But is it the role of the artist to alienate and inflame his or her audience with his/her art? Andy Kaufmann certainly thought so, and I know of people who wish he was still alive so they could kill him. I don’t know, maybe you’re right, but it seems counter-productive to me.
And is it really art that Linda Ronstadt was using to persuade her audience, or was it only her personal opinion given weight in her own mind because she regards herself as being special because she is an artist? I can’t imagine very many completely unknown people thinking they can get up on a stage and preach to people about who is a “patriot” and who is telling the real “truth” and expecting anyone to pay the slightest bit of attention to it.
Celebrities think their opinions carry weight simply because they have fans. It has nothing to do with art. As I said before, if Ronstadt wants to record a song and use it to state her opinion, that would seem to me a more legitimate way to go about it. Then it would then be her art that was doing the speaking, rather than just a self-impressed celebrity trying to capialize on her stardom to persuade impressionable people to think the way she does. Again, celebrities have no special insight, no special knowledge. There is nothing that qualifies them to voice their opinions over that of the aforementioned nobody on a stage, other than for them to recognize and try to capitalize on the disproportionate amount of influence they have by virtue of who they are.
Starving Artist, I don’t agree with your argument in the least, but even if one were to accept your argument, it would not apply to people like Streisand.
She is widely known to voice her opinions on political matters. It is expected of her. To consider that inappropiate simply because she is also well known for her singing talents would simply be bizarre.
If Rush had any actual talents, would that automatically disqualify him from speaking his mind? It makes no sense.
Similarly, I believe Springstein is clearly advertising his tour as being political in nature. It would be unbelievably hypocritical and wrongheaded to find anything wrong with that. I can’t believe you would really espouse such a view.
The only person that your argument applies to would be Linda Ronstadt, since her political comments were a surprise to the audience. Of course, it would no longer apply were she to speak out politically again, because now it can be expected of her as well.
I consider him to be a commentator who used to be an entertainer. And oddly enough, I don’t find him quite as objectionable now. Now he’s taken on the burden of espousing his views and defending them in a more or less open give and take.
I haven’t thought of this before, but I think much of my objection to celebrity ravings has to do with the same sense of fair play that exists here on the SDMB. People here don’t like drive-by postings. When something controversial is said, other posters want you to stick around to defend and/or be responsible for what you said. I think it’s the same thing with the likes of Ronstadt and Franken. Ronstadt is a drive-byer; Franken used to be a drive-byer and now he’s staying to fight. So now I have more regard for him.
So if Rondstat and say, Sean Hannity were to have a running battle of sound bites and blurbs in the media, that would be more acceptable? Or if there were a counterpart on the conservative side for Rondstat?
Nope, you don’t. Now, if Ronstadt was to have her own show, where her opinions could be out in the daylight and subject to challenge and rebuttal, and she weren’t just using the goodwill her artistic talent brought her to try to persuade people to a point of view she is no more qualified to speak to than anyone else, then yeah, I would think that would be more equitable.
Wrong on the conservative counterpart for Ronstadt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AvhHines
…And it takes some kind of chutzpa for someone who is publicly known to have a drug problem to refer to someone like Springsteen, who has always had an utterly squeaky clean rep in this regard, as being drug-addled.
Are you saying that Bruce Springstreen’s squeaky clean rep has yet to be proven? This is not something to prove. Disproving a squeaky clean rep is more appropriate.
This must be what you are talking about since Rush openly admitted his dependence on Oxycotin.
Consider it bizarre if you want, but I don’t see where there’s any difference in her behavior and that of any other liberal soap-boxer, except that she’s been doing it longer. Why should that entitle her to a pass?
I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but this makes no sense itself. Rush could have all kinds of talents, but he’s still a socio-political commentator by occupation.
Well, time to start believing it. Again, you have a celebrity who thinks he can leverage the good will and likability he has gained as a result of his singing career into persuading people to a point of view is in no other way qualified to expect them to listen to.
Sorry, but wrong again. I don’t think it’s a one time and you’re home free kind of deal. She is trying to use her celebrity to persuade people to something she’s not qualified to speak to nor available to answer for.
Well, it seems to have been my night in the barrell, and while I’m tempted to say it’s been fun, someone may misinterpret. So I’ll just say life beckons and I have to go for now. Good night (almost) all.
I mean, what kind of qualifications does she need to speak her mind? How is her artistic talent in any way related to the rightness, or boneheadedness, of her views? What if an entertainer is college educated? Studied Poly Sci? Would that make them more qualified? As has been said before, Heston’s chosen profession of acting did nothing to prepare him for his role in the NRA. Maybe they just wanted a public face that was easlily identifiable. Or maybe he had some smarts and skills that were unrelated to his profession.
Was there ever talk of Ronald Reagan being unfit for public office because he was just an actor? That his role in SAG was too far a cry from the rigors of California politics? We* know * that was said of Arnold here in California. Now he’s the Governor. (and I fucking cringe when anyone uses the term Governator!)
Your right that Rondstat is no more qualified to talk than anyone else. That is the beauty of democracy, though. We can all speak our minds. But it’s almost as if you don’t have a problem with her speaking, just that there is the possibilty that people will listen. And we should never fear that.
Forgive me if I’m going over old ground here. But I’m enoying the discussion.
I think they were looking for proof that Rush actually said it. As far as I can tell no one is disputing Rush’s difficulties with oxytiotin or that Springstien is drug free.
As I have been, and you’ve drug me back for one more go, but I’m afraid it has to be a short one.
Forgive me, but you are indeed going over old ground for the most part. Just about everything you ask can be answered in my previous posts.
And just for the record, yes, there was a lot of talk about Reagan not being qualified because he was just an actor. But he did like I said I think a celebrity ought to do if he feels passionately about politics and went to work to do something about it. If Babs tried the same, I’d have more regard for her.
“Apart from the fact that I refer to “people” knowing what to expect from Limbaugh, Hannity, el al.?”
You have referenced the fact that people know what to expect from Limbaugh as one of the reasons you feel he is free to deluge us with his opinions.
I was just countering that by showing that people also know what to expect from Streisand, Springstein, etc.
It seems you have now abandoned that point, and decided to rest your case on your ill-conceived notion that only professional political commentators should speak about politics.
As if the fact that one is a “professional political commentator” automatically makes them more qualified. As if the only views that Americans need hear should come from “professional political commentators”. As if “professional political commentators” don’t use their position to try and convince people of things they are in no way qualified on.
Once again I find myself doubting the genuineness of your nonsensical assertions, but I’ll take your word for it.
Reagan never spoke of his views while still an actor? Granted, it was a different time, and the media was a bit different in terms of how they would handle that. But did he ever make any statements while still acting? Arnold still has a film coming out this summer (in a minor role). He spoke often of his views before officially throwing his hat in the ring.
Personally, I could give a shit what Streisand has to say. So I don’t listen. And my own views run afoul of Mr. Reiner’s. I just can’t see their involvement in the political process as inappropriate. I think that people who are not in government or journalism full time may also have valid and useful things to contribute.
Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch. You’re just pissy cos Charlton Hesston, Bruce Willis, and the rest of the Hollywood right aren’t out there campaigning for their candidate as hard as the left is for theirs. And you know full well that Limbaugh is the first person who would identify himself as an entertainer; if he wasn’t his immediate content would be as free as that of the Washington Post or CNN.
You moron. Apos has yet to show where Rush made this purported comment. Nary a link to a reliable transcript or whatnot. But that has not stopped the rest of you from huffing and puffing in righteous indignation, huh?
So I’ll just say life beckons and I have to go for now. Good night (almost) all.