You can absentmindedly like a post or like a post and not even read it. It's a post from one of the show's "stars", maybe whoever runs the GH account just liked it on autopilot. I agree with @Errol that people make too much out of sh!t like this.

44 minutes ago, Errol said:

 

I personally find it easier to "like" a post when wanted to keep track of it than to use the flag feature and it's clear I'm not the only one. Just pointing out that before people assume a "like" automatically equals agreement, know that isn't the case for everyone.

Yes!  I "like" some tweets because I may not be able to give it attention until a later time.  

 

I side with the people who say that the people running social media accounts are PR people whose job it is to actually pay attention to these things.

We are not talking about Jane Schmoe liking random Insta-posts without reading the commentary because the guy on it is hot.
We are talking someone being PAID to make the show look good on social media. Absent-mindedly - in the best telling - "liking" a post like this, widely read on social media as meaning an endorsement, whatever the intent actually is - is exactly what they are NOT supposed to do.
 

1 hour ago, FrenchBug82 said:

I side with the people who say that the people running social media accounts are PR people whose job it is to actually pay attention to these things.

We are not talking about Jane Schmoe liking random Insta-posts without reading the commentary because the guy on it is hot.
We are talking someone being PAID to make the show look good on social media. Absent-mindedly - in the best telling - "liking" a post like this, widely read on social media as meaning an endorsement, whatever the intent actually is - is exactly what they are NOT supposed to do.
 

Exactly. It just looks bad and irresponsible.

You can save any instagram post you come across and then read it later. I get waht Errol is saying but I also agree it looks bad

It’s funny how it too so many different scandals and so many major outlets picking it up for GH to finally make a comment. These soaps are trash when it comes to issues like this. They always ignore these stories until it blows up. 

1 hour ago, Chris B said:

It’s funny how it too so many different scandals and so many major outlets picking it up for GH to finally make a comment. These soaps are trash when it comes to issues like this. They always ignore these stories until it blows up. 

These shows aren't getting any better by pretending the problems don't exist. I have never understood why they prefer to act like ostriches, sticking their heads in the sand. Then again, it's a similar vibe with how bad these shows are, no one is supposed to notice, let alone bring any attention to the matter.

9 hours ago, janea4old said:

https://www.soapoperadigest.com/content/ingo-rademacher-out-at-gh/

Quoting SOD: "Though GH is not commenting on the contract status of several actors rumored to be exiting imminently, Nancy Lee Grahn (Alexis) seemingly confirmed that Ingo Rademacher is out"

--

"Several" ?

 

Carolyn Hennesy is recurring so it's hard to say. You can't "fire" a recurring actor. You just stop using them.

Stop using a recurring actor IS basically firing them, especially if they're heavily recurring.

2 hours ago, Chris B said:

It’s funny how it too so many different scandals and so many major outlets picking it up for GH to finally make a comment. These soaps are trash when it comes to issues like this. They always ignore these stories until it blows up. 

It is often said that an adversarial press is a fundamental element of a functioning society/democracy and I think the soap world shows EXACTLY how that works.
When there is no news media to call you out on stuff because they are co-dependent, it actually does the people they protect no favor in the end.
Some individuals might be happier in the short-term because their job seems easier without scrutiny but that allows them to paper over and ignore all kinds of issues that it would be healthier for them to address.
Letting things fester and rot in the dark does not mean they stop rotting. It means you only start noticing when it smells aka when it is too late.
From the toxic workplace culture to the cultural insensitivites issues to the staleness of the content presented on-screen, so many of the things that are hurting soaps should have had a chance to become an issue a lot earlier and a healthy soap press would have done it.
It may have made executives sweat but it would have helped the shows in the long run.
And so is the current situation that has been allowed to fester for a lot longer than it needed to to the point. Had IR been fired when it was obvious he was a liability - many uncovered controversies ago - GH would not be dealing with "Transphobic" headlines in one of the rare moments where it gets mainstream media coverage.

I remember very well the Soap Opera Digest BI warning my show that if a certain actor got caught out for domestic violence a third (fourth? fifth?) time "we name him". How noble. The alleged name was already circulating among fans in those years. But this was 20 years ago and even then, the soap press were desperate to stay afloat.

Edited November 9, 20214 yr by Vee

Many fans have taken up the "crusade" to defend these soaps, no matter how poorly they are written and managed, equating criticism to disloyalty. It's just aided and abetted these shows in their collective deterioration. If you value something, shouldn't you want to improve things, make them better? I realize that not all changes are for the better, but who hasn't noticed that the majority of these soaps have been limping along for almost twenty years now? The industry itself has needed change for a long time.  

Rademacher's social media (which I admit to having just seen those posts-- insane!) just adds to the perception of soap fans and some stars as being unhinged, in some alternate reality that is woefully out of step with real life.

Edited November 9, 20214 yr by DramatistDreamer
Left out a word

7 hours ago, Vee said:

I remember very well the Soap Opera Digest BI warning my show that if a certain actor got caught out for domestic violence a third (fourth? fifth?) time "we name him". How noble. The alleged name was already circulating among fans in those years. But this was 20 years ago and even then, the soap press were desperate to stay afloat.

Can I ask who that was? 

One day, one to go!

It reminds me of the Studio System of the 40's and 50's when no stars' behavior was ever mentioned in a negative way, until something really big happened and that was glossed over.

2 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Many fans have taken up the "crusade" to defend these soaps, no matter how poorly they are written and managed, equating criticism to disloyalty. It's just aided and abetted these shows in their collective deterioration. If you value something, shouldn't you want to improve things, make them better? I realize that not all changes are for the better, but who hasn't noticed that the majority of these soaps have been limping along for almost twenty years now? The industry itself has needed change for a long time.  

Rademacher's social media (which I admit to having just seen those posts-- insane!) just adds to the perception of soap fans and some stars as being unhinged, in some alternate reality that is woefully out of step with real life.

Yeah I have a friend I met thru  soap events and she is supporting Ingo on his Insta even after the Transphobia. She is pro vax but for choice but she is no where near anti LGBTQIA so this is puzzling me. Can someone just love an actor so much, they will over look all they do and say, no matter how bad it is?