H'WOOD MORONS

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i'm outraged that a bunch of actors and musicians try to influence politics through their popularity. to me that's pimping one's beliefs on their fans.

I guess the question is to what extent celebrities influence politics and the views of 'average Joe' (if he exists). The implication being that people cannot think for themselves. Is there any evidence of this?

Why is it assumed that just because some freak (most celebrities are freaks) tells Americans what their opinions are, that most Americans will fall in line?

You got there before me.

I doubt it - otherwise the Church of Scientology would probably have more followers than it currently does.

I think that films can have a profound effect on the populace and even define specific attitudes and ideas, however, I would never suggest censorship, nor should it remove the responsibility of adults to think for themselves.

The argument that Hollywood has a liberal bent or some unified agenda that it's trying to hoodwink the masses with is ridiculous. When Brokeback Mountain was released, Conservative pundits pounded their fists using that movie as an example of Hollywood shoving it's godless views down American's throats.

Everything published or release has some sort of political bend, regardless who publishes it. What is particularly interesting about Hollywood is that while most of the movies reaffirm social values held by a wide range of Americans and are almost overwhelmingly not "liberal" in their depiction of society, the actors at times have opinions that can be characterized as liberal or even left (in very rare cases).

What that shows is of course that Hollywood film producers are much more concerned about providing presumably non-offensive entertainment - which has been guaranteed by written and unwritten movie codes since the early 1930s - because they want to make money. In contrast, the actors - particularly once they're famous - voice their opinions because they view their public persona as a way to reach out to people. That has always happened and has nothing to do with Hollywood politics because the movie companies would probably prefer if their stars kept their opinions to themselves.

Because of the visibility of film stars it is very easy to condemn an entire industry for being liberal or America-hating, but besides the fact that that is a gross over-generalization typical for a certain type of political extremism, it makes me wonder whether those, who point their finger at Hollywood, do not go to or watch movies? If the degree of indoctrination from Hollywood (or wherever else they make mainstream movies) is that big then how do you prevent getting caught up in it and how do you know you're not a victim yourself? And finally, since many Hollywood movies reach the majority of Americans eventually, how can it be that the majority of Americans are supposedly conservative (which I doubt)?

There seems to be a growing number of Americans who don't read books and not just because they're lazy - they view most literature as too 'secular', so they'll never read the great classics. They also feel some contempt towards the public school system for 'indoctrinating' their children with such secular humanism. We have a President who admits he only reads the Bible. I would imagine that many of them also don't watch most of the movies they feel have a secular humanist message. I see this as dangerous because it's believing that everything is a form of indoctrination as opposed to a world of varying view points and ideas. How do we fend off such rigidity of thought?

Edited August 15, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[ual777 0]

Why would anyone take political advice from a bunch of college drop-outs, drug addicts, and media whores? I despise celebrities (for the most part).

I don't know - the ones I've met seemed quite pleasant.

It doesn't matter if they are pleasent or not, its a matter of people listening to these celebrities when they are the least qualified individuals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would anyone take political advice from a bunch of college drop-outs, drug addicts, and media whores? I despise celebrities (for the most part).

I don't know - the ones I've met seemed quite pleasant.

It doesn't matter if they are pleasent or not, its a matter of people listening to these celebrities when they are the least qualified individuals.

Like Ronald Reagan? Arnold Schwarzenegger...?

How does someone become qualified? Are they not entitled to an opinion, or is it the fact that they have access to the broadcast media that people find objectionable.

Again, I'm not sure I see any movie star celebrities behind any big political movements, so I'm not sure how true it is to suggest that people are significantly influenced by them.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Why would anyone take political advice from a bunch of college drop-outs, drug addicts, and media whores? I despise celebrities (for the most part).

I don't know - the ones I've met seemed quite pleasant.

It doesn't matter if they are pleasent or not, its a matter of people listening to these celebrities when they are the least qualified individuals.

Who determines who is qualified to speak their politics in public? The government, the talk radio hosts, or the general public?

And once we start putting standards in place, then who do we stop from speaking in public next because they are unqualified? Librarians? Professors? Teachers? Talk radio hosts?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would anyone take political advice from a bunch of college drop-outs, drug addicts, and media whores? I despise celebrities (for the most part).

