Link

But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.

Ironically, Wednesday night's premiere of the excellent Michael Winterbottom-directed film was meant to support an organization called Reporters Without Borders. Jolie, however, did everything she could to clamp down on the press and control it.

She is protecting her right to prevent the sensational media from invading her personal space. She is not a hypocrite, she is just doing what every other mother would do to protect her children.

Originally Posted by Electronick

She is protecting her right to prevent the sensational media from invading her personal space. She is not a hypocrite, she is just doing what every other mother would do to protect her children.

I'll allow that FOX News is pretty good, but I don't think I'd call them sensational.

It's just as well, because I believe FOX News wastes far too much time on Hollywood celebrity worship/voyeurism/gossip stories. I say leave the fluff to the fluff reporting outlets.

Rick

Advocating freedom of the press in the Constitutional meaning while curtailing the press access to herself as a citizen is not hypocritical.

"Freedom of the press" only has meaning WRT government restriction. People should try to understand the Constitution before opining.

Originally Posted by lrsudog

Advocating freedom of the press in the Constitutional meaning while curtailing the press access to herself as a citizen is not hypocritical.

"Freedom of the press" only has meaning WRT government restriction. People should try to understand the Constitution before opining.

I think if you took a little broader look you may see the authors point. It isn't that she has denied anyone their Constitutional freedoms. More like impeding the spirit of freedom of the press. All the while, starring in a movie about journalistic freedom, she hammers journalists with her limits and rules. Which does in fact impose restrictions on free speech. Just not illegally.
I would have to say yes, it is somewhat hypocritical, or at least it appears that way.

Originally Posted by lrsudog

Advocating freedom of the press in the Constitutional meaning while curtailing the press access to herself as a citizen is not hypocritical.

"Freedom of the press" only has meaning WRT government restriction. People should try to understand the Constitution before opining.

Just curious; what is the "press"? Let's define it so you have a place to start.

Is it only print media? ... TV media?... Radio media?... Paparazzi?

Are you on board with this definition? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
... and especially the broader description within that says: "It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution." ?

HF

a better question is why dinks are so interested in the personal lives of others? the general populous is far too caught up with "stars". just remember, we mocked and stayed away from the drama and band geeks during high school (well, unless you were one of them).

Let me get this straight. Fox news does a report on a person who "almost" kept Fox news from her movie premiere, and every righty wants to jump on the bandwagon?

For those lucky sods who do not make a living in the "entertainment" industry, let me tell you a few keep things.

Regardless of personal opinion, every major talent in Hollywood has a publicist who does nothing but TIGHTLY controls all information about their client. This is their job. They even control what kind of images we can use for posters billboards, etc. They write contracts for their clients with clauses like "equal likeness" (if one star's face appears, then the other star has to have their head be equal in size and appearance), and other stuff that would completely amaze you.

I promise you, if you were to read the standard advertising part of a movie contract you would think you were dealing with a control freak with a gargantuan narcissistic complex.

Secondly, all major talents also have PR people working for them. These guys work arm in arm with the publicist (often at the same agency), and cook up all kinds of fun things to get more print for their clients.

For instance, blocking Fox from the premiere may have been a PR stunt to try and drive up more "news" interest in the movie. Conflict = eyeballs, and eyeballs = butts in movie theater seats.

It's an old old game, but on behalf of he people who make a living selling this crap, thank you for playing.

I don't see hypocrisy. Freedom of the press is part and parcel of freedom of speech. It simply means that they can report on whatever they want without government repercussion. Individuals also have a right to privacy. If I were famous I'd guard my privacy also. Besides, that's not really news anyway - it's just hollywood gossip.

Originally Posted by crashdummy6

I think if you took a little broader look you may see the authors point. It isn't that she has denied anyone their Constitutional freedoms. More like impeding the spirit of freedom of the press. All the while, starring in a movie about journalistic freedom, she hammers journalists with her limits and rules. Which does in fact impose restrictions on free speech. Just not illegally.
I would have to say yes, it is somewhat hypocritical, or at least it appears that way.

Baloney. She is advocating legal freedom of the press while also trying to impose conditions in her personal life that protect her privacy to the extent she can.

There is nothing hypocritical about that, unless she is also advocating legislation that would infringe on legal freedom of the press. She does not have to allow unfettered access to herself in order to stay un-hypocritical.

Just curious; what is the "press"? Let's define it so you have a place to start.

Is it only print media? ... TV media?... Radio media?... Paparazzi?

Are you on board with this definition? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
... and especially the broader description within that says: "It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution." ?

HF

On what planet is the phrase "the Press" ambiguous enough for this to become a subject worthy of debate? Is there something in this thread that has led you to believe that by "the Press", we mean every news gathering entity but say, magazine reporters?

Originally Posted by ElectRick

I'll allow that FOX News is pretty good, but I don't think I'd call them sensational.

It's just as well, because I believe FOX News wastes far too much time on Hollywood celebrity worship/voyeurism/gossip stories. I say leave the fluff to the fluff reporting outlets.

Rick

Seems to be all that Fox News actually covers, fluff. There are few facts within a typical broadcast and a lot of speculation and jumping to conclusions. Statements such as "Some say" or "Some believe that..." are not statements of facts and do not belong in a news broadcast.

Fox news is not news, it is partisan political hackery.

More like impeding the spirit of freedom of the press

... or more like impeding the loose cannon of the press.

--Bill

I am absolutely for free press as guaranteed by the Constitution, but that does not mean I must therefore allow them into my place of business, home, or allow them to attend private functions of which I am part of. In fact, I can allow some in, or one, or none, all without engaging in hypocritical behaviour.

This thread is just another attempt to slam a celebrity for a rather tenuous connection between celebrity in general and Liberalism.

Originally Posted by Kurpal

Seems to be all that Fox News actually covers, fluff. There are few facts within a typical broadcast and a lot of speculation and jumping to conclusions. Statements such as "Some say" or "Some believe that..." are not statements of facts and do not belong in a news broadcast.

Fox news is not news, it is partisan political hackery.

If all you see is political partisan hackery, then I submit you are likely not watching very much of their coverage, or selectively viewing only the parts that raise your hackles. They do their fair share of non-political news reportage, e.g. natural disasters, plane crashes, business and tech news, international events, human interest spots, etc.--as much as any other network, I'd wager.

Or more likely still, you are unable to discern between their straight news segments and the talking head shows.

Rick

I like watching Nascar on Fox.



Tom