Jay Hernandez and Twitter

[Gamer77]

I took the poll literally and went for the second choice -'Yes - taking a side alienates a portion of the audience'

Personally I avoid most large social media outlets (facebook, twitter, etc.) save to communicate with friends or family I'm nowhere near within visiting distance of. And I'll agree that in the past it never bothered me what political affiliations Tom Selleck or any other actor held. But that's me. but this isn't quite the same generation.

When I grew up you set down to radio or television and you watched it- rushed to grab a snack or to the restroom during adverts - then back again before your favourite show was back on. Today we have people who watch and don't watch. They set there with their pads or phones paying equal or more attention to those things than what they're supposed to be watching. This probably means, assuming they're browsing things associated with the show at that time, that there's a higher chance of being exposed to a site or a social media entry run by one of the principal actors of the show. They could even get there via a link from someone they follow or know peripherally -sort how it's easy to find yourself, middle of the night, on the weird side of youtube and wondering how you got there.

Not everyone, mind, but many are easily swayed or affected by such discoveries. We also have to keep in mind that In Selleck's day a tabloid rag could make them up and print them(and be subjected to litigation) but otherwise it was easier to be discreet about your beliefs for professionalism's sake(unless one ,against all better judgement, didn't wish to be.) The lack of easy information created more of an air of mystery surrounding stars back then and this also made it easier in some ways to cultivate and manage an image, particularly for those who had substance problems or whose sexual appetites contradicted the socially accepted norms. Today stars, and near everyone else, just put everything out there heedlessly. Many times it seems they're expected to or perhaps told to do so for the sake of exposure.

That said, some people are indeed affected by a star's political views and unable to divorce them from the role being played on the small or large screen. One need look no further than the controversy surrounding Jane Fonda for that.

[Luther's nephew Dobie]

I took the poll literally and went for the second choice -'Yes - taking a side alienates a portion of the audience'

Personally I avoid most large social media outlets (facebook, twitter, etc.) save to communicate with friends or family I'm nowhere near within visiting distance of. And I'll agree that in the past it never bothered me what political affiliations Tom Selleck or any other actor held. But that's me. but this isn't quite the same generation.
When I grew up you set down to radio or television and you watched it- rushed to grab a snack or to the restroom during adverts - then back again before your favourite show was back on. Today we have people who watch and don't watch. They set there with their pads or phones paying equal or more attention to those things than what they're supposed to be watching. This probably means, assuming they're browsing things associated with the show at that time, that there's a higher chance of being exposed to a site or a social media entry run by one of the principal actors of the show. They could even get there via a link from someone they follow or know peripherally -sort how it's easy to find yourself, middle of the night, on the weird side of youtube and wondering how you got there.
Not everyone, mind, but many are easily swayed or affected by such discoveries. We also have to keep in mind that In Selleck's day a tabloid rag could make them up and print them(and be subjected to litigation) but otherwise it was easier to be discreet about your beliefs for professionalism's sake(unless one ,against all better judgement, didn't wish to be.) The lack of easy information created more of an air of mystery surrounding stars back then and this also made it easier in some ways to cultivate and manage an image, particularly for those who had substance problems or whose sexual appetites contradicted the socially accepted norms. Today stars, and near everyone else, just put everything out there heedlessly. Many times it seems they're expected to or perhaps told to do so for the sake of exposure.
That said, some people are indeed affected by a star's political views and unable to divorce them from the role being played on the small or large screen. One need look no further than the controversy surrounding Jane Fonda for that.

Gamer 77,
What a incisive, well written post, thank you for sharing it. I have learned my lesson in regards to finding out too much background of a star one
admires. If I saw Rex Harrison was going to star in a old flick I would make a point to catch it. Then I found out what a complete rotter he was,
beyond abusive to anyone he deemed "lower" in social rank, a vile racist, enjoying cruelty for cruelties sake if only to display his wit as when
he dismantled the stout wife of a mayor at a reception for having the audacity to appear in a designer gown. Plus being beyond cheap, he was
caught stealing the waiter's tip at a NYC restaurant that his dinner companion had left.
Not to mention driving a woman to suicide over his betrayals which he would insist on telling her about.
Not that Jay Hernandez is remotely like Harrison but I'd rather not know his politics or of his off set behavior.

"Curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought him back"...Al Lewis

[K Hale]

LOL! I didn't know until Conch posted the question and I looked it up. I was shocked that he had only 22,000 followers. I thought the guy had some kind of cult-ish fan base? Anyway, I stick with my original theory that the influence of the twitter-sphere is vastly overrated.

He doesn't talk much about politics anymore, but Tom Selleck was no stranger to politics during the show's run. He campaigned for Reagan, did commercials for the National Review, and later was NRA spokesman. Do you think his politics affected the ratings of MPI in either direction?

I think the way Selleck handled politics was a little more subtle. He wasn't in your face on panels attacking or defending positions, he just put his name towards things he supported, and did it on his own time.

As for the effect on ratings, I don't believe it had a negative effect, considering the subject matter of the show and the more conservative lean Selleck had, it would they would compliment each other a bit. It's not like he was off sitting in a anti-aircraft gun of an enemy or anything like that.

Again, a sample size of one, but I never paid attention to Selleck's politics when I was growing up watching MPI. Even when I started rewatching as an adult, and knew a little bit about TS's politics, they were completely irrelevant to me. I just enjoyed the MPI universe.

The media landscape is very different today compared to the 1980s. Who knows whether or not TS would have a Twitter account or would feel more compelled to be vocal in today's world.

Considering the major role TS played in MPI, both on and off screen, it's reasonable to assume his ethics (maybe politics too?) seeped into the writing, but I never thought of the show as pro-NRA or pro-Reagan.

Do some folks feel like the reboot has a political bent?

Well, it’s not really a question of whether Selleck would. He’s still alive after all, and is younger than some actors who do have a social media presence. He would be doing it if he wanted to. Apparently he does not.

[Amian]

I think the way Selleck handled politics was a little more subtle. He wasn't in your face on panels attacking or defending positions, he just put his name towards things he supported, and did it on his own time.

As for the effect on ratings, I don't believe it had a negative effect, considering the subject matter of the show and the more conservative lean Selleck had, it would they would compliment each other a bit. It's not like he was off sitting in a anti-aircraft gun of an enemy or anything like that.

Again, a sample size of one, but I never paid attention to Selleck's politics when I was growing up watching MPI. Even when I started rewatching as an adult, and knew a little bit about TS's politics, they were completely irrelevant to me. I just enjoyed the MPI universe.

The media landscape is very different today compared to the 1980s. Who knows whether or not TS would have a Twitter account or would feel more compelled to be vocal in today's world.

Considering the major role TS played in MPI, both on and off screen, it's reasonable to assume his ethics (maybe politics too?) seeped into the writing, but I never thought of the show as pro-NRA or pro-Reagan.

Do some folks feel like the reboot has a political bent?

Well, it’s not really a question of whether Selleck would. He’s still alive after all, and is younger than some actors who do have a social media presence. He would be doing it if he wanted to. Apparently he does not.

For sure, Selleck could now, but does not want seem to want to do so. (Never checked to see if he has a social media account) But perhaps he might have chosen to do so at a different point in his life. We all have adopted and given up certain things in our life for various reasons over the years. To keep the focus on Selleck, perhaps he did more interviews or other things (like Battle of the Network Stars) that he may have now decided are unnecessary or tired.

[K Hale]

Now that he has all the arthritis, maybe he’d have given his joints a break and cut out some of the athletics.

[Amian]

Now that he has all the arthritis, maybe he’d have given his joints a break and cut out some of the athletics.

Oh wow, didn't know about that. Does he have rheumatoid arthritis, by chance? (Don't worry, you don't need to answer... I'll ask ol' Google.)

[K Hale]

Now that he has all the arthritis, maybe he’d have given his joints a break and cut out some of the athletics.

Oh wow, didn't know about that. Does he have rheumatoid arthritis, by chance? (Don't worry, you don't need to answer... I'll ask ol' Google.)

Not sure what kind but Google will know. What I saw said that on some days he was using a stunt double for things like getting out of a car quickly. Poor guy.

Admittedly when I saw the words “unnecessary” and “tired,” sports was the first thing to come to mind...

[T.Q.]

Question for the Maniacs . . . Jay Hernandez is fairly active on Twitter and often using strong language or in a very political way.

Do you feel this effects ratings, and, if so, do you think it helps or hurts?

Seen his tweets recently.

Today he called 60M Americans Nazis.

