Celebrities and Politics

[Ksyrup]

I don't intend for this to be a political thread, so please don't turn it into one. Rather, I intend for this to be a discussion of the rights of entertainers and the expectations of their audience, when it comes to speaking their mind about politics.

This is a pretty good article describing the situation, which I'm sure you're all aware of.

hxxp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2001996751_backlash05.html

In this article, they describe the most recent confrontation, between Don Henley and his Orange County audience. Upon mentioning his "good friend" Linda Ronstadt, he was immediately met with boos. His response:

"We used to be able to have civil debate in this country. Not anymore."

This comment set me off, which is why I started this thread. So here's my take on all of this. Contrary to Henley's belief, we can still have civil debate in this country. The problem is, these people didn't attend his concert to engage in civil debate - or worse yet, sit among thousands of people, unable to voice their opinions (one way or the other) while he spouts off his. They came to listen to his music.

He's an entertainer. He can say/sing about whatever he wants. But he has no right to expect people who are paying to be entertained, to sit there and listen to it.

Audience expectations clearly matter here. Linda Ronstadt and Don Henley are not political singers. Sure, Henley's been involved in some conservationist movements that I know of, but neither of them give their audiences an expectation that they're attending a Rage Against the Machine concert. These aren't fundraisers, invitation-only concerts.

Bottom line - if they want to ruin a portion of their audience's entertainment by injecting politics into it, that's they're call while up on stage. But they should be willing to take the adverse consequences for doing so. These people paid money to listen to them sing, not talk politics. Free speech has nothing to do with it. They're being paid to perform, and if the audience doesn't like the preformance for whatever reason, then you either take the hint or risk losing fans.

[Leonidas]

Bottom line - if they want to ruin a portion of their audience's entertainment by injecting politics into it, that's they're call while up on stage. But they should be willing to take the adverse consequences for doing so. These people paid money to listen to them sing, not talk politics. Free speech has nothing to do with it. They're being paid to perform, and if the audience doesn't like the preformance for whatever reason, then you either take the hint or risk losing fans

Agreed, which is why Yentil is no longer my favorite movie, damn that Streisand. ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

But they should be willing to take the adverse consequences for doing so.

Bingo.

Which, sadly, is a willingness that seems to be lacking.

[Cuckoo]

I agree with much of what's been said here. I would only add one thing.

I honestly don't care what political opinions a certain celebrity or entertainer may endorse. I have known people who won't watch a movie with a specific actor because of their political persuasion. I think that's going a little too far. If Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon want to go on Dem. for President tours, what does it matter to me if their movies are good?

Now, if I got to see them in a movie, I don't want to be fed their political opinions in that venue. I think there's a legitimate distinction that many celebs have not yet figured out.

[Cuckoo]

DOLA

After I posted that, I realized that I didn't say that much different than Ksyrup. Oh well. :)

[vtbub]

We vote with our wallets too, Sarandon and Robbins are on the far end of the Democratic wing and if the only way for them to get the message that they should shut up is not buying their work, then so be it.

You can make the argument on uber-conservative entertainers you don't agree with then it goes both ways.

Not watching Bull Durham in cable TV seems a bit silly though:).

[Franklinnoble]

Agreed.

[Buzzbee]

It's funny to me that Sarandon and Robbins were one of the first ons brought up after the initial post, since they are the first ones that come to my mind.

I guess the thing that bothers me is the attitudes that some of the actors/actresses have. To me many of them come off as being holier-than-thou as if the fact that they are famous makes their opinion count more than mine. Yes, they have the ability to use their fame as a means to express their message to a larger audience, but it doesn't make it any more valid or important.

[Buzzbee]

Dola - And I'm one of the ones who finds less enjoyment in Bull Durham, Shawshank, The Client (isn't that the John Grisham movie with Sarandon?) and other movies I see them in because I'm reminded of their strong political activities.

{EDIT: As another example, whenever I see Rosie O'Donnell (sp?) I think of her run-in with Tom Selleck rather than her good performance in A League of Their Own or her funny standup routines. It tarnishes the overall body of work, at least to me.}

[MrBug708]

Apparently if you make a few movies you're a know-it-all.

Of course, a few posts on FOFC seem to do just the trick as well

[Buzzbee]

Apparently if you make a few movies you're a know-it-all.

Of course, a few posts on FOFC seem to do just the trick as well


I defer to MrBug's opinion. He has more posts than me.

[Tom E]

What kills me, is celebrities--for the most part--are clueless to what a normal American household is like. They tend to ignore the fact that, most Americans do well for themselves but aren't wealthy...

Nice house, nice cars and a shit load of bills...

[Desnudo]

Apparently if you make a few movies you're a know-it-all.

