Seeking Relevance

Entitlement Index: Celebrity in America

When someone chooses a career or even just takes a job, most people know what they are getting into. For instance, a police officer in the city doesn’t like being shot at, but it’s an unfortunate part of that career. Or, if a person doesn’t like kids, they shouldn’t become a teacher. Simple enough, right? However, there seems to be one “profession” in this country filled with people who either don’t understand all aspects of their career -- or have become so entitled over time they think the rules don’t apply to them.

.
Celebrities.

.

Usually these folks come in the form of actors or singers or professional athletes, but some seem to be professional celebrities, famous for nothing in particular (i.e. Paris Hilton). In this country, celebrities are worshipped to the point of craze; the ones we hear about most often also have made boatloads of money. Where else but in America can someone with such little talent as Britney Spears become so well-known and so rich.

.

And there seems to be a lifecycle of fame and entitlement that goes something like this: Person A starts out totally unknown and dreams of making it in Hollywood. They rent cheap apartments with roommates and take service jobs to pay the bills while they wait for their break. At some point, a break comes and they become somewhat famous. They thrive in the spotlight and seek out and embrace those things that come with fame (publicity, access, favors, money, etc.)

.

But here is where the lifecyle diverges. Some of these celebrities learn to live with the public exposure over time even if they don’t like it. Others seem to never lose the lust for fame and exposure – they thrive on it all through their careers hoping that the paparazzi never stop coming around and the entertainment rags never stop printing their story. At least these folks are honest with themselves and others about what it means to be a celeb in America.

.

Then there are those hugely popular actors and musicians who reach a point in their careers where neither their fame nor their income depend as much on continued exposure. And they would like it to end while still continuing their careers. Maybe they won a few big awards. Maybe they made $20 million for their last film. But at some point they become highly annoyed and even violent when it comes to this undesirable part of fame. (Last time I checked, a cop can’t ask the bad guys to stop shooting.) These celebs act like they are owed the worldwide fame and all the entitlements that come with it, such as huge paydays. But the same people who could not make it through one day without their live-in nannies, personal assistants and personal trainers all of sudden demand not to take the “bad with the good.”

 

In fact, if there was such a thing as a job description for actor or musician or general celebrity, it would probably contain a paragraph like this:  “The successful candidate for the job of ‘celebrity’ should expect a certain amount of public exposure of their private lives. In order to work in the fields of movies or television or music, the candidate that finds success should expect both positive and negative publicity. For every appearance they choose to make on Letterman or Leno, they should expect to be the subject of an unflattering photo or an erroneous article in a tabloid. In fact, any candidate applying for this job should understand that the amount of unwanted publicity or exposure will be in direct proportion to the amount of money the candidate makes. If any candidate does not like this unfortunate but expected part of the job, they need not apply.”

.

This is not to defend the paparazzis’ tactics and the rags’ libel, but they are part of an ecosystem that Academy Award winners and Grammy Winners choose to live in – as well as Hollywood B-Listers. There is no denying that Sean Penn is talented, but does he really not get the choice that he made to be an actor? Speaking of the B-List, is Woody Harrelson officially not a celebrity anymore? Did I miss his memo? Yet there he is – acting like an idiot. And then there is Sienna Miller – in fact, she is so far on the edge that if she quit trying to be an actress right now and got a real job, in about 6 months she would never have to worry about photographers anymore.

.

So what is the remedy?

If you are a celebrity and really don’t like the publicity or photographers that come with fame in this country, there are essentially two choices. Please choose one. Quickly.

1. Shut up and take it. Accept that constant publicity, omnipresent photographers and stupid stories in the National Enquirer are part of the career you have chosen. Embrace it as you count your money and other entitlements that fame in America brings. Take a cue from Hyman Roth in ‘The Godfather’ and move on.

.

2. Walk away. Yes, you heard correctly – just quit.  Get a real job. Working as a manager of a supermarket or being an accountant isn’t as sexy as your old job, but I guarantee you that after a little time nobody will want to take your photograph or print a story about you.  And, yes, it can be done.  Cat Stevens simply walked away at the height of his considerable popularity and was essentially unheard from through the 1980s.  Or check out Edie Brickell for a less extreme example; Brickell walked away from a successful music career to raise a family – and even though she is married to Paul Simon you don’t see people chasing her around. Twenty years ago, she easily could have embraced the celebrity life and all its entitlements. But she chose to walk away for something more important to her. Maybe that is why her music is so real and so good.

.

