The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, August 28, 2019


Let's conduct a thought experiment. Let's say you decide to conduct a survey of 1,000 people, all of whom watch TV regularly. You ask the people to identify two men, one an older, less-than-attractive, overweight corporate chieftain. The other is a handsome, youngish TV personality on one of the most-watched morning shows in TV history. Who do you think would be more commonly recognized and generate more public interest? My guess is the young, handsome TV star would win out over an old, fat corporate exec.

And who do you think would garner more interest if a limited TV series or feature length movie was created to detail the subject's on-going sexual harassment of his female co-workers? Again, my guess is that the more recognized, handsome, youngish TV celebrity would win out over a fat, mean and despicable denizen of the boardroom. After all, the young guy is better known, his character is more videogenic, and his flaws are shocking once revealed because he was considered to be a much-beloved, all-American guy.

The two men, corporate exec, Roger Ailes, and TV star, Matt Lauer are not good people. To put it harshly, both men are scumbags and in the era of #MeToo, both rightly lost their jobs because of their sexual depredations. Both harassed and sexually assaulted women in the workplace. In fact, Lauer had a special lock on his office door to trap a woman who entered. Think of the dramatic possibilities that could be attached to that small fact. But ... never mind.

This year, two dramas—one a limited TV series on HBO and the other a feature length film, were written about Ailes, who was justifiably vilified. I have no problem with that, Ailes' story is worth telling. But in addition to preying on women, Roger Ailes, created FoxNews, breaking a monopoly that allowed the Left to control the media narrative for well over a half century. And maybe that's why he's getting as much negative attention as he's gotten. In Hollywood, it's S.O.P. to demonize people who disagree with the industry's prevailing political philosophy. Making conservatives the bad guy fits the on-going narrative perfectly.

And speaking of narratives, I suspect that's also why there have been no TV or movie projects that focus on Lauer, or Charlie Rose, or even the despicable Harvey Weinstein or the now deceased, Jeffrey Epstein. Those men are/were all prominent supporters of the Democratic party. As a consequence, their sexual flaws must be buried, never to be presented as drama. After all, it just doesn't fit the narrative.

I've decided that I'll watch the TV series and film about Ailes when there are similar dramas produced about Lauer, or Rose, or Weinstein or Epstein. That way, I can compare and contrast.

If such a drama were to be produced, a number of questions arise. Is the political philosophy of any of the latter people emphasized in the screenplay? Are the progressive friends of any of the latter people examined to determine whether they knew what was going on? Did any of those progressive friends participate in the activities of any of the latter? Is the drama hard-hitting or is the character of someone like Lauer or Rose softened just a bit?

I suspect I'll never get answers to those questions, because it very unlikely that a TV series and film will be produced about Lauer or Rose or Weinstein or Epstein any time soon. And that means I'll probably never be able to watch the Ailes' dramas because there's nothing to provide a contrast.