Of course, a few posts on FOFC seem to do just the trick as well

I already knew it all before FOFC. I just needed a forum to prove it.

[sabotai]

I defer to MrBug's opinion. He has more posts than me.

I have more posts than you and MrBug combined, that makes me more than twice as smart as the both of you, but only a little smarter than if you and MrBug somehow spliced together in a genetic lab to create BuzzBug.

[Buzzbee]

Or MrBee

But that would be a bad flashback to the TV show Hazel, so we won't go there.

[GrantDawg]

I guess I'll just say ditto.

[MrBug708]

I have more posts than you and MrBug combined, that makes me more than twice as smart as the both of you, but only a little smarter than if you and MrBug somehow spliced together in a genetic lab to create BuzzBug.

Of course, we could take days we've posted on this message board and get a posts per day count...

[clintl]

{EDIT: As another example, whenever I see Rosie O'Donnell (sp?) I think of her run-in with Tom Selleck rather than her good performance in A League of Their Own or her funny standup routines. It tarnishes the overall body of work, at least to me.}

Could be worse. You could be thinking about her in the dominatrix outfit in
Exit to Eden.

[GrantDawg]

Could be worse. You could be thinking about her in the dominatrix outfit in
Exit to Eden.
She was so hot..........did I say that out loud?

[gstelmack]

We had this discussion last year when the Dixie Chicks started their flap. I pretty much agree with all that's been said: if I go to a concert, I want to hear music. Entertainers who think they know so much about the real world they don't live in just drive me nuts. Shut up and entertain.

They're welcome to their views, but we're also welcome to disagree with them.

Anyone seen "Larry the Cable Guy"'s take on the Dixie Chicks in the Blue Collar Comedy Tour? He basically points out that when you have a fairly patriotic fan following, bad-mouthing the President isn't a good way to score points. You KNOW you've got an audience that is huge into patriotism, and yet you try to tick them off? How stupid can you get?

On the Ronstadt thing, wasn't there a rumor floating around that she was tired of working at the casino, so she said something to get fired?

[clintl]

I agree with the basic premise that audiences have the right to disapprove of artists' political messages, and if artists are going to take controversial stands, then there might be consequences. I think there have been cases where the audiences have grossly overreacted. Ronstadt's in particular - all she did was praise Michael Moore, and a bunch of idiots almost started a riot. That kind of audience behavior is over the line. Most of the other stuff that has been cited (including the booing of Henley) isn't.

I don't think artists with a political viewpoint should feel at all inhibited about expressing it, however, as long as they're willing to face the consequences if fans don't like the message.

[judicial clerk]

Tim Robbins is way too good of an actor to let his politics get in the way. I remember the Tom Selleck thing. I also remember Rosie speaking at some kind of anti gun rally followed shortly by one of her bodyguards getting busted for carry a concealed weapon without a permit, if I remember correctly.

It is ironic (or something) that Hollywood is accused of being so liberal, but Republicans elect actors.

[ahbrady]

Does anyone have trouble enjoying Junior because of Arnold's politics? I don't see how you could. It is one of the great masterpieces of modern filmmaking.

[Lucky Jim]

ah brady!

[kcchief19]

I echo the thoughts of clintl. Entertainers have a microphone and a voice to the media. What about being entertainers give them less right to do than anyone else with a microphone?

Personally, I wouldn't do something just because an entertainer or celebrity told me to do. I will lower or raise my respect or them based on their beliefs, however -- I think that's human nature. I don't like the Dixie Chicks, but I give them kudos for saying something they knew wouldn't be popular with their fan base but was something important to them. But I still don't have Dixie Chicks CD and I'm not going to buy one out of some sort of sign of political support. I'll buy a CD when I like their music, not because I like their politics.

Concerts, movies albums, books and other creative outlets are caveat emptor to me. Would you take back a Tom Clancy book because he unleashes an anti-abortion tirade in the middle of the novel? If you don't like what the artist is saying, whether the message is subtle or overt, don't buy the product.

The Linda Ronstadt, the Dixie Chicks and other flaps have this difference, however -- the protest wasn't, "I don't like what the artist has to say, I'm not a fan anymore," but rather, "I don't like what you have to say and I don't want others to hear what you have to say." If I don't like Arnold Schwarzenegger's politics, I don't go see the movies. I don't demand that the local megaplex not show his movies or set up a Terminator bonfire in the parking lot at Blockbuster. I still go to his movies because a lot opf them are entertaining. But if he makes a bad movie or he made a movie where he espoused his political beliefs, I'm not going to demand a refund or trash the place.

I also think that of all the problems we have in this country, the opinions of celebrities is pretty low on the totem pole. In the end, what does it matter? I think a lot of it isn't that people disagree about celebrities expressing their politics, but rather than disagree with the politics.

