The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/12/06/republican-vs-democrat-tv/

Republicans vs. Democrats TV: Lefties want comedy, right wingers like work -- EXCLUSIVE

by James Hibberd
Tags: Television, News, Television
Comments 1008Add comment


Republicans don’t watch MTV’s Jersey Shore. But they dig ABC’s Castle.
Democrats don’t like Discovery’s Deadliest Catch. But they swoon for NBC’s Parks and Recreation.
Those are a few of the findings from an annual research survey by Experian-Simmons that measures the consumer preferences of various political ideologies. In a report prepared exclusively for EW, the company calculated some of the favorite — and least favorite — TV shows of political partisans. (Specifically: the report measures which shows among the survey group were watched by the highest concentration of self-identified “Liberal Democrats” and “Conservative Republicans.”)

In the findings, “sarcastic” media-savvy comedies and morally murky antiheroes tend to draw Dems. While serious work-centered shows (both reality shows and stylized scripted procedurals), along with reality competitions, tend to draw conservatives.

Focusing on well-known cable and broadcast original entertainment series (rather than, say, sports, music, news, repeats), here’s who wins the 2011 prime-time primaries:

LIBERAL-DEMOCRAT FAVORITES:
– The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report (Comedy Central): As you might expect.
– 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation (NBC): Literate media-savvy comedies score high among Dems in general, notes Experian-Simmons senior marketing manager John Fetto. “Sarcastic humor is always a hook for them,” he adds.
– The View (ABC): Shows that skew female tend to do better among Dems, while male-friendly shows tend to do perform higher among Republicans.
– Glee (Fox)
– Modern Family (ABC): Last year, the progressive Glee and Modern Family scored surprisingly strong among both political leanings. Among conservatives this year, the shows still do fairly well, but have dropped out of their top ranks.
– It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (FX)
– Treme (HBO): GOP Kryptonite. Not only a Dem favorite, but so unpopular among Republicans that the report scores the show with a “*”  because not enough conservatives in the study group had actually watched it.
– Cougar Town (ABC)
– The Late Show With David Letterman and The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson (CBS): Dems favor late-night programming, with one big exception that we’ll see below.
Also in the mix: The Soup (E!), Aqua Teen Hunger Force (Adult Swim), Raising Hope (Fox), Saturday Night Live (NBC), The Office (NBC), Project Runway (Lifetime), Shameless (Showtime), Parenthood (NBC), Conan (TBS).

CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN FAVORITES:
– Swamp Loggers (Discovery) and Top Shot (History): Gritty documentary-style work-related reality shows on cable index really strongly with conservative Republicans. Swamp Loggers is particularly polarizing.
– The Bachelor (ABC): They also tend to gravitate toward broadcast reality competition shows.
– Castle (ABC): Ranks fairly high among Dems, too.
– Mythbusters (Discovery)
– Only in America With Larry the Cable Guy, American Pickers, Pawn Stars, Swamp People (History): If you’re a Republican candidate looking to raise money, put ads on History.
– The Middle (ABC): Does well among libs, too.
– The Tonight Show With Jay Leno (NBC): “Did you hear about this? Yeah, this is true: Jay Leno is the late-night choice among conservatives… “
– The Biggest Loser (NBC)
– Hawaii Five-O, NCIS, The Mentalist (CBS): Popular crime dramas — except the left-wing Law & Order franchise — tend to draw a conservative crowd.
Also: Dancing With the Stars results show (ABC), Man vs. Wild (Discovery), Auction Kings (Discovery), Wheel of Fortune (syndi), Top Gear (BBC America).

The only show I'm really surprised about is Mythbusters.

I love that show, but it's also very pro-science and pro-skepticism, both things that don't go over so well with the GOP base.

^ I don't buy that.  It wasn't meant as a slight either. 

I didn't mention Christians, specifically, but I don't think it's way off base to suggest that the hardest-core of the GOP don't respect the scientific method (the heart of what Mythbusters is about) compared to more liberal thinkers.

...With the view of global warming and evolution alone, both regarded as scientific truths within the scientific community as the two greatest examples as rejected by the far right.  On top of that, I'd say that higher education and intellectual curiosity as a virtue, and which Mythbusters certainly promotes, are seen as lukewarm at best on the conservative side.

Again, I'm not saying you are like this, but I think that the GOP base are definitely not champions of the cause of science.

