Hollywood Should Learn from Tiger Woods

[onedomino]

Tiger Woods won the AMEX tournament today in England. It was his 6th straight win on the PGA tour, a feat not accomplished since Ben Hogan did it in 1948. Considering the level of competition, to say that Woods is the greatest golfer ever is to state the obvious. Woods is a national treasure. He represents America with dignity, class, and excellence as he astounds sports fans the world over. In an entertainment world filled with the likes of Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, and others of their ilk, we appreciate that Tiger keeps his political opinions to himself and concentrates on his profession. Hollywood should learn from his example.

 

[Mr. P]

I agree. Big difference though. In golf (and some other sports) you need mental discipline to succeed, in Hollywood ya don’t.

 

[Dr Grump]

Woods is a class act. However, I have no problem with Hollywood - or anybody for that matter - spouting their political opinions - any type of opinion in fact...

 

[Mr. P]

Woods is a class act. However, I have no problem with Hollywood - or anybody for that matter - spouting their political opinions - any type of opinion in fact...

I do. Not that it matters.

Opinion is fine, everyone has one. Spouting and opinion from a popularity pedestal of fame the public has placed you on, as so many in Hollywood do, as though you are an authority is quite different. Tiger seems to have class enough NOT to do that. Another major difference between Tiger and actors is, his position is a direct result of his work, personal achievement, and character, not politics, publicist, luck or connections to the good agents, directors etc.

He really seems to be a class act. (No pun intended)

 

[jillian]

I do. Not that it matters.

Opinion is fine, everyone has one. Spouting and opinion from a popularity pedestal of fame the public has placed you on, as so many in Hollywood do, as though you are an authority is quite different. Tiger seems to have class enough NOT to do that. Another major difference between Tiger and actors is, his position is a direct result of his work, personal achievement, and character, not politics, publicist, luck or connections to the good agents, directors etc.

He really seems to be a class act. (No pun intended)

Funny, no one ever complained about Charleton Heston or Bruce Willis or Ahnold talking about their political opinions. Seems its only an issue because some don't like when those on the left side of the spectrum have any forum at all.

What I will say is I think that the forum has to be appropriate. I don't think it should be done at the Academy Awards or a concert people pay to see (unless they know in advance, as with the Vote For Change Tour, that they'll be getting some politics with their show).

And, yes, Woods is a class act.

 

[Mr. P]

Funny, no one ever complained about Charleton Heston or Bruce Willis or Ahnold talking about their political opinions. Seems its only an issue because some don't like when those on the left side of the spectrum have any forum at all.

What I will say is I think that the forum has to be appropriate. I don't think it should be done at the Academy Awards or a concert people pay to see (unless they know in advance, as with the Vote For Change Tour, that they'll be getting some politics with their show).

And, yes, Woods is a class act.

Appropriate and honest.
I don’t think you heard anything about Heston, Willis or Arnold because they weren’t making wild ass accusations. Big difference between an opinion and BS.

 

[jillian]

Appropriate and honest.
I don’t think you heard anything about Heston, Willis or Arnold because they weren’t making wild ass accusations. Big difference between an opinion and BS.

Depends on your opinion on what they're saying, doesn't it. Hence my observation that it's content-based on the part of the right.

 

[onedomino]

Funny, no one ever complained about Charleton Heston or Bruce Willis or Ahnold talking about their political opinions. Seems its only an issue because some don't like when those on the left side of the spectrum have any forum at all.

What I will say is I think that the forum has to be appropriate. I don't think it should be done at the Academy Awards or a concert people pay to see (unless they know in advance, as with the Vote For Change Tour, that they'll be getting some politics with their show).

And, yes, Woods is a class act.

Of course everyone has the right to their opinion and to speak it whenever they want. No one disputes that. I am as offended by vacuous, loud-mouthed celebrities from the right as I am from the left. It is an abuse of the media access afforded to celebrities that it should be used to inflict their opinions on everyone else. There is no equal access to the media. The uninformed are often influenced by the views of celebrities, while those in the media use the famous to advance their own political agendas. More people than we would guess adopt the views of celebrities as their own. That is why politicians court the famous at fund raisers and other events. No one would be interested in the views of Sean Penn, nor would he ever be queried, unless he was a celebrity. Therein lies the unfairness of broadcasting their political views, whether from the left or right.

 

[Mr. P]

Depends on your opinion on what they're saying, doesn't it. Hence my observation that it's content-based on the part of the right.

