Is anyone else bothered by the insane amount of anti-conservative propaganda scattered throughout TV shows on every major network?

Depends on your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal."There is a type of conservatism that is primarily economical and political in nature.  It favored small government, not because the federal government was mean and scary but because it is easier to enact change on a more local level.  It also erred on the side of caution when it came to spending.  It used to be represented by the Republican party but the term and the party have since been highjacked by people who are primarily socially "conservative", which, in the US, usually means staunch Christians.  These people tend to be primarily focused on other people's perceived morality rather than fiscal or political policies. What you are seeing on TV is a reaction to these type of social "conservatives", who often hide behind their religious views to perpetrate their bigotry.  The reason they are more obviously targeted is because one of the only good justifications for a variety of bigotry is a religious zeal.  That is not to say that all, or even most, Christians are bigots, but society has already beaten down most secular arguments against gay marriage, racism, sexism, etc, and most non-zealous Christians don't have any real agenda to keep the religious arguments alive, so one of the only (vocal) groups left to keep the arguments alive are extreme Christians.  Now, regulating social norms doesn't really jive with conservative values (which is why I use scared quotes), but it's easier to take on that familiar moniker than admit that what they want to impose is a type of theocracy.The other type of "conservatives" you likely see being attacked are actually modern-day Republicans, which are arguably not really conservative at all.  Most Republican policies nominally favor tax cuts and lower spending, but they can hardly be said to be fiscally conservative.  As such, they will gleefully slash away at not-particularly-expensive social programs whilst shrieking if someone even looks funny at the military budget, due to their adoption of "neo-conservative" values (old school conservatism would have been much less interventionist).  And they've adopted the aforementioned social "conservative" values, which are also not really conservative in their execution ("get the government out of our businesses/schools/economics, but get it all up in other people's bodies and sex lives"). tl;dr:  The term "conservative" has been hijacked by groups that are genuinely worthy of criticism and, while they may not be the only ones doing a particular Bad Thing, they are definitely doing it the loudest and with the most structure and influence.  There are bad liberals depicted in media, but they're not likely to identify with any consistent group, and they don't have the same political power, so they're never going to seem targeted.NB.  The bias goes the other way with the abundance of pro-war/pro-military movies, which are definitely conservative in the modern-day hijacked sense.  Also, if you ever step foot in a (secular) book store in the Bible belt, ~40% of the books are Christian (fiction and nonfiction), ~10% are Republican, and ~5% are Bibles.  Just Bibles.  Hundreds of them.  There are about as many Bibles as there are all other non-fiction books (minus cookbooks).  TV may not love the social conservatives, but they are thriving in the southern book industry.

To be fair, most of it isn't "anti-conservative", but rather "anti-crackpot" or "anti-extremism". The Newsroom, for instance, has a republican as the main protagonist. Granted, it's a republican disappointed with his own party, but again - for valid reasons. It's not anti-conservative, just anti-crackpot and anti-extremism: But even when the character is a democrat, the arguments are almost always presented as valid criticisms, like when the president dealt with religious crackpots on the show "The West Wing": It's not anti-conservative, just anti-crackpot and anti-extremism As others have pointed out, plenty of shows ridicule left-wing-crackpots and extremists as well. I don't think you can mention a US show that has a plotline actually bashing christians. That would be hard to sell to the networks. Bashing a religious crackpot on the other hand... Militias? Well, that's a synonym for crackpot right there, so...

Do I agree? Nope. I as a black American am far more upset about the fact that nonwhite actors have a harder time getting work than white actors do. Most TV shows feature all white or nearly all white main casts. The casts that are mixed don't have a lot of variety in them. While that bothers me, it doesn't stop me from enjoying the shows when the writing and acting is entertaining. I count among my favorite TV shows many shows that have all white or nearly all white casts in them. For example, I really liked Monk, and still watch the reruns. But that show, which is set in San Francisco, is pretty white considering it's freaking SAN FRANCISCO. Come on. I should see a  lot of Asians and Hispanics in the cast, at least more than I do see. But I like the show, so aside from that, I watch. Now, I could do like the OP and some other people here are  saying, and get all pissy about the fact that the TV world is very white, and not watch TV anymore, but, for some reason, aside from a once in a while wistful wish that TV could be more balanced, it doesn't bother me enough to cut out all TV. It just doesn't. The fact of the matter is, if you go looking for something to be pissed off about, you'll probably find it. Conservatives seem to spend a lot of time looking for things to be pissed off at. It's gotta make your lives awful cramped and small, to be so pissed off and insulted all the time.