I don't know - the ones I've met seemed quite pleasant.

It doesn't matter if they are pleasent or not, its a matter of people listening to these celebrities when they are the least qualified individuals.

Who determines who is qualified to speak their politics in public? The government, the talk radio hosts, or the general public?

And once we start putting standards in place, then who do we stop from speaking in public next because they are unqualified? Librarians? Professors? Teachers? Talk radio hosts?

I don't know about you - but there's been a fair amount of righteous indignation levelled at college professors. Again as though all America's problems can be boiled down to a conspiracy perpetrated by some sort hippy sandal wearing secret society.

[ual777 0]

The problem I have with Hollywood is that they say the dumbest things and do the stupidest things....

i.e.

Jane Fonda posing with N. Vietmanese anti aircraft crews and Kanye West saying G. Bush "doesn't like black people".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem I have with Hollywood is that they say the dumbest things and do the stupidest things....

i.e.

Jane Fonda posing with N. Vietmanese anti aircraft crews and Kanye West saying G. Bush "doesn't like black people".

True. But one of the privileges of fame and fortune is that it allows you to make bigger (and more public) mistakes.

Although Kanye West might have a point about GWB - though it might have been more PC to say that "GWB doesn't care about the poor". Katrina was a rather atrocious example of negligent emergency planning (with the rather damning video of the president being advised specifically about the high risk of major damage, and then telling the FEMA guy that he would have everything he needed. There was something else I remember from a couple of years ago (I'll have to see if I can dig out the article) about GWB's proposals for fixing Social Security - which appeared to play upon the the generally lower life expectancy of african americans (again the result of poverty).

Edited August 15, 2006 by erekose

[Fischkoepfin 1]

It doesn't matter if they are pleasent or not, its a matter of people listening to these celebrities when they are the least qualified individuals.

Who determines who is qualified to speak their politics in public? The government, the talk radio hosts, or the general public?

And once we start putting standards in place, then who do we stop from speaking in public next because they are unqualified? Librarians? Professors? Teachers? Talk radio hosts?

I don't know about you - but there's been a fair amount of righteous indignation levelled at college professors. Again as though all America's problems can be boiled down to a conspiracy perpetrated by some sort hippy sandal wearing secret society.

Exactly. All the people in the list - except for talk radio hosts - have been told to be quiet and do their job instead of spouting their negative image of the world we live in to the American public.

It's very easy to put all the blame on groups of people who still have access to the public, be it through the press, radio, tv, books, or public lectures. It's also very easy to pinpoint to some sort of "liberal conspiracy" while painting those that cry wolf "conspiracy theorists." It's an old mechanism to maintain power and it works quite well (at least for a while)...

The problem I have with Hollywood is that they say the dumbest things and do the stupidest things....

i.e.

Jane Fonda posing with N. Vietmanese anti aircraft crews and Kanye West saying G. Bush "doesn't like black people".

That's a problem I have with most people appearing on America's TV-screens and airwaves, first and foremost among them politicians...

Edited August 15, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't matter if they are pleasent or not, its a matter of people listening to these celebrities when they are the least qualified individuals.

Who determines who is qualified to speak their politics in public? The government, the talk radio hosts, or the general public?

And once we start putting standards in place, then who do we stop from speaking in public next because they are unqualified? Librarians? Professors? Teachers? Talk radio hosts?

I don't know about you - but there's been a fair amount of righteous indignation levelled at college professors. Again as though all America's problems can be boiled down to a conspiracy perpetrated by some sort hippy sandal wearing secret society.

Exactly. All the people in the list - except for talk radio hosts - have been told to be quiet and do their job instead of spouting their negative image of the world we live in to the American public.

It's very easy to put all the blame on groups of people who still have access to the public, be it through the press, radio, tv, books, or public lectures. It's also very easy to pinpoint to some sort of "liberal conspiracy" while painting those that cry wolf "conspiracy theorists." It's an old mechanism to maintain power and it works quite well (at least for a while)...

