Jay Hernandez and Twitter

[308GUY]

Oh, sweet jesus. I think I accidentally logged into "Angry Boomers vs Douchebag Leftists Mania. "

LOL!

Almost made me spit coffee all over my monitor!

[ConchRepublican]

OK, I think we need to get this discussion back on track.

While it is tempting to get into a discussion about the 14th Amendment and debate what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, it is bound to go sideways. If someone wants to have a discussion about the pros and cons of birthright citizenship, and again, I believe it is an important discussion, I don't believe this is the venue. At least not at this time nor on this thread.

It's bound to lead to hard feelings towards the people we come here to enjoy the greatness of the best TV series in history with.

Let's not do that.

But I think these responses may have answered the question. While Mr. Hernandez has every right to speak his mind about issues he feels strongly about, and use his celebrity in any way he sees fit, in this day of social media it's bound to be an overall detriment in that he will invariably anger a possibly significant portion of his viewership. As Michael Crichton used as the hook for just about every one of his books "just because we can, does that mean we should?" and I'd think his priority should be the success of his show, and the people that rely on him as the star, not commenting on Twitter and other social media platforms on possibly divisive topics but promoting the show and a positive image.

[ConchRepublican]

Oh, sweet jesus. I think I accidentally logged into "Angry Boomers vs Douchebag Leftists Mania. "

LOL!

Almost made me spit coffee all over my monitor!

That was pretty damn funny . . .

[Luther's nephew Dobie]

I lean far more towards Hernandez's politics than Sellecks. I still watched the original.

You shouldn't have to give up your constitutional right to freedom of expression just because you land the role of Magnum in the reboot.

... And yes I am mildly sarcastic in my treatment of him; but not because of his politics. His tweets remind me of when my son came home from college for the first time and was now the smartest person in every room he entered.

Hi Paddy,
I got a huge laugh out of your comment about your son being "now the smartest person in every room he entered" since he became a college man.
I think that - usually temporary - affliction has been around forever.
They have left childhood behind but aren't really grown ups. As they navigate this new reality they are suddenly introduced to Great Thoughts, Ideas, portals to new and exciting places, at least for the enlightened few in their classes, far above the herd.
The herd, that's you and me. Moo.
And since they had never been exposed to this world before, it's impossible that poor old plodding Mom and Dad could have ever been hip to it, as their own enlightenment only underlines how pedestrian and bourgeois one's parents are. Though parents do have their uses by footing the bills, it's the least they can do as otherwise they would blow it on a new car or a vacation to Hawaii for themselves.

[Chris109]

Hi Paddy,
I got a huge laugh out of your comment about your son being "now the smartest person in every room he entered" since he became a college man.

I thought the smartest person on earth was Hillary Clinton.

[MagnumsLeftShoulder]

I don't believe this is the venue. At least not at this time nor on this thread.

I agree. The thing is we wouldn't even be discussing any of this if they hadn't made this stupid re-boot. A TV network putting out a casting call for a popular established character to be "non-white" is politicizing the show before it even gets made and the only reason they do it is to generate buzz. It's not really about making some kind of statement about racial or gender issues. They know some will hate it and some will claim it's the greatest thing ever before they've even seen it and both will take to the internet to express that. It's all part of the divide and conquer strategy by the powers that be (media & politicians) and unfortunately it's working. We are living in strange hyper-politicized times. IMO, the original show had a subtle political bent, but I can't imagine the network coming right out and admitting that in the 1980s. Of course, Tom has been pretty political thru out his career and he's been attacked for it (remember Rosie?), but I could never see him just start firing off nasty enraged insults (check out Hernandez's tweets since the Nazi pic). Jay Hernandez and Tom Selleck could not be more different if they tried and that is why this re-boot will ultimately fail.

[T.Q.]

I don't believe this is the venue. At least not at this time nor on this thread.

I agree. The thing is we wouldn't even be discussing any of this if they hadn't made this stupid re-boot. A TV network putting out a casting call for a popular established character to be "non-white" is politicizing the show before it even gets made and the only reason they do it is to generate buzz. It's not really about making some kind of statement about racial or gender issues. They know some will hate it and some will claim it's the greatest thing ever before they've even seen it and both will take to the internet to express that. It's all part of the divide and conquer strategy by the powers that be (media & politicians) and unfortunately it's working. We are living in strange hyper-politicized times. IMO, the original show had a subtle political bent, but I can't imagine the network coming right out and admitting that in the 1980s. Of course, Tom has been pretty political thru out his career and he's been attacked for it (remember Rosie?), but I could never see him just start firing off nasty enraged insults (check out Hernandez's tweets since the Nazi pic). Jay Hernandez and Tom Selleck could not be more different if they tried and that is why this re-boot will ultimately fail.

I for one am glad I line up politically with the real Thomas Sullivan Magnum and not mini-Mag.

[Amian]

OK, I think we need to get this discussion back on track.

While it is tempting to get into a discussion about the 14th Amendment and debate what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, it is bound to go sideways. If someone wants to have a discussion about the pros and cons of birthright citizenship, and again, I believe it is an important discussion, I don't believe this is the venue. At least not at this time nor on this thread.

It's a shame that the discussion is bound to go sideways. The topic of the thread, itself, was opening a Pandora's Box. Unless one is seeking an echo chamber in which everyone's opinion is the same, then being open to hearing other opinions is important.

If the topic is the effect of the political nature of Jay Hernandez's tweets, then a political discussion is likely to ensue. And the only tweet of Jay Hernandez's I've ever seen is the one posted in this thread. (I've no interest in his personal beliefs, and even if I did, Twitter is probably the worst platform I can think of to productively share opinions. Well, maybe not the worst, but it's a blunt hammer that results in little nuance or substance.) The discussion that ensued came organically out of the content of that tweet, I thought.

It's bound to lead to hard feelings towards the people we come here to enjoy the greatness of the best TV series in history with. Let's not do that.

Hear hear!

I was at the Army vs. Air Force game yesterday at West Point (Falcons lost, but we'll get 'em next time... sorry we couldn't do better for you Navy friends), and after a hard fought game, both sides observed the ritual of having the teams go and listen to the other team play their alma mater. It's a wonderful show of respect that is also a reminder of what people share in common.

[ConchRepublican]

OK, I think we need to get this discussion back on track.

While it is tempting to get into a discussion about the 14th Amendment and debate what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, it is bound to go sideways. If someone wants to have a discussion about the pros and cons of birthright citizenship, and again, I believe it is an important discussion, I don't believe this is the venue. At least not at this time nor on this thread.

It's a shame that the discussion is bound to go sideways. The topic of the thread, itself, was opening a Pandora's Box. Unless one is seeking an echo chamber in which everyone's opinion is the same, then being open to hearing other opinions is important.

If the topic is the effect of the political nature of Jay Hernandez's tweets, then a political discussion is likely to ensue. And the only tweet of Jay Hernandez's I've ever seen is the one posted in this thread. (I've no interest in his personal beliefs, and even if I did, Twitter is probably the worst platform I can think of to productively share opinions. Well, maybe not the worst, but it's a blunt hammer that results in little nuance or substance.) The discussion that ensued came organically out of the content of that tweet, I thought.

You are correct Amian, it was a risky play on my part, but I thought it would be an interesting discussion. The discussion did grow organically but my concern is when it started getting into specifics about issues vs. the positive/negative nature of social media and how it effects, or doesn't effect, ratings and peoples view of the show. A delicate line to walk to be sure and if the discussion wants to continue, I don't think it would be a problem in the King Kamehameha Club section.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I don't believe this is the venue. At least not at this time nor on this thread.

I agree. The thing is we wouldn't even be discussing any of this if they hadn't made this stupid re-boot. A TV network putting out a casting call for a popular established character to be "non-white" is politicizing the show before it even gets made and the only reason they do it is to generate buzz. It's not really about making some kind of statement about racial or gender issues. They know some will hate it and some will claim it's the greatest thing ever before they've even seen it and both will take to the internet to express that. It's all part of the divide and conquer strategy by the powers that be (media & politicians) and unfortunately it's working. We are living in strange hyper-politicized times. IMO, the original show had a subtle political bent, but I can't imagine the network coming right out and admitting that in the 1980s. Of course, Tom has been pretty political thru out his career and he's been attacked for it (remember Rosie?), but I could never see him just start firing off nasty enraged insults (check out Hernandez's tweets since the Nazi pic). Jay Hernandez and Tom Selleck could not be more different if they tried and that is why this re-boot will ultimately fail.

I for one am glad I line up politically with the real Thomas Sullivan Magnum and not mini-Mag.

Same here! It's also really cool that 2 of Selleck's biggest TV roles (Magnum and Commissioner Frank Reagan) are conservative-leaning individuals.

[sandbiscuits]

Same here! It's also really cool that 2 of Selleck's biggest TV roles (Magnum and Commissioner Frank Reagan) are conservative-leaning individuals.

Not seeking a debate here, just want to know: What makes these characters conservative-leaning? I assume you mean politically conservative, but correct me if I'm wrong. I ask because I have always considered the individual characters themselves to not be shown as particularly political. The issues surrounding them (the Vietnam War, the NYPD) to be enveloped in political goings on, but the characters just seem to be acting in ways that follow their own moral codes of conduct, and those codes seemed more rooted in humanity than politics. (Funny that I'm putting humanity and politics at odds here... they should be in agreement.)

[ConchRepublican]

Same here! It's also really cool that 2 of Selleck's biggest TV roles (Magnum and Commissioner Frank Reagan) are conservative-leaning individuals.

