BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Celebrities on the war: who do you trust?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sleazenation
09:36 / 21.02.03
As Chris Morris said in a recent interview in the Guardian that...

"if a terrorist organisation wanted to knock out the moral compass of Britain, all they'd have to do is to kill 100 celebrities at random. The entire country would have an instant nervous breakdown."

Which made me think - Sod whether Turkey will allow access to US troops in the event war in Iraq- Coldplay and Ms Dynamite are against the war while the boy band blue want to steal the keys to the bandwagon and release an antiwar record of their own.

So what do people think of celebrities as opinion formers- and who do you trust - any celeb got an opinion you agree with?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:50 / 22.02.03
I agree with Chris Morris, you shouldn't let a celebrity make your opinions for yo- Ah.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
17:18 / 22.02.03
It's obvious that a celebrity's opinion is worth no more than yours or mine, but I think perhaps there is some value in famous people being shown to have opinions - it reinforces the fact that it's perfectly valid for anyone to have an opinion on current affairs, and to voice that opinion, and that speaking up is thought to be important and noteworthy.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:48 / 22.02.03
Neal Pollack's the only one worth listening to.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:25 / 23.02.03
I guess it's a fine line between doing something for the publicity (to sell more records to the "anti-war" market, in other words), and doing it because your status will give IT publicity (using your privileged position to get a message you feel strongly about heard by more people. If you see what I mean.
 
 
Brigade du jour
01:24 / 25.02.03
As much as I cringe whenever Atomic Kitten or Stella McCartney or whoever says something along the lines of "oh no, it's bad dropping bombs 'cos like people get hurt 'n' stuff", I can't help thinking that even if one goggle-eyed gossip-swallower who previously gave no more than half a shit about the whole situation actually starts thinking about it, and then maybe goes and reads some newspapers, or some books, or even some crazy-ass emails from a bunch of disembodied smart dudes like us 'ere on Barbelith, then it only adds to the sum of anti-war opinion.
Or, as Billy Connolly's tattoo artist put it - "that's one less of them and one more of us".
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:21 / 25.02.03
Ah yes, those "goggle-eyed gossip-swallowers" will be inspired by their vapid celebrity heroes to come and suckle knowledge from the teat of Barbelith, whose inhabitants certainly never, ever form an opinion on the basis of something a dodgy 'counter-culture' celebrity says...

Christ. I've got the gun in my mouth *right now*, you Black Cat-loving ninny.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:50 / 25.02.03
On the one hand, I think a celebrity using their status to promote a certain point of view can be a useful tool. On the other hand, I have to wonder why I should trust, respect George Michael's opinion and also I wonder when he (for example) became an expert on geopolitics.
 
 
Ray Von
09:19 / 25.02.03
I'm all for celebs speaking up and airing anti-war sentiments even dodgy ones such as Blue. Remember that here in the U.K. the vast majority of people exist and revel in gossip culture and can't do without a weekly dose of tabloids, Heat magazine and crap soaps! If anti-war statements can be expressed through these outlets then it can only be a good thing and impact on a wider audience. The day after the London March the News of the Worlds front page was for the most part devoted to a naked actress from Eastenders sunbathing. No doubt a lot of people find this sort of thing more interesting than the peace protest. So just think if the headline had read, 'Naked Eastender speaks out against War'.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:59 / 25.02.03
Ta for the Neal Pollack link, Jack. I used to think he was an unfunny hack but he's gotten so much better now that his bete noire is Hitchens (and Sullivan, too).

As for which celebrities speak for me, I'm in agreeance with Fred Durst on this whole war thing.
 
 
Brigade du jour
03:30 / 26.02.03
Take the gun out of your mouth Flyboy ... just put it down on the floor and back away ... go on, just back away ...

I just think if somebody who never thought about the whole fucked-up situation before starts thinking about it, it doesn't really matter how it happened.
 
 
Nematode
21:23 / 26.02.03
What possible value can there be in the opinion of a star. For people with any kind of suss it's an irrelevancy and becomes slightly irritating when they agree with you and for people who really don't know shit forming their opinions on the basis of the utterances of media figures is part of the reason we're in the trouble we're in in the first place. Now a televised terrorist execution of celebs would be something if they could just jig it so we could vote on it....that'd push up the ratings. Like Big Brother, lady Di and Jan Dildo rolled into one.
 
 
Nematode
21:25 / 26.02.03
I just think if somebody who never thought about the whole fucked-up situation before starts thinking about it, it doesn't really matter how it happened
Well yeah but do they think, or just sit about 'emoting'.
 
