Out: Green Week on NBC.
In: preachy AIDS activism on the peacock network's "ER."
Reports Los Angeles Times writer Greg Braxton in the the January 2 paper (emphasis mine):
Gloria Reuben raised more than a few eyebrows in 2000 when she went from the front lines of NBC's acclaimed "ER" to the back line of Tina Turner's rock 'n' roll tour. Now she's starting the new year by stepping forward into her past.
Reuben, who won accolades for her groundbreaking portrayal of Jeanie Boulet, a physician's assistant grappling with an HIV diagnosis, returns to the role Thursday night. She called the experience, which is being billed as a one-time appearance, both emotional and exhilarating.
[...]
Easing into the advanced stages of the Boulet character was a breeze, Reuben said. "It really felt kind of great to step back into the shoes of Jeanie. There's no better thing for an actor to ask for than to have the opportunity to step back in time and yet have new dimensions to play."
There's also a personal synergy at play: Her return coincides with Reuben's continued work as an AIDS activist. In the last few years, Reuben has spoken at World AIDS Days. This year, she produced a Showtime project, "Positive Voices: Women and HIV," in which she interviewed several women who are living with or working with HIV/AIDS, and she costarred in HBO's "Life Support," which starred Queen Latifah as a woman with the virus.
When Boulet's character departed "ER," she was still adjusting to her HIV status. The new episode finds her as a divorced mother, running two AIDS clinics. When her son injures himself in a fall in gym class, Boulet winds up back in the ER, instantly clashing with Dr. Gregory Pratt (Mekhi Phifer), whom she doesn't trust. She eventually learns devastating news about her child.
Reuben's return was sparked by a recent conversation with "ER" executive producer John Wells. "We were catching up on things, and I was talking about my HIV activism in the last few years," she said. "We realized we had really done some great stuff on the show in terms of bringing this to the forefront of people's lives. In recent years, that issue seems to have slipped off the radar, so it's great to get back into it again."
Producer Christopher Chu- lack [sic] said that Reuben's comeback was "pleasantly odd. I can't think of another situation where you're around after 10 years and you get to revisit something. It was just so great to see her and see how she has matured. The character has matured like she has."
"ER" is hardly new at dropping liberal politics into its storylines. For example, it has taken swipes at the Iraq war and U.S. congressmen who are allegedly racist for failing to care enough about violence in Sudan.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
ER" is hardly new at
January 2, 2008 - 12:19 ET by motherbeltER" is hardly new at dropping liberal politics into its storylines. For example, it has taken swipes at the Iraq war and U.S. congressmen who are allegedly racist for failing to care enough about violence in Sudan
And don't forget their habitual knocking of the health insurance industry in general, and HMO's in particular. Along with enough political correctness to choke a horse.
I was on the verge anyway, but the last straw for me was when the lesbian ER director's firefighter "partner" was brought in on a stretcher and in an argument over going with her for treatment, the doctor yelled at someone "She's my WIFE!!!"
That did it for me, but as far as I'm concerned the show was circling the drain long before that. They should have pulled the plug on it years ago.
LOL I guess I should have put a "Metaphor alert!" on this post!
True, the list goes on and
January 2, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Ken ShepherdTrue, the list goes on and on.
1st: I'm confused as to how
January 2, 2008 - 12:33 ET by JasonC1st: I'm confused as to how having a character with the virus is making any sort of ideological statement at all. None of the excerpts or summaries that were cited here are the least bit politically-charged. Why can't a show for adults talk about serious adult issues?
2nd: Oh no, those scary lesbians in a committed relationship! How horrifying and offensive.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
If they can manage
January 2, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Hero SquadIf they can manage keep politics removed from the episode, then I am inclined to agree with you on point one. ER's recent track record suggests that they will find it difficult to avoid turning this into a political issue instead of just keeping it as a social one. I will reserve judgment until after the episode airs, but if they do take it political, they need to acknowledge that Bush has done an outstanding job of addressing the worldwide AIDS problem, lest they be disingenuous about America's commitment to it.
*****
"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman
A Virus????
January 2, 2008 - 12:46 ET by WildBillJasonC, are you saying that ER was not making a condeming statement about the myth of homophobia? That it's just a virus? What planet are you from? You want a show for serious adult issues, and you watch ER!?
