me is Ben's account of how they infused liberal messages into children's television. Ben met with the producer of Captain Planet and The Planeteers, a cartoon with a far left environmental message. He asked the producer whether he thought Captain Planet promoted a politicized point of view. The producer responded by asking what other point of view would their be?
This is how those in Hollywood see the world. There is no other point of view. It's as sad as it is scary. Isn't America supposed to be all about points fo view? We are not supposed to all believe exactly the same way. This book will make you want to throw the book at the TV next time you see one of the many prime time shows that promote a leftwing agenda. But instead, give the book to someone and ask them to read it and then pass it on.
We can't fight something we don't understand. Ben's book helps us to understand it.
- Kathleen McKinley's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Oooooooh..........Scary.............
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:59pm.
Hang on a sec.........
going to make some popcorn..........
got it. Okay, now on.........
Source? None
Quotes? None
Credibility? None
Fear mongering? Plenty
Unfounded opinion? Check
Secret bogeymen? Absolutely
This article fails to bring even the smallest bit of evidence to the argument. It's 100% opinion, and I fully expect it to be gobbled up as truth by the masses who simply want it to be true.
Now close your eyes, click your heels, and count backwards from 10.
Uh..
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:24pm.
Source: the book
Quotes: read the book
Credibility: check out the author
fear mongering: maybe, maybe not read the book.
Unfounded opinion: really? did I mention you should read the book?
Secret bogeymen: SEE ALL THE POINTS ABOVE!!
Next time when you get the popcorn don't forget to actually READ the article!
Now close your eyes and stick your head back in the sand!
~Now, Ted
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:30pm.
How many conservatives do you know at work? If you count them all, do you need all of the fingers on one hand?
I see you have no avatar yet for this account, Zippers.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 7:31am.
Here, I'll save you some time.
Wow. If the book is as
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:23pm.
Wow. If the book is as oversimplified as this article is, then I'm really, really underwhelmed.
"First and foremost, there is a blacklisting in Hollywood regarding conservatives. They as much as admit it in Ben's interviews."
Which sounds technically different from ACTUALLY admitting it. But, solid argument there...
HI Amigo
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:28pm.
"Wow. If the book is as oversimplified as this article is, then I'm really, really underwhelmed."
Ok, get back to us when you ACTUALLY read the book. Okey dokey cupcake?
Not much in this article to
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:33pm.
Not much in this article to make me think it's worthwhile.
Try the cliff notes version.
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:33pm.
Try the cliff notes version.
Write your own analysis
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:36pm.
Here's a suggestion, read the book and then write your own analysis. That way you can make it as detailed as you like.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The book is getting some
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:48pm.
The book is getting some decent attention, and -- upon reading other, waaaay better reviews -- Shapiro did get good access to people.
But... I'm not really arguing against the idea that there are liberals running Hollywood, or that their views bleed into the shows they run. But this idea that Hollywood has some insidious, counter-culture plan that all liberals are in on and that pervades EVERYTHING they do is paranoid and stupid, and not really worth arguing.
"But this idea that Hollywood
Submitted by JoeBob on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:55pm.
"But this idea that Hollywood has some insidious, counter-culture plan that all liberals are in on and that pervades EVERYTHING they do is paranoid and stupid, and not really worth arguing."
Bal,
I'm sure you're <cough> JournoLIST <cough> right.
JoeBob
Some Liberal Left Left Out of Loop
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:12pm.
I have heerd Pamala Anderson talk there is no need to brief her. That is true across Hollywood and New York.
"Hollywood has some insidious, counter-culture plan that all liberals are in on and that pervades EVERYTHING they do is paranoid and stupid, and not really worth arguing
Not all by any means, liberal organizations are top down they do not explain things to their foot solders. A few dozen at the top give the orders and a few hundred carry them out. Take a little time with S&P reports on the networks and the Studios and you will be able to figure out who. You also have rong that it is counter-culture, it is anti-american but it has been since the founding of television so they were the Establishment of the 1960's
What does this review have to do with that theory?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:10pm.
"But this idea that Hollywood has some insidious, counter-culture plan that all liberals are in on and that pervades EVERYTHING they do is paranoid and stupid, and not really worth arguing."
What does this review, or any other review for that matter, have to do with that theory? That may or may not be the premise made in the book, you can't tell until you actually READ it! Nor can you tell if that premise, if it does exist in the book, is validated by the author of that book in his arguments and evidence. Once again, you can't tell that unless you actually READ it.
This review, like most others, is someone else's opinion of the book. Unlike YOU, the person who made this review actually READ THE BOOK! So, care to guess whose opinion carries more credence? Yours or Hers?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"What does this review, or
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:48pm.
"What does this review, or any other review for that matter, have to do with that theory?"
Nothing. Explaining why I probably won't read the book.
It's a bad review. That's what I'm saying.
Prejudging the book, I see
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:10pm.
So, you're prejudging the book due to a single review? What about the other reviews you mentioned, the ones you said were much better?
Or are you prejudging the book based upon your belief of what the premise is, a belief that is made not on the content of the book itself, but, instead, upon your theories as to the subject matter contained within without even having read the book in question? That's rather ironic behavior for someone who was sarcastic about the review's "solid argument."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
(deep breath) I am saying
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:16pm.
(deep breath)
I am saying this is a crappy review. It's not making me want to read the book.
HOWEVER, that's NOT why I most likely won't read the book. THAT reason is because a good chunk of the argument (Hollywood is liberal, liberal views get on the shows) I don't disagree with.
The part about "brainwashing America" / ruining America is the part that I don't agree with and don't find worth arguing about, because I've heard those arguments before, I've read other reviews that hype this angle, and don't find that to be a viable theory.
Now, I might wind up reading it. But it certainly won't be because of this review.
Whis isn't it worth agruing about?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:25pm.
Why isn't it worth arguing about? You're rejecting the arguments beforehand because of your personal beliefs, not because of any evidence or lack thereof.
You're being extremely hypocritical about this. All you've offered to date is your own personal opinions. If I follow your example, then your own statement is unworthy of discussion for the same reason you give to avoid discussion of the topic of the book, that it's not based upon evidence but, instead, upon personal conjecture. In this regard, I would have to give your comments a bad rating, for the same reason you give Kathleen McKinley's review a bad rating: a lack of supporting evidence for her opinions
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"Why isn't it worth arguing
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:35pm.
"Why isn't it worth arguing about? You're rejecting the arguments beforehand because of your personal beliefs, not because of any evidence or lack thereof."
No, I reject them because I've heard them before.
I posted why I thought it was a bad review.
So that ends the debate?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:39pm.
Ok, you've heard the arguments and you decide that they're not viable, so that ends the debate? That's typical. I guess that, since you've made up your mind, there's no need for you to actually, you know, SUPPORT your conclusions.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Until presented with better
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:41pm.
Until presented with better arguments, I guess so.
You're just going to have a hard time proving to me that liberals and their TV shows are ruining America, or are trying to brainwash people. I don't buy it.
Because you're closed-minded
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:46pm.
"You're just going to have a hard time proving to me that liberals and their TV shows are ruining America, or are trying to brainwash people. I don't buy it."
Of course you dont "buy it." for you have already decided that the question itself is "paranoid" and not worthy of further discussion. It's ironic that you don't offer any explanation as to how, or why, you arrived at this conclusion. Isn't that what you're complaining about for this review, that the reviewer didn't offer any explanation as to "how" or "why?"
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"It's ironic that you don't
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:50pm.
"It's ironic that you don't offer any explanation as to how, or why, you arrived at this conclusion."
All well-tread territory. Didn't feel the need to go over it again.
Let me ask you something: are you pro-choice? Probably not, but I don't want to assume one way or the other. If some liberal wrote a book arguing pro-choice, would you read it?
Balboa, Yes, I would read
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:57pm.
