Kid Rock says, "I truly believe that people like myself, who are in a position of entertainers in the limelight, should keep our mouths shut on politics... ...Because at the end of the day, I'm good at writing songs and singing. What I'm not educated in is the field of political science. And so for me to be sharing my views and influencing people of who I think they should be voting for... I think would be very irresponsible on my part". But here's the thing. As a citizen of these here United States of America, anybody anywhere has the right (and some would say the responsibility) to think about, talk about, and debate the nature of American politics and politicians. Most people aren't educated in the field of political science. But that doesn't mean that we should not think about the issues and discuss the issues. We shouldn't vote for someone (or not) just because Kid Rock (or Matt Damon) told us their opinion on that person. But these people should not feel hindered in giving their opinion either. Because as a citizen, that is their right. They should be allowed to say, "I have misgivings because", or "I support this candidate because". They have a right to voice their opinion on this thing that at the end of the day really matters. They have a right to use their celebrity to bring focus to issues that matter to them. They have a right to expect us, their fans, to recognize that they aren't deciding who we should vote for, any more than they decide what we should buy or what we should drink. But if we scrutinize their every choice, who they date and what they eat and how they lose the weight from what they eat, then they should be able to voice their opinion about a choice we all get to make every four years. Because being less than scholarly doesn't seem to stop anyone else from voicing their sometimes astute and sometimes obnoxious opinions about any number of issues. And since these are people who live in this country, they have the right to talk about who and what they think would be better for this country.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Matt Damon Rocks (Or Why Famous People Should Not Be Maligned For Voicing Opinions)
I really wonder about certain perspectives. Like, the idea that famous people - actors, musicians, writers, etc. - shouldn't talk about politics or policies. These are people that we basically - though most of us passively - stalk. We buy (or just flip through) magazines with their faces on it, pictures that are oftentimes taken through incredibly powerful photolenses from large distances. We want to know what they are wearing, what they are eating, what they are drinking, how they parent, and what products they endorse. We'll buy perfume if it has been endorsed by someone we like. We'll drink more Starbucks. We'll show more interest in designers or cuts or jackets. But the second someone opens their mouth about something truly important, we tell them to shut up. We tell them that they have no business discussing matters of the state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Well, I agree and I disagree. It shouldn't offend anybody when Ben Affleck - who's been actively involved in politics for the past eight years - voices his opinion. Affleck is well-informed, he's never overly judgmental, and he always makes intelligent arguments.
But, for the most part, entertainers are no more knowledgeable than your average citizen. Yet many act as if their opinions are somehow more valid by virtue of their celebrity status.
I think what people really resent is the self-righteousness of some celebrities. No one complains when Don Cheadle tries to raise money to help the refugees in Darfur. But people get upset when the Dixie Chicks act like they're experts on foreign policy, who should be lecturing the ignorant public . . .
But those same people who malign the Dixie Chicks are ones who feel comfortable praising someone who sings about how putting "a boot in yer ass" as the American way. Obviously they aren't upset with the Dixie Chicks saying something as much as they are with what the Dixie Chicks are saying. And that's my problem. The average entertainer may not be any more informed than the average citizen, but no one tells the idiots who write into the local paper and get their letters published that because they are just average citizens who didn't major in political science to shut up unless they unduly influence people.
People who send opinion pieces into the local paper have to rely on the strength of their arguments to persuade voters--they don't have any special sway. And the editor of the publication can weed out the idiots.
But celebrities do have more influence than your average citizen, and they should be more careful when wielding that influence. I don't think there was anything wrong with what Matt Damon said (he made some common sense points that any voter could make), but lots of celebrities pontificate about things that they know nothing about. Sean Penn, for example, is not an expert on Iraq. What the hell is he doing going on a "fact-finding" missions and telling people "what's really happening on the ground"?
Who gets to make the decision about who is a well enough informed entertainer, which entertainers have put enough of their time and energy into politics and the political realm, and which of their arguments and positions are valid or well-thought out or even applicable?
