Posted on

‘Office’ Alum Shares Ugly Truth About Media Bias, Graham Platner

There’s a reason why Legacy Media types tried to make both Scott Pelley and Stephen Colbert free speech martyrs.

They’re activists for the Left, not old-school journalists. And they rallied around the recently fired personalities because they, too, provided cover for Democrats.

It’s that simple. Yet it’s a reality many on the Left ignore. That goes for fellow journalists and Hollywood celebrities alike.

Rainn Wilson is a hearty exception.

“The Office” alum doesn’t always read from the progressive hymnal. He’s a person of faith, and his public comments tend to be more nuanced and less predictable than those of his peers.

He proved it again this week. Twice.

Wilson spoke to Fox News on a variety of subjects, including whether “The Office” could launch today. The show ran from 2005-2013, a time when woke culture hadn’t arrived on the scene.

That explains why “The Office” was so cutting edge and hilarious. The show’s scribes didn’t have to walk on eggshells not to offend viewers. That made the show so much funnier.

Wilson told Fox News Digital that “The Office,” much like “Blazing Saddles,” couldn’t be made today.

“I think that it would be too hard to be as politically incorrect as the show was,” Wilson said.

Is he wrong? The show’s initial run went smoothly, with strong critical acclaim and sizable ratings. Few social media users raged against the show’s content. If they did, their numbers were small and they didn’t force any “Cancel Culture”-style campaigns to impact the series.

Wilson’s opinion isn’t looked upon kindly in the media, which has pretended that woke culture had no discernible impact on humor.

He said it anyway.

The actor also weighed in on Legacy Media bias, something news reporters continue to deny. Even Pelley, who just got axed by CBS for attacking his boss, Bari Weiss, in public, recently claimed there’s no “metric” that shows such a bias exists.

This took less than five minutes to find the following on X.

Wilson agrees.

“I think there has been a bias in the media towards what we call more liberal policies,” he said. “They’re willing to overlook the Platner Nazi tattoo, but if it was someone from the other side that had a tattoo that was questionable they would be all over MSNBC about it.”

Platner’s Nazi tattoo is a scandal, full stop. Yet late-night TV hosts have avoided the subject as much as possible. Legacy Media reporters too often obfuscate the facts to protect Platner.

And we all know why.

“It’s the hypocrisy that gets me the most … both sides have to have equal standards of behavior,” he added.

The media has done everything possible to diminish Platner’s Nazi tattoo, which remained on his body for 18 years until he covered it up in shame last year. Reporters, including Pulitzer Prize winners, also have downplayed the physical abuse allegations hurled at Platner on recent weeks.

Smells like bias to most sane Americans. And Wilson, too.

Source

Posted on

‘Minnesota Mao’ Connects Dots Between Walz, Communist China

One of the most jaw-dropping documentaries of the last decade missed theaters entirely.

The film got snubbed by Oscar voters, too. Few, if any, mainstream critics so much as gave it a glance. That didn’t detract from its power and importance.

“The Fall of Minneapolis” examined George Floyd’s death and the cultural fallout in a way Legacy Media outlets wouldn’t touch. It featured body cam footage most Americans never saw and let the Minneapolis officers forced to watch their precinct burn finally have their say.

It’s the kind of documentary that could make you view the Floyd moment in an entirely new light. No wonder most media outlets refused to cover it.

Now, the team behind that film is back with another explosive documentary.

“Minnesota Mao,” just released for free on YouTube, explores the curious connections between Gov. Tim Walz and Communist China. We get snippets from Chairman Mao Zedong’s “Little Red Book,” his Communist manifesto, along with the governor’s most fiery critics.

The film compares Minnesota’s draconian COVID-19 lockdowns to brutal Chinese politics and shows how many of Walz’s preferred quotes come painfully close to Mao’s book snippets.

Gov. Walz announced earlier this year that he won’t be running for another term, a move likely tied to the rampant fraud in his state. He still remains a national figure, one deserving of serious scrutiny.

Legacy Media outlets won’t do the honors. Minnesota media, specifically The Star Tribune, all but serve as Walz’s protection racket.

Enter “Minnesota Mao.” The crowdfunded documentary went live on YouTube on June 4, the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

The film features several Walz critics, including a college professor fired for not getting the COVID vaccine and  former Minneapolis police officer Tou Thao, who served time for his involvement in Floyd’s fatal police encounter.