And Left. Damn, can't leave em out, they may sue!:funnyface

On the other hand, there is a BIG difference between fact and baseless accusation. So let’s get with it Jillian, did or didn’t Bush plan 9/11? Get the point?

 

[jillian]

And Left. Damn, can't leave em out, they may sue!:funnyface

On the other hand, there is a BIG difference between fact and baseless accusation. So let’s get with it Jillian, did or didn’t Bush plan 9/11? Get the point?

And how many people besides Charlie Sheen are saying Bush planned 9/11? Leave it to the right to choose the most extreme example.

If Bush had planned 9/11... it probably never would have happened since he can't seem to do anything else successfully.

But one thing ya gotta give Bush. He thinks the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday.... no matter what happened on Tuesday. (with thanks to Stephen Colbert... heh!)

 

[jillian]

Of course everyone has the right to their opinion and to speak it whenever they want. No one disputes that. I am as offended by vacuous, loud-mouthed celebrities from the right as I am from the left. It is an abuse of the media access afforded to celebrities that it should be used to inflict their opinions on everyone else. There is no equal access to the media. The uninformed are often influenced by the views of celebrities, while those in the media use the famous to advance their own political agendas. More people than we would guess adopt the views of celebrities as their own. That is why politicians court the famous at fund raisers and other events. No one would be interested in the views of Sean Penn, nor would he ever be queried, unless be was a celebrity. Therein lies the unfairness of broadcasting their political views, whether from the left or right.

Everyone wants a forum for their views. We use a messageboard to have our say. I'd wager that if we had a real forum, like celebs do, we wouldn't hesitate to use it.

And pols, of both persuasions, use celebs at fundraisers cause it brings people with their checkbooks so they can rub shoulders. Nothing mysterious about it.

 

[Mr. P]

And how many people besides Charlie Sheen are saying Bush planned 9/11? Leave it to the right to choose the most extreme example.

If Bush had planned 9/11... it probably never would have happened since he can't seem to do anything else successfully.

But one thing ya gotta give Bush. He thinks the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday.... no matter what happened on Tuesday. (with thanks to Stephen Colbert... heh!)

Too many to count. You lose, this one, J. As evidence I submit your resort to attacks on Bushs’ intelligence. Typical. :thumbdown:

 

[onedomino]

Everyone wants a forum for their views. We use a messageboard to have our say. I'd wager that if we had a real forum, like celebs do, we wouldn't hesitate to use it.

And pols, of both persuasions, use celebs at fundraisers cause it brings people with their checkbooks so they can rub shoulders. Nothing mysterious about it.

You would lose that bet. I think that many people would behave responsibly like Tiger Woods and not abuse their access to the media. Further, you are naïve to think that political attachment to celebrities at fund raisers is merely about checkbooks. No politician gives a damn what Sean Penn or Bruce Willis think. Politicians cynically attach themselves to celebrities because they know that the famous can generate media attention and thereby shape the opinion of the uninformed. That is worth way more than the money that can be obtained at a fund raising event.

 

[Nuc]

How do we know that Tiger even has any political opinions? That's a big assumption. He seems kind of single minded, which explains why he's the best. Most of the golfers are Republicans and they sometimes express this.

Actors are citizens and they are entitled to voice their opinion. We on this board are no more or less qualified to do so, yet nobody is saying we should stop posting. If an actor spouts off that's his business, and the media is to blame if they portray it as something important or blow it out of proportion.

 

[Mr. P]

How do we know that Tiger even has any political opinions? That's a big assumption. He seems kind of single minded, which explains why he's the best. Most of the golfers are Republicans and they sometimes express this.

Actors are citizens and they are entitled to voice their opinion. We on this board are no more or less qualified to do so, yet nobody is saying we should stop posting. If an actor spouts off that's his business, and the media is to blame if they portray it as something important or blow it out of proportion.

I really hope you don't mean that.

 

[Dr Grump]

You would lose that bet. I think that many people would behave responsibly like Tiger Woods and not abuse their access to the media. Politicians cynically attach themselves to celebrities because they know that the famous can generate media attention and thereby shape the opinion of the uninformed. That is worth way more than the money that can be obtained at a fund raising event.

I see nothing irresponsible in celebrities giving their opinion on politics and it is not even close to being anything ressembling abuse of any type, way, shape or form. If a celebrity wants to say something and the media report it, it is on the media, not the celebrity. As for them shaping opinion of the uninformed, politicians do it every day, why do they get a free pass? And if they do, your point is moot IMO.