I think, as citizens, they have the right to speak out. They may have a bigger pulpit, but that should not be used to silence them. Even if some of them turn out to be idiots in what they say and what they use that pulpit for. Sean Penn is being an idiot? Say so. Don't agree with the Dixie Chicks? Say so. But I think that holding their influence over their heads is incorrect, because it makes the masses seem all the stupider. Some people will more than likely be unduly influenced. But you know what? Some people are always unduly influenced, by Fox News or Sean Penn or some crazy e-mail claiming Obama is secretly a Muslim extremist who is going to turn us all over to the terrorists if he wins in November.
It is their right to speak, and it is our right (and our responsibility) to recognize their authority -or lack thereof. If some people can't be bothered to do that, then that isn't any particular celebrity's fault.
I can make decisions about who I think is well-informed and who has valid arguments. So can you. It's subjective, sure.
But if celebrities have the right to say whatever they want, don't citizens have the right to suggest that they should shut their annoying, self-righteous mouths? No one is trying to amend the Constitution here. People are just fed up with with the condescension.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I think that voters are influenced by the media and by celebrity opinions - whether or not they're conscious of it. Any yes, I also think people in public eye should be a little more aware of the limits of their own knowledge and a little less willing to "influence" others - especially when their only real authority derives from their SAG membership.
"But if celebrities have the right to say whatever they want, don't citizens have the right to suggest that they should shut their annoying, self-righteous mouths? No one is trying to amend the Constitution here. People are just fed up with with the condescension."
Here is where we differ. First, we all have the right to say that someone should shut up. We don't have the right to expect them to do it. And we don't have the right to be in the right once we offer that opinion. I could block you (not that I would) from posting comments on this blog, but that would be a form of censorship. Lambasting public figures for voicing their opinions, to the point of threatening them with violence (yes, I did see the Dixie Chick doc "Shut Up and Sing") is a form of censorship. Not to mention more than slightly wrong.
And I also wonder about this idea of condescension. Natalie Maines said that she was embarrassed the president came from Texas. How is that condescending? What tends to happen is that people -on the right and on the left- use those sorts of ideas -"He's elitist", "She's being condescending", "He isn't a 'real' American"- in order to discredit and disavow an opinion or a political point by playing to the soundbite world in which we live instead of actually coming out and articulately disagreeing with whoever it is who voiced that opinion in the first place.
And for those people who are obsessed with celebrity culture, who worry over their newest hairstyles and clothing and who was seen with whom and who is dating who, I think it is a bit disingenuous to suddenly decide around election time that they are fed up with the condescension. Because if they are allocating a certain amount of time to basically learning every single facet of all these people's lives without regard for privacy, then I think the sweetest revenge would be to use that attention to have the focus be on what those celebrities care about.
And if you don't care about them and aren't obsessed with celebrity culture, just turn the damn channel, you know? I don't pay attention to what Sean Penn says. I don't know much about Ben Affleck's work in politics. I don't care what Natalie Maines or Linda Ronstadt says in a concert setting. They have the right to say what they want in a public forum, and we have the right to ignore them and continue on with our lives. But I find it very funny that a culture that basically makes these people live under a microscope for the privilege of entertaining us every day suddenly rebels against that same microscope when these people's opinions are about something less frivolous than which hair color product to buy.
"Lambasting public figures for voicing their opinions, to the point of threatening them with violence (yes, I did see the Dixie Chick doc "Shut Up and Sing") is a form of censorship."
Of course it is, but the fact that some people are threatening violence shouldn't detract from the fundamental point that I'm making. I think you're cutting down straw men here.
The issue to me isn't whether celebrities are correct - I'm not suggesting that they're wrong - it's whether they should be presenting themselves as authorities on issues that they know nothing about. It's hard to turn the channel when you see Sean Penn as a COMMENTATOR on CNN.
I think that the Natalie Maines thing was totally blown out of proportion (although she did later apologize for her comments). My issue isn't with celebrities making snide comments about Bush; it's with them acting as if they have some sort of special credibility. That is condescending.