Source

Posted on

Did Elvis Costello Go Woke Over ‘Oliver’s Army’ Slur?

Elvis Costello once uttered a terrible word, twice, during a drunken exchange that might have gotten him canceled today.

Perhaps permanently.

The singer-songwriter slammed American music in general and, more specifically, U.S.-based superstars Ray Charles and James Brown with the dreaded “n-word,” according to a 2010 New Yorker profile of the rock icon. As the story goes, Costello got knocked to the floor in short order, and the incident allegedly hurt his rising star status. (Costello publicly apologized for the outburst)

Ask Morgan Wallen how that feels.

More than 40 years later, Costello is still a vibrant touring act, but he recently changed the words to one of his iconic songs – “Oliver’s Army.” 

Now, the singer is swearing – literally – that he didn’t go woke in the process. Costello nixed the song from his concert lineup in 2022, but he wasn’t forthcoming as to the reason why.

RELATED: ELVIS COSTELLO SLAMS TRUMP, FALLS OUT OF TUNE

“Oliver’s Army” is back, but it’s had a minor facelift.

The old lyric: “Only takes one itchy trigger, One more widow, one less white n-word”

The new lyric: Only takes one itchy trigger, One more widow, one less pallbearer”

(NOTE: The closed captioning on the YouTube version of the song includes the word in question)

The song in question finds Costello weighing in on “The Troubles,” the ongoing Northern Ireland feud that left hundreds dead and many more injured.

The line in question, according to LouderSound.com, “is a reference to a slur used against Irish Catholics and to racist attitudes which underpinned British military campaigns across the world in centuries past, and which permeates sections of the British Army to this day.”

The musician shared his explanation for the lyric on a 2002 reissue of “Armed Forces,” the album featuring the track.

“I made my first trip to Belfast in 1978 and saw mere boys walking around in battle dress with automatic weapons. They were no longer just on the evening news. These snapshot experiences exploded into visions of mercenaries and imperial armies around the world. The song was based on the premise ‘they always get a working class boy to do the killing’.”

The slur doesn’t connect to what we typically imagine when that reprehensible term comes to mind. Still, Costello changed it anyway.

His explanation will sound to some like an excuse.

“I no longer use words that go off like alarm clocks, because indignation about that word stops people hearing what the song is about,” he explains.”That is my position. People went, ‘That’s woke.’ Well, go f*** yourself.”

The Rolling Stones faced a similar issue in recent years. The band favorite “Brown Sugar” got the heave-ho in 2021 for allegedly demeaning black women and slavery references.

Guitarist Keith Richards defended the song but didn’t fight to keep it on the band’s live playlist, apparently.

“I’m trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is. Didn’t they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery? But they’re trying to bury it. At the moment I don’t want to get into conflicts with all of this s***,” he said. “But I’m hoping that we’ll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track.”

Classic rockers once trashed hotel rooms and committed other unspeakable acts. Now, they dare not offend fans both old and new.

Did Costello have a moment of woke? Or is his anger at the suggestion justified?

Source

Posted on

‘Disclosure Day’

Steven Spielberg. Aliens. Summertime.

’nuff said, right? Wrong. Oh, so wrong.

“Disclosure Day” boasts a trippy cast, a timely premise and the potential for endless thrills. The result is a mess, suggesting that the iconic storyteller’s best days are behind him.

Boy, were those days movie magic. Now? The only illusion here is thinking this saga is worth its bloated running time.

Emily Blunt stars as Margaret Fairchild, a weather forecaster at a Kansas City news station. Her latest broadcast ends as she appears to suffer an on-air mental collapse.

The truth is so much stranger. Margaret is somehow connected to an alien entity, and she’s not alone. Josh O’Connor co-stars as Daniel, a security guard who pilfered hard drives containing proof of aliens on earth.

Ack! So much for any mystery about what we’re dealing with here.

Hot on their trail is Noah (Colin Firth stuck in an embarrassing role), the head of the company where Daniel stole the evidence. Noah wants to get those files back at all costs. The world isn’t ready to learn that we’re not alone in the universe.

Or so he insists.

“Disclosure Day” sounds so intriguing on paper, but nearly every element offers surface-level thinking. Even worse?

