Don Surber controls his anger while posting on hypocrit Angelina Jolie's attempt to ban Fox News from covering her movie premiere for A Mighty Heart, the movie about Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was tortured and beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Karachi, Pakistan on Feb. 1, 2002.
Labels: Celebrity hypocrits
posted by Helen at 10:04 AM
28 Comments:
Not just Fox News, of course, but any news organization whose reporters might ask her inconvenient questions.
Is there anyone - politicians included - more hypocritical than a celebrity/philanthropist?
Hmmm, addicted televangelists may be. If not, they definitely come VERY close. But your point is taken.
Trey
Ah - I forgot about the holy rollers.
I think my problem is that, since I don't take celebrities seriously, it's hard to take their pet causes seriously. Their presence can be valuable if they behave themselves, but too often they turn serious efforts to solve serious problems into freak-shows. Angelina's big gestures on behalf of starving Africans and Middle East peace have a creepy, Michael Jackson-esque quality.
Makes me want to send all my spare change to Jane Goodall's chimp charity.
And yes, I do enjoy shooting messengers. Especially aristocratic, self-appointed ones.
The word that rhymes with WITCH!!!
"too often they turn serious efforts to solve serious problems into freak-shows. Angelina's big gestures on behalf of starving Africans and Middle East peace have a creepy, Michael Jackson-esque quality."
Couldn't agree more. How does adopting a few children help solve any problems in Africa? Further, wouldn't this encourage families to "sell" their children to rich foreigners? Isn't this harming more than helping?
Yes, bugs hit the nail on the head with the "creepy" factor of Angelina's Good Deeds.
I have come to believe she lives vicariously through her own Image. Everything she does seems to indicate a need to stay in the spotlight, at all costs. Yick.
You know, I almost miss having some trolls to argue with...
By by Brad.
I think we know who wears the pants in that family...
It appears her lawyer is now taking the blame for the whole pre-interview terms & conditions thing. And banning Fox News was just an oversight.
I knew there was a simple explanation...
Fox News ought to retaliate by having her dad on O'Reilly again.
And then make sure he's on Hannity's radio program.
I am sure that Comrade Jolie feels she has to do this to distance herself from Mr. Voigt, who in the world of the warped Hollywood Communists, has betrayed the cause.
I'd like to see Jolie do some underwear commercials on TV. Outside of that, not interested.
Since there are no more anonymous postings, the trolls have all but disappeared. Funny thing. So I have to assume that any excuse made for using anonymous was to be safe and sound from being recognized on this site (even if only an alter ego), not for other reasons as so often stated. (One has to put in a valid e-mail address. Fear of reprisal?) It isn't that hard. Everyone knows I am br549 because I wanted people to have something others could identify me by, should they have a beef with my view on a subject, and not accidentally jump on another. But still, no one knows who I am.
I do not speak of this site to friends or acquaintances, but I have seen others on this site from my own town. I would not be too surprised if someone I actually know has been here, even comes here regularly.
My God, could it even be Rosie? (shudder)
Naaaaaaaaaa...........
bugs...
I could hassle you about Leon Redbone if you'd like.........
Don't you see? Celebrities deserve to have their property rights honored so they have become rich, but little people don't. Why? Because they're celebrities. Hypocrisy doesn't apply to them. They deserve fundamental rights like property rights - no one else does.
Should be "can" in the first sentence above, not "have".
Anon, why do you think that is so? I agree with your point, although the rhetoric is maybe a bit harsh for me. Part of it is the narcissism and istrionic personality style that drives people into the acting and performance jobs, but part ofit is also the schophantic adulation that is pushed their way. I cannot imagine what that is like, what a delicious but insidious drug it must be.
Trey
Wow, I must not post on the laptop while outside watching the kids play. It is supposed to be Histrionic, and sYchophantic among other spelling screw ups that even I can find.
Trey
tmink-
Anon, why do you think that is so? I agree with your point, although the rhetoric is maybe a bit harsh for me. Part of it is the narcissism and istrionic personality style that drives people into the acting and performance jobs, but part ofit is also the schophantic adulation that is pushed their way. I cannot imagine what that is like, what a delicious but insidious drug it must be.
There's a lot of variables in there - arrogance, exceptionalism, sadism, etc. It gets pretty disgusting because a lot of them claim they worked so hard to be successful. If that was the case and they were a mature and responsible person they would never ever ruin or steal the hard work of someone with less than them. But no, they act like petty tyrants playing with other people's lives and property. In some case there are racist, sexist, political undertones - its OK for them to do something to a group they don't like.
Anon wrote: "its OK for them to do something to a group they don't like."
Yes, because hangers on allow it. I think it is a system problem as well as an individual one. The posse are along for the gravy train, and do not want to upset the celeb for fear of losing the perks.
Trey
tmink-
Yes, because hangers on allow it. I think it is a system problem as well as an individual one. The posse are along for the gravy train, and do not want to upset the celeb for fear of losing the perks.