While what is happening today is rather more insidious than the Mccarthyism of the last century, it is little different in my view. The nature of the perceived enemy has changed - the tactics have not.

The arguments that the administration put out in response to criticisms of policy - about how certain groups and individuals are "giving comfort and emboldening the enemy" is a crude way of controlling discourse, getting people to focus on unrelated things that have little to do with the business of government that the critics are actually objecting to.

Yet another example of the reliance people have on slogans and stale talking points - all the people who bought that flip-flop b/s about John Kerry in the last election - who while he was certainly not the best candidate to represent the Democrats, certainly hadn't done anything significantly different to the majority of US politicians.

I guess that's the nature of propaganda - to make people see differences where none exists.

Edited August 15, 2006 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

Maybe then you people may realize that all free democratic nations are under a terrorism attack and may change your Hollywood type of thinking.

What is the 'Hollywood type of thinking'?

That's a pretty oxymoron question.. Hollywood and thinking just don't mix.. One of many problems in Hollywood is that a lot of actors are starting to believe their own BS.. It's a democrat stronghold obsessed with money, looks, drugs, what everybody is doing and status..

[Risto 0]

Why would anyone take political advice from a bunch of college drop-outs, drug addicts, and media whores? I despise celebrities (for the most part).

I don't know - the ones I've met seemed quite pleasant.

It doesn't matter if they are pleasent or not, its a matter of people listening to these celebrities when they are the least qualified individuals.

Like Ronald Reagan? Arnold Schwarzenegger...?

How does someone become qualified? Are they not entitled to an opinion, or is it the fact that they have access to the broadcast media that people find objectionable.

Again, I'm not sure I see any movie star celebrities behind any big political movements, so I'm not sure how true it is to suggest that people are significantly influenced by them.

I would love to see John Steward as US president

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Maybe then you people may realize that all free democratic nations are under a terrorism attack and may change your Hollywood type of thinking.

What is the 'Hollywood type of thinking'?

That's a pretty oxymoron question.. Hollywood and thinking just don't mix.. One of many problems in Hollywood is that a lot of actors are starting to believe their own BS.. It's a democrat stronghold obsessed with money, looks, drugs, what everybody is doing and status..

Does that mean that all Democrats don't think? And that it is because they don't think they believe what they say?

How is it possible to make movies, most of which are affirmative of so-called mainstream American values, and not think?

Hollywood is just like any other place in the US with the sole difference that some rich movie stars vote Democrat and differ in their voting habits from other rich people. The number of actors is probably not high enough to swing the vote given that lots of othe people live in the area. Also, being in California, which is considered Democrat anyway, it's not surprising at all. If Hollywood were in Utah, now that would be a different issue and potentially a valid point.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The problem I have with Hollywood is that they say the dumbest things and do the stupidest things....

i.e.

Jane Fonda posing with N. Vietmanese anti aircraft crews and Kanye West saying G. Bush "doesn't like black people".

And they will play a role and consider themselves experts. Someone playing a farmer on TV doesn't even make them qualified to water my plants.

[incanada1234 0]

Does that mean that all Democrats don't think?

Fisch, I didn't realize you were a celebrity-worshiper.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem I have with Hollywood is that they say the dumbest things and do the stupidest things....

i.e.

Jane Fonda posing with N. Vietmanese anti aircraft crews and Kanye West saying G. Bush "doesn't like black people".

And they will play a role and consider themselves experts. Someone playing a farmer on TV doesn't even make them qualified to water my plants.

But there's no proof whatsoever that people are influenced by those views to any significant degree.

Tom Cruise railing in a TV interview about the nature of pyschiatric treatment, might not be professionally qualified to make such a determination, but that doesn't preclude him from having an opinion in the first place. Incidentally, he did have a point - although the vitriol that was thrown at him seemed to stem primarily from the way in which he articulated himself, not necessarily what he said. If people don't want to hear the opinions of celebrities then perhaps entertainment journalists should stop asking those questions?

Again I'm not sure how one becomes 'qualified', it might seem clear cut with professional classes such as doctors, engineers etc, but the distinction is far less clear when it comes to political issues - where you seem to be accepting as gospel the idea that a certain class of rich people have a more valid opinion than another.