Of course there is a third choice for celebrities. Keep your head in the sand and act like the burden of the paparazzi doesn’t come with the profession you’ve chosen. (For some, it will be the best acting job they’ve ever done.)

How to Fix Presidential Elections: A Six-Point Plan

You would have thought -- hoped even – that with a self-described “maverick” and a self-described “Washington outsider” running for president that this most recent campaign would have been different. But it wasn’t. Not even close.

When Barack Obama and John McCain emerged from the bruising primary season they could have seized the moment. They could have grabbed at the chance to show the nation a new way of running a campaign for higher office.  The two candidates could have sat down alone in June – no advisers, no party elders – and mapped out a plan to alter the strategies and tactics that have governed the last few elections.  They could have shown immediate leadership to transform the face of campaigns, maybe for a long time.  They could have really put ‘country first.’ (If you are counting that is five ‘could haves’ already.)

And the time was right.  McCain is indeed a guy who has reached across the aisle to help transform “politics as usual.”  The McCain—Feingold Act was a smart piece of legislation that attempted to put some constraint on the outrageous spending on elections and to actually decrease the influence of money in politics.  The legislation wasn’t perfect, but just the fact that it was written and passed was the first necessary step in the right direction on this issue.  (And you know the legislation was particularly good because George Will didn’t like it at all; Will thought it was infringing on his right to free speech. If George Will doesn’t think politics is drunk on cash-for-influence, he needs to spend some time outside of Washington.)

Then we have Senator Obama.  Without cynicism or jadedness, he says he can transform how things are done in Washington. And his message is intoxicating to some. He’s got fresh ideas, fresh perspective and a genuine feel for living in the “real world.”

The two men had a chance to start out atop their parties by transforming and teaching others that politics as usual doesn’t have to continue. It was their first chance to show the citizens of this country that they meant business. Of course both candidates had to appeal to their party bases amid a group of challengers for the nomination – primary season is a bit too complicated and has too many players to generate a coherent message, never mind actually get that group to work together. But for the general election, these two men had a small window of opportunity to force their parties to go along with them.

So what should they have done? Here is a 6-point plan that McCain and Obama should have agreed upon. Some of this would have been simple; some of this would have been difficult. So, in the hope that the next presidential election might benefit from a new course, here is a prescription for how to do it differently:

1.       Both candidates must accept public financing. But, they should take the money equation one level higher. They should agree to adhere to a monthly spending budget – spending the same exact money each month.  The candidates would be free to choose where they spent that money, but they would have to stay on budget. (Hey, an early look to see if the candidates can balance a budget.)

2.       They should agree to limit or eliminate the presence of lobbyists or those people around them that buy into the cash-for-influence strategy.

3.       Both candidates should not directly participate in, nor authorize, any attack ads. They should agree that all advertisements must only be about their own record of accomplishment and not have any mention of the other candidate in their ads.  Moreover, both candidates should agree to denounce any outside group loyal to their party for putting out attack ads.  They should actively denounce any swift-boating rhetoric or advertising.

4.       In addition to debates, both candidates should agree to appear once per month in town-hall style gatherings to discuss their plans and even update the nation on how this new style of running a presidential campaign is going.  At the end of the gatherings, each candidate should hold a joint news conference.

5.       For the debates, along with the moderator, there should be a panel of experts loaded with information, statistics and knowledge of areas such as health care, tax burdens, congressional voting records and economic figures.  Then, the experts can engage in first-hand, on-the-spot fact checking of candidates’ facts. Is anyone tired of having to read the myriad facts that each candidate got wrong the morning after a debate – it makes the debates almost useless knowing that 50% or more of the facts being spewed are most likely wrong or being used out of context.  If you had even one debate where the candidates were called out on national TV for not having their facts straight by independent experts, I bet the amount of factual mistakes would drop dramatically at the next debate.  No offense, but as much as I like Bob Schieffer, he can’t possibly know all the details about voting records, tax plans, the effect of a health care idea, etc.

6.       At the beginning of the campaign, each candidate should agree to put the losing candidate in their cabinet in a suitable post. For instance, McCain as Secretary of State in an Obama administration or Obama as Secretary of Health and Human Services on McCain’s team.  Each candidate talks about wanting an inner circle of advisers that come at topics from all sides; this would be walking the talk.  And, sure, Obama could not enact his ideal of a universal health care plan from within a McCain administration but he would have major influence and gain a ton of experience for when/if he runs for president again.

