The Right Opinion

Hollywood Won 2012?

By L. Brent Bozell · Nov. 9, 2012

The television industry loves to claim that all of the sex, violence and foul-mouthed language it displays has zero harmful effects on children. On the other hand, they would never dream of telling their advertisers that their paid messages on TV have no effect. So does the entertainment industry have an impact or doesn't it?

The answer is that Tinseltown certainly has an effect, and when that effect is felt in the political arena, the hell with pretending they don't. They openly celebrate.

After the 2012 election, the surprising (if narrow) victories for liberals drew a thumbs-up commentary from former Washington Post reporter Sharon Waxman at The Wrap website. She credited Hollywood.

“Hollywood should be euphoric today. The entertainment industry woke up to election results that reflect a country a lot more like the fictional place they've been depicting on screens large and small for decades: more ethnically diverse, more gay-friendly, with powerful women and where it's just fine to light up a spliff.”

The black president won re-election, alongside the first openly lesbian U.S. senator. Voters approved gay marriage referendums in four states and marijuana legalization measures in two states. Waxman added exit poll numbers for minorities: Latinos voted for Obama by 75 to 23 and Asians by 73 to 26. “The affirmation of liberal values in this election is remarkable,” she claimed.

Waxman conceded that almost half the country voted for Mitt Romney. She guessed: “The rejection of the Republican Party agenda was more of a factor than an embrace of left-wing values.”

Where to start? The left certainly can – and should – take the credit for the civil rights crusade. But that was half of a century ago. Why not give Abe Lincoln – yup, Republicans, the credit?

Forty-four states don't have gay marriage legislation. Since 1998, in 28 states where it's been proposed, every single ballot initiative to uphold traditional marriage has passed, including blue states like Hawaii and California, although the size of the majorities faded over time.

How did Tolerant Tinseltown handle it? The passage of California's Proposition 8 in 2008, fervently expected to fail in the Year of Obama, led to a vicious round of anti-Mormon sentiment and blacklisting for opposing “history,” and at least two Mormons were forced into resignations from entertainment jobs for making $1,000 donations to the Prop 8 campaign.

Forward to 2012, and the Mormon Church didn't want to get involved in state referendums in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington because it might interfere with electing the first Mormon president. The Catholic Church and evangelical pro-family activists in these states failed to mobilize enough opposition.

Still, the media declared the victory emanated from television sets across America in HD – for Highly Democratic – and there's truth here.

The Hollywood Reporter conducted a poll with the research firm Penn Schoen Berland on October 29 and announced that shows with gay characters, like ABC's “Modern Family,” Fox's “Glee” and NBC's “The New Normal” are helping drive voters to “historically unprecedented support of gay marriage.” (Did you hear that, conservatives who regularly ignore Hollywood because, really, who cares?)

Asked about how the shows influenced them, 27 percent said gay-promotional TV shows made them more pro-gay marriage, and 6 percent more opposed. Obama voters watched and 30 percent grew more supportive, to 2 percent less supportive. Surprisingly, the shows were also winning over Romney voters: 13 percent became more pro-gay marriage, while 12 percent were more opposed. (Did you hear that, pro-family conservatives?)

Pollster Mark Penn insisted young people are the most influenced. “Almost twice as many voters under 35 say these shows made them more in favor of gay marriage compared with voters over 35 – 38 percent versus just 20 percent. Impressionable young people are more open to changing their views and behavior, based on what they're watching.”

But the networks want to deny impressionable young people are swayed by the sensationalism in their programs. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Liberals are twice as likely to watch these shows, but over the past decade, the Hollywood Reporter poll found about three times as many voters have become more for gay marriage as against – 31 percent pro, 10 percent anti.

Gay activists and their media allies now routinely cite “Glee” and “Modern Family” as proof of the historical inevitability of social liberalism. After the election, former Republican pollster Matthew Dowd cracked the Republicans were a “'Mad Men' party in a 'Modern Family' world.” In other words, they're 50 years behind the times.

These same liberals continue to lament that democracy is being destroyed by corporate money sloshing all over the television during the ad breaks, presumably because of their impact in a medium where they claim the entertainment sponsored doesn't have an impact on impressionable folks – except when the impact furthers the destruction of social mores they like to champion publicly. Did you follow that?



