> There is a well-known idea that liberal Hollywood indoctrinates audiences, leading them to change their values or beliefs. The author spends half the article

> There is a well-known idea that liberal Hollywood indoctrinates audiences, leading them to change their values or beliefs. The author spends half the article on what is essentially a left-wing fairy tale that posits the question, "If the Democrats had political rhetoric even half as effective as the Republicans , what might it sound like?" Putting that show in the context of "liberal indoctrination" is like writing an entire article on Bolero and then stating, "A lot of people find Ravel's music blustery and repetitive." I also love how the author uses ambiguity to hedge in that sentence. E.g., change how? Say I give the example of Zero Dark Thirty repeating the right-wing propaganda of its former-CIA consultants to rationalize the CIA torture regime so a lot of powerful people can continue evading jail time. I go on to explain that this is par for the course for the modern Hollywood U.S. war movie with very few exceptions. Well, the author never said the indoctrination was toward liberal values-- they only implied it was effective in changing ideas and values. So now they can freely pivot to one of a number of potentially contradictory positions at will (military movies are an exception, Hollywood liberal are only liberal in name, author doesn't actually believe the trope and was only using it as an example, Hollywood liberalism is uncritical and therefore subject to exploitation from other powerful propagandists like the Pentagon/China, etc.). In light of that it is worth noting-- especially on HN-- that there is writing in the humanities that doesn't merely "ask questions," but also does research, provides evidence, and takes a stance based on that evidence. This isn't an example of that.