Out of curiousity, how many Republicans who ripped Michael Moore will buy Unfit to Command? Likewise, how many Democrats who will rip Unfit to Command support Michael Moore? It's not the messenger, it's the message.

[cthomer5000]

Who cares what you guys think? I just came here to read about football.

[dawgfan]

Entertainers who think they know so much about the real world they don't live in just drive me nuts. Shut up and entertain.

I've seen this sentiment more than once. What puzzles me here is the assumption that because someone is a celebrity they have no understanding of what it's like to lead a "normal" life. This is a pretty broad assumption IMO. Depending on the background of the celebrity and their personality, it may not be true at all; there are undoubtably people who are celebrities now who were not always celebrities, remember what life was like pre-celebrity status, and are humble or grounded enough to keep their post-celebrity status in perspective.

[clintl]

I've seen this sentiment more than once. What puzzles me here is the assumption that because someone is a celebrity they have no understanding of what it's like to lead a "normal" life. This is a pretty broad assumption IMO. Depending on the background of the celebrity and their personality, it may not be true at all; there are undoubtably people who are celebrities now who were not always celebrities, remember what life was like pre-celebrity status, and are humble or grounded enough to keep their post-celebrity status in perspective.

Most of them probably came from more normal backgrounds, and have a greater understanding of "normal life," than either Bush or Kerry.

[randal7]

The Linda Ronstadt, the Dixie Chicks and other flaps have this difference, however -- the protest wasn't, "I don't like what the artist has to say, I'm not a fan anymore," but rather, "I don't like what you have to say and I don't want others to hear what you have to say."

Actually, a few years back the left tried to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air by organizing boycotts of his advertisers. It amuses me to hear the cries of "censorship" when the same thing is done to people on the other side of the fence.

My personal opinion is that left or right these people have the right to say whatever they want. Similarly, if they say something I find particularly stupid or offensive, I have the right to boycott their movies/albums/sponsors/whatever. As many others have already said, don't get out in public and say something controversial and then cry when people get mad at you.

[vtbub]

If I'm paying to be entertained, then I want to be entertained and not preached too. Certainly there are those on both sides of Hollywood equation who are woefully out of touch, and there are others who do tremendous work within their communities with little or no fanfare.

We are all responsible for what we say and how we say it. There are consequences for our actions. For entertainers, it hits them in potentially in the pocketbook.

Free speech is a two way street.

[SunDancer]

But I love when people like Madonna, is she even American (?) speaks out, yet lacks a moral ground her speak up? But you have to remember, these celebrities live a lifestyle that they demand to get the best, whine and dine, some can be downright thinking they are better then everyone. They are usually gone on the road often as well (movie stars often shoot for months out of the country). Also, alot of them don't have college degrees (not to say that makes a person better then everyone else, but it does give more a education to back the opinions).
I love a statement Bush said in his stop in Springfield, Missouri, (Not exact quotes if sure) about the heartland of America... "The heartland for John Kerry is in Hollywood, but the heartland of America is right here in Springfield, Missouri. (Not putting it in a Pro-Bush or Anti-Kerry (not sure who I like yet), but I love his statement.

But what about the fundraiser John Kerry had a few weeks ago when he alot of people bashing Bush to the extreme? To me, its about celebrities expressing their views in ways and times they should not be doing it.

[Ksyrup]

The Linda Ronstadt, the Dixie Chicks and other flaps have this difference, however -- the protest wasn't, "I don't like what the artist has to say, I'm not a fan anymore," but rather, "I don't like what you have to say and I don't want others to hear what you have to say." That's not true. Those people walked out of her show, and Henley's, because they didn't want to listen to the politics. Nowhere did I read that those people "didn't want others to hear" what they had to say. If anything, their actions brought more attention to what those artists said than if they just sat in the audience and listened to it.

I agree that the fact that the message runs counter to what those people believe is obviously part of it, but again it comes back to what the artists are there to do - entertain. Entertaining means putting on a show for your audience to enjoy. None of us would enjoy a show where we went in with a certain expectation, and were subjected to comments having nothing to do with the show that were against what we like or believe. Take a stupid example, but what if you went to a concert, and in the middle of it, the artist decided to start ripping on the Kansas City Chiefs? Obviously, that doesn't inflame people as much as politics does, but wouldn't it put a damper on your enjoyment of the show? Wouldn't you ask "Why is this necessary?" I think a lot of these people are saying the same thing - "I came to hear Don Henley sing Hotel California, not tell me that the President shouldn't be re-elected."

