by Ben Shapiro
Family-friendly fare is often rejected by television’s liberals because it isn’t groundbreaking enough—it’s too conservative, too boring—but when it’s tried, it’s a winner (see The Cosby Show, The Waltons, or Everybody Loves Raymond). Evenhanded dramas are often eschewed, but they, too, dominate the ratings (see House, NCIS, and CSI). The least political, most family-friendly show of the year comes in first every year. It’s called the Super Bowl. Television needs more Super Bowls and fewer insider shows that make for titillating conversation on the Sunset Strip.
The television industry needs a new business model—one that allows them to target the most viewers. That starts by ceasing to ignore families and conservatives across the country, and instead truly embracing the market model to which they disingenuously appeal.
LIBERALS: STOP DISCRIMINATING
Tapping new markets—or rather, tapping old markets that have been forgotten—means that the liberal clique in television must open its mind to those outside Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Those in the red states are not stupid rubes whose politics can be easily dismissed, their children converted, their values left for dead. They deserve respect and tolerance, too. After all, they’re the ones who push ratings success.
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, too many conservatives are shut out of the industry. Too many of them lose jobs. Too many are forced to hide their politics in order to get work. What should be a medium for open debate and discussion therefore turns into a one-sided medium for political messaging. The left is so afraid of the right-wing slippery slope of censorship that they engage in precisely that sort of censorship against the right.
It’s not fair, and it’s not good business. It is utterly unjustified.
The Hollywood left must learn that American conservatism is not fascism and that those who differ on issues ranging from tax cuts to same-sex marriage are not Nazis. Allowing them to work is not an act of charity—it is an act of moral and economic common sense. The same Hollywood that excoriated Joseph McCarthy and his allies for blacklisting Communists now does the same to conservatives.
This sort of discrimination is largely accepted in Hollywood. And that is unacceptable. The market does not demand that conservatives be kept away from the levers of television creativity. Just because a creator or executive in Hollywood is conservative does not mean that he or she is untalented, and to suggest as much betrays deep and troubling discriminatory prejudices. Conservatives do empathize—it’s just that the objects of their empathy may be slightly different than those of liberals. Conservatives do care, which is why they give far more charity per capita than liberals. And conservatives can write. Talent comes in all political packages—Ray Bradbury is talented, and so is Norman Mailer. Talent should be judged on its merits, not on the perceived political beliefs of the creator.
Unfortunately, far too often, the creator is judged on his/her level of political correctness rather than his/her ability to create entertaining content. There are more closeted conservatives in Hollywood than closeted gays; there is an entire underground in Hollywood that, for fear of firing, hides its politics when it comes to something as simple as open discussion.
It is nothing short of despicable for members of the liberal media to write off such complaints as unfounded. They wouldn’t dare to do the same with blacks or gays who suggest discrimination in Hollywood, even though the evidence of such discrimination today is far scantier. There is institutional bias against right-wingers in Tinseltown, and if the media had any guts at all, they would ferret it out and expose it.
I am not calling for Hollywood creators to disown their political biases in producing their material. They are artists, and they should be free to insert their politics wherever they feel it is appropriate and warranted (although one-sided writing is inherently boring, no matter from what political perspective it springs). Artists by their very nature channel their belief systems into their work. More power to them.
All I am arguing is that conservatives should be free to do the same. Honest and open conversations in writers’ rooms about social and political issues that sometimes divide Americans would not be the end of the world. Hollywood believes that we, as a society, are too easily offended by attacks on our sensibilities, which is why Hollywood has embraced offensive and cutting-edge content ranging from All in the Family to Family Guy. Is it too much to ask that Hollywood extend its own love of controversy to its writers’ rooms so long as such conversations help the product rather than holding up the process?
It would also be far better for the television industry to provide a semblance of ideological balance in a country that is split down the middle on politics than to continue catering exclusively to one side of the aisle. Many shows already try to do this. They could do even better by having actual conservatives join their writing teams in order to provide credible spokesmen for conservative views on television, as opposed to the laughable straw men we so often see. The best comedies on television attack both sides of the political debate on a routine basis—and if leftists truly want to make Americans laugh, all they have to do is attack the sanctimony and political correctness of the left (there’s nothing funnier in recent memory than Ben Affleck channeling Keith Olbermann on Saturday Night Live).
There is no market reason why Hollywood purposefully ignores at least one-half of the American audience and caters to the other when it comes to politics. It’s a political decision for Hollywood to do so. And no industry can survive making decisions politically rather than fiscally.
But I have faith in Hollywood. Despite the rash of discrimination that seems to have infected the industry over the past few decades, I believe that television is filled with good people, open-minded people, reasonable and rational and talented people. These are the same people who tackled racism when it was truly courageous to do so. I believe that they will rise to the challenge of examining their own belief systems and realize that those who disagree with them still have a place in their industry.
