Entertainment and politics: Wha-?

[DeathBug]

Okay, here's a pet peeve of mine that's recently been amplified.

Is it wrong for me to want venues of entertainment to keep political opinions out of said venues?

For example, I buy a CD. Is it wrong for me to hope that they didn't put any pro/anti-war songs on the CD? If I read a comic, is it wrong for me to hope the writer doesn't try to imbue political bias into the comic? If I watch a sitcom, go to a concert, etc?

Not that I'm questioning the artists' rights to express their political opinions, but could they possibly choose another venue then the one I go to for escapism?

I'm a politically minded person; I'm in a government class, I watch CNN and Foxnews regularly, (and the Daily Show), I'm involved in a political action club, but, after a hard day, you don't want to think about something as incindiary as politics.

When I watch TV, I'm not doing to to exercise my mind; I've got books for that. I watch TV because I want my half-hour of escapism. I don't want a politcal bias to be shoved down my throat. Same with comic books. (Im' talking to *you*, Peter David!) I didn't have a problem with Micheal Moore voicing his opinion about the war and the president; I had a problem with him choosing the Emmy's as the timd to do so. (You know if I'm watching the Emmys, I don't want sny brain activity whatsoever.)

Is it wrong of me to ask that artists use the many other venues of political expression availible to them rather than the ones I go to to kick back and relax for a while?

[outlawstar69]

No, I don't think that's wrong. Unfortunatly, people will choose whatever venues they can to get their opinions heard, regardless of tact.

[Justin]

Well, you have to look at this way: You can't expect to be listened to when you're talking to people.

Having said that, I think I must also state the fact that not everyone feels the way you do. Some want to see things like that expressed in entertainment, especially those who feel that they have something to say.

Personally, I don't care. I'll watch if it's entertaining, and change the channel if it's not.

-Justin

[Brasil]

The unfortunate part about entertainment is that everyone has his or her own political agenda.

You're not wrong, necessarily, in wanting a music CD free of political propaganda or propaganda in general; you're just being a little idealistic.

Really, I can't think of any songs off the top of my head that don't have some sort of personal agenda in them...Weird Al might be the least "agenda-ed" artist. He mocks so much that I don't know if we can place him on a side of anything.

Entertainers feel the need to express themselves, as everyone does, but they have a more powerful and bigger soapbox to stand on.

The trick is, to not get aggravated when Michael Moore says "shame on you, Mister Bush." at the Emmys, but to realize he's just a pretentious fat-*** enjoying his time in the sun.

Such is the case with most entertainers. Look at Sinead O'Connor. She had her time in the spotlight, ripped up a picture of the Pope, and as far as I can recall, her career died after that.

Public reaction to agenda really depends on the topic of the agenda. Michael Moore and Sinead O'Connor are those with [i]controversial[/i] agendas, so of course we're going to ask them to shut up occasionally.

I blame the political and personal agenda disaster on the times. Artists and entertainers are much more superliminal, often outright saying what they feel, not bothering to say it...artistically.

Now look at The Beatles (they're fresh in my head), they had a political/personal agenda that was far more intense than Moore, but they presented their agenda in such a way that people respect them for what they do, and in such a way that people just vegging (like you want to do) can sit back and listen to a merry tune of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

John Lennon's Imagine.

[quote]Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.[/quote]

That can be interpeted as Socialist propaganda. It strives for a society free of hierarchy, religion, social barriers, and division. If Lennon was indeed encouraging Socialism, and if people realized that back then, Lennon would have been in even deeper **** than just saying "We're bigger than Jesus."

Socialism is essentially, the stepping stone to Communism. For Lennon to be openly encouraging Socialism in the 60s, during the Cold War Era, during the Red Scare paranoia, The Beatles would have been totally outcast. But why weren't they? Cause Lennon was wily, subtle, subliminal. He had a definite political agenda, but he presented it in a way that required people to read between the lines to see it.

You have every right to be annoyed, because artists and entertainers are treating the public like morons, openly saying what they feel, blatantly coming out with their opinions. That doesn't make for good music or entertainment.

That's why I love the Daily Show. It makes fun of the morons in the public light, satirizing the fools.

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B]

Is it wrong for me to want venues of entertainment to keep political opinions out of said venues?



Not that I'm questioning the artists' rights to express their political opinions, but could they possibly choose another venue then the one I go to for escapism?




Is it wrong of me to ask that artists use the many other venues of political expression availible to them rather than the ones I go to to kick back and relax for a while? [/B][/QUOTE]

I would say that it is wrong of you to want this. Now, I took out the parts I wasn't going to respond to, so dont try and say that I changed what you said to make my point correct.

You can't escape politics. It is futile to try. You asking for an artist, of any kind, to choose another venue to express the beliefs that they wish to express is wrong to do. Let the artist express the beliefs the way they were meant to be expressed, not in the way that you choose. It's not your art. If you enjoy the artist, and the expressions that they show, then so be it, but you have no right to ask that they choose another venue that suits you.


Also, to make sure that we understand the definition of [b] Venue[/b].


