The answer is that the liberal control of the media does not exist in a vacuum. It evolved from the primordial soup of “progressive” morality that penetrates the society, including some of the audiences and the commercial sponsors. It’s a support circle (ruka ruku moyet).

For instance, when a nonsensical “progressive” movie that nobody wants to see fails at the box office, like “Children of Men,” the Movie Academy gives it three Oscar nominations which raises its box office by 20%. Plus critics give it the highest rating because it matches their dystopian vision of the world.

Universal Pictures still lost $10 million on “Children of Men.” One could hope that would teach them a lesson – but they had stepped on this rake many times before with no positive effect on their ideas. THAT is a real dystopia of our time.

It’s sort of a never-ending story with the infinite number of sequels. So no, I don’t envision a near collapse of progressivism in the media.

Fighting the media itself is not very productive. To change anything in this picture one must drain the juices of the self-destructive “progressive” morality that feeds it.

Anyhow, I would like to see someone elaborate more on two pionts I find missing in the essay:

- How did the situation described – liberal control of the media – managed to emerge in the first place? How did all those “progressives” seized the elites – against the laws of profit?

- If Oleg’s analysis is right, we shall see in the near future the collapse of all those “anti-capitalist” media institutions – exactly because “the laws of profit are there, like the laws of logic”. If so, what keeps them going for so long?

Passion of the Christ was marketed outside of normal chanels even while Gibson was having problems with mainstream distribution. A number of other films are using the internet to market the DVDs directly because of lack of support from distributors.

You write well. You are obviously incensed and dedicated to detailing the problem with “Hollywood.” So, why don’t you, personally, make the effort to create a production group that would actually create “an uplifting war movie in which the good guys win?”

Your detailed criticism and your specific points regarding the positive, capitalistic, profitable potential that such movies or television shows would have is right on the money.
So, why not create a new paradigm?
Why not make movies that will give you what you want?
Why can’t you find those who have the money; those who have the skills; and those who can produce and distribute movies and television that would send the useful, positive and profitable message that you are espousing?

Your essay has pulled together thoughts and “feelings” I have had for many years. I have never understood why there are no movies today like “The Longest Day” or a “Bridge to Far” or “Patton”. I know I would be in a car and at the movies in a second if a movie like these came out. I have unthinkingly stopped watching the network news, going to the movies and reading newspapers offline. Now I understand why. Instead I surf the web for my news, listen to Radio for important events, and watch DVD’s of movies/TV shows so that I can shut it off when the left’s message starts getting boring. Even Fox News is starting to go left (recent immigration debate shows this IMO.)

Thank you again. One of the best essays that I have read in a long time.