Reason.com
New at Reason
Peter Suderman asks whether the creator of The West Wing and The American President has created a show that libertarians (the ones who aren't watching the Goldwater documentary) can love.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|9.18.06 @ 5:22PM|#
Hold the phone: Of the interviews listed on the HBO website for the Goldwater docu, we have for the liberals:
Teddy
Hillary
Franken
Cronkite
MacNeil
Ben Bradlee
Bob Schieffer
Helen Thomas
James Carville
John Dean
and for the conservatives:
McCain
George Will
We've got a rat in the house....
digamma|9.18.06 @ 5:36PM|#
So the pilot has a libertarian message. Is the whole show going to be like that, or is it just going to be about a TV show like Sports Night, without a political message?
Why do libertarians have to jump for joy every time they see something that smells a little bit libertarian?
|9.18.06 @ 5:58PM|#
Broadcast TV is an inherently undemocratic medium. A small number of privileged people hold broadcast TV licenses and determine what the rest of us can see within "their" privileged medium. Sorokin is arguing about the scope of these privileges. I don't see much freedom here.
Larry A|9.18.06 @ 7:17PM|#
Well, yes, the show may indeed preach freedom of speech for liberals. I'm afraid, however, if I have to watch a weekly equivalent of the way gun control and environmentalism were treated in An Anerican President, I'll be shouting, "By God they ought to censor that crap!"
And that was the minor problem with that movie. Actually my "suspension of disbelief" meter went off the scale when they tried to portray a heterosexual, handsome, sexy, powerful, widowed male president (Douglas) falling for a hetrosexual, gorgeous, sexy, politically savvy, single woman (Benning) of the same political persuasion as a "problem." Give me a break.
I can just see Fox's political consultant character bursting in on them and saying, "The election's in the bag. You won your first term because you were widowed. This time, is there anyone in red or blue state America who would vote against a president in love?"
Where do these Hollywood people live?
|9.18.06 @ 9:43PM|#
"Broadcast TV is an inherently undemocratic medium"
Of course it is not. TV shows make it and last if they can attract an audience of people who buy stuff that advertisers will pay to pitch to. With the considerable competition from cable channels, if too few people, or the wrong people, are watching a show, then it is done.
|9.18.06 @ 9:48PM|#
Why do libertarians have to jump for joy every time they see something that smells a little bit libertarian?
You have to ask? Try this one on.
Between hypocritical "morality" rants by the conservatives and principles-challenged non-action of the left, anything that "smells a little bit libertarian" is also usually pretty refreshing.
Anything that tweeks the noses of both sides at the same time, is worth calling attention to.
Warren|9.18.06 @ 10:27PM|#
That was one stupid article about a show that sounds every bit as offensive as West Wing. Sure the liberals are anti FCC when conservatives are using it to push their agenda. I don't believe that the writers would pause for one picosecond if the FCC was imposing fines over anti-gay hate speech.
Just because someone comes out against a sliver of regulations, DOES NOT make them libertarian friendly.
|9.18.06 @ 10:56PM|#
I like filet mignon.
But just because someone serves up a filet mignon with a steaming pile of shit on top of it, don't expect me to eat it.
|9.18.06 @ 10:56PM|#
I like filet mignon.
But just because someone serves up a filet mignon with a steaming pile of shit on top of it doesn't mean I'm going to eat it.
|9.18.06 @ 11:05PM|#
Does any really believe that a network would pull out all the stops to censor a sketch critical of fundamentalist Christianity? The real "Saturday Night Live" has certainly aired many things whose content approximates the likely content of the unseen* "Crazy Christians" sketch.
It certainly would be fun if Lorne Michaels went on a Judd Hirsh-like rant in real life, however.
* I think; I tuned out after ten minutes, but reviews implied the sketch was never shown.
|9.18.06 @ 11:09PM|#
Although even the rant was self-contradictory, as its chief premises were : 1) modern TV is pornography and 2) networks are afraid of offending the FCC and religious groups.
|9.19.06 @ 12:15AM|#
IF the sketch they had pulled was entitled "Crazy Muslims" or "Crazy College Speech Codes", then I might have considered it something new and different, perhaps even "stretching the envelope". Bashing Christians on TV is nothing new or noteworthy, just more of the same. In spite of that, the last half hour seemed good enough to try a full episode next week.
|9.19.06 @ 12:17AM|#
Sure the liberals are anti FCC when conservatives are using it to push their agenda. I don't believe that the writers would pause for one picosecond if the FCC was imposing fines over anti-gay hate speech.
So anti-gay hate speech would be a good thing? Warren, your mindless, reactionary ignorance is astounding. The FCC imposes fines largely based on obsceneties and complaints about them.
Nothing stops anyone from putting their views on television - except market forces. Pat Robertson is a broadcast staple and he certainly doesn't get an FCC fine whenever he trots out his lunacy. If he and others stay away from "anti-gay hate speech", it ain't because they're afraid of the FCC.
Want to steer clear of an FCC fine? Then avoid the 7-deadly words, nudity, graphic depictions of sex (but not violence) and inciting violence and you're largely in the clear.
But hate gays? Heck, shout it from the rooftops. Tell it on t.v. But if local affiliates, advertisers and various other folks in the media food chain stop writing checks it's not the FCC that did you in.
You're just clinging to hateful sterotypes 'cause they keep you warm at night.
The real "Saturday Night Live" has certainly aired many things whose content approximates the likely content of the unseen* "Crazy Christians" sketch.