 
Brigade du jour
22:31 / 26.02.03
Fair point, N. I was just trying to look for the good in the situation that's all.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:35 / 26.02.03
I admit I was glad to see the Foo Fighters on Letterman with their No War stickers. Kind of nice to see such a widely viewed US entertainment show being used inadvertently as a political forum.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
21:48 / 27.02.03
i'm not sure why you people are all being so grumpy about this. up until just a few weeks ago, there was absolutely no anti-war opinion being expressed in american media. a lot of people thought they were relatively alone in their opinion; it seemed as though the MAINSTREAM was pro-Bush, pro-war, and therefore very difficult to oppose. only very recently has it suddenly become common for cnn newspapers to question the war, the administration behind it, and the supposed popular support.

celebrities tend to be the loudest voices in our culture, for the simple fact that they get to go on fucking tv and talk. having celebrities crying out against the war is a godsend. it reassures anti-war individuals and galvanizes mainstream america around the cause. the anti-war effort right now does not need freakish anarchists and wild theories; it doesn't even critically need wide-eyed teenagers to start reading and thinking for themselves. it needs mainstream america forcing a strong opposition to bush within the government. and mainstream celebrities seeming to represent a large percentage of wal-marting americans can help to make this happen.
 
 
Brigade du jour
21:51 / 27.02.03
I'm going to hide behind Mystery Gypt and shake my fist in Smithers-esque support for saying exactly what I wanted to say but was too afraid to. Go Gypt go! (or do you prefer Mystery as a diminutive?)
 
 
Jack Fear
23:09 / 27.02.03
...it seemed as though the MAINSTREAM was pro-Bush, pro-war...

The mainstream is pro-Bush, and qualifiedly pro-war. Unless you're looking at different polls than I am, the numbers still indicate that over 50% of Americans favor unilateral action, and even more would approve of a war if the UN were behind it.

The hard no-war-under-any-circumstances camp was always going to be a minority in the States: the question was whether it would be a fringe minority or a large, vocal minority.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:50 / 28.02.03
Who do they poll? Granted, I live in New York City, but I don't know ANYBODY who supports unilateral action. Where are these people?
 
 
Jack Fear
14:31 / 28.02.03
Everyplace that isn't New York City or Los Angeles, essentially.

And it is from statements like yours that ideas like liberal media bias are born.
 
 
Jack Fear
15:57 / 28.02.03
Latest numbers, for reference, courtesy of a CNN/Gallup poll, with some highlights...

The poll -- based on telephone interviews with 1,004 adult Americans between February 24 and 26 -- also found that support for sending U.S. troops to Iraq remains steady at 59 percent. Public attitudes, however, are likely to be shaped by the events of the next week or so as indicated by the respondents' answers to other questions. Nearly half of all Americans say they may change their minds on Iraq; about a third said they are committed to war. ...

On Iraq, the support for invading that country seemed to hinge on several factors. One example: Forty percent of those polled said they would support an invasion of Iraq with U.S. forces only if the United Nations approves another U.S. resolution against Iraq.

I believe that the relative lack of public debate should not be taken for a lack of private debate: that the silence you hear is neither a sign of silent assent, nor a sign of silent opposition—it's the sound, I think, of people scratching their heads.

This is not a no-brainer: there are strong moral arguments to be made both for and against military intervention in Iraq. A great many thoughtful people are indecisive on this. And frankly I think that many of the celebrity voices on the war are not the voices of thoughtful people.
 
 
Brigade du jour
18:48 / 28.02.03
George Michael was on TV tonight (Rich & Jude, C$) and it was pretty funny watching him on an anti-war kick having read some of the responses to this thread.

Basically, people were phoning in and saying things like "So George, is this a pathetic attempt to improve your flagging record sales then?"

His reply was that his last album had sold four million copies without any promotion thank you very much, anyway, Blair is having this moral dilemma yeah?

I don't know, I don't imagine too many people are really listening to him anyway. Same with Bono, I don't imagine even hardcore U2 fans take anything Bono says without at least a pinch of salt. But then again, if people like this didn't speak out against attacking Iraq and then it turned out afterwards that they had been against but been too scared to say anything, then we'd really have it in for them.

Funnily enough, listened to George Clooney on Desert Island Discs this morning and he was going off on one as well. Apparently he comes from a very democratic liberal (in the US senses of the words) family and therefore is against the whole thing on principle. Mind you, he said his dad would have killed him if he hadn't spoken up. Hmm, methinks the slimy doctor from ER lives somewhat in awe and fear of his progenitor ...
 
