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
30 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.
2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片
免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂
裸體高雄援交妹
gogo2sex桃園視訊妹
85cc情色視訊交友
視訊妹迷愛聊天
34c情人視訊網愛聊天室
南台灣視訊貓貓論壇
視訊美女
21sex美女視訊交友
34c美女寶貝視訊
免費a片線上觀看s383視訊
視訊交友90739,限制級,777美女dvd
免費成人影片,日本美女寫真集
080情人網,本土自拍貼圖
ut同志交友網
禁地論壇比基尼辣妹
dvd線上aa片免費看
show-live名模視訊
情人小魔女自拍
視訊自拍美女聊天室
Post a Comment
<< Home