Clueless Celebrity Bites Hand that Feeds Him

So, let me get this straight...

A musician.. with all the power and influence it takes to sell a few CD's.. makes a comment about "the evil of profits" and you write a commentary about it....

... but Pat Robertson.. who wields significantly more power and influence in almost all regards.. says that "activist judges" are the biggest threat to America.. and you don't write anything on it?

.. or Sen. John Cornyn... with even more power and influence than Pat Robertson... makes excuses for violence against judges on the Senate floor... and you don't write anything on it?

And you said, once upon a time, that the Right does a pretty good job of policing its own. Yeah.. right.

Martin may have bitten off more than he can chew talking about Ghana (I don't know that he did, I'm not an expert enough to judge what Cudjoe wrote about it any more than I can judge Martin's comments), but I want to defend what he said about EMI.

Firstly, Martin is a rock star, a bit of a sissy one, but none-the-less he's got to maintain a certain screw-the-world, I'll-do-it-my-way arrogant image.
But that point aside, secondly it's entirely appropriate for him to put the quality of his record as top priority. Quality is a low priority to EMI. In the long term, Martin's probably (trying to) do the shareholders a service by producing an album that will make a third record viable, and will continue making money for years rather than weeks (EMI are right that the first month's takings would be higher with an earlier release).
Thirdly, it doesn't cost hardly anything to make someone a star anymore, record production's got cheaper -- so cheap it's almost negligable cost. The promotion's still expensive, but he didn't get all that much in England outside of live shows (which make money in themselves) -- can't say about America obviously. But record companies like nothing more than turning over their acts every couple of years or so, I guess cos you're riding the ever-changing wave of young adolescents. Point is, cost of building a new "star" must be a lot lower than what you can make off twelve year olds.
Now, EMI might be right. Guys in their twenties who loved the first record are now
Fourthly, I don't think he's equating his own contract to slavery; but that shareholders in general are a great evil. I can see appreciate his point, although it's a bit like saying weather is a great evil, it doesn't really make sense to talk about the ethics of the weather (unless you think God is smiting people in lightening stormss). I think he doesn't like the idea of investing in a company purely as a machine to generate money, not involved or caring about the ethical impact of that company -- that's a kind of blind, powerful force which does cause a lot of damage (like weather does); otoh it also makes the world tick, again like weather. As I understand it, Martin's not against globalisation or capitalism, but he wants to bring ethics back into economics. He's a big supporter of fair-trade products for example.

Mark,

As I do not know how to post from an article into this post I have put it into quotes.

While the following article has nothing to do with MWs post it does have to do with your comment. It seems that you are going to persistent lengths to expose Michael as having a slanted point of view. While I am not defending Michael he does post from a certain point and he is clear to all what that point of reference is. What I believe you continue to fail to realize is Newsweek and so many other media outlets "pretend" to offer objective journalism without prejiduce. It is in that deception that they choose to operate. Michael is upfront in his views, Newsweek and others are not.

"When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of
Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?"

Eric: I'm well aware that Michael does not profess.. and is not required.. to be unbiased and without slant.

The issue, though, is one of importance and claims to be pretty good at "policing our own". People typically don't look to musicians for their opinions on anything other than music.. but they certainly look to people like Pat Robertson and a US Senator for their opinions on issues of national importance.

And so, commenting on the rants of a musician while completely ignoring the comments of other more important figures.. since these comments are by people on "your side" is pretty pathetic, especially when coupled with the claim to police "your side" with any kind of consistency.

Also.. when idiotic comments, such as those of Pat Robertson and Sen. John Cornyn, are ignored by pundits on the Right (such as MW)... it kinda makes it laughable when they claim to be more superior, more "on the correct side", etc. than their counterparts on the Left.

Mark,
I don't know what Cornyn said so I won't speak to that, but Robertson WAS thrashed by pundits on the right. So what is the problem, exactly? Do ALL conservative pundits have to chime in on something before it is legitimate criticism?

And about comments regarding violence against activist judges- I also seem to recall conservative pundits harshly criticizing Tom Delay for his (taken somewhat out of context) comments regarding violence and activist judges. Given that- what grounds do you have to critique conservative pundits for not policing their own? No offense to Michael, but he is a very small fish compared to the folks who have done this policing.

On the left, on the otherhand, I seem to recall Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore getting pretty buddy buddy at a Democratic convention, let alone critiquing him.

