Why is everything about Politics?

[ripken08]

I always have wondered this question. Why do many people, especially those on DU seem to make everything about politics? From movies like 300, Star Wars, or Borat. To the katie Couric interview of the John and Elizabeth Edwards, people on DU and in other places, make everything political. Some times a movie is just a movie. Sometimes a song is just a song, and sometimes just because an interviewer asks a tough question or one that you dont agree with, doesnt mean they are doing it for political reasons.

I just watched the interview with Katie Couric and John and Elizabeth Edwards. Personally I though katie Couric did a pretty decent job. But people started yelling that she was giving Right Wing talking points because she kept on asking about their decision to keep on going with the campaign. There was no reason to criticize her for spouting off RW talking points, but yet people still did. Things like this and not being able to just watch a show like 24 or 300 are things I do not understand.

Why does everything have to be political?

[Liberal Veteran]

1. This is primarily a political discussion board.

That sorta sets the tone for most non-lounge discussions.

[Forkboy]

2. It's not...walk around your home town and you'll see few people talking about politics.

But seriously,what did you expect from a political website full of political junkies?

[NMDemDist2]

3. you must have forgotten your 'sarcasm' smilie

"No reason to criticize her for spouting RW talking points"

and why wouldn't we?

everything is politics, from the office to the PTA meeting to Washington DC

if you don't think so, you are young or less than observant

[saltpoint]

4. 60 MINUTES is political. It's a news show, of sorts, and very political.

Has been for years and will be for years to come, probably.

The slant an interviewer/writer/reporter/analyst/etc takes on any given story -- especially one involving a presidential candidate -- is going to be damned political from the git-go, no matter what.

We'd be shocked if it weren't, in fact.

As Dylan puts it, it's "a political world."

[Texasgal]

5. uhhh....cuz maybe you are on a

POLITICAL message board?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. Perhaps the fact that you notice this is because you're on a political discussion board?

The people here are MUCH more political than the average Joe on the street.

[PDJane]

7. Because...........

Everything is political. From the air you breathe, to how much money you do or don't make, to the stuff you do and don't see on the tube. Katie Couric and her ilk are the least likely to ask anything or talk about anything that isn't political. And yes, 24 and 300 are political too....because anything to do with torture and war ceases to be entertainment and begins to be propaganda.

[ripken08]

13. The purpose of 24

Is not to portray a political message. It is to entertain. I know myself and many others do not agree with torture, but when we see Jack Bauer does it, we dont seem to care, because we realize this isnt the real world, and it is all about our love for Jack Bauer and the overall entertainment he provides.

[Bjorn Against]

20. The creator of 24 is an avowed right-winger...

He also created "The Half-Hour News Hour" for Fox News which he flat out states is intended for a conservative audience. Don't think he does not have an agenda.

This quote of yours is very telling: "I know myself and many others do not agree with torture, but when we see Jack Bauer does it, we dont seem to care." That is the effect of propaganda, to numb your mind.

[ripken08]

32. My mind isnt numb

Sorry. My thing is people like you pick and choose these things. What do you think about the VP and others who want to take away civil rights and get in a pre-emptive war? Those people clearly represent repubs, and yet the show frames them as the bad guys.

[Bjorn Against]

38. But you are still talking about politics either way...

We can debate whether 24 is right-wing or not, but even if your notion is correct that it portrays Republicans as the bad guys that is still political. You are saying it is not political. You are sounding very contradictory.

[ripken08]

39. I guess what I am saying

Is that people make it seem that a show like is politically motivated to display RW propaganda. Im just saying that this view is not true. So because one thing happens that you dont agree with, doesnt meant that the show is trying to give off a right winged political message.

[Bjorn Against]

41. It is not just the right though...

People were saying Star Wars Episode III was a criticism of the Bush Administration, as was V for Vendetta. People talked about those movies just as much. No not everything is right-wing propaganda, some of the films coming out have a very progressive message. Either way though it is political and on a political message board we are going to examine the politics behind it.

[ripken08]

42. I completely understand what you are saying

Hey, i was absolutely shocked that Neil Cavuto ripped apart "Happy Feet" for having a liberal agenda. I understand it goes both ways. But people dont just analyze the politics, they trash the movies because there many be some politics in the movie. I would say the same thing to people on the right. I honestly believe "Happy Feet" was made to entertain little kids just as much as a bond movie was made to entertain males. Maybe I'm blind, who knows.

[The Gunslinger]

37. You might be able to view it a just a show

But from my own experience, I know about 10 people who are all even more gung ho about killing the "Muslim extremists" after LA get nuked in the show. Wether it is intended or not, 24 impresses the right wing scare tactic agenda on the masses. It is good to know there are folks who can just see it as a show, but those 35% that still approve of the Decider............

[ripken08]

8. I understand

that this is a political message board, but some things dont HAVE to be about politics.

[gatorboy]

11. I'm not sure you do.

But hey, if the political talk on the political board is getting you down, there is always the DU lounge.

[saltpoint]

12. The zen Buddhists I know would agree with you, but they aren't on

60 MINUTES, they aren't on DU, and they aren't running for president.

[Forkboy]

15. Name one!

:evilgrin:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

43. Again, perhaps.

Yet, the fact remains that this is a political message board, as such it is reasonable to assume that things which are discussed here would be from a political perspective.

If one were to want to discuss things in a nonpolitical venue there are hundreds of thousands of other boards that are not political, depending on how many languages you speak, of course. When I come here I expect it to have a political slant. When I go to boards specific to movies, literature, horticulture or other such things, I do not.

What I am attempting to impress on you is it's the venue you're choosing to pursue which is giving you unsatisfactory performance, rather than that it's a flaw in the posters who are posting. When I don't want a political slant I don't pursue a political forum. It's actually a very simple thing.

[nashville_brook]

50. hop on over to iVillage for some non-polical discussion

http://www.ivillage.com/

oh wait! they have the Edwards interview on the front page too!

[AlCzervik]

9. at non political message boards they probably discuss things non political

lets see John Edwards is running for president, his wife has a cancer and it may or may not effect his run for president because he is running for president and last i check running for president is political.

[Bjorn Against]

10. All those things you mention ARE about politics...

Not everything is about politics, the vast majority of movies are not political and there are no political parallels drawn on them on DU. Star Wars, Borat and 300 all do have politics embedded in their story however and so people comment on them.

And to suggest ANY interview with a candidate for President is not political is just flat out wrong, any time a politician appears on screen there is politics involved.

[ripken08]

14. But the goal

is to entertain. My problem is so many people will not watch the movie or TV show because they have to take the politics out of it, instead of the entertainment value.

[Forkboy]

16. I agree with that completely.

Unless the movie is purposely trying to be political I don't really care if it's a little right or a little left.We could sit here until the end of time and pick out hidden "agendas" in every movie ever made.Just look at the Death Star conversation in the first Clerks movie.

[Bjorn Against]

17. How do you know entertainment is the only goal?

Honestly can you read the minds of the writers, the directors and the studio executives that put those films out. People have all kinds of reasons for making films, most often it is also to make money, but they also sometimes do it to influence people. You can't tell me Farenheit 9/11 was not made to influence people's political ideas, I don't think you can credibly claim that is the only political film out there however. I mean come on, Borat interviews Bob Barr and Alan Keyes in his movie there is politics all over that film.

[ripken08]

21. No I cant

tell you that entertainment was the only value. But I can tell you that many films and movies are about entertainment, but yet some people seem to just look for politics. In the show 24, you can say there is torture, and I can say that the people who want to launch a pre-emptive strike, as well as take away the civil rights of Muslims, are viewed as the bad guy. So from that angle, the show is a lot more fair than many here will admit. They just know who is doing the show, a conservative, and immediately do nto like it. IMO, 24 is about entertainment, but people take one part they disagree with and slam the entire show. That is my opinion as well when it comes to this recent interview. People see one thing they dont like, automatically think Katie Couric is playing politics. Then when I ask somebody to give me a proof that she consistently spouts RW talking points, they cant do it.

[gatorboy]

24. Can you prove she doesn't consistently spout RW talking points?

:shrug: You seem to want people here to do the leg work for you.

[ripken08]

28. I could

Here is the thing. I had the same issue when I did research on Norah O'donnell. On DU, they all say that she is right wing. On the Right, they all say she is a liberal. So I would therefore conclude that if both sides hate her, she is probably a moderate. I would thefore conclude the same thing about Kouric, because the right thinks she is a liberal, and people here thinks she is a conservative. However, I have heard that she is pro-clinton.

[gatorboy]

29. So...I take that as a no?

[Bjorn Against]

31. That proves nothing...

The right has been harping on the "liberal media" for years despite the fact that there are far more right-wingers in the media than progressives. That is a fact, there are several studies which have conclusively proven that Republicans get more airtime in the media.

In order for Republicans to keep claiming there is a liberal bias they have to create an illusion of bias so they constantly slam on people like Katie Couric and Dan Rather because they need people to think they are liberal for the talking point to survive. That does not mean they actually are liberal.

[ripken08]

34. Im not saying they are liberal

I'm just saying that just because they may be to the right of your opinions, does not make them right wing or vice versa.

[Bjorn Against]

26. Well Katie Couric did say this to George Bush...

"People admire so much your ability to adhere to your principles"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609080011

Now tell me that is not a right-wing talking point.

[ripken08]

30. Well you know what

A lot of people do admire that about him. It may be a republican talking point, but that is something that many actually do admire about him, his ability to stick to his guns, because he believes he is right. I think that makes him dumb, but there are many who do admire him for that.

[Bjorn Against]

35. Yeah, Republicans....

Most people I know think that makes him an arrogant prick and they certainly do not admire him for it. The fact that Katie Couric came straight out and said she admired him says a lot.

[ripken08]

36. If you read the quote

She said "people admire you."

That doesnt sound like she is saying that she admires him.

[Bjorn Against]

40. That is sure what it sounds like to you...

Why didn't she say "some people think you are war criminal who should be impeached and sent to the Hague". No doubt that is true as well, but she CHOSE to give the talking point of praise rather than pointing out the people who think very differently.

[gravity]

47. I agree with you 100%

If Katie Couric did the exact same interview to Bush, everyone on this board would be arguing that she wasn't tough enough.

[saltpoint]

19. Politics doesn't come out of some entertainment. There's politics in

9-to-5 with Dolly Parton, politics in 007 flicks, politics in JULIA with Jane Fonda.

Politics in folk music, classical music, rock music, stage plays, Farm fundraisers, and many other things.

I don't want politics out of those venues. Governments in other places have insisted on "safe" art and the result is this impotent dreck thrown at audiences, and not the artists' true intent.

I want politics in my art. Even if I disagree with it, I want it in there.

[ripken08]

23. But in a 007 flick

The goal is to entertain the viewer, not to advance somebody's political agenda, even if there is some politics in it. I am not saying in some things there are no politics. But some people only seem to see the politics and that is it.

[saltpoint]

25. Ok, sure, I hear you. The women are beautiful and the booze and the

sports cars flare and flash across the screen for 2 hours. Got it.

At the same time, it is lent momentum by the Cold War tension between the West and Russia. The stakes are high. It frames a decidedly political context, even if there's fucking and car chases.

There are articles like this one:

The Journal of Popular Culture
Volume 26 Issue 1 Page 17 - Summer 1992
Thomas J. Price (1992)
The Changing Image of the Soviets in the Bond Saga: From Bond-Villains to "Acceptable Role Partners"
The Journal of Popular Culture 26 (1), 17–38.
doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1992.00017.x

--all over the UK. The political and 007 are very much enjoined. Fleming himself was the son of a mayor, I believe.

[rhiannon55]

45. By repeating that the goal is to entertain,

you seem to place a high value on entertainment. That's fine, but if some of us look for the politics in a tv show or film, it's because we value the political aspects in the same way that you value the entertainment.

[jody]

18. IMO the most important is who has power, i.e. controls government, and that means politics. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

22. Ah. New to the country. (The only explanation that avoids attributing dishonesty.) Welcome!

[MasonJar]

27. I thought Couric's interview was crass and unfeeling and unneces-

sarily drab and uninspiring. "60 Minutes" would have been wise to have used one of their more congenial and intelligent interviewers.

[saltpoint]

33. Thank you for saying that. I thought she did some really poor work

with that interview.

[happyslug]

44. Because being a person MEANS being Political

Now, when I use the term "Political" I mean the interaction of people as they work together for a common cause. That is almost EVERYTHING we do as humans. We work with out co-workers. We drive the highways with other drivers. We date, live together, and live in areas with other Couples and singles.

The interaction of people is Politics. Politics is more than voting, or talking about what the "Chief" is or is not doing. Politics is more than selecting the "Chief" or his or her Advisor's. When we talk to our neighbors about how the fence is holding up, how we talk to each other about ho is moving in and out of our neighborhood we and doing politics. When and where we go to Church (or not go to Church) is a political act for it is a way to connect with other people or NO to connect with them (and how we connect with other people).

While I try to keep partisan politics to a minimum, it does comes up to play at odd times. For example why was the Movie 300 made? The Director did not get up one day and say lets start shooting. The producer arranged for financing (which included some politicking of the producers with people who have the money to invest), then decide who is to star and direct the mover (And hat script to use). The Director is also affected by political decision a to HOW each scene is to be shot for that sets up how it will be seen. I can go on, but that is Hollywood Politics.

On a deeper level WHY was this movie made? Swords and Sandals epics peaked in the late 1950s and early 1960s so why make one today? One of the reason Patton was made in 1969 was to show the US Military in a Good light (Remember Vietnam was being fought at the time, thus Patton was an effort to keep up support for the Troops and this indirectly support for Vietnam). I suspect the same is going in with the 300, but co-operation with the California National Guard and Spanish Army is NOT needed to get the movie "300" to the Theaters.

A movie maker can save a lot of money if he can get the co-operation of the US Army when making a War movie. For example In the Movie Patton the California National Guard was one of the units used in the Movie to represent Patton's Third Army, this saved a good bit of money for the producer all he had to provide was fuel and some uniforms, the Army provided the Tanks. On the other hand int he Movie When Apocalypse Now, the US Army did NOT like how the US Army was portrayed in the Movie so the US Army provided no Assistance to the producer, which drove up the cost of production and almost caused the movie NOT to be started let alone finished.

I use "Patton" and "Apocalypse Now" as clear examples of Government influence on Movie Making. Sometime the touch of the Government is less clear. Sometime the Government is NOT the person making the message, it is someone else. This brings me back to the 300. Why is it made TODAY. The Swords and Sandal era of movie making was over 40 years ago. Why show a battle between the West and Iran? Some one had a reason to produce this movie. It may be the producer thought it would make money (an important consideration for any producer) but people have made other movies without dealing with the Arabs or the Iranians.

I hate to say this someone wanted a Movie that was Anti-Iranian in nature. The only story people could think of that moviegoers MAY watch is the battle of Thermoplae. Would you see a Movie about how the Shah overthrow his own Government so he could rule Iran as a Dictator? OR how the US and the Russians effectively divided up Iran during WWII? What About the Mongols going after the Assassins? Think about the last one, the Mongols concentrated on the Assassins IGNORING ALL OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONQUEST. That would be like Bush going after bin Laden and giving up his plans to Conquer Iraq. Not acceptable. People would question Bush if a Movie came out about the 1954 overthrow of the Shah's own Government for it put in charge a dictator over a popularly elected government. Again not Acceptable. As to the WWII occupation, the fact that the US dumped all types of money into Iran to improve its Transportation System (To better be able to supply the Soviets against Hitler) would again contrast with Bush's handling of the War in Iraq. No the battle of Thermopylae is the only Anti-Iranian film that could be made and NOT be an attack on how Bush is fighting the War in Iraq.

[gravity]

46. Because they believe everything is politics.

This discussion board drives me crazy some times because some people assume everyone has a political agenda behind everything.

[fishwax]

48. you didn't expect people to view a major interview with a presidential front-runner

to be addressed as a political object? On a political discussion board?

[Toucano]

49. Why does the sun come up in the east?

Why does rain fall down and not up?

Everything is political. It just is. Especially as human society becomes more interdependent and complex, our decisions and actions affect and have consequences for others.

That's the nature of the times we live in.

As for Katie Couric's interview of Edwards, if you can't yet spot a media personality (I can't call her a journalist) with an agenda, then I'm very glad you're here. You'll learn so much!

Look for questions that PRESUME disputed facts, or cast an opinion without asking a question. Example:

Couric: Some people watching this would say, "I would put my family first always, and my job second." And you're doing the exact opposite. You're putting your work first, and your family second.

Notice there isn't even a question here. And who are these "some people" she keeps talking about? Later:

Katie Couric:
Even those who may be very empathetic to what you all are facing might question your ability to run the country at the same time you're dealing with a major health crisis in your family.

Again, no question. Just a statement that contains a presumed fact.

As far as hit jobs go, this one was mild. I'd call it more unprofessional and uninsightful than advancing a particular agenda.

[nashville_brook]

51. R.I.P. ripkin08

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=202314