Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Celebrity Protests
Aired March 10, 2003 - 10:46 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: As we wait for Jessica Lange, the well-known Hollywood actress to help lead the move on dot-org cause, a protest war. As we wait for that in New York, let's go on and talk a little bit more about celebrities and their pitch for no war, stretching as far back for decades. There is a history of celebrities taking stands on social issues in the country. These days, many Hollywood stars are opposing war in Iraq, from Susan Sarandon to Sean Penn.
And for more on that, we turn to "L.A. Times" writer Ron Brownstein, who wrote the book "Hollywood's Anti-War Movement." He's also a CNN analyst, and he's with us now from Washington.
Good to see you, Ron.
All right, this isn't first time. We've seen this for quite some time, particularly taking a stand against war. Remember Jane Fonda during Vietnam, and Eartha Kitt also took a stand as well. This time it seems to be gaining some momentum, though. We're seeing a lot more familiar faces taking a stand against war with Iraq, aren't we?
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN ANALYST: Well, if you look at the history of Hollywood's involvement with politics, this is precisely the kind of moment where celebrities are most useful for causes, and that is, when the cause itself is still not entirely in the mainstream of public opinion, and they have trouble attracting elected officials or other prominent Americans sometimes to join them out on the protest line.
Often celebrities, at these moments, whether it was the early stages of the Vietnam or anti-war movements, or for that matter, in the reverse, in the mid-1930s, when Hollywood organized for a more aggressive posture toward Hitler, more preparedness, more of a confrontation with fascism. At those moments, when there are very few elected officials willing to do it, at that moment, celebrities become important to these causes, because they do attract the media, and there a way to help get the message out.
WHITFIELD: Do they almost feel like they have a responsibility to use their celebrity for something, to take a stand on a moral cause?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think if you look at Hollywood, you find the same panorama of motivations that you'd see in any kind of strata of American society, but there definitely are people, I think, who do feel they have been invested with all this fame, wealth, access to the media, and do enjoy using it for something they believe in, as opposed to just promoting whatever it is they do. I mean, you do see that going back. It is sometimes a difficult position for celebrities. On the one hand, they are taking advantage of the fame that they've earned through other means to speak to the public. On the other hand, they can feel pressure and backlash from that.
WHITFIELD: And you know, over of the weekend, we saw Alice Walker, a writer, we saw a comedian, Janeane Garofalo, take a stand during protests over the weekend. But we also noticed during the Grammy Awards, there were also some silent protests, if you will, taking place.
BROWNSTEIN: Sheryl Crow.
WHITFIELD: With Sheryl Crow and her no war strap with her guitar.
So celebrities feel they have to be creative or be acceptable to be outspoken like this?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think they always worry about backlash, probably more -- I think there almost a little overly concerned about that. But there's no doubt, if you look over the last 40 years, the post-blacklist era of the 1950s in Hollywood, opposition to war and criticism of military moves abroad have been one of the most defining causes, one of the most animating causes for Hollywood. They were very active in Vietnam War movement, very early. In 1968, when Eugene McCarthy challenged Lyndon Johnson on an anti-war platform in the Democratic primaries, maybe his principal campaign asset was Paul Newman, who you mentioned before, was a time when no elected officials would endorse him.
You go up to the '80s, Hollywood was very involved in opposing Ronald Reagan's policies in Central America and on the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe. It practically led to a Civil War in the Screen Actor Guild between Ed Asner and Charlton Heston. So there is a long tradition of this being a cause that engages a lot of celebrities, much more than kind of a lunch bucket liberalism focus on economic issues. It's these kind of foreign policy and social issues that tend to get people from Hollywood out on the streets.
WHITFIELD: You mentioned Paul Newman, we were actually talking about his salad dressing however, though, in McDonald's earlier.
All right, let's talk about the effectiveness of the celebrities coming out. A Gallup poll introduces some numbers that are very interesting. The question is, are there any celebrity whose political opinions would make you more likely to favor their views -- 11 percent said yes, and resounding 87 percent said no.
BROWNSTEIN: Not surprising that very few people in America will say they'll change their views because of what they hear from Sean Penn or Janeane Garafolo.
WHITFIELD: So there's a turnoff factor?
BROWNSTEIN: No, actually I think that there is as indirect factor where celebrities do tend to be useful for their causes, because even though I think very few people are going to be influenced by them directly. They do attract more attention, more media attention. They also attract attention from media outlets that don't normally cover politic, whether it's "People" magazine or some of the entertainment channels on cable, and as a result, they do help the causes expose people to their arguments.
So even if people don't necessarily change their view, because they hear from an individual celebrity, they do allow these causes both to get more attention and really to change the bandwidth, to have a broader framework of attention, to reach undecideds and Americans. So I think do they have a positive effect for their causes, although they can be a negative if they go too far.
You mentioned Jane Fonda before and the 1970s, the classic example of someone who may have hurt the anti-war movement as much as she helped it, because of the extremism of some of the things she said and did.
WHITFIELD: All right, Ron Brownstein, thanks very much. It almost seems like for a lot of these celebrities, though, it's almost not cool to not say something and take a stand on the position of war in Iraq.
Always good to see you, Ron.