Chuck Anziulewicz in Spring Hill, West Virginia said:

The victories for marriage equality in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland tell me one thing: Americans are learning to make better value judgments.

Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like American voters are starting to accept that.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Albert in Pensacola said:

Watch out Chuck - here comes the accusations of you being a sodomite from the clowns on here. I agree 100% with you Chuck. I would add that this little Fox News fluffer boy, Brent, who wrote this article seems to miss the fact that the people in Hollywood made their money through private industry and capitalism. The things these jerks claim to worship, unlike most of these jerks on here who are (from what they say) are pretty much just retired military (which are just government employees). They live on the public dole, while complaining of people living on the public dole. Oh well, logic was never their forte'. Take care Chuck, thanks for posting, and ignore the other infantile responses I am sure will be coming your way (or mine too, as I dared to agree with you).

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 10:06 AM

sfj in Alabama replied:

I hear this same nonesense all the time from "liberal progressives" - the military (retired and active duty) are on the dole blah blah blah. You idiots are too lazy and stupid to do one tenth of what these military folks do each day. You would rather some government loser or the movie/television establishment provide your daily guidence (because you can't think for yourselves) in your life. In ten years you'll be complaining abou no jobs, no future, no retirement etc etc. Just think back and see what morons you were when you were younger and what you should have done differently. The Bible says marriage is between 1 man and 1 women but of course, you are not a believer so it really means nothing to you. BTW, what will marriage bring to the table for 2 women or 2 men? What life enhancements will be created by these unions?

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Albert in Pensacola replied:

This ought to be fun!
I never ever said that anyone in the military was lazy or stupid. All I said was they were on the public dole (being paid for by taxpayers - conservative's own definition). People in Hollywood make their living through free enterprise - if they don't get the ratings then they are unemployed. Barbra Streisand and Tom Hanks are not living off of taxpayer money.
I don't get my daily guidance from the military nor a government loser - only people in the military are required to bow to their superiors in the government.
The Bible also approves of 1 man - many wives. Oh wait...that is right! That was the Old Testament. God version 1.0. Prior to the upgrade of the God Operating System!! I forgot- God changed his mind. Now we are onto God 2.0. Face it - your god is whoever you want your god to be, as it is a crutch to help you get through life, and a way to rationalize death.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM

sfj in Alabama replied:

But not 1 man and many men. OK, whatever you think. Please keep working (you do have a job don't you) and pay your social security/medicare/medicaid because we old folks need it. :>)

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

No you never said retired military was stupid just they were on the public dole. I am one of those and damn proud of the service I gave to my country. I spent many days and nights training for a war that I and most of my fellow soldiers hoped never came. But when that call came we were ready to answer it. Unlike the cowards who sat on their asses and critisized us as being to lazy to get a real job. I am a Vietnam Veteran and know first hand just how cruel the public can be. How would you feel if the very people you were supposed to be representing turned on you? That is a hurt that will never go away. So I have no respect for stupid asses like you who degrade other people who don't think like you. Typical liberal who only knows how to make fun of others beliefs when they don't agree with yours.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 2:40 PM

JJStryder in Realville said:

When can I marry my dog? Homosexuality is the least normal of all human conditions. Many of us believe it is a perversion and neither you or any statute is going to change that and it galls you. No one and I mean no one is stopping you from doing anything a heterosexual family can . Except procreate without the help from someone of the opposite sex and that will take more than votes and TV gays to change. We just want to keep the definition of marriage traditional.
And you can't stand it! Why? Does our approval (forced or otherwise) mean that much to your happiness?

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Albert in Pensacola replied:

JJ - hey man! Don't call your girlfriend a dog! I mean, yes she is probably some ugly mutt to be with you, but have some respect man!
I am not gay, so my happiness does not come from your approval, but rest assured that I approve of you marrying your "dog ugly girlfriend" (your words, not mine).

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM


Albert - please take your comments to a site who cares. We prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman - as God intended. Not as liberals would intend. If God intended for men to marry men or women to marry women, - why didn't he give us parts like animals where any sex can procreate? Don't try to answer - because you can't.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM

JJStryder in Realville replied:

Obama voters! They just don't get it. Albert is a case in point. Hey Albert! I was simply illustrating absurdity by being absurd. You don't even know me and you make childish comments about me and, I guess, I'm supposed to feel stupid? Look in the mirror pal..... there's your fool.
Being an enraged, profane, unmoderated, unmediated, hit-loving, trash-talking rage monkey is no way to go through life.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

There you go again! Degrading the person who disagrees with you instead of making a sane response for what you believe.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Bill in Texas said:

I accept any and all that I will receive for what my opinion is with regards to marriage and its definitions and what government should do about it.
(Basis of this opinion: Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Womans Suffage Amendment, and 1st Amendment.)

