On Dan O'Day's site there's a wonderful video of Paul McCartney being interviewed about 40 years ago. He argues that it's the responsibility of the media, not the celebrity, when information about that celebrity is disseminated which may influence people. It's a good argument which I suppose I agree with as long as the celebrity is not the one initiating the release of the information. Paul said he'd have preferred to keep his LSD use private, that it was the media who wanted to know and who made it public.
But, how would this apply to Glenn Beck? In his case the media and the celebrity are one in the same. It seems pretty clear to me. What do you think?
In the conversation between Paul McCartney and his interviewer it seemed to be a given that someone is responsible. Paul said he didn't think it made any difference, but they seemed to both agree that if young people were influenced to use drugs because they knew McCartney had, then it was either the responsibility of Paul himself or the media.
When some maniac shoots up the place after listening to the ranting of Glenn Beck, I say Glenn Beck shares in that responsibility.
What's your opinion?
Showing posts with label paul mccartney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paul mccartney. Show all posts
Monday, August 9, 2010
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Paul McCartney Brings Peace to the Middle East
CNN reports on the upcoming concert of Paul McCartney in Tel Aviv.
After posing for pictures with fans outside the fortress-like church, McCartney was asked to respond to criticism from some Palestinians that his visit to Israel supports its occupation of the West Bank.
He said his visit Wednesday to the West Bank showed he was not playing favorites.
"I'm here to highlight the situation and to say that what we need is peace in this region, a two-state solution," he said, referring to Israel and a Palestinian state.
What occurs to me is, first of all, who could complain about a wish for peace. Did the Palestinians who criticized McCartney not think he was sincere in wishing peace for the reason? Or did they not know he suggests a "two-state solution?" Isn't that the very thing that supports Palestine?
The Insider contains the basic story along with some good pictures of Paul.
What's your opinion?
After posing for pictures with fans outside the fortress-like church, McCartney was asked to respond to criticism from some Palestinians that his visit to Israel supports its occupation of the West Bank.
He said his visit Wednesday to the West Bank showed he was not playing favorites.
"I'm here to highlight the situation and to say that what we need is peace in this region, a two-state solution," he said, referring to Israel and a Palestinian state.
What occurs to me is, first of all, who could complain about a wish for peace. Did the Palestinians who criticized McCartney not think he was sincere in wishing peace for the reason? Or did they not know he suggests a "two-state solution?" Isn't that the very thing that supports Palestine?
The Insider contains the basic story along with some good pictures of Paul.
What's your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)