The Evil Brokeback Agenda

I waded into the morass of the O'Reilly Factor so you, dear readers, don't have to. Tonight, Bill asked whether or not there is a liberal or homosexual agenda behind the heavy promotion of Ang Lee's film in newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post.

Bill's guests included entertainment reporter Jeanne Wolf and conservative movie critic Michael Medved. It's an interesting discussion on media bias, with nice things said all around about the film, but also typical posturing about the "homosexual agenda" being "rammed down throats."

O'Reilly does have a fairly amusing response to a question posed by Wolf at the end of the segment.

Malco-vision has the clip.

[Watch video – 7:27, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 7:27, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Comments

[Yum Yum]

O'Reilly, even by criticizing the film, is giving it free publicity. But I really think he doesn't care either way. He's squeezed it enough for material for his show.

That being said, I'm actually a big O'Reilly fan. I always find myself agreeing enthusiastically or disagreeing vigorously and cussing at the TV screen when watching the show. It's simply entertaining.

[Essem]

I watch O'Reilly from time to time and often agree with him, sometimes don't. But Medved gives me agita --with that constant s**t-eating grin, he reminds me of Pat Robertson--, so I switched the channel after he started in. My email to O'[email protected] was: "Righties moralize,lefties politicize. The film reveals emotional truths. That's what art is for."

[ugh]

I took a class on Human sexuality. and i think Oriley is a homophobic. becuase there are different degrees/types of homophobia...
and

"I dont care what they do in their own bedrooms as long as they are not flaunting it....as long as they dont hit on me"
is a homophobic statement.

and of course the most crucial evidence is when the woman said Go watch the film, O'riley said "i'm scared"

[hank]

I don't he has to worry about being "hit on".

[sonicfrog]

The bit everyone seems to miss is the statement about how horrible and tragic that the families lives are ruined, how the marriages are broken apart because the two husbands are secretly gay. And Medved somehow dismissively glides right over that very point, that the two cowboys, if they would have been able to marry each other, would not have married women and had the resulting broken families that he so upset about. I like Medved, but, like many conservative, the "gay thing" is such a blind spot, just like the "conception = new human" thing is so beyond the scope of consideration of the uber pro choice libs.

It's strange how ones politico-philosophical views can blind and constrain us so easily.

[hank]

True.
But you have to consider the time and place. Was it the fifties? Marriage?
And the women were kept completely in the dark about almost everything.
As far as Medved goes. I think he's an idiot. most film critics have gone crazy sitting in dark rooms watching flickering lights.