Here’s the latest from the crossroads of faith, media & culture: 03/03/25

Independent thinking. I give NewsNation’s Leland Vittert a lot of credit for not joining in the partisan media groupthink following Friday’s off-the-rails White House press gathering involving some jaw-dropping verbal exchanges between  Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and President Trump. The host of On Balance with Leland Vittert (weekdays 9:00 PM ET) took note of the fairly obvious fact that, in this instance, it wasn’t Trump who instigated the public meltdown but Zelenskyy when he attempted to negotiate outstanding issues in front of the press. I have more thoughts following Vittert’s well-reasoned analysis below.

Blessed are the Peacemakers. Remember when liberals wanted to Give Peace a Chance – like when John Lennon and Yoko Ono recorded their classic anti-war anthem during the height of that other US proxy war against Russia (then known as the USSR)? The idea then was to stop the senseless killing as soon as possible and then move onto resolving the disputed issues at the negotiating table. It made sense then and it makes sense now – apparently unless Donald Trump is the peacemaker and you have partisan points to score.

To quote the song, “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” Trump was, in fact, forced to walk back his ill-advised rant suggesting that Ukraine started the war because even many of his loyal supporters disputed that obvious falsehood. As we know, Trump is a man not known for walking anything back but, in this case, he did. Too bad many of his opponents seem more interested in using Zelenskyy as a tool for scoring points for their own domestic political reasons then they are in stopping the bloodshed in a horribly brutal war.

Flash forward, to Friday’s disastrous White House event when Zelenskyy showed up dressed more like he was meeting Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman in his office than the President of United States in the Oval Office. A reporter even pressed Zelenskyy on the issue but Trump seemed unoffended by his attire. He certainly didn’t come across as angling for a public fight. As Vittert noted, it took nearly 40 minutes of Zelenskyy’s persistant disrespect to finally draw Trump into a verbal push back.  Zelenskyy seemed overly concerned with declaring Vladimir Putin the aggressor in the war (which he, in fact, was) but, at this moment, that issue is beside the point and counterproductive to push. What’s needed now is to stop the killing – and when it comes to a security guarantee Trump’s plan is rather brilliant in that it not only helps pay back the US taxpayers for their huge expenditures (a legitimate concern, BTW) and helps Ukraine develop their natural resources so their country can be rebuilt but, by the very presence of such a clear American interest, Putin would think several times before launching another invasion. Such a scenario allows Putin a face-saving way out of this mess of his own making without looking like he’s backing down to a military threat. Big picture, guys, big picture.

The Bottom Line: Trump put it well when, in response to a reporter’s question, he said  “I’m not aligned with Putin. … I’m aligned with the United States of America, and for the good of the world. … You want me to say really terrible things about Putin and then say, ‘Hi, Vladimir. How are we doing on the deal?’ It doesn’t work that way.” Big picture, guys, big picture. Don’t risk world peace to score political points. That’s not the moral high ground.
_____

My Top Ten reactions to last night’s Oscars

1. The opening duet in which Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo belted out tunes from the original Wizard of Oz and its quasi-sequel Wicked only served to remind me that, while the former film introduced several memorable songs that people still find themselves humming to this day, the latter, despite its stage and screen box office success, has really not created the sort of classic song that will be remembered by generations to come – or even this one. ‘

2. Host Conan O’Brien did a great job hosting. He kept politics to a minimum and was actually funny.

3. Kieran Culkin won in the Best Supporting Actor category for his role in A Real Pain which, while not in the running for Best Picture, I believe was the only movie in contention for anything that my wife and I had actually seen. A viewing ratio I suspect was shared by many viewers. Despite it risky subject matter – a dramedy involving a tour of Auschwitz – it was a pretty good movie that was appropriately sensitive when it needed to be. Still, too much cursing for my taste. Overlooking that though, the movie draws you in and Culkin did deliver an Oscar-worthy performance.

4. Typical of Hollywood, there was an almost comical emphasis on firsts: first Latvians to win an Oscar (in the Animated Short category) and first American of Dominican descent (to Zoe Saldana for Emilia Pérez). As O’Brien humorously noted “Ball’s in your court, Estonia!”

5. The anti-Catholic hit job Conclave won the Best Adapted Screenplay category. TBH, I had actually expected Conclave to net the top prize as sort of Hollywood virtue signal. That didn’t happen. Also, TBH, I haven’t yet viewed the entire film – but I saw the trailer and know a good deal about the film, including how it ends. I probably will see the entire film though as my wife wants to check it out. I’ll let you know if that experience changes my mind – but I doubt it.

6.  The James Bond tribute missed the mark and seemed subtly designed to prep us for the probably wokified version of the franchise when Amazon takes the creative wheel. Star Wars, anyone?