The dramatic stakes are all over the map, arguably the film’s biggest lapse. And then there’s Hugo (the great Colman Domingo), trying to thwart Noah’s plans. Hugo is part of an effort to tell the world all about the aliens hidden by dark, nebulous forces.

Who are these forces? Why are so many aliens visiting Earth? What is their purpose? Is there a reason for their repeated visits? If they’re so sophisticated, why are they constantly in peril once they reach our planet?

Make some of this make sense. 

“Disclosure Day” asks endless questions while offering few answers. The story quickly falls into a stale pattern of chase, escape and chase anew.

The talented cast acts its heart out to bring something of consequence to the story. That they collectively fail has more to do with Spielberg’s vision (he wrote the story) than any missed assignment.

Anyone eager for a great alien “reveal” better get ready for a letdown. The creatures look like every generic UFO image drawn over the past 50 years.

There’s zero imagination or wonder afoot. Just boiler-plate FX that might have cost as much as Spielberg’s trailer rental.

Maybe less.

Remember the moment when we first glimpse the aliens in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind?” That classic film laps “Disclosure Day” in every metric possible.

There’s not a single mash potato on screen here, either.

The new film’s finale proves laughable, a crush of actors over-emoting for An Important Message. What message? Darned if we know, beyond a “Kumbaya” sentiment embedded  in the screenplay.

The film features plenty of chase sequences, but they’re typically resolved with a silliness that can’t be shared here for spoiler reasons.

Later, the old Spielberg magic makes a cameo appearance. Our heroes are caught racing with a moving train, a sequence that’s illogical but undeniably cool. That’s the master at work, but it quickly gives way to more sappy sentiment.

That’s been his weakest impulse over the decades.

“Disclosure Day” is all about truth, trust and empathy. That’s fine, but it’s akin to Christopher Reeve making an entire film about Superman ridding the globe of nuclear weapons.

Sorry, Supe. They’ll just make more.

Plus, we’re told the world is on the brink of a global panic, but the film can’t share much of it beyond a few news soundbites.

Spielberg rearranged the pieces of his glorious past for “Disclosure Day.” The effort shows how hard it is to deliver consistently great work over the decades.

HiT or Miss: “Disclosure Day” is a Spielbergian dud, and it hurts to admit that truth.

Source

Posted on

Jane Fonda Cosplays Free Speech Warrior on ‘Daily Show’

Jane Fonda keeps reinventing herself in her 80s.

The 88-year-old Oscar winner spent several years promoting Fire Drill Fridays, an effort to put the spotlight on Climate Change.

That didn’t exactly move the cultural needle, so she’s back with a new cause.

Free Speech.

Fonda joined Jon Stewart on Monday night’s “Daily Show” to talk up her new initiative – the Committee for the First Amendment . Actually, it’s a decades-old group that she revived to smite President Donald Trump.

The group is set to hold a free speech-themed concert with Bette Midler, Rufus Wainwright, Julia Roberts, Patti Smith and more on June 14.

Free speech should rise above partisan politics, meaning even conservatives could support Fonda’s efforts. Except she conveniently ignored sizable free speech attacks from sources including:

Fonda and, to be fair, Stewart looked the other way while free speech was under attack in recent years. 

So what changed?

RELATED: THE FREE SPEECH FIGHT KIMMEL AND CO. IGNORE

Liberals started to suffer from perceived free speech threats, real or imagined. Stephen Colbert didn’t lose his show because of a Trumpian temper tantrum. CBS pulled the plug after admitting “The Late Show” cost the network $40 million a year.

That’s a figure no one has credibly challenged. Must be true, right?

Still, the “optics” forced progressives and the Legacy Media, but we repeat ourselves, to make Colbert a free speech martyr.

Stewart didn’t dare mention her “Hanoi Jane” past. Of course. He let her wax on about her Vietnam War activism unchallenged.

Amazing.

Then, she shoveled some Fake News for Stewart to silently approve.

“We’re being attacked. Comics first,” Fonda said, sans evidence. “Tyranny and comics don’t go well together.”

Tell that to the rodeo clown who lost his career for a silly bit mocking President Barack Obama in 2013. Fonda didn’t rally by his side.

Weird. Not really.

What about the right-leaning comics who faced Big Tech Censorship in recent years?