C'mon Fau,  how can you say this?  If the Republican "base" includes big business, and big business is largely comprised of highly educated people, then how again would the GOP not espouse the virtues of education?  Also, not buying that global warming is entirely due to fossil fuels doesn't mean you don't believe in the scientific method.  The Earth has cooled and warmed many times before, without the aid of fossil fuel exhaust, so I think one could be pardoned for being skeptical as to the far-reaching and devastating effects that the left (or Hollywood...or are they the same thing?) would have you believe are around the corner if we don't all ditch our cars and start riding our bikes more.  Skepticism is not the same as a lack of respect for the scientific method.

On the issue of evolution, people of faith (which, shockingly, includes people on the left) have a problem with the argument that evolution denies the existence of God.  That is an issue of faith versus science, not contempt for the scientific process.

That's a biased liberal answer based on one exaggerated answer to one question.  If you were to ask many Christians, they would tell you science only helps to confirm faith. There are many Christian men and women of science.

I don't think the lists are exactly correct but I also don't think most people are "all" anything. I think the biggest thing to come from it is the general types of shows people watch.

Just curious.... Has anyone in here who considers themselves liberal ever watched Duck Dynasty? That's one of my favorite shows.

^ I don't mean to discredit any of you who support the GOP.  I'm not saying, or even suggesting that you, personally, do not respect higher education or science.

But I do stand by idea that the base of the GOP tends to go the other way.  You may be able to nitpick studies to dispute global warming, but it is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community.  The same goes for evolution.

But it's greater than that.  The GOP insinuates that the highly educated are somehow eggheads.  They disparage things like college professors.  Mitt Romney speaks French, but hides it.  There are major issues with textbooks in Texas, which feeds the rest of the country, because the hard right GOP is screwing with the curriculum. 

I'm not saying that sensible Republicans are anti-science, but the fringe of the party, which is more and more in charge these days, from where I sit, definitely is.

No, there is a large section of the religious population that is against science because it disagrees with what the Bible says. There are scientists who have faith. Believing in science does not make you an atheist. I find it is the faithful who are asking for science to prove a negative.

Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of more than twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national TV programs, including ABC, Fox, PBS, and CNN.
Described in the Washington Post as "one of the evangelical community's most popular apologists," Lee shared the Christian Book of the Year award in 2005 for a curriculum he co-authored with Garry Poole about the movie The Passion of the Christ. He also won Gold Medallions for his books The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and the The Case for a Creator, all of which have been made into documentaries distributed by Lionsgate.

His latest books include The Case for the Real Jesus, The Unexpected Adventure (co-authored with Mark Mittelberg) and The Case for Christ Study Bible, which includes hundreds of notes and articles on why Christians believe what they believe. His first novel, a legal thriller called The Ambition, comes out in Spring, 2011.

Lee was educated at the University of Missouri (Bachelor of Journalism degree, 1974) and Yale Law School (Master of Studies in Law degree, 1979). He was a professional journalist for 14 years at The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, winning Illinois' top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from United Press International.

After a nearly two-year investigation of the evidence for Jesus, Lee became a Christian in 1981. He joined the staff of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, IL, in 1987, and later became a teaching pastor there. He joined Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, CA, as a teaching pastor in 2000. He left Saddleback's staff to focus on writing.

You are speaking about a minority of people.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".

Not sure what either position matters in the scheme of things.

As far as global warming. It's really about the same. I'm of the opinion that even it the "theory" is correct, we will all be gone by the time it matters.

That's a biased liberal answer based on one exaggerated answer to one question...

There is no widely accepted scientific (I repeat: scientific) theory that the majority of mainstream Washington Democrats reject.  The GOP has a monopoly on that particular industry.

Not sure what either position matters in the scheme of things. I really don't know or give a shit why or how we as humans got here. It simply does not matter. We can't prove it either way so what's the point ?

Well said. Believing in God and creation is a matter of faith. I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.

There are 1000000000000000000000000000 things more important than discussing evolution or religion. Those are personal choices.

How about we discuss how Obama has bowed to the muslims, ran the deficit up to 16 trillion and turned his back on our brothers in Israel? I could go on, but what's the point? 

Perhaps, but that minority holds the power in the GOP right now.


And "I know several people that" holds no scientific weight.

As a scientific community, global warming is accepted -- that is a fact.  They may be wrong, but that's where the scientific community stands, based on the data, TODAY.  Fact.  It's something like 97%, which is an overwhelming stat.

Same with evolution.  You can find one person that will claim anything.  But it is an overwhelming majority of the community, which includes the very important PEER REVIEW that says the evidence supports it. 

And that was 1987.  There is more fossil evidence in support now.

Why is it, exactly, that the citizens of Israel are "our brothers", yet "the Muslims" (not "the Iranians" or "the Pakistanis" or even "Al-Qaeda"... no, the Muslims as a whole) are a group to be feared and contained?

