Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Identity Politics

Hollywood feels the loss as politics take the spotlight at the Oscars

With the Oscars seeing its largest ever year over year ratings drop, when will the SJWs learn that their identity politics just doesn’t sell?

Published

on

0 Views

The Oscars joins a growing list of major televised events that have not only become heavily politically polarized but which have seen a drastic loss of interest from the public, including the Superbowl, the 2018 Winter Olympics, the Grammys, and now the Oscars.

Initially, we had the Superbowl, which took a ratings hit while being politically charged, then we had the Grammys, with a surprise cameo from Hillary Clinton, and then we had the 2018 Winter Olympics, which the ancient Greeks would even pause war for, but which apparently was too much to ask for the Left’s Russophobes, and of course, the identity politics of the entertainment industry.

Rather than simply being about awarding the best entertainment productions and performances of the year, the event quickly turned overtly political. Jimmy Kimmel wasted no time in bringing sarcasm versus conservative political leaders and news outlets, namely President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and the widely viewed by conservative media channel Fox News. Fox News, of course, reports:

Jimmy Kimmel claimed he was keeping this year’s Oscars positive, but the ratings were anything but.

The politically charged 2018 Academy Awards were down 20 percent compared to the 2017 numbers, averaging 26.5 million viewers. It’s the first time that the Oscars averaged fewer than 30 million people since at least 1974 when Nielsen started keeping track.

Last year’s event drew 33 million sets of eyeballs and the sharp decline resulted in roughly 6.5 million lost viewers. Host Jimmy Kimmel and the crowd of Hollywood elite focused on diversity, feminism and political issues as much as they focused on the films being honored.

The lack of high-wattage stars in the major categories, as well as a ho-hum slate of films when it came to box office receipts, may also have been a factor.

Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor told Fox News viewers shouldn’t be surprised that the show turned political and featured “divisive, left-wing politics” throughout the four-hour event.

“The Tinseltown elite genuinely hate the people they expect will pay to see their movies and watch their TV shows,” Gainor said. “Why do we support them?”

Sunday night’s awards were politically charged and loaded with mentions of the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements. Kimmel took jabs at President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and even Fox News viewers.

“We don’t make films like ‘Call Me By Your Name’ for money,” Kimmel quipped at one point. “We make them to upset Mike Pence.”

The Pence joke prompted conservative commentator Ben Shapiro to sarcastically tweet, “I thought Hollywood wasn’t biased against conservatives and only cares about the bottom line.”

Prior to this year, the 2008 awards were the all-time low for an Oscars audience when 32 million tuned in to watch Jon Stewart host and “No Country for Old Men” pick up the Best Picture prize.

During the show, Kimmel lauded the actual Oscar statue, noting its age of 90 and taking a swipe at Fox News viewers in the process: “Oscar is 90 years old tonight, which means he’s probably at home tonight watching Fox News.”

Kimmel wasn’t the only one getting political throughout the night. Stars Kumail Nanjiani and Lupita Nyong’o took the stage to share a message of support to Dreamers ahead of announcing “Shape of Water” as the winner of best production design.

A musical performance from Common and Andra Day of “Stand Up for Something” was an ode to American activism with politically charged lyrics about topics like the NRA, the Parkland shooting, immigration, feminism and Puerto Rico.

A variety of Hollywood stars spoke about diversity and the #MeToo movement when they were given a chance to speak.

Frances McDormand, who was the “Best Actress” winner for “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” used her speech to call for inclusion riders after urging all females who were nominated in any category in 2018 to stand.

Other than potential viewers staying away because of the presumed barrage of politics, the Academy Awards could have also kept viewers away by celebrating movies that many people didn’t see. Only two of the films nominated for Best Picture, “Dunkirk” and “Get Out,” landed in the Top 15 highest-grossing films of 2017, according to Box Office Mojo.

Popular films such as Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Wonder Woman,” Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” “It” and “Spider-Man: Homecoming” simply aren’t the type of films that are honored by the Academy in non-technical categories.

The unique monster movie “The Shape of Water” took home the award for best picture.

Of course, the MeToo movement found further promotion at the event as three actresses, showcasing their own MeToo spotlights, delivered a short calling for more diversity in the film industry. Salon tells us:

With the spotlight on Hollywood at the Academy Awards Sunday night, the annual awards show that has historically had problems with diversity took a step forward as the #MeToo movement made its presence known.

Three actresses in particular, Ashley Judd, Salma Hayek and Annabella Sciorra — who have all allegedly experienced abuse from Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein — shared a heartfelt moment on stage as they introduced a video that highlighted the need for diversity in film.