“Our democracy is being destroyed. Our rights are being taken away,” she prattled on, while Stewart just sat there, a “truth to power” comedian letting her share conspiracies without challenging her facts.

We expect bald partisanship from “The Daily Show.” The hypocrisy of letting Fonda stand up for free speech when neither she nor her progressive pals rallied behind it is off the charts.

Source

Posted on

Cardi B Decries Karmelo Anthony Sentence: ‘Not Justice’

It didn’t take a jury long to decide Karmelo Anthony’s fate.

The 19-year-old was found guilty of first-degree murder Tuesday after stabbing teammate Austin Metcalf, 17, last year. It took less than three hours for the verdict to be reached.

The case grabbed national headlines for ghoulish reasons. The facts were never in doubt, beyond the worst of the worst fever swamps. Metcalf was unarmed. Anthony used a small knife to stab the teen in the heart after a disagreement.

That explains the jury’s quick pace. Singer Cardi B sees it differently.

The “WAP” singer posted a series of comments on X yesterday decrying the 35-year sentence Anthony received for the murder.

She reposted other reactions to the verdict, too, revealing family videos of Anthony before he committed murder.

Stunning.

The singer’s followers teed off on her moral depravity.

Her comments echo some of the most disturbing videos taken outside the courtroom this week.

The outrageous nature of the case produced some stunning revelations.

And, sadly, one of our elected leaders may have hit the lowest low.

Source

Posted on

‘Social Network’ Trailer Teases Left’s War on Free Speech

Liberals use to own the First Amendment.

Think the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, the rise of rebel comics like Lenny Bruce and the defense of controversial art like “Piss Christ” and “The Last Tempatation of Christ.”

The Right, more often than we’d like to admit, suggested certain art shouldn’t be shared far and wide.

It’s nuanced, of course, but left-leaning Americans had the First Amendment’s back. That was never more obvious than via 1995’s “The American President,” written by Aaron Sorkin.

Consider this pivotal speech shared by President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas) in the climactic debate.

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Would Sorkin write that same speech today? Would any left-leaning movie scribe?

Unlikely.

The Left has rallied to smite speech for at least the past decade. Progressive stars cheered when Donald Trump got booted from multiple social media platforms. Leftists stood down as Cancel Culture dominated the landscape, stifling comics’ ability to tell their punch lines on their terms.

RELATED: TEAM KIMMEL M.I.A. ON KEY FREE SPEECH FIGHT

They teamed with Twitter to suppress right-leaning views on that platform. They also harassed, attacked and silenced right-leaning souls to attempted to speak on campuses nationwide.

Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager even made a movie about that silencing movement, one that liberal critics skewered for defending speech.

Now, Sorkin is back as the writer/director of “The Social Reckoning.” The Oct. 9 release is a sequel, of sorts, to the Oscar-winning drama “The Social Network.” The new film apparently savages both Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for their negative impact on the culture.

There’s plenty to be said about Zuckerberg’s digital leadership and social media’s ability to tweak algorithms to gin up a desired result.

Anger. Misinformation. Joy. Fear. Addiction. That’s a worthy subject for any film.

That isn’t the prime target here, though. The film’s October release date is your first clue. The film drops roughly a month before the midterm elections.

Sorkin, a far-Left storyteller, has something he wants to share before ballots are cast.

The film also will touch on, to say the very least, the Jan. 6 riot. That event has been weaponized by the Left and Legacy Media outlets (but we repeat ourselves) to a frightening degree. It’s a combination of Fake News, bias by omission and partisan talking points.

Now, the fracas will get a big-screen closeup. Anyone expecting Sorkin to depict the riot fairly doesn’t know Sorkin or Hollywood in toto.

What’s most interesting about the film’s first trailer? No Jan. 6 footage. Not yet, at least. But it’s coming via subsequent trailers.

Bank on it.

The film’s first trailer even suggests Zuckerberg is a villain for using the First Amendment as his defense. Imagine that. Segments feel like actual talking points from an MS NOW anchor.

“The firehouse of bad information you’re injecting into the air supply is becoming jet-powered,” a character played by comedian Bill Burr rages at Zuckerberg (Jeremy Strong, taking over for Jesse Eisenberg).