In summary: out of the 7 major presidential candidates, 4 outright reject evolution, 2 clearly support it, and 1 (Gingrich) doesn't really take a clear position.  No matter how you slice it, that's a clear majority of mainstream Republican presidential candidates unapologetically rejecting one of the most thoroughly supported theories in the history of scientific inquiry.  You can't spin that.

How about we discuss how Obama has bowed to the muslims

Really ... it's not? One the leading Christians in this country who is both very educated and an atheist with an agenda was converted through science and it holds no weight? I thought the subject was Christians being afraid of science.

You are mistaken Dave. It's not a debate about global warming. It's the debate over if it's man made or even if it's just a cylce.

No offense but you sound like you bite on propaganda pretty easily.  Has some type of evolution happened? Absolutely but we didn't come from an amoeba or monkeys. The neo- Darwinism theory of evolution is not uni-formally agreed upon.  This would be the easiest to prove but unfortunately not only is evolution not happening today but it hasn't ever happened in recorded  history.

I think you may have spun it a bit into your favor actually. The way I read their statements

Paul - rejects (1)
Huntsman - accepts (1)
Rommney - accepts the process (2)
Gingrich - accepts as a process (3)
Santorum - unclear the statement is cut off (1)
Perry - rejects (2)

Bachman - rejects (3)

That gives me a 3-3 tie with one unclear

One person's particular beliefs are of no relevance to science as a whole.  If Stephen Hawking became a Muslim tomorrow, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Yes, and 97% of the scientific community has agreed that man is significantly contributing to a change in climate that is more extreme than what would normally be expected as cyclical.
Congratulations: you have just proffered the textbook anti-evolution argument.  I have no desire to debate evolution with you (no more than I wish to debate gravity), but suffice it to say that nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that man came from monkeys.

Although I always find that particular objection hilarious when given by (Christian) creationists, given that they believe that man was literally sculpted from dirt.

Has some type of evolution happened? Absolutely but we didn't come from an amoeba or monkeys.

A Stephen Hawking conversion wouldn't mean a thing?

Not that you would care to stay on point but again I would point to the fact the original attack was that Christians are afraid of science which isn't true ... no matter how many times you say it.

97% percent of scientist agree? You spend quite a lot of time trying to convince people you are more intelligent than the rest of us.

I would think you would think just a little bit before you type. I just listed a place to see where over 31,000 in the US alone have said it isn't true. I find it hard to believe that we have 1 million scientists in the US working with global warming.

I know a guy, Lee Strobel, who used science to convert to Christianity.

I honestly don't get the stick your head in the sand and blame "the white guys" and their prejudices for everything. It doesn't make other issues get better.

We have different definitions of "science."  I still define it as, you know, "science."

Not sure what this other guy said that made you believe such a ridiculous scenario, but there is NO science involved in religion. There is faith at the low end, and the desire to control and manipulate others at the top. Unless you can tell me that we've found God and did a little carbon testing on the Big Guy, then there isn't anything "scientific" that applies to religion.

Whether or not you would have come to the same conclusion does not mean it wasn't tested knowledge.

No it doesn't. A trial is based on science.

Not hat I don't think you know the answer but let' let's see. When was the last time Israeli terrorists killed a bunch of Americans ... or even threatened Americans? Ok. When the last time someone from one of those groups you mentioned threatened us? Probably already today. Pretending they are not a problem in general does not make it go away.

I honestly don't get the stick your head in the sand and blame "the white guys" and their prejudices for everything. It doesn't make other issues get better.

Also when was the last time an Islamic country actually attacked us directly?

And yet the United States government itself insists that Al-Qaeda operatives are NOT military combatants, and are therefore not subject to the the rules of the Geneva Convention.


Which one is it?  Is Al-Qaeda the Afghani military, or not?  If they are, why hasn't Congress formally declared war?  Why wasn't that war ended when we took over Afghanistan?  Why did we assassinate the exiled "military leader" of a nation that we had already conquered?

  The logical extension of your argument is that if Israel launches a pre-emptive war against Iran, other countries would be fairly entitled to declare war against The Jews.

For all intensive purposes

I have disagreed with this US policy since its inception.

1.  Israel could not launch a pre-emptive war against Iran, unless Iran and Israel first reached a peace agreement.  In 1948, Iran declared war against Israel and has never changed that stance.  Israel and Iran are currently "at war."

2. Most of the countries that would be truely upset with Israel destroying Iran's nuclear weopons capability, are already at war against the Jews and have expelled the Jewish populations from their countries and/or outlawed the practice of Judism.