From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal media (was Re: What Liberals have done to
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:11:54 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0My1K.3AD@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>christopher stone (cstone@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan8.211531.6461@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101) writes:
>: >Do you know what made my blood boil on the night of November 3rd, 1992?
>: >
>: >* All those years of being told to accept the Christian-bashing,
>: >male-bashing, conservative-hating, politically correct bigoted sludge
>: >that passes for entertainment.
>: 
>: Yep, you uncovered the conspiracy... "Star Trek," "MASH," "All in the
>: Family" and so on were really not popular shows; they were just marketed
>: to annoy conservatives.  And we all know how pro-feminist "Married with
>: Children" is.  Seriously, you claim that liberals are minority, but
>: that TV shows are aimed at liberals; how then do networks turn a 
>: profit (which is what they're interested in)?
>: 
>
>You forgot Leave it to Beaver, Dick Van Dyke, Patty Duke, Dragnet, Superman,
>Batman, Andy Griffith, Beverly Hillbillies, and countless other enormously
>popular shows that promoted healthy values.

[Drivel about how liberal "MASH," "All in the Family," "The Jeffersons,"
and "Star Trek" are eliminated]

Grrr, you misunderstood my point..."MASH," "All in the Family," and "Star
Trek" *were* liberal shows and they were also *immensely* popular.
"Leave it to Beaver" and the others were popular conservative shows.
This just goes to prove that the media will air what is profitable,
regardless of its ideological orientation.  As regards "Married with 
Children," the original poster claimed that the media is pro-feminist,
and while "Married" may not be pro-family, it definately isn't pro-
feminist either.  Lastly, you dropped my final point: if America is
so conservative, how do liberal shows turn a profit?  

>Star Trek?  It has a lot of problems, too.  It suggests that in the future,
>abortion will be globally accepted as tolerable.  It is anti-religion because
>it suggests in many shows that God is just some super alien, and a deranged
>one at that, who is easily defeated by mere mortals.

Perhaps I should cross-post this to rec.arts.startrek and let the e-mail
come flooding? :)

>As for profitability, Michael Medeved, co-host of sneak prevues wrote a
>book about hollywood.  In it, he claims that G rated movies do significantly
>better at the box office, even in the 80's, yet Hollywood increased its
>output of R rated movies from 40% of all made to 61% of all made during the
>80s.  You know the kind of movies...  Devil worship, sexual explicitness,
>and high-tech violence.  He also points out that ~27,000 scripts were
>submitted to hollywood in 1992, and ~550 were made.
>

Where does Medved claim this?  I have two responses, in any case:
1) In the '70's, it was much easier for a movie to get a G rating than
it is now; hence, G rated films then may have been more popular.
But more importantly,
2) If what you (and Medved?) claim is true, then why have none of the top
ten films every produced been G-rated.

BTW, that atheistic propaganda you mentioned above (otherwise known
as "Star Trek: The Motion Picture") was G-rated.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton