Recent surveys say 75 percent of television viewers don’t like the snide remarks. They don’t like celebs and sports stars lecturing them — about political and social issues.

That probably won’t surprise you. Because there is a 75 percent chance you are one of the 75 percent. 

As you know, the stars assault us with their political and social views most every chance they get. Oprah lectures Golden Globe viewers for 9 minutes. Whenever Robert De Niro nears a microphone, he rips into Donald Trump. NFL players demonstrate during the National Anthem. And so on.

Not to be outdone, the Grammy Awards fling anti-Trump skits at us. Hillary Clinton reads to us from an anti-Trump book. On various shows, the stars implore us to support gun control and save-the-earth projects. They urge us to frog-march climate-change skeptics out of our lives.

Most of us don’t like this. That is what we tell pollsters.

Here is what surprises me: It is bad for business. Yet the business operators let it continue.

The Golden Globes is a business operation. As are the Oscars and the Grammy Awards. The NFL is a massive business. Why then, do these businesses tolerate and even encourage behavior that damages them?

Why does CNN allow its celebs to perform scorched-earth attacks on the current administration? Its viewership numbers are abysmal. Surely, they can see there is a connection between their hate-filled attacks and their anemic ratings.

The NFL did sweet little to squelch the player demonstrations this year. Viewership this season fell about 10 percent. Super Bowl viewership fell to a 7-year low.

The Screen Actors Guild Awards allowed the host to mock the first lady. Viewership was down 30 percent from last year.

The Grammy Awards, mentioned above, lost 24 percent of its audience from last year. Their viewership hit an all-time low.

The Golden Globe Awards lost viewers compared to last year. The Oscars were down a whopping 20 percent year-to-year. They experienced their worst viewership ever.

Oh, there are reasons and excuses for these declines. TV ratings as a whole are falling with more entertainment options than ever. The viewing habits of Americans are changing. The latest crop of movies is lackluster. The baby-boomer generation is doing whatever it is doing. And all that.

Set all those reasons aside. What remains is political and social stuff. It is common in all of these productions. It amazes me that the business people who run these ventures don’t see this. Or if they see it, they still allow their employees to abuse the customers.

Make a list of the things you do for relaxation and entertainment. You watch movies or television shows. You watch sports. You dine out. You travel.

If you are like most people, you probably feel abused if your wine steward tells you how to vote. You probably take offense if the waitress curls her nose when you add to global warming by ordering beef. The folks who own the restaurant would probably fire these servers.

You might think the people who run the movie industry would sense that the Streeps, De Niros, and Streisands offend millions of customers. You might think they would tell them to foam a bit less at the mouth. You might think they would remind them that “These are the customers. Without them we are nothing. Yes, many of them agree with you. But many don’t. So why tick off any of them if you don’t have to?”

I don’t understand behavior like this. Which is one reason why I am not a movie star or NFL quarterback. One of many reasons.

From Tom…as in Morgan.                  

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home near Oneonta. You can write to Tom at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com. You can read more of his writing at tomasinmorgan.com

For the most part, we Americans value expertise. We want our physicians to possess knowledge and experience. We want our lawyers to know the law inside out. We want our clergymen, our engineers, our farmers to bring the kind of proficiency and skill to their work that comes only with familiarity and practice.

So, here’s a question. Why is it that the more expertise politicians’ gain in their field, the more we deride them?

Politicians may disappoint us, frustrate us, or even anger us. They certainly make mistakes. But here’s the thing: we cannot solve our problems at any level — local, state, or federal — without skilled politicians. They’re indispensable to the system. And the craft of politics requires certain characteristics. Not every politician possesses them, but the good ones — and there are plenty of good politicians — strive for them.

First, they’re attuned to the moods of the people and to shifts in public opinion. They have faith in this country and its future, and they often hold a vision for what its success will look like. They believe it can make progress.

They also know that progress will not come easily. They understand they’ll face setbacks, failure, and hardship, but they persevere in the American way of governing because it can make a lot of things possible. They are pragmatic, and prepared to adjust, compromise, and improvise to move policy in the direction they’d like to see it go.

They’re comfortable holding authority and responsibility, and because they recognize that they share these burdens with others, they respect their colleagues. They try to be civil with them, since they understand the dynamic nature of politics — that you don’t have permanent enemies or allies and that your foe one day may be a comrade the next.

Finally, good politicians understand that politics consists of a lot more than running for election. In the end, politics is about striving to make the world, or at least this country, better.

I don’t want to suggest that I think all politicians possess these qualities, or that any politician enjoys them all. Yet these characteristics are what mastery of the craft demands, and they come only with time and experience. Any politician who displays them deserves the same respect we’d give any specialist who has acquired the knowledge, skill, and insight demanded by a complicated, demanding, and meaningful profession.         

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.