"I think you're cutting down straw men here."
They aren't straw men if they are real. I'm not saying this is your argument; I'm saying it is a response to a celebrity speaking out, and though it is an extreme it is by no means unheard of.
"The issue to me isn't whether celebrities are correct - I'm not suggesting that they're wrong - it's whether they should be presenting themselves as authorities on issues that they know nothing about."
And I'm saying, who are you (or me, or some guy in the back) to say whether or not they know nothing? Who are you to decide that Matt Damon can speak, that Ben Affleck can speak, but that Sean Penn is uninformed? How do you know how much time they spent gathering information?
I take you as a pretty credible witness for economic policy even though I disagree with you on almost every facet of it, and I know you didn't major in economics. I didn't take any women's studies classes in college either, but I'm pretty certain that I've done enough study and reading to make some feminist thought arguments.
And that is my problem with the idea that celebrities, by virtue of being celebrities, are being condescending. Who gives them the stage? We do. We focus all of this time and attention on them. And when they decide to deviate from what we want to hear from them and about them, we strip them of anything other than the smallest of boxes. Sarah Jessica Parker is allowed to tell us about hair care products, even though she's an actress. Brittany Spears was hawking perfume. She's not an expert in olfactory senses. But still we grant them the right to do so and to make money doing so. We allow them authority over matters that mean very little and that they get paid to represent. But when they aren't being paid, and when they are honestly just giving us their opinions about something serious, that is when they are condescending and that is when they are "just" actors and "should" just shut the hell up. And that is where my problem comes in.
CNN shouldn't be going to Sean Penn for commentary. But hell, I think CNN and most network news stations are crap anyway. And I think your ire should be with a station that would pull Sean Penn on for political analysis instead of being with Sean Penn himself. He didn't force his way onto the airwaves through a hostile takeover. He was asked on, and that is a problem. That is why I don't watch network news. That is why I watch PBS and why I read more news than I will ever watch. But that isn't Sean Penn's fault.
"And that is my problem with the idea that celebrities, by virtue of being celebrities, are being condescending. Who gives them the stage? We do. We focus all of this time and attention on them."
Well, I have a huge problem with celebrity in general. You're right, it's absolutely absurd how we shower these people with attention. And I think most celebrities are more than eager to cultivate our obsessions.
That doesn't mean that we should listen to them when they talk out of their asses about politics.
"CNN shouldn't be going to Sean Penn for commentary. But hell, I think CNN and most network news stations are crap anyway. And I think your ire should be with a station that would pull Sean Penn on for political analysis instead of being with Sean Penn himself. He didn't force his way onto the airwaves through a hostile takeover."
Of course they shouldn't, but Sean Penn shouldn't be feigning any kind of credentials either. He's not on television because he's exhaustively researched the situation in Iraq. He's there because he was Spicoli, and he can spew partisan talking points that make for good ratings.
The thing that really pisses me off is that this dude seems to believe that he actually deserves to be on television telling people what to think about a very complicated subject. Why is he going around hyping his friggin' fact-finding missions to Iraq? Does he actually believe that he, as a layperson, learned more in his brief trip to Iraq than the Iraq Survey Group in its extensive study?
Jeez, how can you not hate these arrogant assholes?
"That doesn't mean that we should listen to them when they talk out of their asses about politics."
No, but we also shouldn't listen when they market other crap to us. We do. We supply them with the stage, and in some cases we make their lives, and the lives of their children and spouses, hell. Because we can. Because they are 'public figures'. Because we want what they have. Because we want to be them. Because they have money and fame and beauty, and that means that they are both more human and less human to us. And that means that we both idolize and resent them.
If we give them the stage, consistently treat them like they are both the gunk on the bottom of our shoes and also shiny new gods, if we fawn over them and scrutinize their every movement, then I don't see how anyone can say, "Hey, shut up now about the politics" who follows that culture and not be a raging hypocrite.