All Men and Women are indowed by their creator with inalienable rights including of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

To me Traditional Marriage is protected under the first amendment since the basis is found in religion. To this, why are the states and the government needing to define it?

With the passage of (I think) the 19th amendment (Womans rights) the Consitution became unbaised with regards to men and women. Also, I have never found anything in reading those documents (I do read them from time to time mainly to see how we are getting screwed by both the current president, the re-elected president, and Congress generally) that talks, mentions, or even covers the physical act of sex. I am a Christian, and I believe that being gay may or may not be a sin in the eyes of God (Old and New cancel each other alot with regards to what all the sins are in the eyes of God) and in the end, we all will meet judgement for our choices and actions in this life. Also, only then will anyone know if being (or practicing depending on your perspective) gay is a sin.

With these points, I pose a (my opinion) very rational question:

Why should we care what people do in their own lifes? Who are we to make any attempt to judge anyone on commitment to another?

SIDEBAR: As one who was an orphan and ward of the state, if a same sex couple would have wanted to adopt me, I probably would have been pretty happy about it. Don't get me wrong, I had a very good upbringing at the orphanage that I lived in for 13 years, but I also became very desenitized to alot of things: Christmas morning, Birthdays, Partys, Sleep overs, being able to hang out with friends in the neighborhood. Or simply, being a normal child and having a normal childhood.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 11:44 AM


Bill - they can have their civil unions, but leave the sacred covenant of marriage to be between a man and a woman! I am sorry, but just thinking of how women "love" women, and men "love" men - just gives me the heebie-jeebies. ICK!

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Honest Abe in North Carolina said:

Welcome to the new age. Left is right; good is bad; up is down; 5 + 5 is 13; man is God. Simple. Any questions?

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA said:

Chuck Anziulewicz, You have made good points. I have no problem with you and your mate having the same rights, deductions, etc. under a civil union, call it that i'm fine with that. What it seems to me you object to that because it mostly or is preceived to only reffectually recognize a business partnership and not a loing relationship. Holy Matrimony (Marriage), though is a specific religious union, & a reflection of the right to practice our religion and worship by our conscience. Why should anyone insist upon interfering with our rights in this regard? But I accept your relationship just call it what it is- a civil union. Marriage is a civil union, but all civil unions are not Marriage, because marriage has always been recognized by both civil and religious authority as a holy religious sanctioned co-habitation of a man and a woman. Albert is trying his best to undercut your cogent and compelling argument.

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Pamela V. in Atlanta, GA said:

@ Albert, you disgust me. Our veterans are not on the " public dole" they protect our freedom, many giving the ultimate sacrifice just so you have the ability to rant like an idiot on the Internet,you sound like a petulant child. Tomorrow, please thank a vet for giving more than you ever could. you have no idea how lucky you are to live in this country and live your life on the backs of those who have paid for our freedom in blood.

To Old Sarge, thank you for protecting us and your service to our country. We owe all veterans a debt that cannot be repaid.

Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Colorado Pete in Colorado said:

I seem to recall that one of the pillars of Communist takeover tactics (and maybe some of Alinsky's rules) is the destruction of existing authority structures. Churches, families, etc. Communism then moves into the rubble and rebuilds things in its own image.

This whole gay argument is not about gays, who make up what, less than 5% of the population? It is about breaking down one of the oldest and most important societal organizational structures ever - marriage. Destroy the family as a power/authority/organizational/protective structure alternative to the State, then the State can move into the vacuum and increase its power and the dependency of the population.

Liberal sympathy for gays is only a sham front. Leftists are simply using them as a tool to destroy a social structure that acts as an obstacle to absolute, cradle-to-grave State power over men, women, and especially children. Notice that they are also attacking the Christian religion for the same purposes. Once they succeed in this, they will hypocritically throw gays under the bus like they do everyone else on their own side, once their usefulness has ended. It's not about culture, it's about ruthless will to total power.

Monday, November 12, 2012 at 1:57 PM