7. Best Original Song went to El Mal from Emilia Pérez, another musical ditty unlikely to be remembered by future generations – or this one.

8. Gene Hackman and Quincy Jones, who both died over last year were given special tributes for their significant contributions to the film industry. Hackman was noted for his excellent work while Jones was honored not just for excellence but for “black excellence.” Quincy Jones is, of course, one of the great musical talents of all time – no matter his skin color. I can’t help but think it would have been nice – and a sign of progress – to leave it at that.

9. The reaction has been brutal to Best Actor winner Adrian Brody‘s record-setting 5 minutes and 40 second acceptance speech for The Brutalist. Brody’s previous win in the category was back in 2003 for The Pianist. Will we next be seeing him in The Brutal Pianist? If there is and he wins, prepare for an epic speech.

10. Full disclosure, I was asleep by the time the Best Picture winner Anora was announced. That’s not the producers’ fault. Overall, the show was well produced – but anything that happens after 10:00 PM for me is hit or miss. Still, that doesn’t stop me from having opinions about the category in general. First, ten nominated films is too many to remember – especially when the public isn’t even aware that most of them exist. Second, knock it off with the artistic virtue signaling meant to convey your own supposed superiority to your audience. Go back to nominating five movies and consider favorably those that actually connect with the audience. Connecting with the audience should be seen as a plus rather than something to be disdained. Then maybe people will care the Oscars again.
_____

When TV brought us together. Speaking of Oscar hosts, CBS Sunday Morning just looked back on the legacy of one of the best.  For three decades, Johnny Carson was the undisputed king of late-night so he was well prepared for the Oscar gigs. Reporter Jim Axelrod spoke with Carson the Magnificent co-author Mike Thomas about his cultural impact.

The report ends with Thomas comparing the media landscape then and now: “We all siloed. We’re all watching things that either confirm our own biases or that are attuned to our own specific sense of humor. There will never be that communal experience again where people watch the show at the same time and then talk about the show the next day…That was part of the magic of Carson – community.”  An astute observation but I wonder if it’s necessarily true that television will never offer that sense of community again. I, for one, think the pendulum may be already swinging back. Perhaps, if you build it, the (the audience) will come.  More below.

Yes, the viewership of the broadcast networks has been declining for years – but that’s largely because their corporate overlords have been deliberately driving it to streaming where they reason they stand to make more money. Then there’s also the content that is left – which tends to be dark and uninspiring. After years of this, many viewers have grown tired (and feel a bit taken) by paying for access to a service that may have one or two shows they actually like. Binging episodes all at once has also not necessarily be the best way to experience – and, if you like the show, the short ten-episode seasons offered by streaming (often years apart) is not as satisfying as the longer 20+ episode seasons (offered in consecutive years) by the broadcast networks. If you liked the characters (and, in those days, they tended to be likable) you wanted to see them in as many situations as possible. Also, the episodes fit with a normal person’s schedule. Though there were story arcs developed over time, for the most part stories were completed in half-hour or hour-long installments that demanded less exhausting devotions than the streaming shows which too often play out like ten-hour movies that demand your rapt attention. Plus, the water cooler factor of people mostly watching the shows at the same time and talking about them the next day really did provide something of a sense of community.

I’m not suggesting that streaming is going away. People will still want to catch shows they missed. Companies can charge for that if they want – but, from a marketing point of view, I think we’re at the point where streaming is starting to feel more like a rip-off and free over-the-air TV is looking much more appealing. I also think it would be wise for the entertainment companies to offer most, if not all their programming, on one central platform (i.e. a broadcast network). Is it really cost effective to create several destinations and then program them with a glut of content that is difficult to find. I think a one-stop approach is better for both the provider and the viewer.

I also think the most successful providers will embrace traditional standards such as going easy on the foul language, gory violence, explicit sex and in-your-lecturing – none of which is conducive to unwinding after a hard day. Content need not be religious but it should be friendly to traditional faith values, patriotism (that. BTW, doesn’t exclude acknowledging our country’s imperfections) and tolerance in general. Diversity is certainly a good value and good television should respectfully represent all backgrounds – but it can do so in a way shows people generally getting along, looking toward the future and dispenses of the proverbial and tiresome chip on the shoulder.

Whatever company lands on that formula, I believe will reap big profits while also having a positive affect on society. Great American Media is one company that I think is particularly well-positioned to do. Its President and CEO Bill Abbott recently met with industry leaders at the NRB 2025 International Christian Media Convention in Grapevine, Texas. Abbott told the gathering “The demand for storytelling that uplifts, inspires, and reflects the principles audiences cherish has never been stronger…At Great American Media, we’ve built a thriving network by remaining steadfast in our commitment to faith, family, and country—offering content that resonates deeply with viewers seeking alternatives to mainstream entertainment.” I think he’s onto something.