Or it could just be that he doesn’t collect his eight-figure salary if he isn’t on the air.
I’m constantly amazed that the Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc.-bashers here don’t seem to be able to make the distinction between entertainers who voice their opinions because it’s their job, and people tune in – whether they agree or not – to hear what these people have to say. These people voice their opinions and their spin on things because it’s their occupation! People know what to expect going in.
Singers/actors/producers, etc. are different kinds of entertainers. Their jobs are to sing, act, produce, etc. Their jobs are not to tell people what to think and how to view political issues.
There are two problems when entertainers do this. First of all, it’s smug, conceited and arrogant to assume you are going to influence people to think as you do just because you are so great/cool/good-looking, and therefore worthy of emulation.
Two, it’s inappropriate and unexpected (and therefore unappreciated) to speak out on politics when people are interested in seeing or hearing you because of your talents as an entertainer. It would be like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity showing up to speak at a business convention and, because of their artistic interests and because they think they’re so cool, decide to subject their audience to a singing or acting performance.
How silly and presumtuous would they look doing that? That’s how show-biz folk pontificating on politics come across.
Meh. He’s just jealous because all the cool acts are lining up behind Kerry and the Democrats (e.g., Springsteen and REM on the same bill! How often are you going to see a concert like that?) Really, who do Bush and the Republicans have to counter that?
Thanks. I now feel a lot of empathy for people who are still using.
I, too, would like to see a contextual quote, because I can’t believe any addict would make a comment like that.
At least not an addict who has done any honest work at recovery.
Dear Starving Artist,
“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Sincerely,
P.S. “American citizen” means all citizens, rock stars and peons alike, not just political commentators and hacks.
To this I can only say the following:
“Let the Eagle soar…
Like she’s never soared before…
From rocky coast to golden shore…
Let the mighty Eagle sooooooooooooooooar…”
Somehow I think the fact that Hannity and Rush position themselves as being honest authorities when they’re full of shit liars is different from musicians who are expressing their opinion. Remarkably, Rush and co. make some these people look pretty unpretentious.
Of course, you’ll note he said that after he was no longer president, when the other party was in. 
Shayna, in addition to the people who can’t seem to distinguish between a political or social commentator and a rock star or actor, I’m also amazed at the number of people who can’t seem to distinguish between saying someone is wrong for inappropriately espousing a view, and saying they have no right to do so.
It is more than obivous they have a right to express their opinions and to try to influence people because they are so cool/talented/good-looking, etc. (as must be the case because they have no particular knowledge that makes their point of view more valid). It’s also obvious that anyone who chooses to disapprove of it and to label it as condescending, inappropriate, arrogant, or whatever, also has the right to do that.
My purpose of my post, which you seem to have missed the point of, was to answer the question of why it seems to be okay for entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. to comment on politics, but not for entertainers like Ronstadt, Streisand, Reiner, etc.
One is *supposed *to present political/social points of view, the other is supposed to sing, act, dance…whatever. It’s inappropriate and resented–despite the fact that each has the right to do so–for the one to venture into the other.
I don’t know when this point of view became popular, but it’s fucking moronic. Musicians are supposed to stay out of politics? Bullshit. Tell that to Bob Marley, Bob Dylan and the Beatles, for a start.
Yeah, but what about what I said?
Did I ever say they were supposed to stay out of politics? No!
Did I explain why people seem to resent it when they do get into politics, as opposed to those for whom it’s their occupation? Yes!
Do try to stay on point, won’t you?
I don’t know about Bruce, but Ted Nugent has always been clean and sober.
Funny, Bonnie and Bruce are probably some of the last rockers I’d call “drug addled.” Heh, point the finger at Ozzy or someone. If you’re gonna say something like that, at least make sure you’re accurate!
Since when?
Oh, since about 200 some-odd years ago, when something called the First Amendment was added to the Constitution.
Honestly, people, it’s okay when the Dems to it to the Repubs, but the Repubs can’t do it to the Dems?
I can’t wait until November 3.
You are ignoring the fact that many people do emulate celebrities, for good or for ill. Madonna, for example, has taken to wearing a t-shirt that reads “Vote Or Die”. There is also a link to register to vote on the main page of a prominent Madonna news site. It is not presumption to think that entertainers have influence. They do. Why do you think they get all thsoe free clothes?
I dunno, I think that would be kind of cool and humanizing.
To quote Margaret Cho " The purpose of art is to comment on culture". If art doesn’t say anything about the culture that produced it then it might as well be randomly generated by a computer. By that measure, artist have a responsibility to talk about culture (and politics is one aspect of culture)
Starving Artist:
You said it was inappropriate. Sounds like a Yes! to me.
Well, for starters, Starving Artist, it would help if the “voice of conservativism” and the man who calls his show “Fair & Balanced” actually presented themselves as entertainers. They don’t. They present themselves as serious journalists and political analysts. This gives their opinions more weight than that of the average entertainer. So to say “they’re just entertainers voicing their opinions” is more than a little disengenuous.
What I find inappropriate and arrogant is the fact that these “journalists” are using their fora to entrench beliefs which are hypocritical to their own actions. What right does Rush Limbaugh have to call Bonnie Rait and Bruce Springsteen “drug addled”? At best, it’s tasteless. Especially coming from a man who says that people with substance abuse problems should be jailed. I’m not holding my breath waiting for him to turn himself in.
Precisely! And the entertainers know it. And the public knows it too, thus the ill will they generate.
It’s believed celebrities, who have no more factual information as to what would be best, have an undue influence on the impressionable. Hence the resentment they create.
And since you brought it up (and believe it or not, I was always something of a fan of P. Diddy until I learned he was a bullying asshole in real life), I think that “Vote or Die” slogan is easily the most stupid thing I’ve heard all year. What does it say about his view of the intelligence and discernment of his target audience that he would come up with something this ridiculous? “Vote or Die” indeed! Give me a frickin’ break!
You said Rush and Hannity were “supposed to” do one thing, the musicians were “supposed to” do the other, and that it’s “inappropriate…for one to venture into the other.” Please fucking tel me how you didn’t say they were supposed to stay out of politics, and then tell me where I went off point.
No, I said it was *perceived *as inappropriate by the people who disapprove of celebrities speaking out on politics. (And yes, I’m clearly one who agrees.) But this is not the same as saying celebrities are supposed to stay out of politics. It’s their choice, as is the response of those who are resentful of them for it.