Like the Russian Collusion Hoax? The Very Fine People Hoax? The Suckers and Losers Hoax? The Hunter Biden Laptop Isn’t Real Hoax?

The trailer lets the Zuckerberg character respond.

“I’m a free speech absolutist,” Zuckerberg answers in his best boo-hiss tone. “I’m not the one who’s lying, and I’m not stopping them from seeing someone who is.”

Will audiences care about a Facebook investigation that generated mostly yawns? What about Jan. 6, already in history’s rearview mirror?

Does it matter?

The film will get endless media coverage and possible awards consideration for aligning with the progressive playbook on speech and social media.

Free speech can be tricky and, sometimes, potentially dangerous. Sorkin and his ilk want to blame Jan. 6 and, more broadly, the rise fo President Donald Trump on the First Amendment.

Will “The Social Reckoning” crystalize that effort on the Left, and potentially sway some hearts and minds? Or, more charitably, will it highlight the darker elements of social media, something both sides of the aisle must care about?

We’ll see starting Oct. 9.

Source

Posted on

Jimmy Kimmel’s Cruel Attack on Spencer Pratt, Explained

Spencer Pratt’s slide from second place to also-ran in the L.A. Mayoral race stinks to high heaven.

Is it illegal? Unethical? We don’t know, and we may never know.

Either way, watching alleged third-place finisher Nithya Raman rise from the electoral ashes should make everyone squeamish.

Remember mere days ago when a teary-eyed Raman all but conceded in the race?

Jimmy Failla of “Fox Across America” does, reminding listeners of yet another reason to question the slow-moving election results.

Either way, Pratt doesn’t deserve anyone’s disdain. He waged a smart, tough campaign, one that called out his opponents for their terrible track records. He used his personal tragedy to bolster his message, shrewdly using A.I. viral videos and, along the way, share why L.A. needs new leadership.

It’s hard not to respect his hard work, hustle and pain. Some campaigns invite blowback. Heck, they all but beg for it.

Pratt’s campaign was … different. Tell that to Jimmy Kimmel.

The far-Left host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ trashed Team Pratt repeatedly from his broadcast podium. We expected nothing less, since he’s now a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

It’s freedom of speech, man, and if Kimmel wants to let current L.A. Mayor Karen Bass slide on her ineffective leadership, that’s his choice.

We all know it’s a poor one.

Still, what Kimmel did this week felt different. Worse. Far worse.

Kimmel didn’t wonder why the city’s super-slow counting methods apparently reversed the Pratt/Raman electoral odds. He couldn’t question how Raman’s lethargic campaign suddenly caught fire, surpassing vote totals for both Pratt and Bass.

Nope. Instead, he danced on Pratt’s electoral grave. Literally.

First, he invoked President Donald Trump. Of course.

“…the MAGA crowd is now using this to try to claim the election was rigged.”

What sane person doesn’t suspect foul play? Does Kimmel really believe Raman suddenly came out of nowhere to beat Pratt the way she did?

Doesn’t he sense foul play, too, even if he preferred the outcome?

Next, he remembered that Pratt vowed to leave the city that allowed his house to burn down should he lose the race. So Kimmel kicked him on his way out the door.

“And Spencer, if you’re watching, we are so, so sorry to see you go. We’re going to miss the hell out of you. You’re a man of your word, and you gotta go.”

“I know things might be tight right now, especially with the out-of-state donation money running out. Moving is expensive, so to help you out we rented you a U-Haul,” Kimmel joked. “Our staff spent the whole day decorating for you, and everybody will notice you and wave goodbye as you leave.”

…Mazel Tov and goodbye, Spencer Pratt!”

We don’t expect laughter or comedy from Kimmel any more. He’s a propagandist, and a dishonest one at that. This felt just mean and vindictive, a terrible look for any public personality.

Pratt, never one to stay silent, had the last word.

Pratt can hold his head high after his short, but hard-fought campaign. Can Kimmel say the same?

Source

Posted on

Kimmel’s Graham Platner Joke Proves Trump Broke His Brain

It finally happened.

Jimmy Kimmel mentioned Graham Platner, the Democrat with more scandals than the Nixon and Clinton administrations, combined.

Late-night activists have been loath to mention the “oyster farmer” turned Senatorial candidate for obvious reasons. Every ounce of Platner’s persona is riddled with career-ending accusations.