"Of course they shouldn't, but Sean Penn shouldn't be feigning any kind of credentials either. He's not on television because he's exhaustively researched the situation in Iraq. He's there because he was Spicoli, and he can spew partisan talking points that make for good ratings."
And I blame CNN more for that (and the collective American public) than Sean Penn. It would take an extraordinary individual to not become twisted by the realities of celebrity, and Sean Penn wasn't exactly stable to begin with. Maybe he's begun to believe his own press. I don't know. But even if he doesn't know a thing about Iraq, even if he is just talking out of his ass, he didn't grab the stage. The stage was handed to him by CNN; so I have less of a problem with one of the pawns of the game than I do with the game itself.
"Jeez, how can you not hate these arrogant assholes?"
Well, first off I hate very few people. Secondly, I feel sorry for them. And in some cases, I respect them. They live lives in which they are considered objects. Sometimes shiny, new, impressive objects, and sometimes dirty, old, and worn out objects. But objects nonetheless. And we feel free to treat them like that, because we give them our attention. And in exchange for that attention, we want the right to give them no privacy, even if they are on their own property, even if they are experiencing moments like births or deaths or weddings. And they live in a bubble. Their world isn't our world. It isn't even the funhouse mirror of our world. It is completely different. And since I don't care about material items so much, I genuinely feel sorry for these people. We cut them off from almost everything and then act like they should be pleased to see our cameras outside their bedroom window and that the Enquirer is going to be outing them in its next issue. We engineer situations that almost ensure downward spirals, and then when one of them happens to fall (Brittany, Lindsay, Marilyn), we pull our cameras closer to really catch the gruesome bits. And we act surprised that with all that fame and fortune and constant surveillance, they would lose their footing. And we act like our renewed and intensified attention is out of concern.
I can't imagine living their lives. I can't imagine most of the American public could. I am always surprised that more of them don't go off the deep end and stay off that deep end. And I respect the few who decide that their fans are big enough boys and girls to actually hear a divisive message in a society where Michael Jordan's vow of silence because "everybody buys sneakers" (which I guess now turns into underwear) prevails. I respect people who will come forward in a country where to like someone means to agree with their opinions and to dislike someone and potentially boycott them means more often than not you don't.
I respect someone who will use our undying and intense and horrific obsession to try and do some good where they can, even if they aren't the brightest crayon in the box to begin with. I respect someone who believes that the American public isn't as stupid as we all pretend it is. And I respect someone who can live that life and not go completely insane.
You know who I don't respect? People who don't own their hypocrisy. I don't respect (and I don't much like) the fans of Toby Keith who were fine with him shooting off his mouth about politics, but suddenly were burning the Dixie Chicks in effigy and demanding they be blacklisted for opening their own. Those are the people I don't respect, and I could potentially work up enough energy to hate.
But my hatred is mostly reserved for attitudes, movements, and issues. These celebrities? I don't pay them enough attention to hate them. I hate the coverage they get. I hate the fact that their children and families are harassed. I hate the fact that we pay more attention to whether or not Brittany is wearing underwear than we do to foreign (or even domestic) policy. But that isn't Brittany's fault and it isn't Sean Penn's fault. And most of these people are arrogant assholes because we foster an environment where that is one of the ways to survive intact. I can't really work up any hate for them individually, but I can sure as hell work up hatred for an environment that encourages that particular attitude.
Well, then, we just have totally different perspectives. I think, more often than not, celebrities encourage all of that attention. They're always trying to grab the spotlight. I think most celebs know that publicity means whoring yourself out to the masses. Without constant media attention, your career dies.
I think it's totally fair to criticize our media-crazed culture, but you seem way too willing to absolve celebs from any kind of culpability here.
Two other quick points:
1) I tend to doubt that the people who are celebrity-obsessed are the same people who are telling celebs to shut up. Maybe there's some overlap, but it's not everyone who's interested in stalking these people.
2) Celebrities are CONSTANTLY trying to censor others in the name of political correctness. Many are ardent proponents of free speech when it's convenient, but when South Park makes a racist joke, suddenly they're clamoring for the episode to be pulled.
