Comments on: Using Fame to Promote an Issue: A Reponsibility or Uncouth?

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:43:28 +0000

I think they should all just shut up. I’ve never listened to any of them and find it irritating that they think they have the right to force their views on me.

By: Flexo

Flexo — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:23:35 +0000

Bob: I don’t think that analogy holds up. You have a contract to provide engineering services in return for $30 an hour. When you buy a concert ticket, the performer is not held to any contract with you. In return for your $60, the show promoter is guaranteeing you a seat from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm (or whatever)… and that’s it. The performer’s contract is with the show promoter and the promoter’s contract is with the venue…

But you have expectations for what your concert experience should be, and performers shouldn’t stray too far from what their ticket holders want unless they’re trying to redefine their image and find a new audience.

So, you’re not paying a singer $60 to sing, you’re payng a show promoter $60 to let you sit in your seat for 3 hours.

What about at awards shows? If you watch on television, you’re not paying anyone anything.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:09:04 +0000

@Brian: “If they want to talk about their political beliefs that annoy you, too bad. You aren’t “forced” to be there, you paid them $60 to be there and you can leave at any time.”

I disagree. If I paid $60 for a ticket to hear them sing, they should be singing. Anything else on their part is dishonest. If I paid $60 for a ticket to hear their political views, that’s a different matter.

If my company pays me $30 for an hour of engineering, I had darn well better be engineering. They’re not paying me to state my political views. If I did, I would quickly be finding myself another job. The same thing should apply to an entertainer.

By: fathersez

fathersez — Wed, 14 May 2008 03:28:19 +0000

There should be a time and place for everything.

If we are at a function and the someone who is giving a speech goes off topic and starts blabbing about his/her favourite issue…then we are entitled to think they are uncouth.

If the function is about the subject concerned, and the famous guy/gal talks their heads off….good for them.

By: Mrs. Micah

Mrs. Micah — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:20:57 +0000

I like Brian’s point. Even in kindergarten you learn that some people are just crazy and you don’t bother listening to them. I think Charlton Heston was a bit off his rocker since….well since ever. So I just ignore him. If people don’t like Michael Moore (I really have no opinion about him) then they can do the same.

If a celebrity can fit their issue into the 30 second speech at the Oscars (without going over) then fine. If they want to make a website or youtube video, ok. They’re the same as other people…who also have the right to try to promote their opinions.

After all, people aren’t just what they do for a living.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:00:33 +0000

I don’t see it as a responsibility, but it is an exercise of their freedom of speech if they choose to do so.
Castocreations, if you paid to see The Dixie Chicks perform, and if they don’t play your favorite song, too bad. If they decide to skip all their hits and spend 115 minutes on a freeform improvised jazz cello solo that you hate, too bad. If they want to talk about their political beliefs that annoy you, too bad. You aren’t “forced” to be there, you paid them $60 to be there and you can leave at any time.

This goes both ways. The Dixie Chicks (who I’m assuming you’re referencing) took a risk by vocally stating opinions that went against their typical fanbase. People could’ve gotten angry and not paid to see them anymore, which some did…but they went on to win a bunch of CMT awards, Grammys, and still sell tickets, so their risk paid off. They challenged the stereotype that being patriotic meant blindly following your President, and succeeded.

“Celebrities” get that way because we buy their music, millions of housewives buy US Weekly, and millions of us will never forget the first time we saw “Big”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Band of Brothers”, or “Charlie Wilson’s War”. If somebody ‘abuses’ their celebrity status while exercising their constitutional right, ignore them. Change the channel. Don’t go to their concert. Use *your* freedom to avoid them, and everyone stays happy.

I ignore Bill O’Reilly because I think he’s a d***he. I ignore Paris Hilton because I think she’s useless. I ignore Tom Cruise because he’s…well, he’s crazy, and he’s Tom Cruise. One of the most important lessons I learned in kindergarten is that people can only annoy you if you pay attention to them.

By: castocreations

castocreations — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:29:14 +0000

“Or do you believe only the celebrities who agree with you should have the opportunity to speak out for issues that they find important?”

Well, duh. LOL :)

I think most celebrities, actors, and singers are clueless about the ‘real’ world and I could care less what they say. Actions speak louder than words. One person who has actually “earned” the right to her opinion having meaning is Angelina Jolie. Michael Moore is just a blowhard idiot.

As for presidential nominations. I could care less who Tom Hanks wants. His life is so foreign from mine that he could live on another planet. So his “needs” don’t really jive with what I want in a president.

I don’t really care what celebrities say as long as they do it at the right time. If I pay to attend a music concert I don’t want to be forced to listen to their political views. Shut Up and Sing (as Laura Ingrim’s book so eloquently states).