That underlying faith has only been strengthened by the writing of this book. In meeting hundreds of people who have shaped the television industry, I’m more optimistic than ever about the possibility of renewed political diversification in Hollywood. I hope that the liberal power brokers read this book not as a personal criticism, but as a call to action: a call to extend their tolerant, diverse attitudes to politics.
CONSERVATIVES: ENGAGE
Conservatives in Hollywood have reason to complain. Many have faced discrimination. Many have lost jobs, friends, and careers based on a single vote for Ronald Reagan or a refusal to donate thousands of dollars to Senator Barbara Boxer.
But many conservatives have also been unwise in how they’ve approached their politics on the set. It’s not too much to ask that liberals tolerate conservatives by engaging in conversation, but many conservatives are excessively militant about their approach to politics. That’s at least partially due to their long enforced silence—at a certain point, the dam bursts. But conservatives on the set must realize—as most do—that liberals remain in control, and that those liberals have a creative vision that may not work in concert with conservative thought. Taking a conservative position on gay rights, for example, wouldn’t work out well in the writers’ room at Will & Grace. If a conservative wants to write for Will & Grace, it would make sense to keep their position on California’s traditional marriage constitutional amendment to themselves. This isn’t meant to excuse liberal discrimination—liberals should be more open to criticisms and political disagreements, as stated above. Nor is it a call for continued self-censorship. It’s just a practical consideration that conservatives must take under advisement.
The real problem with conservatives in television isn’t the conservatives who are already in television, though. It’s the more general conservative solution, which has been utterly disastrous: withdrawal.
When faced with an overwhelmingly lib
eral industry bent on purveying its politics, conservatives have taken precisely the wrong approach: they have decided to make war on the medium itself. That means taking every opportunity to cut off corporate tax breaks for Hollywood, when they would normally approve them in the interest of creating jobs. That means urging boycotts of television generally, as opposed to certain shows in particular. Most important, that means instructing their children not to get involved with the industry in any way.
It would be difficult to devise a more foolhardy strategy. The entertainment business isn’t going anywhere. Millions—including millions of conservatives—will continue to watch television and imbibe the messages that pour through the screen. That isn’t to say that the interest groups on the right-wing side of the aisle aren’t effective—they are a necessary counterbalance to the interest groups of the left. But that can’t be the entirety of the conservative strategy.
A far wiser strategy would be to take a cue from liberals themselves—join the industry and change it from within.
Integrating the industry requires two tactics. The first is by infiltrating the creative community. More conservatives need to hone their creative skills. We need fewer conservative lawyers and more conservative writers, directors, and producers. More conservatives need to dedicate their lives to entertaining others. That doesn’t mean conservatives have to force their politics into their work—there’s nothing clunkier than a conservative biopic about Ronald Reagan, just as there’s nothing more boring than a liberal biopic about Robert F. Kennedy. Conservatives need merely enter the realm of television creation, and their values will almost always come out naturally in their work. There are already right-wing networks opening their doors at the Internet level; there are hundreds of conservatives in hiding in Hollywood. They need to combine their efforts, not just to create new competitors for the liberal powers-that-be, but to infiltrate those creative liberal bastions.
Because conservatives need to recognize the realities on the ground, they also need to recognize that writing a series that is 100 percent openly conservative and getting it produced is unrealistic. Better to go for 50 percent—write an evenhanded pilot that takes liberalism seriously. At the very least, that will move the political gauge significantly, since right now virtually all programming is 100 percent liberal.
The second tactic in a prospective conservative infiltration is to enter the executive suites. Even the most militant liberals will acknowledge that conservatives are often excellent businesspeople. What better way to channel that entrepreneurial energy than into the most powerful mass medium in history? Television is an industry in crisis, and conservative know-how can bring a good deal to the table. Moreover, conservative businesspeople can bring one solution that liberal businesspeople very often don’t: an insight into the need for balanced content in order to attract broader audiences.
Never has the industry been more wide open to conservative talent. The plethora of cable channels and the rise of the Internet mean that the industry needs exponentially more and more content. Which means that they’ll even look at conservatives some of the time.
This is a mission for the best and the brightest. Loudmouths who want to invade writers’ rooms or executive suites and bash away at President Obama won’t make headway here. In fact, they’ll be counterproductive. The television business is inherently social, and that means that the conservatives who come here have to be social, too. They have to get along with everyone, even if they disagree. They have to make friends and influence people without compromising their values. It’s not an easy task. But it’s a vital one for conservatives—and for the country as a whole. If conservatives don’t engage, they’re putting themselves at a massive disadvantage—not only in the industry but in American politics more broadly—by foregoing access to the most effective message machine ever made.