Oh, and by the way, Emily Bronte also said the Sadducees were also just as morally bankrupt, but just not as well educated.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
Actually no, I've never
January 2, 2008 - 13:38 ET by JasonCActually no, I've never seen ER. I'm merely pointing out that the plot summaries offered above depict no trace of ideological deviance other than that which the writer is projecting onto them. Thus, that the mere presence of a character with AIDS suggests an attempt at drama, not social commentary, or at least not the type of the latter that can be parsed along exact Red State/Blue State lines.
I'm having difficulty processing the rest of your first paragraph. The myth of homophobia? Is that your interpretation of homophobia, or that of the show? I have failed to grasp your meaning/implication there. Homophobia is certainly not a myth. But I trust that we're simply having a gap in communication on that front.
The Bronte quote is from Wuthering Heights and is merely the musing of one character, Nelly, on the religious hypocrisy of another.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
clearly the far left sees
January 2, 2008 - 13:48 ET by TruthMongera leftward individual like Jason can't see left wing bias - to him this is just "normal..."
and clearly the far left sees entertainment and journalism merely as social engineering and political power tools first - and by far they control both entertianment and journalistic media...
this is a severe crisis for our highly influential democracy...
Huh? It's the article on
January 2, 2008 - 13:49 ET by JasonCHuh? It's the article on Newsbusters that's reading political motives into the episode, and whose best "examples" demonstrate nothing even remotely political, nevermind politically biased.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Good point.
January 2, 2008 - 14:56 ET by mvfreemanHowever, don't waste time with reasoned discourse and just grab your pitchfork as you're told.
;)
"Homophobia is certainly
January 2, 2008 - 20:00 ET by robert108"Homophobia is certainly not a myth." No, it's a propaganda slogan to cast normal people in a bad light if they don't subscribe to the PC homosexual agenda. A "phobia" is a psychological condition, characterized by an irrational fear of something. Simply not buying the homosexual social and political agenda is not the sign of some mental illness, which the term clearly implies.
The misuse of a clinical psychological term doesn't enhance credibility for the gay "cause".
It's often used as a
January 2, 2008 - 20:22 ET by balboaIt's often used as a propaganda term, but originally it meant people who have an irrational hatred of anyone homosexual, I believe.
No, balboa, it "originally" meant
January 2, 2008 - 22:47 ET by RJ(and still means) ANYONE who disagrees with the homosexual agenda and/or lifestyle. That, and the "irrational hatred" label was and is applied as a not-so-subtle method of enforcing silence.
Indeed, "-phobia" as a
January 2, 2008 - 22:25 ET by JasonCIndeed, "-phobia" as a suffix does indicate a (usually) irrational fear. But homophobia implies that a person is frightened or threatened (yes, irrationally) by the very concept of homosexuality. This reification of the debate, that "oh no, we're fine with homosexuality, we just hate/are threatened by their agenda"...please. If you find gays to be "icky", fine, but don't act like it's just another left-wing cabal that is going to deracinate American society. The gay "agenda" is to get their fair share of the vagaries and institutions of the social order, like any other group. And after centuries of complete and total ostracization, I'm willing to forgive a little outlandishness on the part of the gay community.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Sorry, Jason
January 2, 2008 - 22:37 ET by BlondeAny time anyone wants to teach 5 year olds who are not their own children about sexuality (of whatever persuasion) there IS an agenda. And not one of which I approve, BTW. Your description of the gay agenda as "fair share" seeking behaviour is so much bunk.
The gay agenda is to be set aside as a special class of citizen, based on sexuality. To make everyone else "afraid" to criticize them. They term it hate speech.
So don't kid yourself about the "gay agenda". Or continue to kid yourself, no worries.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
2nd: Oh no, those scary
January 2, 2008 - 13:24 ET by motherbelt2nd: Oh no, those scary lesbians in a committed relationship! How horrifying and offensive.
No, I just got tired of having the pair of them shoved in my face every week, with the implication that it had to be considered normal by the viewers, just as it was considered normal by the whole ER staff.