[b] venue: [/b] (not relating to law)
[i]A:[/i]The scene or setting in which something takes place; a locale: ?that non-cinematic venue of popular nightmares, the discotheque? (P.J. O'Rourke).
[i]B:[/i]A place for large gatherings, as a sports stadium.


Thank you dictionary.com.

So, in short conclusion, you have no right to ask this of an artist. If you wish for it to change, then you need to change venue's, not them. I know that I wouldn't take into consideration the selfish wants of a "fan" of my art. if they dont like the venue, then they need to find a new one.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]It seems that these days many prominent artists lack the subtlety that artists of yesteryear did. If you look at Dylan, the Beatles, Springsteen, ect, they all had very strong political and social views that they expressed in their songs, they just didn?t do it in an abrasive manner. Today, prominent artists don?t seem talented enough to play on similar subtle themes so they use award shows to flaunt their propaganda. This has been going on since Brando sent that Native American girl to accept his Academy Award for him?

I guess it proves that if you give a man a podium he can't help but make an *** of himself...[/color]

[NeoNabishen]

Songs and comics are used, in a way, to escape life. Putting Political, whatever into them is like braking character in and on-line RPG, It just isn?t cool. So yes I think you have every right to not want that kind of stuff in your music and comics.
But don?t make a big deal about it. The artists have the right to put that stuff into their music and what not just like you have the right not to like it.

[Guest rttocs77]

I think Micheal Moore is a jerk. He obviously lacks any class what-so-ever, considering that after winning his stupid Academy Award he takes up his speech time by critisizing the President. I don't have a problem with him if he goes on talk shows, etc... with the [I]intention[/I] of talking politics, but I think he went too far. The ONLY things I hear comming from his mouth are critical comments about the President.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]I think Micheal Moore is a jerk. He obviously lacks any class what-so-ever, considering that after winning his stupid Academy Award he takes up his speech time by critisizing the President. I don't have a problem with him if he goes on talk shows, etc... with the [I]intention[/I] of talking politics, but I think he went too far. The ONLY things I hear comming from his mouth are critical comments about the President. [/B][/QUOTE]

While yes, I did think Michael Moore is a jerk for getting up at the Academy awards and being a windbag about the president, he's only doing it to get a rise out of people because he just plain sucks at doing anything else.
Besides, there was more of an uprise when the Dixie Chicks' lead singer made the comment about being ashamed that President Bush was from Texas.
Sure, the areas where the comments were made were completely different, but nobody sent Moore death threats or burns his books. Neither comment was a good point for the president, but the different places and areas of entertainment where these people make their living is also different.
The example I'll use is that the DC are primarily a country band and most ppl who listen to country music are [I]extremely[/I] patriotic and at times a bit over the top which probably accounts for the extreme reaction.
However, the lyrics that the Chicks sing have no real political vaule perhaps with the exception of Traveling Soldier, but you really have to be anal to find that.
So maybe you can't get away from people and their political veiws, but sometimes you can get music that doesn't have anything to do with what the artist wants you to think.

[COLOR=deeppink]Military intelligence, isn't that some kind of oxy-moron?[/COLOR]

[outlawstar69]

Gotta love satire, :). I think maybe what DeathBug was looking for may be to hearken back to the days when the artists expressed their views in a more subtle maner. (Just as everyone here has said..). Or not. The point is, you can pretty much take anybody in their line of work and they will express their views in whatever way they can from that line of work... like newspapers. There's alot of political views in there.

[djnoz]

I personally don't mind a bit of politics in entertainment.. so long as it isn't too serious. Politics can be amusing too :)

[Maully]

[color=green]My life is escapism... I have stupid friends who care nothing for politics or the world at large. Therefore, I seek out venues that stress politicism and make you think. I am tired of beign mindless. I am not saying that this is what everyone wants, not by a long shot.

I do agree though that it diduse to get done with a lot more grace. It was not as in your face, and I miss that. [/color]

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B]While yes, I did think Michael Moore is a jerk for getting up at the Academy awards and being a windbag about the president, he's only doing it to get a rise out of people because he just plain sucks at doing anything else.
Besides, there was more of an uprise when the Dixie Chicks' lead singer made the comment about being ashamed that President Bush was from Texas.
Sure, the areas where the comments were made were completely different, but nobody sent Moore death threats or burns his books. Neither comment was a good point for the president, but the different places and areas of entertainment where these people make their living is also different.
The example I'll use is that the DC are primarily a country band and most ppl who listen to country music are [I]extremely[/I] patriotic and at times a bit over the top which probably accounts for the extreme reaction.
However, the lyrics that the Chicks sing have no real political vaule perhaps with the exception of Traveling Soldier, but you really have to be anal to find that.
So maybe you can't get away from people and their political veiws, but sometimes you can get music that doesn't have anything to do with what the artist wants you to think.