And, of course, the fact that he sported a Nazi tattoo on his chest for 18 years before being shamed to ink over it for political purposes.

Seems newsy, no? Not to Kimmel and co.

Yet the host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” brought Platner up Wednesday night. Now, “The Daily Show” dipped a microscopic toe in his scandalous waters before extensively shredding a Colorado Republican.

Victor Marx deserved the comic thrashing, but so does Platner.

What Kimmel said about Platner defies belief. The essential Newsbusters share the surreal monologue on the matter.

“There were primary elections in four states yesterday. In Maine, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for Graham Platner for Senate despite a number of embarrassing scandals, including revelations of a Nazi-esque tattoo on his body, sexting with women while he’s married, and allegations of abuse…”

“If Democrats cannot get him into the Senate, word is the Republicans are planning to nominate him for president in 2028.”

Huh?

No, really. Huh?

First of all, it’s not Nazi-esque. It’s a full-scale Nazi tattoo that lingered on his body for nearly two decades. Seems like great fodder for a truth-teller like Kimmel, no?

Secondly, the GOP wants nothing to do with a far-Left character like Platner, and bringing Republicans into the story smacks of desperation.

At best.

That’s Kimmel in 2026, the most popular late-night comedian who’s willing to burn every ounce of his credibility in his waning days.

After all, both he and David Letterman know the late-night format is on its last legs. He’s just hastening its departure.

Source

Posted on

Can Hollywood Still Tell the American Story?

For generations, America told stories about itself.

Not perfect stories, but stories filled with triumph and failure, courage and contradiction, sin and redemption. Stories that reminded ordinary Americans who they were, where they came from, what had been sacrificed before they arrived, and what kind of people they were supposed to become.

Those stories once came from everywhere.

From the old publishing houses of Manhattan’s literary world. From Tin Pan Alley. From Hollywood at its best. From classrooms, front porches, churches, novels, poetry, film scores, war movies, westerns, biographies, patriotic songs, and family conversations around dinner tables.

The point wasn’t blind nationalism.

The point was inheritance.Unlikely Life of Oliver Atkinson coverUnlikely Life of Oliver Atkinson cover

A civilization passes along its values through story long before it passes them through politics.

Which is why I’ve found myself wondering whether many of our major cultural institutions still love America in any recognizable sense at all.

Do today’s artistic gatekeepers still see this nation, despite all its flaws, as something worthy of gratitude, preservation, affection or admiration? Do our films, novels, television shows, popular music and elite literary circles still communicate reverence for liberty, faith, sacrifice, family, courage, service, and the astonishing historical achievement that is the American experiment?

Or have patriotism, constitutional reverence, and traditional faith increasingly become objects of suspicion, embarrassment, satire or deconstruction?

These questions are not imagined.

For years, surveys have consistently shown a significant ideological divide between many Americans and the entertainment industry itself. Researchers at USC’s Lear Center have documented the influence entertainment media has on public attitudes and social perceptions, while broader polling continues to show large portions of the country believing major entertainment institutions lean culturally and politically in one direction.

That doesn’t mean artists should produce shallow propaganda or government-approved patriotism. Great art requires honesty. America’s story includes profound failures and egregious sins alongside extraordinary achievements.

Mature patriotism should be able to acknowledge both. But somewhere along the way, much of modern culture stopped distinguishing between honest critique and reflexive contempt.

And that matters.

Because culture does not merely reflect society. It helps shape it.

Why Hollywood Matters in the Big Picture

Hollywood, publishing, music, television, literature, and art do not simply follow cultural norms; they actively participate in creating them. They influence what societies celebrate, mock, admire, desire, reject, normalize, and aspire toward. They shape moral imagination. They help determine whether younger generations feel connected to their civilization or alienated from it.

For decades, some of America’s finest artistic works understood this instinctively.

The greatest American films, novels, songs and stories often carried a quiet confidence in the country itself, not because America was flawless, but because it was striving toward something larger than power, tribalism, or cynicism. There was an understanding that freedom was rare. That self-government required virtue. That faith, sacrifice, courage, and civic responsibility mattered.

Even when older films or novels criticized America, they often did so from within a deeper framework of belief in the nation’s underlying promise and goodness.

Today, that confidence feels weaker.