The simple presence of gay
January 2, 2008 - 13:44 ET by JasonCThe simple presence of gay people in a TV narrative, even gay people who are perfectly comfortable being outwardly, expressively gay, seems to me no more politically-charged than the mere presence of a black person - even a black person who uses the occasional ebonic idiom or takes note of his/her own blackness - is racially-charged. So, if a lesbian chracter on ER is a political cipher, must chracters like Turk on Scrubs or the coroner on CSI Miami be representatives of a Black separatist agenda?
Yes, the comparison is absurd. So is getting worked up about a positive portrayal of gay people.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, instead of just
January 2, 2008 - 14:06 ET by motherbeltJason, instead of just saying "fine, you don't like lesbian couples, don't watch" you go about lecturing me that 1) it's not politically charged, and 2) That I got "worked up" over it.
Neither is true. Homosexuality is politically charged, no matter how you would like to think it's not. That's why AIDS is treated more as a "civil rights" issue and a political issue than a medical one.
And I didn't get "worked up" over anything. I stopped watching, (as is my right) and as I said, for many reasons, of which that was the final one. It got to be a show with a marked political agenda, as I described. I don't watch a hospital drama to be preached to or indoctrinated, I watch to relax and be entertained.
You use the typical liberal tactic of trying to turn the argument back on the other person. Another variation, for someone who is opposed to illegal immigration, the retort is "Why don't you want those people to have a better life?" or Why do you hate Mexicans?" with the intention of putting the person on the defensive.
I won't play that game. Not with you or anyone else.
I just find it funny that
January 2, 2008 - 14:18 ET by JasonCI just find it funny that your major complaint with the depiction of a lesbian couple is that it was "considered normal" by the fictional hospital staff. Leaving aside the loaded term 'normal', what would you have preferred, that the staff call her a dyke and try to get her admitted to one of those places where embarassed families send their kids to be brainwashed out of their sexuality?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
what would you have
January 2, 2008 - 14:28 ET by motherbeltwhat would you have preferred, that the staff call her a dyke and try
to get her admitted to one of those places where embarassed families
send their kids to be brainwashed out of their sexuality?
"There you go again!" -Ronald Reagan
Told you, I won't play that game with you. I don't need to defend my views on homosexuality to you or anyone else.
Oh sorry, your posting them
January 2, 2008 - 14:34 ET by JasonCOh sorry, your posting them on a public forum made me think you wanted to.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So, you think expressing
January 2, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Free StinkerSo, you think expressing ones views automatically equals a desire to defend them?
You seem to have pre-judged at least one person here. Pre-judged. Think about it.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Although I hesitate to
January 2, 2008 - 22:21 ET by JasonCAlthough I hesitate to reply because I have a feeling it will lead directly to your trademark "Motherbelt: 1, JasonC: 0" quantification of the argument, I do wonder why someone would post views on a political message board if they were not inclined to defend them against the most rudimentary criticisms. If MB wishes not to discuss it further, that's fine, but let's not act like I'm out of line for taking up an argument here.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"Leaving aside the loaded
January 2, 2008 - 20:03 ET by robert108"Leaving aside the loaded term 'normal'..." It's only a "loaded term" if you're trying to sell propaganda. "Normal" simply means "the norm". As far as human sexuality is concerned, around 95% if humans are heterosexual, which makes it "normal". It's a word with a very specific meaning.
That's like saying it's
January 2, 2008 - 22:28 ET by JasonCThat's like saying it's "normal" to speak Mandarin Chinese because it's the most-spoken language in the world. Normal implies a converse of abnormality, and no matter how you wish to spin it semantically, there is a whiff of the epithetical in that.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"Oh no, those scary
January 2, 2008 - 13:58 ET by lotr"Oh no, those scary lesbians in a committed relationship! How horrifying and offensive."
I feel motherbelt's pain.
Although there are some, including the gang at "ER," that believe that there isn't any moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, there remains a sizable number of the general poplulation who believe homosexual acts are irresponsible, immoral and/or unethical. Although homosexuality is not new, no society in history (to my knowledge) has ever defined marriage to include unions between two of the same sex. And the cockamamie line "She's my wife!" is simply ignorant (it reminds me of that old J. Geils track "Oh my God! That bowling ball! It's my wife!"): A wife is a man's partner in marriage -- the female spouse to a husband. This attempt at redefining words to suit one's narcissistic agenda is despicable as it robs words of their meanings. Whatever your position is on homosexuality, the words "wife" and "husband" by definition refer to traditional marriage. If she had simply said "she's my life partner" or "she's my SOP" or even "she's my spouse" it would've removed the element of stupidity.