Thinking about this last night, A couple of points came to mind about why this is happening now:

1. You'll notice that the majority of artists having run-ins with fans are older. Ronstadt, Henley, Springsteen (now that he's signed on for this 11-state campaign tour, a number of his fans are pissed). I think for these artists, who are old enough to remember when music and politics were often linked in the 60's, they're attempting to go back to that time, but they're time has obviously passed. These are artists who've spent the past 25+ years making coin as artists doing nothing more than entertain. No one sees them as young, idealistic against-the-grain rockers anymore - they're all rich and old, and have either never, or not in decades, been linked with politics.

2. For some of these artists, I think they've confused social causes for politics. For the past 25+ years, many artists have been involved in social causes. Look at Live Aid. But those were causes that were not inherently political, so while they may have and still do consider themselves "activitists" in that way, the vast majority of the populace see a difference between supporting famine relief and supporting a polticial candidate. I don't think these artists have gotten that, or at least, it may be dawning on them right about now.

3. Tying into #1, these artists don't have an audience demographic to which politics plays well. It's much easier for young punk/metal bands, for instance, or the DMB-type groups who do the HORDE tours, to talk politics, because their audiences are largely teens and college kids. They've got an audience that is either on their side, or open-minded enough to listen. Most 35-55 year olds know what they are. And, of course, they know what they want from their music. They aren't listening to Linda Ronstadt because her music is about revolution and change in society. They simply want to hear Heat Wave and That'll Be the Day and then head back home to deal with real life again. This also plays in with the Dixie Chicks, who may have that younger demographic, but that's tempered by the fact that most country listeners happen to be more conservative than not.

Anyway, those are some more of my thoughts. FWIW, I can handle entertainment that is politically motivated when (a) I know about it, and (b) it is more entertainment than message. I own RATM and System of a Down CDs. I can deal with their liberal messages. One of my favorite movies of all time is Bob Roberts, a conservative slamfest starring Tim Robbins. Those pieces of art still work for me because they have entertainment value. Michael Moore's recent work does not. However, I loved Canadian Bacon. Maybe if Kerry wins he'll go back into the entertainment business.

[rkmsuf]

1. You'll notice that the majority of artists having run-ins with fans are older.

I think they are just bored and need something to squak about. Get's them in the news.

[gstelmack]

I've seen this sentiment more than once. What puzzles me here is the assumption that because someone is a celebrity they have no understanding of what it's like to lead a "normal" life. This is a pretty broad assumption IMO. Depending on the background of the celebrity and their personality, it may not be true at all; there are undoubtably people who are celebrities now who were not always celebrities, remember what life was like pre-celebrity status, and are humble or grounded enough to keep their post-celebrity status in perspective.
What bothers me is that they think they know MORE about it than I do. That just because they are a celebrity their opinions mean more. For example, the threats that seem to have become popular in this election and the last to "leave the country if a Republican is elected." Good riddance!

Yes, there are some grounded celebs. Most of the ones I know about (Shania Twain, Sandra Bullock are 2 examples of celebs who seem to do a good job of leading a private life and also managing their entertainment careers) don't tend to get up and try to preach to the rest of us.

[cuervo72]

I guess the thing that bothers me is the attitudes that some of the actors/actresses have. To me many of them come off as being holier-than-thou as if the fact that they are famous makes their opinion count more than mine.

But don't you realize that being a celebrity makes you more enlightened, informed, and intelligent than the rest of the great unwashed?

[sachmo71]

I personally could care less what anyone's political views are, unless they are asking for my vote.

If Tim Robbins wants to do away with all of the cars in America because they are contaminating his air, then fine. Bitch about it all you want, because I'm not listening. Skinhead OConner wants to blame Ireland's woes on the Pope? Fine, it's a free country. I'm going to like or dislike them based on their work, not their views on the political world.

[dawgfan]

What bothers me is that they think they know MORE about it than I do. That just because they are a celebrity their opinions mean more. For example, the threats that seem to have become popular in this election and the last to "leave the country if a Republican is elected." Good riddance!

FWIW, I've heard any number of people say the same thing, none of whom were celebrities. Could it be that these celebrities are simply voicing their opinion the same as you or I, but the fact they have a much larger stage in which to voice those opinions is coloring your perception and causing you to interpret it as meaning they think they know more than you?

[SunDancer]

FWIW, I've heard any number of people say the same thing, none of whom were celebrities. Could it be that these celebrities are simply voicing their opinion the same as you or I, but the fact they have a much larger stage in which to voice those opinions is coloring your perception and causing you to interpret it as meaning they think they know more than you?

I think its how they do it and how they make it sound.

[dawgfan]

I think its how they do it and how they make it sound.

Really? When you voice your opinions on matters with friends and family, do you make it sound any different? When your friends and family voice their opinions to you, does it sound any different?