 

[onedomino]

I see nothing irresponsible in celebrities giving their opinion on politics and it is not even close to being anything ressembling abuse of any type, way, shape or form. If a celebrity wants to say something and the media report it, it is on the media, not the celebrity. As for them shaping opinion of the uninformed, politicians do it every day, why do they get a free pass? And if they do, your point is moot IMO.

Wrong. Celebrities speaking to the media know very well that what they say will be reported. It is a politician's professional responsibility to speak to the public about the issues. It is not a celebrity's job to abuse his access to the media and inflict personal opinions on a public that has no equal access to the media. If the public was highly educated about the issues then it would make no difference. But the fact is that a significant percentage of Americans are relatively uninformed and blovating celebrities affect the opinion and voting behavior of that segment of the public. No one elected or authorized celebrities to form public policy and affect the outcome of political races. Yet, by virtue of their special access to the media, that is exactly what they do. The fundamental point is that there is no equal access to the media. Celebrities, however, have special media access and have an unbalanced, undemocratic, and unelected ability to affect public policy. Celebrities who act responsibility will refrain from using their unequal access to the media to inflict their personal agendas on the rest of us. We elect politicians to form public policy not celebrities.

 

[dilloduck]

Wrong. Celebrities speaking to the media know very well that what they say will be reported. It is a politician's professional responsibility to speak to the public about the issues. It is not a celebrity's job to abuse his access to the media and inflict personal opinions on a public that has no equal access to the media. If the public was highly educated about the issues then it would make no difference. But the fact is that a significant percentage of Americans are relatively uninformed and blovating celebrities affect the opinion and voting behavior of that segment of the public. No one elected or authorized celebrities to form public policy and affect the outcome of political races. Yet, by virtue of their special access to the media, that is exactly what they do. The fundamental point is that there is no equal access to the media. Celebrities, however, have special media access and have an unbalanced, undemocratic, and unelected ability to affect public policy. Celebrities who act responsibility will refrain from using their unequal access to the media to inflict their personal agendas on the rest of us. We elect politicians to form public policy not celebrities.

Celebrities who act responsibility

Now you just are expecting WAY to much.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong. Celebrities speaking to the media know very well that what they say will be reported. It is a politician's professional responsibility to speak to the public about the issues. It is not a celebrity's job to abuse his access to the media and inflict personal opinions on a public that has no equal access to the media. If the public was highly educated about the issues then it would make no difference. But the fact is that a significant percentage of Americans are relatively uninformed and blovating celebrities affect the opinion and voting behavior of that segment of the public. No one elected or authorized celebrities to form public policy and affect the outcome of political races. Yet, by virtue of their special access to the media, that is exactly what they do. The fundamental point is that there is no equal access to the media. Celebrities, however, have special media access and have an unbalanced, undemocratic, and unelected ability to affect public policy. Celebrities who act responsibility will refrain from using their unequal access to the media to inflict their personal agendas on the rest of us. We elect politicians to form public policy not celebrities.

The public does have equal access via blogging and letters to the editor. Why should a journalist be allowed to write op-ed pieces of policy and opinion? They are not politicians either. Do they get a free pass. It is not the celebrities fault certain members of the public are lemmings. Since when does somebody need to be authorised to speak publically. First amendment is all I'll say on the matter. Bottom line is, you don't like celebrities - mainly lefties - doing what they do. I have no problem with it. Celebrities have raised billions of dollars over the past 60 years + using their public profile. There are 10s of thousands of people who have benefitted from this (Live Aid just being one example). If truth be told, it's not that they are using their celebrity that annoys you, more likely their message.

 

[onedomino]

The public does have equal access via blogging and letters to the editor. Why should a journalist be allowed to write op-ed pieces of policy and opinion? They are not politicians either. Do they get a free pass. It is not the celebrities fault certain members of the public are lemmings. Since when does somebody need to be authorised to speak publically. First amendment is all I'll say on the matter. Bottom line is, you don't like celebrities - mainly lefties - doing what they do. I have no problem with it. Celebrities have raised billions of dollars over the past 60 years + using their public profile. There are 10s of thousands of people who have benefitted from this (Live Aid just being one example). If truth be told, it's not that they are using their celebrity that annoys you, more likely their message.

Since when would blogging or letters to the editor be considered equal media access compared with an interview with Larry King or Charlie Rose? Contrary to what you apparently want to believe, the general public does not have equal media access compared to celebrities. Further, I have no problem with celebrities using their status to do humanitarian work. I do have a problem with their using celebrity status as a way to obtain unequal media access and spew their personal political agendas. I object to this whether it comes from the left or the right.