ER is preaching a liberal political stance, pure and simple. The reason the topic finds it's way onto this blog is because the show never plausibly presents the other point of view.
Actually, my state is
January 2, 2008 - 14:13 ET by JasonCActually, my state is rational, open-minded, and enlightened enough that "wife" is a legal designation in a same-sex relationship.
Besides which, no context has been provided for this apparently-offensive moment on the show. Were the two women in fact in a civil union? If so, then of course they would refer to one another as such. In a moment of emotional trauma, would anyone really formulate the sentence "She's my life partner!"? If they'd done that, then I'd have to write a post complaining about incredibly stilted and unnatural-sounding dialogue.
Despite being in a "traditional" heterosexual marriage, I disagree 100% with your assessment of homosexual marriage. It robs nothing. If you feel that the institution of marriage is threatened by same-sex couples attempting to get equal institutional recognition, then I have to wonder why you don't feel that childless parents, divorcees, and those who marry for financial/legal reasons are equally repugnant. Now, you may say that such people are also hurting the institution or definition of marriage, but somehow it doesn't rouse the same indignant fury, does it?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Regarding words: Very to
January 2, 2008 - 15:16 ET by lotrRegarding words: Very sorry to learn that one of the 50 has had the audacity to redefine the historic meaning of "wife" in such a way that marriage can include the oxymoronic arrangement of two wives. This is neither enlightened nor rational, in my reckoning anyway. I haven't said anything about the "institution of marriage" being threatened, just that I find it ludicrous that a marriage could have two wives (or a female "husband", etc.). When one hears the phrase "She's my wife," it should implicitly convey that a male has said it -- one should not have to guess. I make no comments on the completely separate issues of divorce, marriages of convenience, etc., precisely because they are separate issues that were not raised here. If ER started pushing the agenda that divorce and marriage are also moral equivalents (as bizarre as it sounds), then yes, I would also protest that. And what's wrong with "life partner"? A little PC maybe, but heck, I would consider my own spouse to be one.
Your state is "rational",
January 2, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Gary P JacksonYour state is "rational", "open minded" and my all time favorite liberal jibber-jabber "ENLIGHTENED". Just who are you trying to kid, us or yourself?
"Wife" is very much a term descibing a woman, as much as "husband" is a term that describes a man. Lesbian, straight, tri-sexual, bi-sexual, asexual, whatever, a woman cannot, by definition, have a wife! (it would be equally ridiculous for a man to say he has a husband!)
I don't have a problem with gay people. I may be in the minority, but I think being gay is something you are born as. But just like I don't want straight people shoving their bedroom exploits in my face, neither do I want to hear about the gymnastics gays perform in their bedroom!
Gays want to be defined by their sexual urges, and nothing else. There are other things in life. (or so I'm told!)
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Now if states want to allow civil unions to protect the rights of two people, then OK. But don't call it marriage, and don't call the participants husband or wife! Spouse is also an inappropriate term for two of the same sex. Webster's defines spouse as "a married person: husband, wife".
The correct word for the ER character to have used is "partner". Of course that wouldn't have advanced the gay agenda.
Gays want to be defined by
January 2, 2008 - 19:09 ET by JasonCGays want to be defined by their sexual urges, and nothing else. There are other things in life.
I might argue that that is simply how they are seen by straight people who find homosexuality gross and can't see past it. We might agree that outlandish gay pride parades and such are a bit offputting, but I do think that asking queer individuals to completely desxualize themselves in public is absurd. Think how you'd feel if you couldn't hold your wife's hand or give her a little kiss in a restaurant or anything like that. Oh no, it's fine that you have a wife, but don't you dare "rub it in anyone's face".
That's the attitude I hear whenever someone says "I don't have a problem with gays as long as they keep it to themselves."
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I don't care if gay people
January 2, 2008 - 20:58 ET by Gary P JacksonI don't care if gay people hold hands in public or not. Too many serious things to worry about. But I DO care that gays want to radically change the world in their image.