EXECUTIVES: EMBRACE FREEDOM
The takeover of the executive hallways by liberals of all stripes is somewhat puzzling when we consider that conservatives are often the most successful businesspeople in other industries. As we’ve seen, that liberal takeover is due to a variety of factors: a history of urban connection, the fusion of the creative and corporate sides of the business, and most important, the industry’s desire to funnel cash and beneficial legislation to itself from the government.
Television executives need to realize that none of these rationales is sufficient to justify the continued ideological imbalance. The history of the industry can be set aside in favor of a new, more ideologically diverse approach. The creative and executive sides need not be dominated by liberals; conservative talent is plentiful on both sides of the business.
As for its desire to get cozy with the government, the television industry above all others should know the dangers in this strategy. Censorship has long been the chief fear of those in Tinseltown, and with good reason—motivated government has more power over this industry than any other. Not only does television have to face the same business risks as other industries—higher taxes, more regulations, securities requirements—but television also has to face the constant scrutiny of a government that licenses it.
In the past, this has meant that television needed to parley with government in order to maintain its good standing. By catering to liberal politicians, not only have networks and stations received regulatory benefits, they’ve also been able to keep market share.
The future of television, though, is extraterritorial—which means that government licensing regulations no longer apply. All networks will essentially become cable networks or pay-per-view networks or Internet networks. Laissez-faire regulatory schemes will redound to the industry’s benefit—as long as the industry recognizes that smaller government means more freedom for the industry.
The industry doesn’t need subsidies, either. Television has always been able to flourish while adapting to technological change. It is not the newspaper industry, stuck in one mode of production. Moving images work across different distribution mechanisms, and the public will always crave entertaining content. The best strategy for network executives is to foster friendly but wary relations with the government and urge it to stay as far away from the business of television as possible.
One real problem with which the industry will have to cope, however, is the problem of the shrinking market. Yes, America’s population is rising. But the number of outlets catering to that population is growing far faster than the population. In other words, more players are fighting over the same pie. In the past, the networks’ response has been narrowcasting: allowing advertisers to target specific segments of the marketplace by catering to a select few.
But that select few is becoming even fewer. Soon it will disappear altogether. Either the players must collude to divvy up the market, or they will eat each other alive, and the profit margin will disappear. The answer isn’t in further narrowcasting. It’s in broadcasting—just look at the dramatic success of American Idol. The industry needs to go back to the future. That means programming not merely to urban professionals eighteen to forty-nine who happen to be liberal, but to viewers of all ages and politics. Niche shows are the wave of the past. Viewers can already get their niche shows by searching YouTube. Broader shows are the wave of the future. We need more “event” shows—shows that everyone simply has to see. We need more shows we can all watch.
ADVERTISERS: WAKE UP
Advertisers, meanwhile, need to stop being bamboozled by their agencies and by the television industry. Younger viewers are not necessarily more profitable. Edgy shows are not necessarily the best way to draw consumers.
The 18-to-49 crowd is no better—and now, it is significantly worse—than the 50-plus crowd, since the 18-to-49s have less disposable income and represent a shrinking percentage of the population as a whole. Those 18-to-49s demand more liberal programming, but they shouldn’t be in the driver’s seat anymore (in fact, they never should have been in the first place). Thos
e in the driver’s seat should be those who have money—who, by the way, also happen to be the same folks who pay taxes and skew conservative. The New York Times recently reported, “One-third of people in their 20s move to a new residence every year. Forty percent move back home with their parents at least once. They go through an average of seven jobs in their 20s, more job changes than in any other stretch. Two-thirds spend at least some time living with a romantic partner without being married. And marriage occurs later than ever.”14 These aren’t ideal consumers. Many of them still need help from their parents to buy a house. So why are advertisers targeting them?
Family programming should once again become a standard for advertisers. First off, family programming is boycott-proof—nobody is going to boycott pure comedies or dramas. And though creators and executives complain about the “blanding” of television, television is, first and foremost, a business. Besides, blandness isn’t always a terrible thing—the urge to push the envelope evidences a constant dissatisfaction with the status quo, which is precisely the opposite of what advertisers generally want.
Advertisers already know this. That’s why in 1998, two of the biggest advertisers in television, Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson, got together to form the Family Friendly Programming Forum, bringing together forty national advertisers who control “one out of every three advertising dollars spent on network television.” The forum has now changed its name to the Association of National Advertisers’ Alliance for Family Entertainment, and its stated mission is to bring “smart, sophisticated, responsible stories about and for everyone in the American family . . . that’s always good for business.”15