 
Nematode
21:18 / 28.02.03
Hmmm well speaking as a Brit I really don't think it ultimately makes a blind bit of difference if the public are exposed to the decontextualised sound bitten opinions of 'the stars' or not. The medium is the message. I'm not anti the mass media per se I think it can be used in very interesting and creative ways to promote critical thought and promote the developement of opinion, but it's nature needs to be taken into account or it's fucked and doesn't work. I have to say I think that Michael Moore and Mark Thomas frequently fail on this count. Now Chris Morris, he's good and we could do with a lot more of that if things are ultimately to change for the better.
I'm really not sure if great percentage of people who are exposed to arguments for peace from one of the exalted are really going to be touched by that experience in a meaningful way i.e one that pushes them to follow the chain of events and decisions that made up this situation. To question the media view and the motives of those behind it look at their view of the world and to go on and make their own worlds. We have an apparently very big anti war movement here and because of this some are thinking but I think a hell of a lot of people are into this 'cos they don't like our troops getting involved and don't fancy the 'threat' of a dirty bomb in Manchester. A sort of international not in my back yard thing, and how conscious is that?
What we really need is art here on the attack in a more oblique way questioning the status quo and taking the piss out of it in psoitive ways.
I think loads of celebs mouthing off....well it looks good and makes everybody feel a bit better and I think it is slightly more valuable at this stage 'cos every body needs a boost about this and to play a media game of keeping the thing a topic but I suspect in a wider sense it's just a load of hot air 'cos they are who they are. We are playing much longer subtler game here if our kids are going to have world.
 
 
Nematode
21:20 / 28.02.03
Hmmm well speaking as a Brit I really don't think it ultimately makes a blind bit of difference if the public are exposed to the decontextualised sound bitten opinions of 'the stars' or not. The medium is the message. I'm not anti the mass media per se I think it can be used in very interesting and creative ways to promote critical thought and promote the developement of opinion, but it's nature needs to be taken into account or it's fucked and doesn't work. I have to say I think that Michael Moore and Mark Thomas frequently fail on this count. Now Chris Morris, he's good and we could do with a lot more of that if things are ultimately to change for the better.
I'm really not sure if great percentage of people who are exposed to arguments for peace from one of the exalted are really going to be touched by that experience in a meaningful way i.e one that pushes them to follow the chain of events and decisions that made up this situation. To question the media view and the motives of those behind it look at their view of the world and to go on and make their own worlds. We have an apparently very big anti war movement here and because of this some are thinking but I think a hell of a lot of people are into this 'cos they don't like our troops getting involved and don't fancy the 'threat' of a dirty bomb in Manchester. A sort of international not in my back yard thing, and how conscious is that?
What we really need is art here on the attack in a more oblique way questioning the status quo and taking the piss out of it in positive ways.
I think loads of celebs mouthing off....well it looks good and makes everybody feel a bit better and I think it is slightly more valuable at this stage 'cos every body needs a boost about this and to play a media game of keeping the thing a topic but I suspect in a wider sense it's just a load of hot air 'cos they are who they are. We are playing much longer subtler game here if our kids are going to have world.
 
 
Brigade du jour
21:36 / 28.02.03
I like your point about art being used in a creative and interesting ways to stimulate debate, but I can't help remembering a letter I read in the New Statesman, I believe it was.

It criticised Mark Thomas and the White Ribbon movement (which campaigns for Blair, Straw and Hoon to be tried for war crimes should Iraq be invaded) for potentially putting off 'middle Englanders' who like the Government but not this particular policy. It also proferred the opinion that the anti-war movement needs as many people as humanly possible, whatever their reasons for getting involved. Then, extrapolating the letter's argument, I suppose once war has been averted, then we can get on with the unpleasant task of pointing fingers and apportioning blame etc.

I can't help agreeing with that sentiment, although it can be pretty distasteful to see people trying to bolster their careers off the back of it.
 
 
Turk
04:37 / 01.03.03
Lazily flicked around the TV channels for a couple of hours Friday evening, I saw George Michael on Richard&Judy and later David Aaronovitch on a strand after the Channel4 News. I have to say, the pop star was far more on the money than the columnist. Michael made comment about how most people may not understand the ins and outs of all the politics, but they know enough to not trust the Bush White House, and therefore feel UN backing is a imperative before any kind of military action. Aaronovitch however appeared to hold the opinion that all us peaceniks are so indoctrinated agaist war that we want to leave Saddam alone altogether. Curiously he also rather spuriously reasoned that, despite peacenik fears, no terrorism has followed the conquest of Afghanistan. The families of many a dead Australian might disagree with him there, and since it's been hardly a year since John Simpson strolled into Kabul Aaronovitch might just be jumping the gun to say no terrorism has consequented.

So between those two political commentators I'd rather take the guy who understands and expresses the public's concerns, rather than the lecturing blowhard who could make such a stupid comment as that on terrorism I've noted above.

In the end though, I've a feeling people are really making their minds up for themselves on this. Perhaps this is due to the obvious conflict of interest if guys like Donald Rumsfeld run the war, or the way Saddam is no immediate threat to us, while terrorists are.

Murdoch's newspapers have largely taken a pro-war stand and yet the majority of the British public are still against war without UN backing. Kinda feels good, doesn't it?
 
 
Brigade du jour
20:24 / 01.03.03
Oh yeah. Bit of that whole community feeling, hopefully not too much moral righteousness though, because I think that too often slips into SELF-righteousness which I would argue is a whole nother kettle of puppies.

Anyways up, saw George Michael AGAIN (the man's media whirlwind!) on BBC News 24's Hardtalk this morning, and oh my god it was one of the most entertaining bits of tv I've seen all year. And not just because he said 'bollocks' twelve hours before the watershed.

I mean, you know this is a pretty grilling kind of programme by nature, sort of like Chelsea to Jeremy Paxman's Arsenal. Anyway, it was really funny because George totally went off on one, getting really emotional and carried away with defending his right to speak despite the fact that he is a bit of a washed-up pop star.

It was mesmeric, like a car crash - you really shouldn't watch but you can't take your eyes off it, that kind of thing. The interviewer, I have to say, was pretty scathing, as if miffed at being forced to interview some poxy singer when Paxman's got Blair on the other side. But fair play to George, he made his points, political and personal, with some degree of intelligence as if he weren't simply jumping some anti-war bandwagon. I kind of felt sorry for him, and it increased my conviction that he has every right to speak up - I mean okay, he's maybe not the best-informed person on the subject (and he admitted as much) but at least he believes what he's saying, and crucially, as has been paraphrased and re-paraphrased on this thread, at least he's preaching peace not war.

On the other hand of course, he did at times look rather silly, increasing my conviction that 'celebrities on the war' in notion and practice, is basically naff. Still, it's well-intentioned naffness.

So I sit on the fence. Call me Trevor Brooking already.

Btw, if anyone can find a link to this interview, bearing in mind the actual footage would be far more fun than a transcript, please could you put it on here? I'm crap at that stuff. Thanks.
 
 
bjacques
16:09 / 02.03.03
Celebrities are for the most part airheads, true, but they're really good at passing the hat for lobbying funds. If you as a private citizen want to pass along a few unicreds, great, but happily the heavy lifitng has already taken place; i.e., celebrity shakedowns of equally rich friends. In the US, direct campaign contributions and indirect "soft money" like honoraria, toy jobs for relatives and charity donations in the recipients' names are considered "political speech" and enjoy most of the same protections given other modes of speech (software?) by the US Constitution. On the one hand, you can't argue with votes (except in Florida), but on the other it's a long way to 2004. In the short term someone has to make peace more profitable than war, for the politicians, and celebrities are good at doing that.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:25 / 03.03.03
I think it would be okay if all the celeb did was talk about 'important weighty things', which sounds like intellectual snobbery, I apologise. But if Tiara Palmer-Tomkinson talks about how it was awful living in a jungle for a week without any Bolly and then in the next breath says the upcoming war is beastly that rather cheapens the whole concept into a meaningless discussion.

Except of course, that someone who reads Hello! for such hard-hitting exposes as that may find the war cheapened for them if Germaine Greer said how ghastly it was going to be.

I seem to have exposed the pointlessness of my own post. Well done me. I'll get my coat.
 
 
angel
11:23 / 04.03.03
A few things.

We here on Barbelith do not seem to represent the wider world community with regard to depth of thinking/analysis/ability to form and express our opinions (as well as in 101 other ways, for which most of us are truly thankful). This has been commented on numerous times in both Newbie first posts and others – that the poster was delighted to be able to find a place on the Web where discussion of this level of intelligence and coherence abounds. Unless you were lucky enough to be brought up in an environment that encouraged debate and the ability to "question the question" (a skill I only learnt at university) then these skills are hard to come by, not impossible (I'm not so dumb to thing that we are the ONLY people to have such skills) but seemingly not common.

I haven't always been as left wing or even as political as I am now. In fact when I started going to university, I was by definition a naive, shallow, little c conservative YUPPIE. (Oh the shame, the shame!) It was only by personal experience that I began to understand that life/politics wasn't fair and that people didn't automatically "do what I considered to be the right thing". This was back in 1992. It's been a long road to get to where I am now, partly due to the level of debate and information sharing that occurs here on Barbelith, but also due to experiencing the world and having ideas reinforced by many and varied stimuli, yes and some of that stimuli included hearing celebrities and artists I liked talking about things I either hadn’t thought about or didn’t know about.