For one, I don't think, as libs do, that kindergarten age children should be taught about homosexuality. They are simply too young.
I don't think gay marriage is an option.
I don't think we need to be preached to about aids awareness, like it effects everyone BUT gays and other people with at risk lifestyles. (like iv drug users) For the most part, if you aren't a gay man, or don't share needles, you have almost no chance of getting aids.
And among other things, I don't think we need every show on TV shoving the gay lifestyle in our face, like it's "normal". And don't kid yourself, although it's biological, homosexuality is not normal. The vast majority of the world's population is heterosexual, that's normal. And before you say anything, I watched Will and Grace when it was on, because it was entertaining. (funny) Still doesn't mean every single show on TV has to have a "very special episode".
For the most part, if you
January 2, 2008 - 21:31 ET by balboaFor the most part, if you aren't a gay man, or don't share needles, you have almost no chance of getting aids.
Explain that to the straight people who have it. For my money, anything contagious and fatal should be taken pretty seriously.
True enough, but that's all
January 2, 2008 - 22:08 ET by lotrTrue enough, but that's all the more reason why the media (and government) should be brutally honest about the behaviors that are most at risk for acquiring HIV, along with their relative weights. Homosexual behavior among men and recreational drug needles are far and wide on top, with heterosexual promiscuity a distant runner up. That's why, when one donates blood, one hears questions like "Have you ever had (homosexual) sex with a man, even once, since 1975?"
Exactly. The gay and
January 3, 2008 - 01:59 ET by Gary P JacksonExactly. The gay and lesbian coalition, along with the idiot drug users, (and Jason, I DO mean idiots) have a vested interest in not having the truth about AIDS out there. If they raise money, and produce propaganda that makes EVERYONE feel like they are in danger, it takes the focus off of their risky behavior. Don't pay attention to this group over here, move along, nothing to see!
And yes Jason, straight, non druggies can get AIDS too. But the risk is mighty low. If one is discriminating in their lifestyle, has sex with one partner. Stays away from less than top shelf tattoo establishments, it's a 99.9 percent chance that you won't contract HIV-AIDS.
Again, the gays and the druggies don't want that info out there. It would make them responsible for their own actions, and being libs, that just won't happen. The inability to accept responsibility for one's actions is part of the lib's DNA!
I have a serious problem with druggies, especially those who like to shoot up. Too many good friends with wasted lives. But Jason, I don't care if gays have sex. Hey, I dated a lesbian for a while! It was a fix up deal from a girl at work. We went out a few times, and had a ball, before she told me. As I was living in Austin, and she lived in Houston, we didn't see each other regularly, but when she came up, or a group of us went down, we always had a blast. She was a truly wonderful gal!
Again, my problem with gays is the fact the have multiple partners and are careless. There are couples that make a life together, but the young ones love to "party"
Anyhow, in my opinion, gay is not bad. But the gay, lesbian coalition, and it's agenda is very harmful to society.
January 2, 2008 - 23:00 ET by lotrPeople who died of AIDs
January 2, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Jack BauerAnd Diabetes is only #6 in causes of death. AIDs doesn't even appear in the TOP 15 cause of death in the United States.
How come AIDs gets all the attention on ER?
Have the AIDs obsessed producers EVER done a story arc on DIABETES?
How come AIDs gets all the
January 2, 2008 - 13:20 ET by motherbeltHow come AIDs gets all the attention on ER?
Because AIDS is a political issue, not a disease. That's why they won't even require the same reporting for AIDS cases as they do for other STDs and TB. Because it's politically incorrect.
Naturally, the producers of
January 2, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Hero SquadNaturally, the producers of ER will put at the forefront of this episode how much of an increase in funding the global war on AIDS has received from the United States over the past eight years, right?
*****
"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman
Hero Squad - odds are....
January 2, 2008 - 12:58 ET by Gary HallHero Squad - odds are... that neither the LA Times staff writer, Greg Braston or Gloria Reuben are aware of the massive increase in HIV/Aids (and malaria) funding, nor the successes, led by President Bush during these past years.
I recall that last year in a Newsweek Special Report, "Aids at 25 Years," they found time to take jabs at Ronald Reagan, on the first page; give premo legacy building special attention to the efforts of one, Bill Clinton ( I note, they missed the backgrounder here: Clinton Pardon Me, Africa); and skipped any coverage on the Bush effort, except to note back in the back of the lengthy report, that only 3% of Americans were aware of his effort. Gee, wonder why?
(;~> gary
Sharing Storylines
January 2, 2008 - 12:41 ET by RJWallThe producers at ER and Boston Legal must be sharing storylines. Boston Legal had an HIV storyline last night.
I remember some actor on
January 2, 2008 - 12:45 ET by rbosqueI remember some actor on the show calling our soldiers "jack-booted" nazis or something similar. I stopped watching that show many moons ago.
I was in Washington a while back and they had a Gay/AIDS demonstration telling us we all have to throw money at their plight. Meanwhile in the evening, the gays (on a regular basis) I hear hook up at the Marine Corp Memorial at Arlington and then Bare-back each other. Yeah, I'm going to give them money. Suuurre I will....
What is the point of this?
January 2, 2008 - 13:05 ET by balboaWhat is the point of this? They're reintroducing a character who has HIV.
And? So? Are you guys doing pre-emptive pieces now?
"Are you guys doing
January 2, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Chris Norman"Are you guys doing pre-emptive pieces now?"
If so, are you going to reflexively defend ER? Really, Balboa, you are getting to be the Alan Colmes of NewsBusters.
I asked simple questions. No
January 2, 2008 - 13:22 ET by balboaI asked simple questions. No answers seem forthcoming.
Bal - Did you borrow
January 2, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Free StinkerBal - Did you borrow Sacasmo's cloaking device again? ;-)
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
You just "asked simple
January 2, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Chris NormanYou just "asked simple questions". Just wide eyed, innocent little questions. Don't be coy. Of course it's pre-emptive, a lot of things here are - like when they reported on the (then) up coming interview of Keith Olbermann by Bill Moyers. With a history replete in liberal political content, why is it reckless for Ken Shepherd to assume that the HIV episode of ER will have liberal political aspects? If it does, will you say "You were right" or "You read something in the dialogue that wasn't there" - forget it, rhetorical question.
No, it just seems more and
January 2, 2008 - 15:02 ET by balboaNo, it just seems more and more that if someone doesn't have something with real teeth to post, they post something either miniscule in importance, a knee-jerk reaction, or speculative. "Oh, look. Jeannie Boule's coming back to ER. HARRUMPH. Am I right, people? HARRUMPH."
Balboa, don't be one of
January 2, 2008 - 15:12 ET by Chris NormanBalboa, don't be one of those (oh, heck you were the original) "why are we talking about this when it doesn't have anything to do with bias?" people. I've noticed here that there are all kinds of postings here. Most about subtle (and unsubtle) bias in the news, but, some about outrageously false claims by news hosts or actors, etc., and some are just mild observations regarding entertainment or sports. People like you use some of these latter posts to try to discredit everything. It really doesn't work.
True, Chris, and threads do
January 2, 2008 - 15:55 ET by motherbeltTrue, Chris, and threads do go off-topic. Yesterday or the day before, there was a thing about "PC Man" and "Mac Man." It was a political metaphor, but I knew the thread would drift off into a PC vs. Mac vein, and sure enough it did.
At what point a thread that has gone OT should be moved to the forum, I don't know, and the administrators haven't pushed any over there yet, so I assume it's OK. Most people lose interest in threads as new topics come up anyway.
mb, I'm probably more guilty
January 2, 2008 - 16:05 ET by Chris Normanmb, I'm probably more guilty than most in moving some threads off topic, although I try to limit that to night time when there are less people here. I just wanted to point out that the main postings by our contributors - Ken, Tim, Noel, et al - come in all forms from the serious to the humorous, from subtle bias to the outrageous, from hard news to the entertainment media. Some people think by "media", we should be limited to hard news bias, yet "media" covers even more forms of information and entertainment than are even reported here and liberal bias crops up anywhere.
