MagnumsLeftShoulder wrote:I wasn't too pleased to hear the president talking about grabbing women's genitalia, for example.
That was a private conversation, no one was meant to hear it. That's not the same thing as what's being intentionally written, taped, and then broadcast on TV "comedy" shows night after night.
Lets not pretend the rhetoric is the fault of one side only. That's overly simplistic.
I'm not talking about rhetoric from politicians or CNN or Fox News. I'm talking about the state of so-called
comedy and entertainment. Political commentators can say whatever they want about the other side and anybody can chose to agree or disagree, but comedy shows used to try to appeal to a broad American audience. They don't even pretend to do that anymore.
Network programs don't stay on the air without sufficient viewers.
That's not really true any more. In the internet era, ratings don't mean as much as they used to and nothing on network TV gets the eyeballs they got 20 or 30 years ago. Most nights none of them are getting half what Leno got just 10 or 12 years ago.
I'll pick one of many public comments made by the president then. How about mocking a developmentally disabled person by mimicking their disability? That was very public in one of the president's speeches. He made the conscious decision to act that way. Most would deem that pretty hurtful, and I would add, pretty immature. I don't think most American's would say that was a good thing to do. I would argue it's still not a good thing to do in private as well. That distinction doesn't seem too relevant.
Ivan and I were discussing not placing limits on comedy, in particular political satire. You seem to be stating that political commentary shouldn't have limits, but comedy should? I simply disagree. If you don't enjoy the comedy, obviously don't watch. I enjoy some comedians and not others. I don't think their ability to push the envelope should be controlled. If nobody likes it, it won't succeed. Again, the market forces will prevail.
Comparing TV ratings today to those of the past is irrelevant. The big three networks haven't dominated television in several decades and, as you stated, streaming services have altered the market significantly, along with original cable programming. Your conclusion then, is that network executives keep shows on the air that lose them money. How can that be true? They wouldn't still be in business if these shows lost money continually. The revenue streams from prime-time ads, syndication rights, etc... are complex, but they aren't keeping shows on to lose money.