But another writer for the same publication, Mary Elizabeth Williams, wastes no time in alleging that the politicization of the Grammy’s really isn’t enough:

A year ago, the world watched uncomfortably as Brie Larson handed Hollywood’s highly accolade to Casey Affleck, a man accused of sexually harassing behavior and named in two lawsuits. Oscar has always danced happily with accused abusers, including Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein. But after the explosive momentum of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements over recent months, this year promised to be different. And then the exact same thing happened again. Do you know exactly what newly minted victors Kobe Bryant and Gary Oldman have been accused of? Because it’s horrifying. 

Williams continues:

What men do to women behind closed doors often comes down to conflicting accounts, and there is a very small number of people in the world who know what actually went down with Bryant, Oldman and the women who accused them of abuse. Nor do the attitudes and behaviors of either man mitigate their talents. 

But if you want to put on a big show that literally devotes an entire segment to how things are changing in the entertainment industry and brings out a trio of women — Ashley JuddAnnabella Sciorra and Salma Hayek — whose livelihoods were kneecapped by Harvey Weinstein’s gross, vindictive behavior, you might want look around at the context. Is putting Ryan Seacrest, a man recently accused of sexual harassment, on the red carpet still a super hot idea? Is celebrating accused stalker and harasser John Heard in the In Memoriam montage a good look right now?

Hollywood has undoubtedly made strides toward bringing the issues of abuse and harassment into the open — and in some cases even imposing serious consequences for bad behavior. But Sunday’s victory lap for men who’ve faced accusations of abhorrent violence against women make it clear that for much of the industry, it’s still less #TimesUp and more business as usual.

The sheer amount of political rhetoric that the Grammys is increasingly becoming a platform for seems comes about with a simultaneous drop in ratings. The Oscars saw its largest ever year over year drop with a 20% decrease in ratings while the MeToo movement has garnered an insane amount of free press for it via the scandals that it has shown the spotlight on. ZeroHedge observes:

Award shows gained a newfound relevance in January when Oprah Winfrey delivered a widely-lauded speech condemning sexism and sexual harassment while accepting a lifetime achievement award during the Golden Globes. But despite her inspired performance, the Globes suffered a 5% ratings dip compared with the prior year’s broadcast. Analysts attributed the drop to the continued cord-cutting that has been weighing on cable TV viewership stats…but it’s impossible to rule out the possibility that the event’s stridently political overtones prompted a large sliver of American audiences to tune out.

This problem was not unique to the Globes: last night’s Oscars broadcast recorded the largest year-over-year audience decline in the event’s history, despite the excitement surrounding how Hollywood’s elite might choose to acknowledge the “#MeToo” movement that was born out of a spate of exposes about powerful Hollywood figures, most notably the disgraced former studio head Harvey Weinstein.

As Bloomberg reports, viewership for the 90th Academy Awards saw a nearly 20% drop, despite what many reviewers said was a strong hosting performance by late-night talk show host (and perennial Trump antagonist) Jimmy Kimmel.

The overnight rating for the show, an estimate of the percentage of homes tuned it to the program, fell to 18.9, down about 16 percent from preliminary data a year ago. “The Shape of Water,” from 21st Century Fox Inc., was voted best picture.

Bloomberg blamed the decline on cord-cutting and the fact that many of the nominees for the night’s highest honor – best picture – grossed less than $100 million at the box office, suggesting that American audiences weren’t familiar with many of the individual nominees.

Viewing of live events, such as awards shows and sports, has declined along with the rest of TV’s audience. Only two of the pictures that featured in last night’s program, the horror movie “Get Out” and the World War II drama “Dunkirk,” tallied more than $100 million in domestic box-office sales…

Per the Wrap, last year’s Oscars landed a 22.4 rating in Nielsen’s overnight numbers, which count 56 metered markets. That was down 4.3% from 2016’s very preliminary numbers. Meanwhile, the 2017 Oscars eventually tabulated 32.9 million total viewership which was down 4% from the Rock-hosted ceremony. According to these preliminary numbers, that’s one of its largest drops on record, per Decider.

Furthermore, the 18.9 rating would be the worst-ever recorded – though this is based on preliminary data.

Given the results of this sort of politicizing of all forms of entertainment and sporting events, will the SJWs learn that their identity politics just doesn’t sell? Or, will they continue down this path to the detriment of their own industries? They though that they truly owned the American cultural landscape, but increasingly, its shows that they are wrong. As it’s said, pride goeth before the fall. The entertainment industry should learn from Robespierre that the instigator of a reign of terror can  fall victim to it as well.

The MeToo movement has been advancing its own reign of terror, with even some of its own chief propagators ending up before the tribunal, into many various facets of the entertainment industry, sports, government, and has even spread to the eastern hemisphere. While it sometimes leads to dealing with concerning issues that need to be addressed, the unchecked witch hunt that it has spawned is bringing about reprisals in several ways. For the Oscars, popular reprisal is coming in the form of a sharp decline in popularity.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Is Silicon Valley Morphing Into The Morality Police?