That can’t be good for ratings.

[sandbiscuits]

Question for the Maniacs . . . Jay Hernandez is fairly active on Twitter and often using strong language or in a very political way.

Do you feel this effects ratings, and, if so, do you think it helps or hurts?

Seen his tweets recently.

Today he called 60M Americans Nazis.

That can’t be good for ratings.

That's a heck of a quote. He just put that out there like that?

[K Hale]

Can we see perhaps a screen shot of this tweet?

[ConchRepublican]

Question for the Maniacs . . . Jay Hernandez is fairly active on Twitter and often using strong language or in a very political way.

Do you feel this effects ratings, and, if so, do you think it helps or hurts?

Seen his tweets recently.

Today he called 60M Americans Nazis.

That can’t be good for ratings.

That's a heck of a quote. He just put that out there like that?

Not in so many words, but an image is worth a thousand of them . . .

[ConchRepublican]

And these are things things I started the thread about.

Not to debate the subject of the post itself - he may believe this, and I understand these are divisive times - but what does this accomplish?

As a celebrity, as the lead actor, the focus of a show, it's not a stretch to say hundreds of people's livelihood's rely upon him and how the viewers relate to him. Few shows continue without a connection between the main actor and the audience, it's that relationship that makes casting so important. Why would you risk alienating half of your audience in such an aggressive way?

There are many other ways he can use his celebrity to support positions, politicians or causes he feels strongly about without aggressively insulting what I'm sure is actually not half, but a majority of his audience. (my thought is progressives don't make up more than half of a shoot 'em up's viewing audience).

I also understand this is a delicate topic. I took a risk starting this thread initially, but with the way the Diversity thread is being handled I think it shows that we can intelligently and respectfully discuss these things. Not addressing these topics at all, as it relates to our favorite show (and it's legacy), seems like a negative in that a piece of the puzzle can be missing.

[T.Q.]

Seen his tweets recently.

Today he called 60M Americans Nazis.

That can’t be good for ratings.

That's a heck of a quote. He just put that out there like that?[/quote]

Not in so many words, but an image is worth a thousand of them . . .

[/quote]

Yes, that's the one.

Then he proceeds to call people who are upset effin' idiots and such.

I personally don't get it.

I'm Canadian* so have no skin in the game with US politics.

However, with Trump's kids marrying Jews, Ivanka converting to Judaism, and in effect making Trump's Grandchildren Jewish, I find these Tweets rather distasteful.

Plus the fact they MUST hurt ratings. Although I don't think it went viral or anything. Jay is not that popular.

* Far-left progressives called our Prime Minister Harper "Hitler" constantly. Even though Canada moved to #1 Ranked Country in the World for Diversity, Equality and Tolerance during his 10 years. Go figure.

[ConchRepublican]

Again, a sample size of one, but I never paid attention to Selleck's politics when I was growing up watching MPI. Even when I started rewatching as an adult, and knew a little bit about TS's politics, they were completely irrelevant to me. I just enjoyed the MPI universe.

The media landscape is very different today compared to the 1980s. Who knows whether or not TS would have a Twitter account or would feel more compelled to be vocal in today's world.

Considering the major role TS played in MPI, both on and off screen, it's reasonable to assume his ethics (maybe politics too?) seeped into the writing, but I never thought of the show as pro-NRA or pro-Reagan.

Do some folks feel like the reboot has a political bent?

Well, it’s not really a question of whether Selleck would. He’s still alive after all, and is younger than some actors who do have a social media presence. He would be doing it if he wanted to. Apparently he does not.

For sure, Selleck could now, but does not want seem to want to do so. (Never checked to see if he has a social media account) But perhaps he might have chosen to do so at a different point in his life. We all have adopted and given up certain things in our life for various reasons over the years. To keep the focus on Selleck, perhaps he did more interviews or other things (like Battle of the Network Stars) that he may have now decided are unnecessary or tired.

Selleck has made it clear in the past he's not a "computer guy". I think I saw in an interview a few years ago that he has only sent one email in his life, he doesn't feel the need for it. I wonder if that will change now with his arthritis, he doesn't seem the "dictate a letter" type and hand writing one must be very difficult for him.

[K Hale]

I’m staying away from the Diversity thread for a reason.

All I’ll say is that I see the parallels Hernandez is drawing.

That said, I’m still not watching the reboot.