Balboa,
Yes, I would read it. Why? To better understand the mind of pro-choicers and their arguments. Yes, I would read it, it would not change my mind, but it would allow me to better understand my fellow human beings and how I can help them get away from the lie that pro-choice is good.
That's the problems with Liberals, they refuse to read books that do not agree with them!
Thanks for admitting what most of us on the Right know about the Left. Open minded you guys are not. Why would a Liberal dare read something that disagrees with him/her? Better not hear the arguments from the other side. My goodness, it might just change your mind. Liberals open minded? please!
Not my preferred Genre
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:03pm.
"Let me ask you something: are you pro-choice?"
Take a look at my signature line and tell me: what do you think?
"If some liberal wrote a book arguing pro-choice, would you read it?"
Probably not, just as I probably wouldn't read a book by a Conservative arguing "pro-life" because these types of subjects do not fit within my preferred Genre. I'm a Science Fiction fan. But I will not reject the arguments made in a book that I haven't read, no matter what political idealism the author follows. I may or may not agree with those arguments, but I'm not going to simply reject them altogether because "I've heard them before."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan, Balboa's question
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:03pm.
CobraMan,
Balboa's question says more about him and Liberals than he realizes! LOL WOW!
A. Nice cop-out. B. Baloney.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 6:36pm.
A. Nice cop-out.
B. Baloney.
CobraMan, Careful now.
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 6:39pm.
CobraMan,
Careful now. Balboa has already made up his mind about you. He is not interested in anything you write, especially anything that disproves his personal beliefs about you. He is looking for "better" arguments. LOL
I see the problem.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:39pm.
Cobraman is not a cop killer so balboa doesn't like him.
I see the problem.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:39pm.
Cobraman is not a cop killer so balboa doesn't like him.
After all this time
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:37pm.
You're still making double posts?
That's NB server problem zip.
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:47pm.
That's NB server problem zip. I sense a new beg for better servers from NB members? Yes it's coming soon another 30 grand should do it. Make sure YOU contribute this time bumpkin!
Coming soon?
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:57pm.
There's always a link for donations. And I contributed last time but they still kicked me off.
Attention Admins.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:27pm.
Dead Zippers is admitting to being a 25 time retread troll again. Too stupid to remain anonymous. Far too stupid to remain anonymous.
Right, Right ( I know you hate that word)
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:39pm.
So splain to me Lucy, why would a libtard contribute to a right wing Nazi site like NB?
~He lives here
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:26pm.
And he tried to bribe the super to get out of the outhouse basement apartment. Didn't take, apparently.
Yes.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:27pm.
Us first accounters enjoy that right. Now pack sand Dead Zippers. Pack it tight.
You got something else you think is smart you wanna say? Don't forget I am not a woman nor do I have any children to protect FROM YOU THE PREDATOR that has been banned 25 times.
Balboa, Just because you
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:55pm.
Balboa,
Just because you choose to not agree with an argument, it does not mean that the argument is not based on truth and the conclusions are not real.
The facts, of course, prove you wrong. Whether you choose to agree with the facts and the obvious conclusions, well that is on you.
Statistics are a good place to start.
Hollywood has taken a non-chalant, who cares attitude towards homosexual sex, towards heterosexul sex. What has happened in our society? Sex is viewed the same way in our society.
Hollywood has pushed an acceptance of teens having sex and abortions. What do we constantly hear from Liberals and many a Conservative? Teens are going to do it anyway.
Violence. Hollywood has taken a, who cares approach towards violence. So has our society.
Better arguments? You are not looking for better arguments. You are looking for arguments that you agree with.
Liberalism made America better? Abortions, giving contraceptives to teenagers, sexualization of anything and everything, debt up to our ears, smaller families leading to people being more lonely, acceptance of immoral behaviors as moral. As this nation has become more Liberal rapes, murders, violence, kids out of wedlock, divorces have increased. But heck, why pay attention to the facts.