To some, these ideas may sound naïve, idealistic or even unrealistic. But to achieve a major shift in how campaigns are performed and to eliminate the nastiness and the bad taste in your mouth, simple ideas are how you get started.  The ideas above would take an incredible amount of courage and confidence and two rivals working together in a bipartisan manner. The pressure to resist calls to end any part of the six-point plan would entail fortitude as advisers and party elders beg you to drop out of the plan. Enacting the plan would require integrity, especially as a candidate dropped back in the polls and is told the only way he can win is to go on the attack.  Let’s see: courage, confidence, bipartisanship, fortitude, integrity. Not a bad starting point for your next president.

Many pundits and campaign advisers call presidential politics a “contact sport;” they may even suggest any change like above might even appear weak to some. (I wonder just how many of these Cable TV talking heads actually played a contact sport?) Politics will always be a contact sport, but what we are attempting to remove are the cheap shots and illegal hits just like in football. So when a candidate does put a crushing block or tackle on the other candidate it is clean.

But despite the McCain and Obama rhetoric, and despite the hope these independent-minded lawmakers could have shown us a new way, we were left with the same nasty, irrelevant and partisan back-and-forth as the last few elections. But this time it felt worse because some of us had hope that Maverick McCain and Outsider Obama could actually pull it off.

But, alas, Obama opted for the big money and McCain opted for the Rovian tactics that defined the last two elections. What a shame.

(So, do you have any ideas about how to change a presidential election strategy? Or do you feel that elections are being run basically in a good manner.  Send comments below.)

Why is everyone an expert on the media?

For everyone that is convinced that newspaper reporters that cover straight news are bias, this New York Times article by the Public Editor explains things that I have been talking about for quite some time …  at least it is a start …

Some important points to consider on the topic of news bias ...

1.       Journalists are humans, not robots. Hence all humans have opinions. It is only natural. BUT …

2.       News reporters are TRAINED to be objective and fair to all sides – it is their job.  Just like plumbers are trained; just like Wall Street investors are trained, etc. If journalists do their job badly, they are fired.  If news reporters’ biases or opinions creep into their work, they are fired.  I feel it is vitally important to our society to have a hard-working, smart press as a watch-dog; most journalists also feel that way. It is more of a calling than a job. But, if that wasn’t enough incentive, many journalists have a family and a mortgage and since journalists don’t make a million dollars a year, it behooves them to do their job well and keep the income flowing.

3.       In addition to journalists taking their job seriously and holding objectivity high, each piece of content coming out of most major media properties has many checks and balances to ensure that one person is not the sole gatekeeper of a story or facts.  A newspaper article, for instance, goes through multiple line edits, at least one copy edit and then post-review by senior editors.  “Checks and balances” is an important concept in this country’s governing system ---  and it works in journalism, too.

4.       Every single profession has their examples of bad apples or corruption. Journalism is no different.  So, there will always be high-profile examples of bad journalists making major mistakes. Just like there will always be high-profile examples of elected officials making major mistakes (read: Eliot Spitzer).  Is there any profession in the world that doesn’t have bad examples?  Just look at the stream of stories that come out about bad doctors and nurses that actually kill people with bad training or bad mistakes.  Does anyone remember a President that had to resign amid scandal?  No trade or job or profession is without examples.

5.       Let’s be clear on one thing: Screaming (talking) heads on many of the Cable TV “news” channels are not journalists. They are opinion pundits with a bias and are paid to “dispense” that bias (usually quite loudly). Let’s not confuse people like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly and the like as objective journalists – they are not.

6.       When you read a story or engage with media, are you aware of your own biases or opinions that you bring to the article?  Does anyone ever read a news story that they totally agree with and say: “The reporter is bias; I won’t read him anymore.”   That is a point the NYT Public Editor tries to make above.

I have heard a ton of media bashing in this election and I think some folks need to think more about how journalism works and why it is so important to this country.  Can you imagine what would go on without a strong and free press in this country?  If you think there is corruption and deceit now, it would be 10x worse.  Why do you think that after a coup in some other nation that the first thing the coup leaders do is take over the media outlets?  Why do you think China spends so much time monitoring and censoring its media outlets?

 

Also, one thing to note: I generally think Local TV News and Cable TV News is pretty crappy. The old saying “if it bleeds, it leads” is still alive and well in that medium.  The major exception being “60 Minutes.”

 

Anyway, this is meant to be the start of a dialogue. Would love to hear your thoughts on this issue …

 

Coming soon: How do you learn about a topic or profession you know nothing about nor have any formal training in?