I agree there's a weird dynamic there. There seems to be this odd perception when someone is rich.
Say a rich person was defrauding or exploiting a poor person out of a lot of money. I think a lot average people would help them or do nothing to stop it. And this is without any incentives - it's a weird kind of misplaced jealousy. You would think they would side with the poorer person with merit and not the dishonest, vicious rich person, but for some reason that isn't the case. I guess the average person is just a jealous, greedy, dishonest bastard.
Well, I am not sure I agree with you that the average person is just a jealous, greedy, dishonest bastard, but from my viewpoint, we are all fallen, sinful human beings.
I was thinking more of the cult of glamour.
Trey
I've only known a few actors - mostly local theatre types - but I figure they're a good representative sample. Some of them just acting for fun. They're nice, grounded people who take their craft and their material seriously - but not themselves. You can spot them at the theatre after the play - they finish up in the dressing room, walk out the door, get in their cars and go home.
Then there are the egos. Narcissists who are extremely unhappy unless they're the center of attention and objects of constant, undiluted admiration and praise. You can always spot them at the theatre because after the play they hang out in the lobby waiting for audience members to come and tell them how wonderful their performance was. They have a little coterie of admirers who never miss a show. They are often fun and attractive but deeply insecure. They tend to use their "regular" friends as foils to show off how wonderful they are by contrast. Their behavior can be outrageous or even antisocial, as long as it keeps the spotlight on them. Any friend who responds to them with less than the required degree of enthusiasm - usually someone who's exhausted after years of dealing with them - is quickly replaced by someone new and awestruck. They can keep this up as long as their looks and charisma hold out, and as long as there are dupes in the audience. Eventually, however, age and the loss of relationships catch up with them. Some of them then settle down and grow up. Other's just become ridiculous.
I think Angelina probably exists somewhere between those two extremes.
Jolie is not a hypocrite.
The agreement she asked Fox News and others to sign indicated she did not want questions asked of her personal life during the interview and focus questions on the movie instead.
Fox News and others decided to not sign the agreement and then blamed Jolie for 'censorship'.
What's wrong with asking the press to report on the movie - of which addresses an important event - as opposed to digging around in her personal life? The fact that Fox News and others did not agree to this speaks volumes about their journalist ethics and abilities as well as what the intent of their focus might be.
If I as a journalist was there to cover the movie and was asked to sign such an agreement I would gladly do so. It is the movie and the story behind it that is important, not Jolie's personal life.
It is the press (that was being held to an ethical standard but balked at doing so) and those that hate Hollywood that made this into a story, not Jolie.
"If I as a journalist was there to cover the movie and was asked to sign such an agreement I would gladly do so."
You wouldn't last five minutes as a journalist.
No way I'll rise to the defense of the newsies. They bring most of their problems - including Angelina's little stunt - on themselves due to their offensive, clueless behavior.
But this controversy isn't really about whether newsies should be allowed to ask stupid questions. It's about "important" people demanding special treatment. Angelina expects her lawyer to basically make it illegal for any reporter to ask her about anything other than her movie. The entire rest of the population (you, me, the President, the Pope, and the Dalai Freaking Lama) have to take whatever the newsies dish out and hope that "No comment" will keep them away from subjects we'd rather not discuss.
So the question is, why do we have to obey the First Amendment but she doesn't?
Yes, that is resentment speaking. And no, I don't hate Hollywood - just many of the people who work there.
You wouldn't last five minutes as a journalist.
Is that to say the journalists that did sign the agreement have ended their careers?
It's about "important" people demanding special treatment.
I don't quite interpret her actions in that manner. It would be just as easy for you or me to have the same contract put forth were either of us to be interviewed.
You have actually given the explanation for her desire for personal privacy in your statement. She cannot make it "illegal" to ask personal questions but she can make it a contractual obligation. It is up to the interviewers to decide whether or not they wish to sign such an agreement.
Your description of the 'newsies' is precisely why such a contract was written.
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with free speech.
It is this simple:
1) Sign the contract/agreement that states no personal questions during the interview.
2) Breach of said contract/agreement gets you removed.
3) Decide whether or not you can sign and abide by the agreement.
I applaud her attempts to keep the interviewers focused on the movie and not on her personal life. It is the behavior of the 'newsies' that result in such contracts.
Incidentally, show me an "important" person that does not demand special treatment of some type.
You know, you're right. I concede every point.
I just don't like actors. Or reporters.
I wonder if any reporter or news group would have signed such a contract for Thompson, or Gary Sinise, or anyone not of a left leaning persuasion.
I don't think Fox would have signed that one either.
bugs, don't forget the best actors of them all: politicians.
br549, I agree with the Fox sentiment. As our minor discussion has revealed it's up to the news organization to decide whether or not to sign such an agreement. Right or left has nothing to do with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home