Anti Americanism Abroad Summary

In the article “That’s Entertainment? Hollywood’s Contribution to Anti-Americanism Abroad” (2002), author Michael Medved argues about the histrionic representation of American values in its pop culture and ensuing global antagonism towards the nation. The author’s alma mater includes Yale University, from where he obtained a degree in American History. His career encompasses three decades as a talk show host, author, political commentator and film critic. Moreover, he has participated in political campaigning and screenwriting for film and TV productions. His notable works include The 10 Big Lies about America: Combating Destructive Distortions about Our Nation, The Fifty Worst Films of All Time and The Hollywood Hall of Shame: The Most Expensive
Flops in Movie History. Medved is a prolific writer with analytical proficiency amassed through his work in politics and film-making. However, his academic qualifications do not adequately supplement the work due to his lack of expertise in American film history and sociology. The article is grounded on propositions derived from the aforementioned subjects and the author is therefore moderately qualified to compose this article. Summary In the article “That’s Entertainment? Hollywood’s Contribution to Anti-Americanism Abroad” (2002), author Michael Medved elaborates on the misconstrual of American culture in Hollywood productions and consequent arousal of worldwide antipathy. The author discusses the impact of portraying violence and sexual indulgence as conventional values and resulting equivocation of American culture to brutality and vulgarity. Furthermore, he elucidates on the demographic inequality in televised media, with magnified representation of social minorities like homosexuals and a paltry projection of the church-going mass. The author goes on to comment that this nihilistic approach towards filmmaking comes at the expense of national security. In addition, he asserts that current American film-makers overlook Hollywood’s golden heritage and engender works that cater entertainment over substance. Finally, the author concludes by stating that a balanced portrayal of American life in filmic renditions could globally alter unfavorable perceptions of the nation’s value system. Objection The article is at the pinnacle of distinction in terms of the support strategies employed. The author uses a synthesis of studies, statistics and expert opinions, bestowing wondrous fulcrum to his argument. On a superficial level, the article seems to incorporate all quintessential prerequisites of an infallible disposition. However, a delve into the finer details of the work reveals a hypothesis constructed heavily on the pillars of anecdotal evidence and logical fallacies. The author opens his argument firmly through a catchy episode of anti-Americanism but forsakes subject neutrality by ambushing the opponents of his theory.
He resorts to ad hominem in paragraph 1, exemplified by the usage of the term ‘glib’ to describe those who hold contradictory interpretations of anti-Americanism. The author then proceeds to commit another logical sin in paragraph 2, as he attempts to establish negative imagery as the prime cause of animosity towards America without providing substantial evidence. In addition, he pursues confirmation of his theory through an ineffective amalgamation of a mob violence incident and President Bush’s commentary. Albeit the use of support strategies through paragraphs 3 and 4 is appreciable, the subjective nature of presented evidence makes it inept at verifying the argument’s accuracy. In like manner, the author commences powerful rebuttals against renowned film director Paul Verhoeven’s controversial remark on movie violence in paragraph 7. Yet again, thirty years of ground-breaking research by media analyst George Gerbner falls apart in the face of the author’s hasty generalization of statistics, as depicted by the phrase in line one of the same paragraph “...every statistical analysis of the past...”. Furthermore, in paragraph 9, the author formulates a clause in his argument that describes the inherent correlation of violence and American entertainment. This section offers an engrossing read but was poorly aided by anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, an account of the disproportionate representation of homosexuality in American productions was strongly supported by experimental data from the highly credible Center for Media and Public Affairs. The momentum thus gathered takes a leap of faith when Medved expands his concept with actress Kim Cattrall’s exposition rather than expert opinion. Consequently, this trivial example distracts audience away from paragraph 13 which contains relevant
statistics. Moreover, the content of page 261 is marked by flawed arguments, including exaggerated claims of America being the most religious nation in the western world. His subsequent onslaught of Oscar winning “American Beauty” indicates nothing but the texas sharpshooter fallacy of attacking cherry-picked examples that suit his argument while willfully ignoring Hollywood productions that depict traditional American values. In like manner, there is a disconnection between evidence and thesis in paragraph 17, wherein the statistics from Motion Picture of America and University of California corresponding to R-rated movies are erroneously used to prove social dysfunction. A singular perspective on a multidimensional issue like social dysfunction indicates inaccuracy in research. Paragraphs 19 through 24 includes commendable mapping of the altering approaches in Hollywood. Meanwhile, paragraph 25 seeks to affirm theatrical embodiment of Americanism as the antecedent condition of anti-American attitudes worldwide. This postulation is indifferent to the interplay of various other social factors. This is followed by incorrect analogy of “National Enquirer appeal” and succeeding paragraphs until 39 project an oversimplified view of the cause, effect and resolution of anti-Americanism. The aim of the article was to persuade the reader to perceive the masochistic tendencies of American pop culture and its role in tarnishing the nation’s global goodwill. The author manages to shed light on the topic through his iridescent anecdotes and wise use of statistics but misses academic perfection due to an understatement of the issue’s gravity and overload of anecdotal evidence. This article was written in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when there was a profuse production of works on anti-Americanism. However, Medved’s article stands out as it was the first to offers a fresh context of Hollywood to view the same and henceforth adds to the existing body of knowledge. Conclusion The author uses an impressive array of support strategies in the article and effectively evades over-reliance on a single strategy. However, the evidence oftentimes do not adequately align with the argument. The article has an underlying merit for emphasizing the exaggerated representation of the American value system and its influence on the transnational notion of its culture. He has strived to draft a well informed proposition. Nonetheless, the article is not void of interpretive errors and this heavily tarnishes the article’s objectivity. It, thereby, cannot be considered as a credible source. In conclusion, the author can improve the article by using support strategies that qualitatively enhance his arguments and directly supplement the thesis.