Irony has replaced reverence. Cynicism often passes for sophistication. Patriotism is frequently portrayed as simplistic while anti-American sentiment is treated as intellectually fashionable or morally elevated. Traditional faith is often depicted either sentimentally or suspiciously, rarely with the seriousness, intelligence, or artistic richness it deserves.

And to be fair, Christians and patriots share some responsibility here, too.

The Faith-Based Genre Suffers from Growing Pains

Too often, faith-based or patriotic entertainment has settled for safe messaging while neglecting artistic excellence. Sometimes the storytelling lacks confidence, subtlety, complexity, beauty or emotional depth. Audiences can sense when art exists merely to deliver a lesson instead of telling a compelling human story.

The truth is that great art requires conviction and craftsmanship.

The old Hollywood epics, great American novels, sweeping historical films, timeless patriotic songs and morally serious dramas worked because they believed in what they were saying without sacrificing excellence. They understood that stories change people emotionally before they ever persuade them intellectually.

Which raises another question: Have we simply forgotten how to tell these stories well?

Have we allowed history itself to become lifeless? Reduced to marble statues, disconnected dates, shallow slogans, and classroom memorization stripped of human emotion? Many tell me learning history is like eating dry oatmeal. I assure them that real history is flavorful and anything but boring!

It is filled with desperate people making impossible choices under enormous pressure. It is filled with courage, betrayal, sacrifice, faith, weakness, perseverance and redemption. The American story includes horrors and heroism alike.

  • Slavery and abolition
  • Division and reconciliation
  • Failure and reform
  • World wars fought against monstrous evil
  • Humanitarian aid delivered across oceans
  • Scientific breakthroughs. Economic freedom that lifted millions
  • Religious liberty unlike most of human history had ever known

People did not flood to America for generations because it was perfect. They came because even imperfect freedom was still extraordinary compared to much of the world.

As America’s 250th birthday approaches, I found myself wrestling with many of these questions personally.

And somewhere in that process, I realized I may have allowed some of the wonder of America’s founding to drift too far into abstraction myself.

So I began researching again.

Then eventually, I sat down and wrote a novel.

Author David Jones IIIAuthor David Jones IIIAuthor David Jones III

“The Unlikely Life of Oliver Atkinson” tells the story of a runaway indentured orphan who arrives in colonial America aboard The Beaver – one of the actual ships raided during the Boston Tea Party. Eventually taken in by Paul Revere and immersed in the culture of the Sons of Liberty, Oliver experiences both a spiritual awakening and an American awakening against the backdrop of the Revolution itself.

But the deeper reason I wrote it had little to do with nostalgia.

I wrote it because I wanted history to feel alive again.

I wanted readers to experience the founding not as frozen mythology or political propaganda, but through the eyes of someone vulnerable, uncertain, frightened, hopeful, and searching for meaning. In many ways, Oliver himself mirrors the colonies: young, unformed, lacking representation, struggling to understand freedom, identity, sacrifice and purpose.

That is where storytelling still matters.

True history honestly told keeps the patriotic fires burning far better than slogans ever will.

And faith matters too.

Regardless of modern discomfort around the subject, it is impossible to seriously study early America without recognizing the enormous role biblical thought played in shaping the moral framework of the nation. Locke, Montesquieu, and Paine mattered enormously. But so did Scripture. So did sermons. So did the belief that rights came not from governments, but from God Himself.

That influence shaped the founders far more deeply than many modern retellings are comfortable admitting.

Neither China-like Messaging Nor Self-Hatred on Parade

America does not need sanitized propaganda as it approaches 250 years. But neither does it need endless cultural self-loathing masquerading as sophistication.

What we need are truthful stories. Rich stories. Human stories. Stories capable of holding complexity without abandoning gratitude. Stories that remind us we inherited something rare, fragile, flawed and still profoundly worth preserving.

Perhaps if our art once again reflects the best of the American spirit – courage, humility, sacrifice, faith, perseverance, liberty, redemption – it might not divide us further, but help call us back toward one another.

Toward memory.

Toward gratitude.

Toward what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”

And perhaps, with Providence still guiding imperfect people as it always has, America’s next great era of literature, music, film, and storytelling is still ahead of us.

David Jones III is a historical fiction writer living in Myrtle Beach, SC. His book is available on Amazon. www.davidjones3.com.

Source