Chris, I wasn't being
January 2, 2008 - 16:30 ET by motherbeltChris, I wasn't being critical; merely commenting on how threads drift. I usually follow along on the tangent too.... LOL
And I agree, I like the variety of things that get posted her by the main contributors. The other day I responded to a guy who had that complaint...this isn't media bias!! that when I come upon a thread I disagree with as a topic, I just move on to the next one. I originally told him if he wanted to control what was posted, to start his own website, but then I edited that part out. LOL
I did tell him that neither he nor I were required to come to this site, or to read anything we didn't want to. ;-)
Oh, no, I didn't think you
January 2, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Chris NormanOh, no, I didn't think you were. I was just clarifying my position. I know there are some postings here regarding media bias that are stronger than others. I think some are a wee bit stretched. I think, for good reason, we have become hyper sensitive to bias - not because it's not there - but some of them are just "gimmes". I do believe we ought to pay more attention to the liberal political thought that is injected into so-called entertainment shows. It's there that some minds can be influenced easier - especially in younger people who don't watch the hard news. We can't stop it, but it helps knowing about what's going on out there.
I am not trying to
January 2, 2008 - 18:36 ET by balboaI am not trying to "discredit everything." I think Newsbusters does make good points. This article, and others, however, just falls way below what I consider to be worthy topics. I've admitted to bias on serious threads. This one is just silly.
I wouldn't have a problem
January 2, 2008 - 15:51 ET by motherbeltI wouldn't have a problem with them reintroducing her; I actually liked the Jeanne Boulet character back when I used to watch ER. She was sympathetic, in that she got HIV from her cheating husband, and she was in general a nice character.
I basically think that ER sort of ran the show into the ground. They lost a lot of the first stars, George Clooney et al, and the newer ones didn't seem to have the chemistry the original cast had. I think it was then, besides running out of "regular" material, that made them start expanding, first to Carol's free clinic, then the doctors going to Africa or wherever that was, etc. etc. And then going with the "social issues."
I frankly think they tried too hard to keep it going long after it was worn out. Nothing lasts forever, and they should have heeded the showbiz advice to "always leave them wanting more."
That's right. We're
January 2, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Jack BauerThat's right. We're practising Safe TV sex.
Yeah, we have a department
January 2, 2008 - 13:23 ET by Ken ShepherdYeah, we have a department of pre-bias now. It's very Minority Reportesque.
Pre-bias?? Funny. Any
January 2, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Jack BauerPre-bias?? Funny. Any vacancies, I'd love one of those cars Cruise drove!
Sorry, we're also going
January 2, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Ken ShepherdSorry, we're also going green... ;)
I can happily and proudly
January 2, 2008 - 13:05 ET by DaBirdI can happily and proudly say that I have NEVER watched an episode of "ER". Not even one minute of the show. (This is probably one reason I'm in the "84 percentile" that is happy).
I don't watch anything on
January 2, 2008 - 13:12 ET by Gary P JacksonI don't watch anything on NBC anymore. A lot of shows push an agenda from time to time, but every single show at the peacock network is on "full lib" all the time. One can't watch the network without hearing America is bad!
Gary, My concern is that
January 2, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Chris NormanGary,
My concern is that since NBC has been buying up so many cable channels, much of television will be flooded with reruns of their liberal PC propaganda shows for years to come.
Man, you got that right! I
January 2, 2008 - 14:09 ET by Gary P JacksonMan, you got that right! I still watch some of the new programming on the USA Network, it hasn't gotten too far out there yet, but I'm sure it's coming. They're already making new episodes of Law and Order CI. (had to try out new horrible shows on NBC, I guess)
On the continued buying up of networks, I guess that's how NBC plans to survive. They count on people who are disgusted with the big channel, watching something in the rest of their universe of stations, and Universal Studios original programming, such as Fox's House.
I guess that's a good plan. It's a shame TV can't just be entertainment though.
Gary, When Law & Order
January 2, 2008 - 21:26 ET by Chris NormanGary,
When Law & Order starts popping up on Sci-Fi (instead of the interminable Stargate reruns and bad made for them movies), I'll know NBC's takeover is complete.
I have never watched ER
January 2, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Lame CherryI have never watched ER in my life. I have never watched 10 minutes of ER, I have never even watched 1 minute of ER and I will never watch ER ever.
Being from the western heart of America, I never did get "Friends", can not stand Grey's Anatomy from the previews I have seen or any of these other Cagney and Lacey whining sexed out shows.