I love TV, but I mostly watch stuff online. I just watched 8 years worth of 24, and it portrayed politicians from both sides of the aisles as "bad guys."  It portrayed leftists in a very poor light. Most action series will make left wingers the bad guys, but there are no doubt some occasions where right wing nuts get displayed in a poor light. When violent left wing revolutionaries are portrayed as being despicable, I am not personally offended even though I am liberal.  In the same line of reasoning, there is no reason for a conservative to be insulted by a plausible plot line that includes a right-wing nut ball. They are out there.  Realistically, in fact, more terrorist acts have been committed by Christian right wing extremists than by Jihadists. http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.htmlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.htmlDespite the facts and statistics of the matter, I'm pretty confident there are a lot more Jihadists who are portrayed as villians than right-wing Christians. The fact of the matter is TV creates drama, and exaggerated characterizations of good versus evil is the bread and butter of TV. So, does anybody think that every bad guy, every nut case, every obnoxious person is supposed to be liberal or left-wing?  If anything, I'm pretty confident that Middle Eastern actors get a lot more work playing bad guys than good guys. I don't think the right wing is targeted. Also, keep in mind that shows need heavys every week. And there are a lot of shows out there. I watched a few episodes of Battle creek. It is set in Battle Creek Michigan. It had a murder-a-week format. There are typically 3 or 4 murders a year in Battle Creek, which would only provide a few weeks of programs for writers. Plus writers need to vary their villians just to keep things interesting. People of every political, ethnic and religious persuasion are going to find themselves play the bad guy, or at least the annoying person on TV and in movies.   Likewise, comedy and satire shows like to take shots at anybody who is a moving target, no matter their political affiliation. Certain political players, who will go unnamed, make for good targets because of their outrageous behavior. If the clown show fits, then wear it. I am selective about what I watch. I read reviews and watch the better shows, so I can't tell you about everything that is out there. Still, from what I watch, extemists become the joke fodder, but Christianity and religiousity is generally portrayed as a positive thing in characters. I loved the West Wing, and President Bartlett was devoutly religious.  I watch countless reality or sports shows where contestants and athletes praise God. The same goes for many characters on dramas and comedies. TV may not make a person's faith and religiousity a central theme of the show, but typically people of faith are portrayed as positive people. If you can't stand to have any body who is remotely related to your tribe sometimes come under negative scrutiny, then maybe you are being a little sensitive.If you have kids and you want to have an idea of what shows might be appropriate, check out the review site:                       https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews  Back to the notion of a conservative bias on TV, I found a response on the web--granted a few years old--that addressed the complaint of liberal bias in the media, including TV.  The author of the response encouraged people to cut and paste it into their responses. It focuses primarily on debunking the idea of a liberal bias in reporting of news. Though it is a little bit dated, I think the points it makes still hold up. Look it over if you want. If the media are so liberal, where are all the Union-friendly news shows? I see lots of pro-big business & pro-investor shows. Where are the shows for worker interests? And, other than MSNBC, where are the pro-Union guests? I see lots of guests making the pro-corporate, anti-union arguments. Where are all the union defenders in the "liberal" media?http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/labor-almost-invisible-on-tv-talk/If the media are so liberal, why do they keep focusing on debt/deficit/austerity and not the arguments against austerity that all the liberal economists are making?If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore the 2011 Tar Sands protests in DC and the hundreds of arrested protesters, including a renowned NASA scientist?If the media are so liberal, why have they completely ignored the controversy surrounding the drilling of the Alberta Tar Sands?If the media are so liberal, why did they parrot Bush's link between Iraq & 9/11, and his claim that Iraq still had WMD's, while ignoring the many experts who could disprove these claims?If the media are so liberal, why did they cheerlead us into the Iraq war, while censoring those who opposed it?If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the largest anti-war protest in the history of mankind on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, but have since given plenty of mostly uncritical coverage of much smaller Tea Party protests?Here’s a typical CNN segment on the Tea Party. It’s 3+ minutes of free promotion w/o any criticism:If the media are so liberal, why did they give so much free publicity to Paul Ryan's "brave", "heroic" budget plan,http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/12/15/time-paints-paul-ryan-as-deficit-slashing-superhero/...while they ignored the Progressive Caucus's People's Budget?http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70If the media are so liberal, why did even Bush's own press secretary think the media was too deferential to him?http://www.salon.com/2008/05/28/mcclellan_6/If the media are so liberal, why did they run the fake ACORN voter fraud stories & the faked ACORN video stings, then virtually ignore it when ACORN was vindicated and proven innocent of both?http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.htmlhttp://mediamatters.org/research/201006010020http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4043http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003020001http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7755http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7759If the media are so liberal, then why do the "liberal" TV stations gladly air tons of liberal-bashing campaign ads by right-wing groups?If the media are so liberal, why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street and hiding the rampant criminality there?http://www.alternet.org/story/156070/how_the_new_york_times_hides_the_truth_about_wall_street%27s_catastrophic_misdeeds?akid=9024.202122.zi6e7Y&rd=1&t=15If the media are so liberal, why was their coverage of right-winger Margaret Thatcher's controversial legacy so fawning and one-sided?http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/04/11/who-gets-to-remember-margaret-thatcher/http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/04/09/on-thatcher-whats-the-difference-between-pbs-fox-news/If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-voter-registration-scandal-widens-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges?akid=9567.202122.nB_Qgd&rd=1&src=newsletter730596&t=8&paging=offhttp://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.htmlhttp://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/florida_finds_evidence_of_voter_fraud_in_gop_tied_firm/http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8514If the media are so liberal, why is there a virtual news blackout of the Trans-Pacific Partnership controversy?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Pacific_Partnership#ControversyIf the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the biggest climate change rally in US history on Februray 17?http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/media-and-the-keystone-march/Since then, I've seen plenty of right-wing guests on the news urging Obama to approve Keystone and criticizing him for delaying it (even just this morning on MSNBC, with zero argument from the host!), but nobody to explain why there's a huge movement against it.If the media are so liberal, why did they constantly demonize leftist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, even promoting anti-Chavez disinfo?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/us-debate-chavez-venezuela-legacyhttp://itsoureconomy.us/2013/01/western-media-continues-to-publish-falsehoods-about-venezuela/http://truth-out.org/news/item/14649-the-secret-rise-of-21st-century-democracyIf the media are so liberal, why do they treat far-right views as mainstream?http://www.alternet.org/story/140450/wake_up_america%2C_the_media_treat_far-right_views_as_mainstreamIf the media are so liberal, why was coverage of Occupy Wall Street mostly hostile or dismissive?(Find me ANY example where CNN treated the Tea Party this harshly:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4 )From Henry A. Giroux: "Missing from both the dominant media and state and national politics was any attempt to critically engage the issues the protesters were raising, not to mention any attempt to dialogue with them over their strategies, tactics, and political concerns."I could go on and on...