Not seeking a debate here, just want to know: What makes these characters conservative-leaning? I assume you mean politically conservative, but correct me if I'm wrong. I ask because I have always considered the individual characters themselves to not be shown as particularly political. The issues surrounding them (the Vietnam War, the NYPD) to be enveloped in political goings on, but the characters just seem to be acting in ways that follow their own moral codes of conduct, and those codes seemed more rooted in humanity than politics. (Funny that I'm putting humanity and politics at odds here... they should be in agreement.)

Interesting . . . while I always connected with the Magnum character, he always seemed a bit apolitical to me. Politics would have muddied the waters of his story. Sure, he was the knight errant which I guess maybe gives him that bent, but his bucking the "establishment", for the times right after the 70s gives him a lean to the other way as well.

I never viewed TM through a political lens, never wondered who he voted for and am glad they never broached it on the show, instead they, rightly in my opinion, focused on his character and code. The other stuff would take away from things.

[sandbiscuits]

Same here! It's also really cool that 2 of Selleck's biggest TV roles (Magnum and Commissioner Frank Reagan) are conservative-leaning individuals.

Not seeking a debate here, just want to know: What makes these characters conservative-leaning? I assume you mean politically conservative, but correct me if I'm wrong. I ask because I have always considered the individual characters themselves to not be shown as particularly political. The issues surrounding them (the Vietnam War, the NYPD) to be enveloped in political goings on, but the characters just seem to be acting in ways that follow their own moral codes of conduct, and those codes seemed more rooted in humanity than politics. (Funny that I'm putting humanity and politics at odds here... they should be in agreement.)

Interesting . . . while I always connected with the Magnum character, he always seemed a bit apolitical to me. Politics would have muddied the waters of his story. Sure, he was the knight errant which I guess maybe gives him that bent, but his bucking the "establishment", for the times right after the 70s gives him a lean to the other way as well.

I never viewed TM through a political lens, never wondered who he voted for and am glad they never broached it on the show, instead they, rightly in my opinion, focused on his character and code. The other stuff would take away from things.

Yes, I agree with everything you 100% here, which is part of the reason I am curious as to where some viewers are seeing a political angle. Maybe conflating Tom Selleck with Magnum? I can see how this might happen. Anyway, just to repeat, I'm truly not looking to argue this, just want to know more about people's perspectives.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Same here! It's also really cool that 2 of Selleck's biggest TV roles (Magnum and Commissioner Frank Reagan) are conservative-leaning individuals.

Not seeking a debate here, just want to know: What makes these characters conservative-leaning? I assume you mean politically conservative, but correct me if I'm wrong. I ask because I have always considered the individual characters themselves to not be shown as particularly political. The issues surrounding them (the Vietnam War, the NYPD) to be enveloped in political goings on, but the characters just seem to be acting in ways that follow their own moral codes of conduct, and those codes seemed more rooted in humanity than politics. (Funny that I'm putting humanity and politics at odds here... they should be in agreement.)

Oh I definitely don't see TM as political. In fact he seems to hate the bureaucracy of the military (and I would wager politics as well). You are correct in that he follows a certain moral code that probably stems from his upbringing. The same I think applies to Selleck as well, from what I have read. But I think his moral code to a certain extent reflects a more conservative pro-American pro-liberty mindset. A respect for the American flag, a respect for the American soldier, a strong sense of justice (recall Ivan), and give no quarters to the enemy mentality. I basically don't get a "bleeding heart" mentality from him. But being political? No, I don't see TM as political.

As for BLUE BLOODS, granted I haven't seen as much of that show, but from what I've seen it's a very pro-NYPD show. Reagan is a very strong character who will go to the wall for his officers and it's a REALLY pleasant surprise to see a network show in this day and age that shows a strong Christian family saying grace together in a serious, non-mocking way. They regularly talk about politics and issues of all sorts at the dinner table so I would say Reagan is definitely more political than Magnum. But then these are 2 completely different shows. Still, Reagan I would say has more of a right-wing conservative bent that I'm in agreement with. I always have and always will support our police. They are heroes.

[MagnumsLeftShoulder]

Blue Bloods is definitely a more political show than Magnum was, but I'm not sure Blue Bloods is as conservative as a lot of people claim it is. I think it's actually pretty middle of the road, but it just sticks out as "conservative" because everything else on TV has swung so far to the left. Also, the job of police comissioner is a political appointment, so the show has to reflect that. Fun fact: Bill Clinton is a huge fan of the Blue Bloods!

I don't think Magnum was any more of a conservative show than anything else on TV the eighties, but I think the more conservative TV landscape of the 1980s was a natural reaction to the Norman Lear-ification of TV in the 1970s.

As for the characters, Frank Reagan's politics are pretty obvious because he's always in conflict with mayors who want to throw the cops under the bus. TM's are less so, except for that scene where he's reading the National Review!

Check out this list of conservative TV shows from Ben Shapiro: https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/06/ ... n-shapiro/