JC: Good. I'm glad those comments were criticized by other pundits on the Right. I'm talking about MW, though. MW is pretty much the only politically-charged blog (of any affiliation) that I regularly read/visit.

JC: One more thing. You asked if "all" conservative pundits had to chime in before it is considered legitimate criticism. The answer is no... but you can bet your lucky stars they'd all chime in if the outlandish comment were made by someone on the Left.

Mark: Not to mention, in addition to what Jim wrote, Trent Lott being removed from power over his remarks. The right is much tougher on its own than the left is on its own, even if we're not as tough on each other as the left is on us. Plus, I write about things I'm interested in, which is usually the antics of the left, not hammering people I agree with on minor issues.

jez: I see what you're saying, and actually agree somewhat. However, I don't think corporations are structurally capable of ethics or compassion, which is why we need some (few) laws to regulate them, and which is why shareholder involvement is critical. Runaway management that ignores shareholders is a big problem.

As for the Coldplay guy, I doubt he was trying to increase shareholder value by looking like a rebel... though you're right in thinking that he may have that effect in spite of himself!

MW: So Pat Robertson's comments and Sen. John Cornyn's comments are "minor"... and the musician's comments aren't?

Wait a minute...activist judges ARE a threat to America, if by "activist judges" you mean judges that make law rather than interpret it. 'Judge' does not equal 'legislator'. "Biggest" was probably an exaggeration.

MW: Oh I quite agree. Businesses have a legal obligation towards their shareholders.
But that doens't mean that shareholders and consumers should disregard ethics. The stockmarket shouldn't be seen as a machine for generating money. For one thing, it's rather parasitical, but for another it isn't good for the real industries that fictional market represents.

Mark: No, I enjoy hammering the left for minor things. I'll reserve my hammering of the right for major things.

jez: Shareholders, investors, and consumers should be free to act in accordance with their own ethics and to impose those ethics on whatever companies they own/patronize, to whatever extent their influence allows. You may argue that investors shouldn't view the market as a money machine, but that's your own personal view; invest with those ethics in mind, but don't expect others to do the same unless you can convince them to.

However, markets are not parasitical -- quite the opposite. The American economic market is the greatest wealth creation engine ever known to mankind. The market isn't "fictional" -- whatever you mean by that -- it represents the opportunity to trade ownership of companies and assets freely. A good market is one with low transaction costs and no restrictions on price other than whatever someone is willing to pay. That's what our markets do, and they're good at it, and they work.

MW: I think a Senator making excuses for violence against judges.. on the Senate floor.. is "major".

Mark: That's the left's spin on what Cornyn said. Seeing as how I think that interpretation is crazy and ridiculous, this isn't even a minor issue to me.

MW: This is what Sen. Cornyn said:

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

So how do you think it should be interpreted?

Mark: Hm, it makes sense to me. It looks like Sen. Cornyn is saying that if judges what to act like tyrants, they shouldn't be surprised if they get treated like tyrants. I don't think most judges (or any specific judges that I know of) are tyrannical to the extent that violence is justified against them, but there's obviously some point beyond which they should not go for fear of public retribution. Sic Temper Tyrannis. Our founding fathers would have agreed. I am not advocating violence against judges or any public officials; I'm only recognizing the fact that our country was founded on the principle that oppressed people have the right and obligation to overthrow their oppressors.

MW: That's all well and good... but that's not how Sen. Cornyn phrased it. What he said sounded like an excuse for violence against judges; that people's frustration "builds up and builds up and builds up" to the point where they break the law and commit violence against the judge(s).

I didn't mean that markets themselves are parasitical, but that the attitude to stock markets as a pure money-making machine is parasitical.
Your description of the American market place as a "wealth creation engine" betrays that attitude. In my estimation, you are maybe disregarding a lot that is important.
You are correct that that one can impose ethics as far as one's influence allows, but that influence is bound by those ethics compared to someone who operates without ethics. I think this problem is intrinsic to the open market system, and for that reason (we agree) it needs a small number of laws to stop it from self-combusting.

Mark: Well, if one sees judges as oppressors, then I suppose it is an excuse.

jez: Unless you want the government to impose ethics on people by force, then there's no better system... and I don't think ethics-by-force would have a better result than what we've got now.

MW: Uh-huh... And should a US Senator be making the case for those people; people who view judges as oppressors?