Really? What? I mean, since Belushi died? "Saturday Night Live" has been clinging to its rep for decades and is so vanilla - and unfunny - these days, it's downright sad.
While funny every once in a while, there has been NOTHING remotely provacative on SNL since Chevy Chase said the "N" word in that sketch with Richard Pryor.
In fact, please point me to anything genuinely provacative on any station in the past year....oh wait...I remember. "Saving Private Ryan" was on and a bunch of idiots got worked up over "the language."
You're off the mark, Kabala.
|9.19.06 @ 12:26AM|#
So anti-gay hate speech would be a good thing?
dude, he didn't say that...
|9.19.06 @ 12:37AM|#
me...chill out...I was just getting warren's attention. What he did say was liberal-bashing hyperbole that paints all liberals with the broad brush and bear little resemblance to any kind of fact.
|9.19.06 @ 4:22AM|#
I remember the actual SNL airing many a sketch featuring Dana Carvey's "Church Lady," not to mention Don Novello as Fr. Guido Sarducci. There were also The Bel-Arabs and a College Bowl parody with Chris Farley and Shannon Doherty that lampooned the infamous Antioch College dating rules. So, yeah, while they may aim their comedic shotgun at right-wingers more often, they take down lefty nonsense now and then, and, as far as religion goes, they pick on more than just Christians.
Kevin
|9.19.06 @ 8:04AM|#
kevrob, while many of the bits you cite were indeed examples of religion in SNLs comedy, they represent nothing in the past 10 years or so. In fact, your post only makes me pine more for the days when SNL was occassionally funny and occassionaly relevant.
|9.19.06 @ 9:18AM|#
If the show has boobs in it then I'll watch it.
Big fan of Hannity & Colmes, are ya?
|9.19.06 @ 10:25AM|#
I didn't say SNL had aired anything funny or provocative lately, but its lack of these attributes is not because it tiptoes around the sensibilities of evangelical Christians. I don't watch the show very often anymore, but I remember a Robert Smiegel cartoon just a few years ago that parodied the "Veggie Tales" by showing religious types engaging in various wicked actions.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/02/02ffunhouse.phtml
And Pat Robertson has definitely been made fun of on more than one occasion.
Do you REALLY think devout Catholics and evangelical Christians get a good press on broadcast TV? On the contrary, it's hard to think of occasions when they are portrayed positively. (A semi-exception is Ned Flanders, who is mocked but is also consistently portrayed as being a better husband and father than Homer.)
|9.19.06 @ 11:50AM|#
Do you REALLY think devout Catholics and evangelical Christians get a good press on broadcast TV? On the contrary, it's hard to think of occasions when they are portrayed positively. (A semi-exception is Ned Flanders, who is mocked but is also consistently portrayed as being a better husband and father than Homer.)
Note that when Flanders first appeared, he was only moderately religious. He became a caricature of the religious right, if a sympathetic one, because he was the convenient character for religion gags.
Larry A|9.19.06 @ 11:53AM|#
Nothing stops anyone from putting their views on television - except market forces.
Yeah. Propose a script about "Crazy Labor Unions" and see if it even gets filmed.
|9.19.06 @ 12:42PM|#
Just becase other shows have sometimes parodied and satirized Christianity before doesn't mean that whatever the content of Crazy Christians was would have been acceptable by crazy Christian standards. If it was actually good and funny, it would certainly have offended Christians, which make up a far larger portion of the viewing audience than Crazy Muslims. Do you think the gags in South Park's "Bloody Mary" could have ever been shown on a major network show like Saturday Night Live? "Bloody Mary" caused an uproar and it was only seen by about 1-2 million people.
While the Christian Right's persecution complex is largely unfounded, it certainly plays a role in stifling the creative process because so much of what a major network comedy writer comes up with is shot down before it is even scripted due to the THREAT of an uproar from those lunatics.
|9.19.06 @ 1:44PM|#
I don't know about that, Larry but I will admit they're rare
|9.19.06 @ 4:48PM|#
Yeah. Propose a script about "Crazy Labor Unions" and see if it even gets filmed.
So you're asserting that the FCC would stop such a script from getting filmed? "Cause that was the point that got all this started. If it didn't get filmed it's because nobody wanted to write it, produce it or watch it. Market in action, if you ask me.
Movies are made every year on shoestring budgets. If you got a story to tell, tell it. Then market on the internet. Heck, film a few friends and put it on YouTube.
But even you have to admit that a script like "Crazy Labor Unions" sounds pretty dry and probably not very funny - especially compared to "Crazy Christians."
But hey, I'm a videographer. Write me a script and I'll produce. Cool? Just make sure it's entertaining. Don't got a script? E-mail me a story treatment. We'll talk.
Might have to work on the title, though. I hear someone's trying to unionize Starbucks employees. How 'bout, "Crazy Baristas?"
|9.19.06 @ 4:59PM|#
Since when are Christians grouping together and publicly boycotting certain businesses a bad thing?
Isn't that precisely what we as libertarians identify as our optimal response to these sorts of offenses? Not the government stepping in, not a few of the nuttiest elements in their midst strapping bombs to themselves and blowing stuff up, but rather a large group expressing its displeasure at the way you do things.
The party behind the movement to return the fairness doctrine, or the dominant party of McCain-Feingold has a little bit of trouble establishing their free-speech bonafides with me. To make this argument just days after the "Path to 9/11" kerfuffle seems especially amusing. Apparently liberal sacred cows are more sacred than Christian ones.