No News For YOU
This is unreal. I've often pointed out the raging hypocrisy of the left - you know, the way they whine on national television about how they are being silenced. Then they turn around and try to silence critics. This is really common among celebrities, of course. Hollywood types are quick to screech into the nearest microphone about being oppressed. But it is rarely quite this blatant. Angelina Jolie has actually taken first prize in the raging hypocrite sweepstakes. To promote a new movie about Daniel Pearl, murdered in the pursuit of press freedom, Jolie is demanding the press surrender their freedom to her if they want an interview.
Angelina Jolie's true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.
Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called "A Mighty Heart."
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.
Reporters from most major media outlets balked Wednesday when they were presented with an agreement drawn up by Jolie's Hollywood lawyer Robert Offer. The contract closely dictated the terms of all interviews.
Reporters were asked to agree to "not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave."
The agreement also required that "the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. In no event may Interviewer or Media Outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story. … The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie."
If that wasn't enough, Jolie also requires that if any of these things happen, "the tape of the interview will not be released to Interviewer." Such a violation, the signatory thus agrees, would "cause Jolie irreparable harm" and make it possible for her to sue the interviewer and seek a restraining order.
I am told that USA Today and the Associated Press were among those that canceled interviews, and eventually Jolie scotched all print interviews when she heard the reaction.
Welcome to the land of Jolie, where she may preach at will, but you will remain silent. Now that this story is out, Jolie is in for a lot of derogatory comments. She has earned them.
Let the derision begin: Don Surber, Captain's Quarters, Wizbang, NewsBusters,
Other Links to this Post
-
Don Singleton — Thursday, 14 June , 2007 @ 10:13 am
By jpe, Thursday, 14 June , 2007 @ 10:19 am
I thought conservatives were all about freedom of contracts? So why get all atwitter when Jolie exercises her rights of contract and association?
If people really think this is some proof of hypocrisy or has something to do with censorship, the right side of the blogosphere is less analytically astute than I had thought. And that’s saying something.
By Gaius, Thursday, 14 June , 2007 @ 11:23 am
She’s free to try, we’re free to deride her. The press is free to tell her what to do with her contract - most did. And we’re also free to deride your hypocritical attempt to say Jolie is not being hypocritical.
By Matt Barber, Thursday, 14 June , 2007 @ 11:25 am
These sorts of contracts, or pre-interview “ground rules,” are common. Rush Limbaugh does similar things, on those rare occasions he grants an interview. He doesn’t grant interviews anymore precisely because the press doesn’t cooperate! They edit his comments to make him look like a racist, or a hypocrite, or whatever, _despite_ any pre-interview ground rules.
Jolie is trying to prevent the same happening to her. Jolie’s rules may be more stringent than most, but (pace Blue Crab) this is hardly worth complaining about.
However, I do agree she is being hypocritical in her refusal to speak to Fox News, and _that_ deserves some commentary.
By syn, Thursday, 14 June , 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Goes to show just how stupid is Jolie, Hollywood can’t sell films without the press and I am fairly certain Jolie’s contractual obligation to both her film and distribution company are going to be problematic for Jolie.
Audiences have short memories and actors who mess with precious ‘free’ press advertisment don’t last very long in Hollywood.
By syn, Thursday, 14 June , 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Actually the difference between Rush and Jolie is that Rush doesn’t hire himself to sell his product, he is the product.
Jolie, on the other hand, is an over-paid cosmetic sslesperson who is hired primarily for the explicit purpose of selling another’s product.
By syn, Thursday, 14 June , 2007 @ 1:42 pm
oops that’s ’salesperson’
By Chris, Friday, 15 June , 2007 @ 8:46 am
I can actually see both sides to this. On the one hand, it is unwise to be seen censoring the press while promoting a movie that presumably promotes press freedom. On the other hand, knowing the press, I can see how if she were promoting the film, she might want to discourage the inevitable questions about her private life that have nothing to do with the movie.
The press and their tabloid mentality are doing themselves no favors lately. Part of the problem with the White House’s bunker mentality has been the savaging of the President in purported news articles, and the deliberate misrepresentation of his speeches. If someone calls you an asshole every time you talk to them, eventually you’re going to stop talking to them.