Hollywood Just Doesn't Get It

[editor]

A meteorologist friend of mine gave me an interesting piece of paper. It's a press release from Columbia Pictures, which is trying to get TV weathermen across the country to plug the Jumanji-for-a-new-generation film Zathura (I hear it's pretty lame). The press release has the following two sentences one right after the other:

"REAL-LIFE FOOTAGE OF A METEOR SHOWER!

SO REAL YOU WON'T BELIEVE IT'S A MOVIE!"

So... is it real, or is it a movie? Apparently the PR machine at Columbia Pictures doesn't know the difference, and from what I've seen, I don't think the rest of Hollywood knows the difference between movies and real life, either. Which explains all their stupid congressional testimony. Any time a cause gets some actor to plug their cause before a Congressional committee, I immediately see that cause in a lesser light.

The only thing worse is people who vote for a particular politician because their favorite actor/director/musician/celebutante endorses him/her. When will Americans learn to think for themselves?

[RedScare]

I tend to believe that actors/celebrities influencing anything, especially the political process, is a myth. Just because a celbrity gets airtime due to his/her celebrity status does not mean that anyone is listening to them, much less changing their political views because of them.

I also don't think that television blowhards, such as O'Reilly (the new al Qaida mouthpiece) and Hannity influence the debate either. Those who are predisposed to that rhetoric will tune in for reaffirmation. Anyone looking for reasoned discourse on a subject would never even think to look for it there (or in Hollywood).

However, voters who do not think for themselves is infuriating. The majority of Americans on both sides of the debate pick their party and then let the party dictate their ideals. As an example, the GOP markets itself as fiscally conservative and opposed to big government, and for state's rights. Yet, it has created the biggest deficits and the biggest spending increases in history. Bush created the biggest bureaucracy (Homeland Security), the biggest increase in social spending since Social Security (Medicare drug benefit), and attempted to tell Florida and families what to do in the Terry Schiavo case. I would show the same thing with Democrats, but they haven't had a platform in awhile. However, in the 90s, Clinton stole welfare reform from the Repubs and made it his own. He also signed NAFTA.

It is my belief that most Americans have gotten so lazy and disinterested in safeguarding their rights, that they let someone else do it for them. The reason Republican voters have such a hard time believing that their representatives are screwing them is that they would then have to pay attention...same with Democratic voters. As long as gas is under $2 and there is room on the credit card, Americans would give away virtually every right they have, as long as it doesn't inconvenience them...much.

[TJones]

Red, how many housewives in America and even working women, hang on to every word OPRAH has to say ? She is a smart woman, woman believe in her because she is smart and strong. I think the same goes for MARTHA, that woman knows how much power she holds and uses it constantly. The strange thing is that prison has seem to mellow MARTHA, instead of making her Harder. I think several male celebs also have influence over certain types of male egos, and the mentality is" if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me !" I thankfully don;t have this problem. Although i strangely find myself waiting for what you are going to say next Red. Pass the poisoned Kool-aid Red.

[Jeebus]

Martha has never said anything politically influential compared to Oprah - that I know of.

[TJones]

Martha has never said anything politically influential compared to Oprah - that I know of.

No No that's not what I meant, sorry, I meant that woman just adore these two, and have a propensity to follow what they might say.

[editor]

I tend to believe that actors/celebrities influencing anything, especially the political process, is a myth. Just because a celbrity gets airtime due to his/her celebrity status does not mean that anyone is listening to them, much less changing their political views because of them.

My sister-in-law, and several of my interns, all members of the MTV generation, based their vote in the 2004 election on celebrity endorsements. One even changed her mind about who to vote for because when it came to conflicting endorsers she went with the "cuter" one.

Anecdotal evidence, but these days every vote counts.

[RedScare]

I don't know Oprah's political leanings, but somehow, I doubt she is a Republican, at least in the social conservative sense. If she had that much influence over half of the US population, Republicans would not control the White House and both houses of Congress. Same goes for Hollywood and music celebrities.

Studies have shown that, like criminal defendants, the more attractive CANDIDATE enjoys a slight edge over the less attractive one. Consider Bush in the 2000 election. In spite of the prevailing opinion of the general population that he was not intelligent enough to be president, numerous polls found he was considered more attractive by women, and more "down to earth" by men. In the end though, he garnered fewer votes than his opponent, though he won the electoral vote.

Celebrities, because of their (undeserved) status may cause fringe voters such as young people and others to PAY ATTENTION to the political race, where previously they were disinterested, but celebrities don't change voter views any more, and probably less, than other, equally unauthoritative sources, such as cable and radio talk show hosts.

In my 27 years of voting, I have never met a person who voted for a candidate because of that candidate's celebrity endorsement. I have met many who thought the candidate himself was attractive, and perhaps some voted on that basis, but never an endorser. I will refrain from sharing my opinion of those who base their vote on celebrity OR cable TV host opinions.

I am curious though, why you are only offended by uninformed celebrity endorsements, and not uninformed TV and radio host endorsements. And, are you equally offended by actors who run for governor or president? Do Charlton Heston, Ted Nugent and Curt Schilling offend you as much as Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon? I suspect it is the endorsement that offends you more than the endorser.

[editor]

I am curious though, why you are only offended by uninformed celebrity endorsements, and not uninformed TV and radio host endorsements. And, are you equally offended by actors who run for governor or president? Do Charlton Heston, Ted Nugent and Curt Schilling offend you as much as Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon? I suspect it is the endorsement that offends you more than the endorser.

The celebrity endorsements bother me because those are the ones I see. I don't watch much cable news, and when I do the only option is CNN, which I usually have the sound down on. I gave up on talk radio years ago so I'm not exposed to those endorsements. They don't bother me because I don't hear them.

I don't like celebrities running for office, but there's nothing I can do about it. If they're citizens they have the right to run. But I worry that in time it will degenerate and end up like in Italy where lots of celebrities run for office to further their careers -- even porn stars. Many people don't have a lot of faith in the electoral system as it is. It would be wrong to turn it into a farce.

[westguy]

I don't think Oprah is Republican either, but she doesn't tell her viewers who to vote for. Neither does Martha, because they wouldn't be able to get certain guests if they actively endorsed candidates or parties.

[Jeebus]

Many people don't have a lot of faith in the electoral system as it is. It would be wrong to turn it into a farce.

I believe many already feel this way about our own presidential election system. I know I do.

[Parrothead]

Well, I liked this topic before it went all partisan. FWIW, I agree with you editor.

[VelvetJ]

I suppose I am basically with you Red. I think celebrities influencing people's vote is overrated. I am another who know very few people if any that has voted based upon what a celebrity thinks.

Now if you want to talk about people who have voted for someone soley based upon a single subject, unfortunately I know of the type. Now THAT is a dangerous game that I think most of Americans have awaken to a little more at this point.

Anyway, I really don't believe people vote based upon what Cher says, however I do find myself a little more concerned when it comes to those like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the entire Fox News Network because they sell themselves as being actual legitimate news that is objective (can someone say "Fair and Balanced"?). That type of situation is more conerning to me with regard to voting influence than actors.

One last thing, although Oprah has given money to both Republicans and Democrats in the past, I think it is fairly simple to figure out her party affiliaton. If it walks, talks, acts, hangs out with, and has a looooooooooooong history of being with ducks, not to mention a close relationship with the biggest duck family in the country , it's a duck in most cases. And Oprah is one in the most case scenario.