[COLOR=deeppink]Military intelligence, isn't that some kind of oxy-moron?[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

At least the Dixie Chicks "apologized." That is still upsetting though that they said something like that. I never really get to argue against people (or people who share the same distorted wrong ideas) like them because my school is 99.9999% liberal Democrat. I hear about this Micheal Moore guy way more than I would like to. I don't think, in my opinion, Republicans are nearly as obnoxious as the likes of him.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]At least the Dixie Chicks "apologized." [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]That is even worse though. Why should anyone apologize for their belifes. It is one thing to apologize when you truly have been made to believe that your opinion was faulty, but they apologized because they were afraid that their opinion would hurt record sales...no backbone...[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

Politics in entertainment isn't always such a bad thing. Need proof, watch Saturday Night Live or one of the late night shows.
NOw politics and religion. that's where I draw the line. When you get congress reps saying things like certain religions should be banned from the military simply because they aren't what he knows and reverands interupting rituals. Then you have a political problem.

[COLOR=crimson]Freedom of religion means freedom of all religions. No exceptions or excuses[/COLOR]

[COLOR=red]Christianity has Pagan DNA[/COLOR]

[COLOR=firebrick]Out test driving my new broom, call back later[/COLOR]

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B]Politics in entertainment isn't always such a bad thing. Need proof, watch Saturday Night Live or one of the late night shows.
NOw politics and religion. that's where I draw the line. When you get congress reps saying things like certain religions should be banned from the military simply because they aren't what he knows and reverands interupting rituals. Then you have a political problem.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree with Christians having pagan roots. Maybe Europeans who became Christians, but not the religion itself. I do agree that religion should play no part what-so-ever when it come to governizing. I think the basic "laws" of all religions should apply though, such as not killing/stealing/giving false testiment etc... That is probably the only thing for which I am not too fond of Bush. I don't like that when he gives speeched he backs up his decisions with Bible experts. If he used them and ones from other religious text, I wouldn't care, but he acts like Christianity is the only right thing. I'm a Christian, but if I were President I wouldn't necessarily use my religious values when it came to governing a nation. I also disagree with his fight to ban gay marriages. The only reason he is doing that is because he thinks that it's a sin. Whatever. I support everything else he does...


Oh, I am also against partial-birth abortions, but I am not against other abortions (like using the drug RU-486)

[Vegitto4]

Not to try and turn this into a religion debate, but if you really were a christian, then you would find homosexuality a sin.

If you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to PM me.

The reason that bush does that, is because he is a Christian. in that religion, it is the only right one.

[/end religion section of thread]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]I disagree with Christians having pagan roots. Maybe Europeans who became Christians, but not the religion itself. I do agree that religion should play no part what-so-ever when it come to governizing. I think the basic "laws" of all religions should apply though, such as not killing/stealing/giving false testiment etc... That is probably the only thing for which I am not too fond of Bush. I don't like that when he gives speeched he backs up his decisions with Bible experts. If he used them and ones from other religious text, I wouldn't care, but he acts like Christianity is the only right thing. I'm a Christian, but if I were President I wouldn't necessarily use my religious values when it came to governing a nation. I also disagree with his fight to ban gay marriages. The only reason he is doing that is because he thinks that it's a sin. Whatever. I support everything else he does...[/B][/QUOTE]

I do have to disagree with the opinion of CHritsianity not having some Pagan origins. Atleast western Christianity. Examples? Okay, take Yule/Christmas
Nobody is really quite sure about when Jesus was born except that Mary and Joseph were traveling from their home to Bethlehem and in those days most people didn't travel during the winter season. Also, and my friend who's Eastern Othodox, likes to point this out to people, the Bible says that the shepards were watching their flocks that night, and who wants to graze flocks of sheep in the middle of winter?
Yule is also called winter solstice depending on your path. Winter solstice comes around the 20/21 of December.
So, one day these guys come along and decide that well, yes, you're celebrating yule, but it's too early. And you;re not celebrating the birth of this guy you're celebrating the birth of Christ. Because let's face it, sometimes you have to add a bit off honey to make people see your side.
Another good example is a quick one, but a good use of if you can't beat them, adjust them. St.Brigit of Ireland was originally the goddess, Brigit, sister to the Morrigan. The ancient Irish loved her so much that when St Patrick came over there the wouldn't give her uo and so he just made her a saint. :)
As for GW Bush, I just don't like the guy. He brings religion into every aspect of his political campaign and when he was the govenor of Texas he did the same thing.
I'll admit it, I'm liberal. I'm pro-choice, and for same sex marriages. I don't think that being Catholic or anything in general based on Judeo-Christian religions means that you're altomatically against homosexuality. Infact, the Bible never said anything about God being against Homosexuality until the early nineteen hundreds when they decided to rewrite it for some reason. Another interesting fact about the Bible, It wasn't until the King Jame's Version published in the 1600's that you could find the verse: Suffer not a witch to live. It was originally Suffer not a poisoner to live. Look it up in a non KJV.
But, like I was saying, Bush is not the best example of separation between Church and State our Government can give. But this isn't a Your opinion on the president post either :devil: , so I'll just end it here...Of course, if someone wants to get into a friendly debate PM me The only IM I have right now is MSN tho.

[COLOR=purple]There is no darkness like ignorance[/COLOR]