You may not buy the arguments, but it is sounds, as it is the case with most Liberals, that it is a matter of convinience. If you accepted the argument that Liberalism is terrible for America and that it has brainwashed many an American through television, well, any right thinking, logical, well educated, intelligent person would have to then stop being a Liberal. And the one things we all know about Liberals, that open minded you guys are not. How dare anyone think that Liberlaism is bad. Forget about the facts, throw away the evidence, Liberalism is good for America because Liberals said so.
Balboa, no argument, no fact, no evidence is ever good enough for Liberals that claims that Liberalism is bad for the USA. LOL
By the way, Bal
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:42pm.
"Until presented with better arguments, I guess so."
By the way, Bal, how do you even know what the arguments are if you haven't read the book? It's rather presumptuous of you to assume you know what arguments are being presented in a book you've never even read.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Reviews are not theories.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:34pm.
"I've read other reviews that hype this angle, and don't find that to be a viable theory."
By the way, Bal, reviews are not theories, nor are they arguments. They're summations and opinions, and that's all that they are. You may as well judge a scientific article by what an opinion article in a newspaper says about it. That's pretty much all the thought you have given to this book and its subject.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan, Why would a
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:16pm.
CobraMan,
Why would a Liberal like Balboa want to read anything that proves that Liberals are closed minded individuals who love to discriminate against anyone who dares not be a Liberal?
Don't you know CobraMan, television only influences people when Sarah Palin and Republicans get on television to speak. It was Sarah Palin's fault that the Representative from Arizona was shot. The shooter heard Sarah Palin on T.V. and then went on a rage. But this only happens when Conservatives and Republicans get on T.V. Otherwise, who cares Liberals are intolerant, closed minded who scream McCarthyism, but are fully engaged in it in Hollywood.
Balboa and the rest of the Liberals NEED to believe that they are so open minded, tolerant, compassionate individuals.
Conservatives having a hard time in Hollywood? that is the Conservatives own fault, a Liberal would tell you, for he/she being a Conservative. LOL
Television influencing Americans, a Liberal would tell you, it only happens when Sarah Palin appears on television. LOL
That's ironic
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:29pm.
"Balboa and the rest of the Liberals NEED to believe that they are so open minded, tolerant, compassionate individuals. "
That's ironic as Bal has decided that the topic isn't worthy of discussion because he's "heard those arguments before" even though he has no idea what arguments are presented in the book as he hasn't even read it! So much for being open-minded.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan, But that's just
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:00pm.
CobraMan,
But that's just it. Liberals are the most closed minded individuals. They feel safe in their beliefs and they are terrified of any book that might just change their mind. The sad part is that Liberals do believe themselves to be open minded, this is the saddest part!
I discovered a long time ago that most Liberals need to feel comfortable in their beliefs and they are unwilling to approach anything with an open mind, with an eye of curiosity especially if it is Conservative.
To them, Liberalism is the greatest thing since slide bread and how dare anyone claim that Liberalism is bad for America. The fact, the evidences, the history proving them wrong? Well all we need to do is just ignore all the facts that prove Liberalism wrong. Vuala! you see, now that we ignore the facts, Liberalism is great. LOL
don't worry
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:05pm.
We don't expect you to let truth get in your way, or do a little research on the facts. We would contact the police to have them look for the real balboa.
All she is saying is that she read the book was pleasantly surprised, and recommending it.
Blame the alphabet
Submitted by Hunter S. on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:41pm.
It's the letter Q, isn't it? You know, this episode of Sesame Street is brought to you by the letter Q.
This fantasy could be helped with any number of examples of brainwashing. Captain Kangaroo, Mr Rogers, Electric Company, Muppets!?!?! What is liberal about a Cookie Monster?
Conservatives are rejoicing that a conservative wrote a book for conservatives outlining the evils of liberalism in the media, just as they were hoping. Are we all feeling justified now that our suspicions have been confirmed?
We'll have to read the book
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 4:48pm.
We'll have to read the book in order to to decide that the conclusions are "justified' or not. I suggest that you do the same.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hunter S.
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:08pm.
Hunter S.
Wow....really?
Have you read the book? It was written for Conservatives? My understanding of books that authors write them for everyone to read. If it was only Conservatives Liberals could not buy it, right?
By your own Liberal "logic", you are admitting Liberal authors write books only for Liberals to make them feel justify for the obvious despise that you feel towards us.
You call it a fantasy, thus we can all assume you've read the book. Thus, it should be quite easy for you to prove that the book, which the author is attempting to pass as fact, is actually a fantasy. Cite where the author lied and how he got the source wrong.
No way would "open minded" Liberals jump to conclusions about a book before reading it. You guys are too "open minded" to do this. LOL
Cookie Monster is a lazy inner city panhandler.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:35pm.
That's why he's a lib. That should be obvious.
"Gimmee cookie or I eff you up, Holmes."
Just listening to the tapes
Submitted by danbo on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:04pm.
Just listening to the tapes he's already released is interesting.
But. Hey. There's nothing here. Nothing to see. Move along folks.
Just what we already know. What I've found amazing is how open they are about their own manipulative, bigotted behavior.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
What do you expect from a review?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:35pm.
What do you expect from a review? This isn't a college thesis, you know. It's no more, or less, revealing than most other book reviews, like the kind you find in the New York Times. There's a reason for that: it's an enticement to read the book yourself.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Uh, oh...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:12pm.
Did I just hear a couple of alarm bells going off at liberal-lefty headquarters? Did Captain Kirk just signal Red Alert? Battlestations! Sheilds up! Weapons at Maximum?
Seems to me that they've already started circling the wagons, trying to attack the book by dismissing it outright before anybody's had the chance to read the darn thing, and they seem hades-bent to be trying to convince us NOT to read it, like for example by demeaning it as paranoia.
Hmmm... Where have I seen these tactics used before?
[cough] Palin, anyone? [cough] [cough] gag] [wheeez].... Sorry [cough]... seems I got a liberal stuck in my throat...
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Rush to Judgement The New Show From CBS News.
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:55pm.
The book is well sourced, the whole thing appears to be quotes and anyone who is over fifteen and has a above room temperature IQ knows of the sharp left turn the Television has taken so Credibility is very high Unfounded opinion is zero since every American Citizens thirty years old or older has personal experience.
I always wondered why CBS canceled some of the highest rated show in television in "the year they killed the trees." (So called because the suits at CBS canceled every show that had a tree in it) I was familiar with the media buyers for the big advertising firms driving many of the screwiest shows on to the air. I thought that this was just because they are mostly New York homosexuals who live in Manhattan and have no feel for what people like to watch. (Before 1980 Manhattan was the second most warped town in America having fewer people who live in normal families than any other city before they closed the leper colony in Hawaii, since they are alone as the least normal city in the US) I had no idea that it was an organized effort to cut off "fly over country" from the market place.
With Wal-Mart and the Internet retailers the primary advertisers must be pretty steamed that the New York agencies allowed the foreign competitors to steal thirty year march on them. Except for one Faucet Company I don’t know of a single company that doesn’t use a New York advertising agency but I am not in that business. When there were only three nationwide networks having representatives in New York was vital. The New York agencies are probably a liability today. Fly over country are turning to the Internet for their shopping and advertising. It is time that the networks gave the leading edge of America something on television.
Wait, it gets better
Submitted by Ghost on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:42pm.
This isn't sounding like just another book, it sounds like a concerted attack on the arrogance of these pompous asses.
I learned about this book from this link
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-executives-admit-taped-intervie...
We have quotes here, and audio of these people saying what we have always know.
Basically, the author was assumed to be a leftie, so everyone had no problem speaking to him about these issues.
Oops. Maybe not groundbreaking for what some people know...
So I Like "Hogan's Heroes" And "Family Guy", Big Whoop...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:03am.
So I like "Hogan's Heroes" and "Family Guy", big whoop, wanna fight about it?