"I think, more often than not, celebrities encourage all of that attention. They're always trying to grab the spotlight. I think most celebs know that publicity means whoring yourself out to the masses. Without constant media attention, your career dies."
If you're Paris Hilton, maybe. But I think that for the most part, constant media exposure hurts celebrities' careers more than it helps them. I also think there are different kinds of celebrities. I know that Sarah Michelle Gellar lives a quiet life and calls those who court celebrity attention celebutants, and that is a valid name for them.
But I also doubt that anyone wants their wedding to be interrupted by helicopters or wants their hospital staked out night and day waiting for an impending birth or wants their children photographed in their own back yard. And if they want the attention, so what? That's on them, but the fact that we give them all that attention is clearly on us.
"you seem way too willing to absolve celebs from any kind of culpability here."
No, I just don't see the point in focusing so much attention on them. I can't change celebrities. I don't know any, and I don't pay any attention to a good 99% of them. I'm someone who is perpetually in the dark about celebrity goings on, and I like it like that. So if I'm less apt to blame celebrities, it could just be that I'm less likely to expose myself time and time again to their foibles. And that let's me look on in disgust at the people who are doing that. And I'd rather have them talking about something that matters than perfume, but that's just me. I also think that celebrities come and go, but this culture grows and grows. And if we want to starve the beast, we need to correct the culture that encourages people to try and become celebrities and that encourages celebrity behavior. Because we can take Sean Penn off of the air, but unless the culture changes there's another person just like him waiting to take the stage.
"I tend to doubt that the people who are celebrity-obsessed are the same people who are telling celebs to shut up. Maybe there's some overlap, but it's not everyone who's interested in stalking these people."
I'm not saying that everyone who is celebrity-obsessed wants them to shut up. But I think there is quite a lot of overlap, and that we as consumers have the right to just stop paying attention without infringing on their rights to speak. And a lot of the time, the people I see saying things about celebrities speaking up about political matters are people who disagree with that particular type of political thought. So Fox News will tear apart a more liberally minded politician and then went out and supported Arnold when he ran for governor. There's something more than wonky there.
Hey guys, can I ring in?
I think it is more than a little ridiculous when the media treats celebrities as experts on politics. If both of you were suddenly world-famous bloggers, I wouldn't call you experts either. You're citizens, and you're certainly informed citizens, but you don't analyze these issues for a living and you haven't been "vetted" by the rest of the media. I value your opinions as much as I value those of other citizens, though you both have the advantage of being able to back up your opinions with articles and evidence rather than mere gut intuition.
I think that anyone who makes a public address about the current social/political/econimic climate should be able to substantiate their claims, at least to some extent. "I support the troops" or "I don't support the war" are personal decisions, but they mean next to nothing without an explanation why. When we hear that explanation, we can determine if it is in any way factual and decide for ourselves whether or not we agree.
Sadly, there are many, many people out there who will do anything a celebrity says because they adore them so much. That is a responsibility to be taken seriously by celebrities, whether it is in which consumer products to hawk or in which candidate to endorse.
Here's my final plea: Celebrities, if you're going to come out one way or the other on the subject, at least come correct. You've been given a great opportunity to speak on a world stage, so make sure what you're saying isn't complete drivel.
People of the world, STOP WORSHIPPING CELEBRITIES! They're not any more special than you or I! Fame really elevates the just and the unjust alike, and you shouldn't take Derek Jeter's word on buying cars any more seriously than you would your neighbor's.
"Hey guys, can I ring in?"
No!
Kidding, obviously. You're just so polite!
Anyway, John, I think you're entirely correct. You strike the balance without really hating on either side too strongly (or overtly). I'm really coming from the perspective that it really has to be difficult to maintain humility in a world designed to make you a superstar. Like, if CNN or The Daily Show or Olbermann tapped me to talk about the issues I cared about, I would have a hard time staying away from that because I'm not technically an expert in those fields. I would be on that so fast!
But hey, Jer and I are tooootal experts!
Post a Comment