ShareThis Page
Celebrities’ Indignation |

Celebrities’ Indignation

| Friday, July 30, 2004 12:00 a.m

Celebrities who choose to espouse their political inclinations in public forums — and then cry foul about any fallout — are laughing all the way to the bank.

Strip away their umbrage and indignation, and what you have is a whole lot of free publicity, courtesy of Big Media.

Could it be that the public is being played like a cheap fiddle?

There was Whoopi Goldberg, whose disdain for all things Republican is well-known. That shtick would have drawn yawns at a recent fund-raiser for Democrat John Kerry. So instead, she cut loose with a barrage of crude puns on the president’s last name. And guess what• She got noticed , big time, including by Slim-Fast, which canned her as its spokeswoman

Somehow we doubt Goldberg was banking on pitching diet drinks as the mainstay of her livelihood. Excuse us, Whoopi, is that Hollywood calling?

And what of poor Linda Ronstadt• Her admiration of propagandist Michael Moore and his farcical “Fahrenheit 9/11” on stage in Las Vegas spurred a public uproar and got her booted from the casino.

But what The New York Times missed in its editorial touting the rights of entertainers to express their political views was this tidbit: Reportedly, Ronstadt prior to her performance told an entertainment writer, “laughingly,” that “I keep hoping that if I’m annoying enough to them, they won’t hire me back.” Imagine that.

Count on seeing more political pronouncements — and indignation, wink, wink — from celebrities as they cash in on the election-year follies.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.