I am tired of hearing people slag off any debate or understanding of the world that doesn't conform to “high enough standards”, without seeming to accept that it takes all kinds of debate and communication means for people learn and grow. We do not all understand the world and gain learning in the same way. Sure, if ALL of the anti-war debate was "emotive" and shallow then we would have a problem, but it is not. And if it takes becoming emotionally involved with an issue for someone who in the past has not given much thought to the events of the world to stand up, learn more and take action, how is this a bad thing?

All in all checks and balances. Everyone starts somewhere, who are we to criticise and judge when the places many of us started off in were not perfect either?

Yes I agree that it is incredibly irritating when shallow self-serving celebrities empty-headedly leap onto a debate, seemingly for “cred” reasons. But conversely why should they be gagged? Just because you play music or act or whatever, does this mean that your political brain gets checked at the door? I agree with D when ze said that George Michael was one of the few people to actually express opinion with feeling, and to finally have anti-war feeling expressed in a way that mirrored a number of points I have heard out on the street and in the pubs felt really good. Why is this a bad thing?

And to portray the general public in entirety as a bunch of mindless bandwagon following imbeciles is lazy.

Here ends the rant.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:12 / 04.03.03
(off topic. *David attenborough voice*
"Mount Angel, dormant for for many years, exploded today... debris is still falling..." )

Yay angel.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:03 / 04.03.03
Indeed, yay angel. I'm all for people using their position to make points. I just remember the whole Naomi Campbell "rather go naked than wear fur" debacle. I think that probably did a lot to damage the credibility of celebs who actually believe in stuff. (Although if the general public is looking to Naomi Campbell to form their opinions, we could be in trouble.)
 
 
Imaginary Mongoose Solutions
16:17 / 04.03.03
Funnily enough, listened to George Clooney on Desert Island Discs this morning and he was going off on one as well. Apparently he comes from a very democratic liberal (in the US senses of the words) family and therefore is against the whole thing on principle. Mind you, he said his dad would have killed him if he hadn't spoken up. Hmm, methinks the slimy doctor from ER lives somewhat in awe and fear of his progenitor ...

George's dad Nick lives in Cincinnati, actually. (Or did until recently) Nick is actually a fairly conservative fellow in tastes, but liberal in the sense that he dosen't think his tastes should govern the universe. For example, he loathed the Maplethorpe exhibit in cincy that caught so much flack years ago, but he fought to ensure that it stayed open. He's a really nice guy actually. I've met him a few times at various jounralistic-ish functions in Cincy.

And knowing how intensely political and intelligent his father is, makes me not cringe when George talks out about the war or whatnot. The apple didn't fall far from the tree with that one.

And, to dodge threadrot, I should mention that back in the early 90's celebrity activists irritated the hell out of me, however these days I'm just glad to hear people with opinions one way or the other.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:02 / 04.03.03
Yay angel indeed.

Celebrities do sometimes make their positions risible (Namoi and fur, or another model and her contention that she wanted to help with famine because "Well, we all want to be thin, but that's going a bit far), but...newsflash....lots of people find the way other people express opinions clumsy or embarrassing, and it doesn't mean their voices are any less sincere or valid.

The other thing is, of course, that somebody like George Michael is actually putting a lot more on the line than I am by turning up at a march. By speaking out against Bush, he risks a massive backlash in the US (remember, many Americans, even if they oppose the conduct of the White House, like GWB, and most will presumably rally once the bullets start flying), with commensurate loss of livelihood. the assumption that celebs can espouse causes just to be trendy may be the case if they are campaigning against puppy cancer, but this is a far riskier proposition...
 
 
invisible_al
10:44 / 05.03.03
Fictional President recieves hate mail for anti-war stance.
Martin Sheen is one example of a celebrity who has been pretty consistent in his oppostion to Bush's policies, on the war and on the Star Wars program. He's also the figurehead for a strong liberal critique of Bush aka The West Wing. Is he only allowed to make a comment by playing a character within a show?

Another example, John Lennon, starts off local musician makes good, then starts making political comments, not the most informed at first but he does get more sophisticated as he goes on, who knows what he's be up to now? Bob Geldof is probably a better example as he went from a musician wanting to 'do something' about people dying in Africa to facing down Margaret Thatcher about her policies. I'm sure there are more examples of celebrities gaining a polotical conciousness out there in a non shoddy manner.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply