My blog yesterday on the Experian Simmons marketing study which showed a higher overall popularity of TV shows that appeal to conservative and Republicans as compared to those that are more popular with liberals and Democrats drew a couple of interesting comments.

Kenneth wrote:

I would argue that successful TV shows and movies have little to do with
appealing to the right ideology. It has to do with creating characters of depth
and humanity that viewers will actually CARE about. It has to do with convincing
storylines and organic, unforced comedy. Most of that has been lost in the drive
to impress with digital special effects and oh-so-hip snappy dialogues and
cartoonish characters.

Conservative viewers, I suspect want what all of us want: to not have their
intelligence insulted. If you look at some of the most successful shows in
history, ideology was always secondary to good storytelling. MASH was decidedly
liberal in sympathy, but brilliantly crafted. People cared about that show so
much they never wanted it to end. People WEPT over those characters. Or consider
All in the Family. The whole show was based around lampooning the sometimes ugly
ativism of a conservative character, but one who was also a very regular guy and
who had a heart of gold when push came to shove.

I think it’s much more fundamental than “getting the conservative message”
into entertainment or creating shows around a particular ideology. Write stuff
with some depth. Show some conservative characters with the full range of
complexity we all have. Just write and film some good stories. The rest will
fall in place.

Comment: I actually couldn’t agree more.  Most mainstream liberals also want TV shows that deal with universal themes of the heart — without necessarily demonizing anyone on the basis of Democrat vs. Republican politics.  The Experian Simmons data certainly shows that many liberals also like the shows that drew large Republican audiences.

But there is a core audience which is mostly (not entirely) liberal that does seem to go for the edgier, often nastier stuff. Since the television gatekeepers tend to be liberal, most of that nastiness is aimed at conservatives and their beliefs. If the situation were reversed, you’d likely find more conservatives liking programming that bashed liberals. This isn’t about one side being morally better than the other.

The overall point is that mainstream audiences do want intelligent, well-crafted shows that portray characters of heart and compassion. These characters can be deeply flawed (i.e. Archie Bunker) but the basic humanity must be there to really engage the audience.

It’s interesting that you mention M*A*S*H, in my opinion one of the best shows of all time. It’s true it had a liberal bent but the show, while always funny, took on a much deeper and humane tone when the likable but inept Col. Blake was replaced by “regular Army” Col. Potter and, especially, when the cartoonishly bufoonish Maj. Frank Burns was replaced by the intelligent (and, ultimately, compassionate) Maj. Winchester.

By having Hawkeye find common ground with Potter (who, on the surface, represented everything he despised) and grudging respect and admiration for Winchester (and vice versa), the drama became richer and the comedy even more funny (because it was more true).
It’s worth noting that Fr. Mulcahy, the Catholic priest, was also portrayed as a good and decent man.

Responding the to same blog, nnmns gave a big hearty “Amen” of agreement to Kenneth while letting me have it by suggesting that I stop abusing liberals in my writing. As I said, I actually thought Kenneth and I were in agreement.

Obviously, it would be hypocritical of me to gripe about the demonization of conservatives by the powers that be in Hollywood and then to turn around and try to demonize liberals. I try to criticize, not demonize. I apologize if I ever cross that line. Thanks for keeping me honest.