MoveOnBostonLegal.org
By GaryWiram Posted in Hollywood — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“Legal Dramedy”, is how Wikipedia defines the format of the TV series Boston Legal. Living TV describes the show as a “… critically acclaimed and Emmy Award-winning quirky legal drama …” That is a good summary of why I first became enamored with this brilliantly entertaining program. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly common to hear the production characterized as “shamelessly liberal”. With that, Boston Legal’s brilliance and entertainment value has continued to decline and its charm is rapidly fading for me.
Ironically, in a recent episode, entitled “Tabloid Nation”, Boston Legal, itself, addresses my very concern. In that episode, during one of his much ballyhooed “arguments”, James Spader, as Attorney Alan Shore says, “… today you can switch back and forth between the right-wing news and the left-wing news. Whatever happened to Huntley? Brinkley? John Chancellor? To news that was just the news? Now we have partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” I want to ask something very similar … Whatever happened to Seinfeld? Frasier? Tony Soprano? To brilliant entertainment that was just brilliant entertainment?
Now, it’s Boston Legal that gives us one-sided “… partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” Worse yet, its cloaked in the pretense that it’s still really just entertainment. There’s a Biblical caution about this … In what is known as The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:15), Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” And, there’s a Biblical caution about the results too … in Revelation 3:16, the Lord says, "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” If Boston Legal wants to be brilliantly entertaining, I believe it still can. If it wants to be a “shamelessly liberal” public policy advocacy group, it can probably do that too. By trying to be one while pretending to be the other, it squanders the significant value it once had and that makes me want to vomit … or, at least, tune out.
Although the waste of what Boston Legal once was is a shame, what it has become is aggravating a wound that our nation desperately needs healed. In a more recent Boston Legal episode, entitled “The Court Supreme”, more one-sided “… partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” is featured in another Spader/Shore “argument”. This has received much acclaim from those to whom this sort of thing appeals. For me, it was another glaring example of the continuing political decline of our nation – i.e. the politics of fully pitting ourselves against those who don’t agree with our views, based on any difference we can find. As I said in an earlier posting, entitled Rediscovering America's Strength, our nation needs urgent care for this wound, through “… rediscovering the strength that made America great in the first place ... the synergy of the best of our differing ideas.” With that in mind, reluctantly, I plan to start tuning out of Boston Legal, as well as other programs that choose a similar route.
From Boston Legal Wiki:
"The TV Show Boston Legal is an American legal drama and comedy created by David E. Kelley (a multi-Emmy award winning American writer, executive producer, and creator of TV Shows) and has been airing since October 3, 2004."
Gary is decrying the fact that when the program first began it was relatively neutral politcally. It did agressively tackle 'issues of the day' type material and at the beginning was almost even handed!! It has since increasingly moved to the left.
FWIW I agree
I still watch the show because of William Shatner.
But I will admit that the left leaning of the show is getting on my nerves.
The show is very radical left they portray Shatner's character as a womanizer and zero morals while Spader's character in an eppy recently attacked Supreme Court and all the conservtaive judges (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts) and yet did nothing with liberals
I've never watched an episode in my life, but SCOTUSblog linked to a Slate article about the episode, lauding it as the closest thing most people will get to being in the court itself. I scrounged around to find the oral argument online and eventually watched the ten minutes or so devoted to the oral argument.
It was absolutely and thoroughly ridiculous.
The entire argument was precisely that which legal arguments are not. After perhaps a minute of appeal to facts, the entire argument devolved into appeals to morality and ad hominem attacks on the justices of the court. It made me want to scream. No legal representation will ever do this; they know their only chance to win is to present their arguments and convince the swing justices that their side is the correct one. Insulting justices will do nothing to influence these justices, and it will dispose the judges who didn't agree with you to work even harder to convince their fellows not to side with you. The show didn't even pretend it was a good argument -- the man next to the attorney arguing the case was shaking his head sighing the entire time. For this to be presented as even slightly representative of how the real Supreme Court works is the height of irresponsibility.
It's almost enough for me to come around to Justice Scalia's views on public release of audio/video from Supreme Court cases (that it should be curtailed).
what Star Trek was to science:
Fiction.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Game it's nice that you're hyperpartisan
by kowalskiVA-2
by dittoheadOn the other hand, let's not sugarcoat it
by kowalskiAh, a movie buff
by DrJaysonFosterI know.
by kowalskiActually he is a pretty
by dld1717If it was under U.N. "control" since 1992, who controlled it
by Tim SchiefereckeIs LA6 going to be hard to win?
by SteveLAWhy is this race even close?
by shooflyguy68I believe that a lot more than 550
by kowalskiI agree with you, gamecock
by pilgrimMercy on his soul? Did he kill or rape someone we didn't
by Tim SchiefereckeThe physical size is nominal, that's true ...
by rbdwigginsYou are absolutely right
by DrJaysonFosterI'll bet pilgrim agrees with me - nt
by gamecockA Good Point
by KC
blog advertising is good for you

get your job site
at simplyhired.com




And to us belonging that group, everything you've written here is in code. Any chance you could give us the decoding ring?
You seems like you have something substantive to say, but right now, unfortunately, your post is as intelligible as if it'd been written in Urdu.
And Rightly So!