Tonight I will be watching PBS in a 2 hour documentary on Andrew Jackson. I will by God's grace start my evening with a 1 hour documentary on the history of television with people like Jackie Gleason........for those who know, real entertainers.
I thank God I do not understand ER or most of television as I do not want to be like those people. I will also add I think in the entire time West Wing was on, I only watched 3 minutes and 20 seconds and most of that was surfing in figuring out it was West Wing before I flipped it off.
I detest valueless television as much as space taking liberals preaching at me........who can not quite in Wolf Law and Order figure out that if they do not like Franklin Graham preaching at them I sure do not want their fictional characters preaching at me about their screwed up lives.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Aids awareness
January 2, 2008 - 14:11 ET by mvfreemanSince when is AIDS awareness the exclusive domain of the left?
No one here has ever talked to their children about the dangers of unprotected sex and the prevalence of AIDS?
At this point all we know for sure is that they are advocating that people of all ideologies and sexual orientation realize that AIDS is still out there.
Let's wait for some actual pontificating about funding or other controversial elements before we start slamming them.
NB used to be about demonstrable liberal bias but lately a lot of blog articles seem to be all about assumptions. (See Todd Warner Huston)
Let the episode air and then you can make legitimate gripes about how they are portraying the disease.
Here here!
January 2, 2008 - 14:20 ET by jay_1975The best advice so far in this thread.
AIDS is still out there
January 2, 2008 - 17:49 ET by Founding_FatherWho here needs to be reminded that AIDS is still "out there?"
I wonder what percentage of the population is gay (before you start - I know AIDS is not only a GAY disease) vs. the percentage of shows that have an openly gay character.
Will and Grace, ER, Friends:
Please add more:::::::
maybe not in this forum...
January 2, 2008 - 18:05 ET by mvfreemanBut since there are still new HIV infections every year among transfusion patients, heterosexuals and IV drug users it doesn't hurt to keep the public aware.
We all know that liberal bias is out there but does that mean NB should stop highlighting it?
Of course the percentage of gay characters on tv is greater than the actual population but that is not the topic of this thread and has no bearing on STD awareness.
Really?
January 2, 2008 - 23:38 ET by Founding_Father"But since there are still new HIV infections every year among transfusion patients." Really? Since the inception of blood tests in early 1985 and the use of nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) in 1999 the chances of getting HIV through blood transfusion is fewer than 1 in 1,900,000.
Don't be disingenious, they aren't putting HIV and AIDS on the show to highlight the plight of the middle American soccer mom who received a blood transfusion after a car wreck. They are putting her on to push their agenda. Part of the agenda will be "blame" Republicans, Christians, or both for their plight. No, I'm not Nostradamus, but we (conservatives) have seen it before and will continue to see it in TV shows, movies, and music that originate in Hollywierd....
And yes, the fact so many shows highlight the gay lifestyle falls right in line with the same agenda.
stats
January 3, 2008 - 15:02 ET by mvfreemanhttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure
Heterosexual contact is second behind male-male contact for new HIV infections.
And maybe the chance of getting the virus through a transfusion is statistically insignficant to you it certainly isn't to the people who actually got the virus that way.
As far as how they are going to "push it" we'll just have to wait and see.
Your attitude seems to be if it's HIV and gays,who cares.However they may spin it on the show the fact is that there are new cases every year in all demographic groups. Helping to curtail the spread in any of those groups is laudable. Except of course to people who seem to think that anyone who gets AIDS has it coming.
You do realize that some gay people are republicans and christians:
http://www.gaypatriot.org/
Pajamas media is a network of some of the most popular conservative blogs on the internet.
So while I may not personally agree with a gay lifestyle I am not going to begrudge anyone the opportunity to help stop the spread ofthe disease among my fellow man.
And apparently no one on this blog watches ER because the character in question didn't get HIV from gay sex, she caught it from her husband, who got it from a prostitute.
Your equating of promoting AIDS awareness with promoting a gay lifestyle is ridiculous.
I don't think the
January 2, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Chris NormanI don't think the contributors here need a lecture and a scolding on what and when to post. They have created an excellent site and seem to know what they're doing.