BROWSTEIN: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired March 10, 2003 - 10:46 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: As we wait for Jessica Lange, the well-known Hollywood actress to help lead the move on dot-org cause, a protest war. As we wait for that in New York, let's go on and talk a little bit more about celebrities and their pitch for no war, stretching as far back for decades. There is a history of celebrities taking stands on social issues in the country. These days, many Hollywood stars are opposing war in Iraq, from Susan Sarandon to Sean Penn.
And for more on that, we turn to "L.A. Times" writer Ron Brownstein, who wrote the book "Hollywood's Anti-War Movement." He's also a CNN analyst, and he's with us now from Washington.
Good to see you, Ron.
All right, this isn't first time. We've seen this for quite some time, particularly taking a stand against war. Remember Jane Fonda during Vietnam, and Eartha Kitt also took a stand as well. This time it seems to be gaining some momentum, though. We're seeing a lot more familiar faces taking a stand against war with Iraq, aren't we?
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN ANALYST: Well, if you look at the history of Hollywood's involvement with politics, this is precisely the kind of moment where celebrities are most useful for causes, and that is, when the cause itself is still not entirely in the mainstream of public opinion, and they have trouble attracting elected officials or other prominent Americans sometimes to join them out on the protest line.
Often celebrities, at these moments, whether it was the early stages of the Vietnam or anti-war movements, or for that matter, in the reverse, in the mid-1930s, when Hollywood organized for a more aggressive posture toward Hitler, more preparedness, more of a confrontation with fascism. At those moments, when there are very few elected officials willing to do it, at that moment, celebrities become important to these causes, because they do attract the media, and there a way to help get the message out.
WHITFIELD: Do they almost feel like they have a responsibility to use their celebrity for something, to take a stand on a moral cause?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think if you look at Hollywood, you find the same panorama of motivations that you'd see in any kind of strata of American society, but there definitely are people, I think, who do feel they have been invested with all this fame, wealth, access to the media, and do enjoy using it for something they believe in, as opposed to just promoting whatever it is they do. I mean, you do see that going back. It is sometimes a difficult position for celebrities. On the one hand, they are taking advantage of the fame that they've earned through other means to speak to the public. On the other hand, they can feel pressure and backlash from that.
WHITFIELD: And you know, over of the weekend, we saw Alice Walker, a writer, we saw a comedian, Janeane Garofalo, take a stand during protests over the weekend. But we also noticed during the Grammy Awards, there were also some silent protests, if you will, taking place.
BROWNSTEIN: Sheryl Crow.
WHITFIELD: With Sheryl Crow and her no war strap with her guitar.
So celebrities feel they have to be creative or be acceptable to be outspoken like this?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think they always worry about backlash, probably more -- I think there almost a little overly concerned about that. But there's no doubt, if you look over the last 40 years, the post-blacklist era of the 1950s in Hollywood, opposition to war and criticism of military moves abroad have been one of the most defining causes, one of the most animating causes for Hollywood. They were very active in Vietnam War movement, very early. In 1968, when Eugene McCarthy challenged Lyndon Johnson on an anti-war platform in the Democratic primaries, maybe his principal campaign asset was Paul Newman, who you mentioned before, was a time when no elected officials would endorse him.
You go up to the '80s, Hollywood was very involved in opposing Ronald Reagan's policies in Central America and on the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe. It practically led to a Civil War in the Screen Actor Guild between Ed Asner and Charlton Heston. So there is a long tradition of this being a cause that engages a lot of celebrities, much more than kind of a lunch bucket liberalism focus on economic issues. It's these kind of foreign policy and social issues that tend to get people from Hollywood out on the streets.
WHITFIELD: You mentioned Paul Newman, we were actually talking about his salad dressing however, though, in McDonald's earlier.
All right, let's talk about the effectiveness of the celebrities coming out. A Gallup poll introduces some numbers that are very interesting. The question is, are there any celebrity whose political opinions would make you more likely to favor their views -- 11 percent said yes, and resounding 87 percent said no.
BROWNSTEIN: Not surprising that very few people in America will say they'll change their views because of what they hear from Sean Penn or Janeane Garafolo.
WHITFIELD: So there's a turnoff factor?
BROWNSTEIN: No, actually I think that there is as indirect factor where celebrities do tend to be useful for their causes, because even though I think very few people are going to be influenced by them directly. They do attract more attention, more media attention. They also attract attention from media outlets that don't normally cover politic, whether it's "People" magazine or some of the entertainment channels on cable, and as a result, they do help the causes expose people to their arguments.
So even if people don't necessarily change their view, because they hear from an individual celebrity, they do allow these causes both to get more attention and really to change the bandwidth, to have a broader framework of attention, to reach undecideds and Americans. So I think do they have a positive effect for their causes, although they can be a negative if they go too far.
You mentioned Jane Fonda before and the 1970s, the classic example of someone who may have hurt the anti-war movement as much as she helped it, because of the extremism of some of the things she said and did.
WHITFIELD: All right, Ron Brownstein, thanks very much. It almost seems like for a lot of these celebrities, though, it's almost not cool to not say something and take a stand on the position of war in Iraq.
Always good to see you, Ron.
BROWSTEIN: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