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Adrian Cohen via Creators.com:


Silicon Valley used to be technology companies. But it has become the “morality police,” controlling free speech on its platforms.

What could go wrong?

In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That’s why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Here’s the goliath problem:

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

Will Christians who don’t support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It’s already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond.

Their crime?

Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won’t tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.

For context, consider that in oppressive Islamist regimes throughout the Middle East, the “morality police” take it upon themselves to judge women’s appearance, and if a woman doesn’t conform with their mandatory and highly restrictive dress code — e.g., wearing an identity-cloaking burqa — she could be publicly shamed, arrested or even stoned in the town square.

In modern-day America, powerful technology companies are actively taking the role of the de facto morality police — not when it comes to dress but when it comes to speech — affecting millions. Yes, to date, those affected are not getting stoned, but they are being blocked in the digital town square, where billions around the globe do their business, cultivate their livelihoods, connect with others and get news.

That is a powerful cudgel to levy against individuals and groups of people. Wouldn’t you say?

Right now, unelected tech billionaires living in a bubble in Palo Alto — when they’re not flying private to cushy climate summits in Davos — are deciding who gets to enjoy the freedom of speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and who does not based on whether they agree with people’s political views and opinions or not.

You see how dangerous this can get — real fast — as partisan liberal elites running Twitter, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Apple and the like are now dictating to Americans what they can and cannot say online.

In communist regimes, these types of folks are known as central planners.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to safeguard our freedoms, especially regarding speech — a foundational pillar of a democracy. It’s disappointing that hasn’t happened, as the censorship of conservative thought online has gotten so extreme and out of control many are simply logging off for good.

A failure to address this mammoth issue could cost Trump in 2020. If his supporters are blocked online — where most voters get their news — he’ll be a one-term president.

It’s time for Congress to act before the morality police use political correctness as a Trojan horse to decide our next election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Paul Craig Roberts: The Disintegration of Western Society

Feminists brought this madness onto themselves.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


Radical feminists are now being banned by Twitter not because they hate men, which is perfectly OK as far as Twitter is concerned, but because they object to “transwomen.”

What is a “transwoman?” As far as I can understand, a “transwoman” is a male with a penis who declares himself to be a women and demands his right to use women’s toilette facilities along with the women who are using them.

The feminist, Meghan Murphy, twittered a statement and a question:

“Men are not women.”

“How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?”

Twitter described this as “hateful conduct” and banned Meghan Murphy. https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/

There you have it. Yesterday it was feminists who were exercising their special society-bestowed privileges to censor. Today it is the feminists who are being censored. As this insanity of “Western Civilization” continues, tomorrow it will be the transwomen who are censored and banned.

What precisely is afoot?

My readers, who have partially and some wholly escaped from The Matrix, understand that this is the further fragmentation of American society. Identity Politics has set men, women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and white people against one another. Identity Politics is the essence of the Democratic Party and the American liberal/progressive/left. Now, with the creation of “new” but otherwise nonexistent “genders,” although they are honored as real by the controlled whores who masquerade as a “Western media,” we witness radical feminists being silenced by men pretending to be women.

I sympathize with Meghan Murphy, but she brought this on herself and on the rest of us by accepting Identity Politics. Identity Politics gave Meghan a justification for hating men even, as she failed to realize, it provided the basis for moving her into the exploitative class that must be censored.

Where does this end?

It has already gone far enough that the American population is so divided and mutually hostile that there is no restraint by “the American people” on government and the elite oligarchs that rule. “The American people” are no longer a reality but a mythical creature like the unicorn.

The film, The Matrix, is the greatest film of out lifetime. Why? Because it shows that there are two realities. A real one of which only a few people are aware, and a virtual one in which eveyone else lives.

In the United States today, and throughout “Western Brainwashed Civilization,” only a handful of people exist who are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible. Everything that every Western government and “news” organization says is a lie to control the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.

The ability to control people’s understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam Hussein had and was going to use on the US “weapons of mass destruction;” that Assad “used chemical weapons” against “his own people;” that Libya’s Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia “invaded Ukraine;” that Trump and Putin stole the presidential election from Hillary.

The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex’s annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex.

Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system, precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.

Is Thomas Jefferson Alive and Well In Paris?

If this report is correct, pray the revolt spreads to the US.

https://www.infowars.com/video-french-police-remove-helmets-in-solidarity-with-yellow-vest-protesters/

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Google Employees debated burying conservative media in search

Google engineer Scott Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

The Daily Caller

Published

on

Via The Daily Caller


  • Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
  • “Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
  • Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued.

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”

Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures

One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.

“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.

“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.

“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.

“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.

“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.

“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.

Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.

Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.

After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.

A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

WATCH:

Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.

“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.

“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.

Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”

Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.

Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.

Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending