Article
Tim Robbins vs. the Baseball Hall of Fame
Written by Eric, Scott
First Posted: April 20th, 2003
Dale Petroskey
Eric:
Have you ever wondered about what kind of sheltered worlds celebrities live in? My guess is that they are surrounded by personal assistants, agents and servants. I bet reporters are nice to them because they want to be invited back for another interview. Many movie stars and celebrities probably live in worlds surrounded by people who are pretty much dependent on them for an income one way or another. How often do you think celebrities get disagreed with? With that question in mind, it is easy to see why a movie star like Tim Robbins is acting like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way.
The Baseball Hall Of Fame was scheduled to show a special screening of Bull Durham. Its stars, Kevin Costner, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, were all going to be there for the showing. Hall Of Fame president Dale Petroskey cancelled the event. He claimed that statements by Robbins and Sarandon could potentially be dangerous for our troops. Robbins, who is a baseball fan, was terribly offended. He responded to Petroskey in a letter that said many things including that this belonged in the hall of shame.
At a National Press Club luncheon on Tuesday in Washington, Robbins said, "A chill is blowing in this nation. Every day the airwaves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent." The paranoid actor also added, "One casualty of the war with Iraq is the First Amendment right to oppose it."
The out spoken Robbins and his long time companion Sarandon, are living proof of America's freedom of speech. In my opinion, the part that Robbins is having a hard time with is that "everyone" has freedom of speech in this country. Robbins has every right and freedom to speak his mind. However, everyone else in this country has that same right and may disagree with him if and when they choose. People are free in this country to un-invite them to an event if they want.
All of us non celebrities, who live in the real world, understand that our careers and jobs can be affected by us spouting our politics. How many patients would a dentist retain if he gave his political view to every one of his patients as he was cleaning their teeth? How long would the cashier at a fast food restaurant keep their job if they asked every customer, "Do you want fries with that and don't you just hate Democrats?"
Does Tim Robbins think that he is some exception to the rule? We all must be held responsible for what we say and do. Robbins certainly has freedom of speech, but so does everyone else in responding to what he says. This includes the freedom to no longer want to associate with him if so desired.
Well now that Robbins and Sarandon have some free time, I have a suggestion for what they can do with it. How about they both take a trip to Baghdad and meet all of their Iraqi fans. They could tell the Iraqi people that if they had there way, they would all still being living in a dictatorship. The two of them should shake hands with the parents of the children who were in the Baath Party prisons. They could give them red carpet smiles as they tell them that they opposed the war that freed their kids.
Robbins and Sarandon should meet with U.S. and British soldiers. They could tell them the standard Hollywood liberal line of "We oppose the war, but support the troops." It would be fun to see how many of the soldiers could figure out, that, that statement makes about as much sense as saying, "I oppose rape but support the rapist."
Bull Durham is a great movie. It will be my one exception to my boycotting of all Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon movies. I have that right. I can speak my mind and express my opinion all I want. I am fully prepared to accept any and all back lash that may come from doing so. Why can't movie stars like Tim Robbins?
Scott:
While I'm quite sure that Eric is right in that celebrities are very often surrounded by 'Yes men', I'm not sure it has reached the point he claims where they are completely surprised when someone disagrees with them.
The main point of Eric's article seems to be that Tim Robbins and others should expect a backlash from people who disagree with them. His other point seems to be that everyone has a right to free speech, not just Liberals.
Naturally, when you make a public statement you should expect the public to have a reaction to that statement, whether positive or negative. I'm quite sure as an actor with a string of dubious box office successes, Tim Robbins is used to the public weighing in their opinion on his choices.
Famously Liberal Tim Robbins' public messages opposing the war and Bush are a matter of public record. Dale Petrosky, a Republican who worked in the Reagan administration, has let known his support of George Bush. Being that this is America, they both have the right to express those opinions, and obviously they have done so. Now they both must accept the backlash.
"Public figures, such as you, have platforms much larger than the average American's, which provides you an extraordinary opportunity to have your views heard--and an equally large obligation to act and speak responsibly." Wrote Dale in his letter to Tim. Obviously by 'act and speak responsibly' he means acting and speaking in a way that Dale agrees with.
He goes on to say, "We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important--and sensitive--time in our nation's history helps undermine the US position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." Now I have heard this argument many times of late. "Don't speak out against the war or you'll put our troops in danger." What I haven't figured out is how this works exactly. Has anything any celebrity said affected the war effort? Is a General going to say, "Hey Tim Robbins opposes the war, so everybody give me your bullets and go stand up on the ridge in front of the enemy." Or is it that the troops will be too busy watching the Celebrities on the news to notice they're being ambushed?
No, the only way a Celebrity can affect the war effort is by swaying public opinion, which could eventually affect who they vote for, or the way elected officials vote, which could then affect the war effort. This is a very long process and only effects troops involved in a war that goes on for a very long time. It is laughable to say that a Celebrity speaking their mind is putting the troops in danger.
In the wake of the controversy the cancellation has caused, Dale went on to say, "What we were trying to do was take politics out of this. We didn't want people to espouse their views in a very public place, one way or another. The Hall isn't the place for that."
I think what he meant was, "We're taking politics that I don't agree with out of this." Since the only people who weren't going to be allowed were those with Political views contrary to his own. Kevin Costner, a Republican, did not receive the same letter.
Ok, so Dale disagrees with Tim, and Dale controlled who got invited to the event. That's fine, obviously Dale has the right to do that. The irony of course is that by doing so he made what would have been a low-key event that only baseball fans would have heard about, into a national debate. There isn't a single thing he could have done better to help publicize Robbins' politics. Its like those people who protest a movie because they find it offensive and only end up giving it more publicity by their actions.
Even Dale realized this as evidenced by this statement on the Baseball Hall of Fame's website, "There was a chance of politics being injected into The Hall during these sensitive times, and I made a decision to not take that chance. But I inadvertently did exactly what I was trying to avoid. With the advantage of hindsight, it is clear I should have handled the matter differently."
Eric closes by saying, "I am fully prepared to accept any and all back lash that may come from doing so. Why can't movie stars like Tim Robbins?" Because there is backlash, does that mean he should just accept it and shut up? Doesn't it mean he should respond himself? Open Debate, back and forth, arguing two opposing viewpoints; it's what America was built upon.
Eric:
Have you ever wondered about what kind of sheltered worlds celebrities live in? My guess is that they are surrounded by personal assistants, agents and servants. I bet reporters are nice to them because they want to be invited back for another interview. Many movie stars and celebrities probably live in worlds surrounded by people who are pretty much dependent on them for an income one way or another. How often do you think celebrities get disagreed with? With that question in mind, it is easy to see why a movie star like Tim Robbins is acting like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way.
The Baseball Hall Of Fame was scheduled to show a special screening of Bull Durham. Its stars, Kevin Costner, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, were all going to be there for the showing. Hall Of Fame president Dale Petroskey cancelled the event. He claimed that statements by Robbins and Sarandon could potentially be dangerous for our troops. Robbins, who is a baseball fan, was terribly offended. He responded to Petroskey in a letter that said many things including that this belonged in the hall of shame.
At a National Press Club luncheon on Tuesday in Washington, Robbins said, "A chill is blowing in this nation. Every day the airwaves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent." The paranoid actor also added, "One casualty of the war with Iraq is the First Amendment right to oppose it."
The out spoken Robbins and his long time companion Sarandon, are living proof of America's freedom of speech. In my opinion, the part that Robbins is having a hard time with is that "everyone" has freedom of speech in this country. Robbins has every right and freedom to speak his mind. However, everyone else in this country has that same right and may disagree with him if and when they choose. People are free in this country to un-invite them to an event if they want.
All of us non celebrities, who live in the real world, understand that our careers and jobs can be affected by us spouting our politics. How many patients would a dentist retain if he gave his political view to every one of his patients as he was cleaning their teeth? How long would the cashier at a fast food restaurant keep their job if they asked every customer, "Do you want fries with that and don't you just hate Democrats?"
Does Tim Robbins think that he is some exception to the rule? We all must be held responsible for what we say and do. Robbins certainly has freedom of speech, but so does everyone else in responding to what he says. This includes the freedom to no longer want to associate with him if so desired.
Well now that Robbins and Sarandon have some free time, I have a suggestion for what they can do with it. How about they both take a trip to Baghdad and meet all of their Iraqi fans. They could tell the Iraqi people that if they had there way, they would all still being living in a dictatorship. The two of them should shake hands with the parents of the children who were in the Baath Party prisons. They could give them red carpet smiles as they tell them that they opposed the war that freed their kids.
Robbins and Sarandon should meet with U.S. and British soldiers. They could tell them the standard Hollywood liberal line of "We oppose the war, but support the troops." It would be fun to see how many of the soldiers could figure out, that, that statement makes about as much sense as saying, "I oppose rape but support the rapist."
Bull Durham is a great movie. It will be my one exception to my boycotting of all Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon movies. I have that right. I can speak my mind and express my opinion all I want. I am fully prepared to accept any and all back lash that may come from doing so. Why can't movie stars like Tim Robbins?
Scott:
While I'm quite sure that Eric is right in that celebrities are very often surrounded by 'Yes men', I'm not sure it has reached the point he claims where they are completely surprised when someone disagrees with them.
The main point of Eric's article seems to be that Tim Robbins and others should expect a backlash from people who disagree with them. His other point seems to be that everyone has a right to free speech, not just Liberals.
Naturally, when you make a public statement you should expect the public to have a reaction to that statement, whether positive or negative. I'm quite sure as an actor with a string of dubious box office successes, Tim Robbins is used to the public weighing in their opinion on his choices.
Famously Liberal Tim Robbins' public messages opposing the war and Bush are a matter of public record. Dale Petrosky, a Republican who worked in the Reagan administration, has let known his support of George Bush. Being that this is America, they both have the right to express those opinions, and obviously they have done so. Now they both must accept the backlash.
"Public figures, such as you, have platforms much larger than the average American's, which provides you an extraordinary opportunity to have your views heard--and an equally large obligation to act and speak responsibly." Wrote Dale in his letter to Tim. Obviously by 'act and speak responsibly' he means acting and speaking in a way that Dale agrees with.
He goes on to say, "We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important--and sensitive--time in our nation's history helps undermine the US position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." Now I have heard this argument many times of late. "Don't speak out against the war or you'll put our troops in danger." What I haven't figured out is how this works exactly. Has anything any celebrity said affected the war effort? Is a General going to say, "Hey Tim Robbins opposes the war, so everybody give me your bullets and go stand up on the ridge in front of the enemy." Or is it that the troops will be too busy watching the Celebrities on the news to notice they're being ambushed?
No, the only way a Celebrity can affect the war effort is by swaying public opinion, which could eventually affect who they vote for, or the way elected officials vote, which could then affect the war effort. This is a very long process and only effects troops involved in a war that goes on for a very long time. It is laughable to say that a Celebrity speaking their mind is putting the troops in danger.
In the wake of the controversy the cancellation has caused, Dale went on to say, "What we were trying to do was take politics out of this. We didn't want people to espouse their views in a very public place, one way or another. The Hall isn't the place for that."
I think what he meant was, "We're taking politics that I don't agree with out of this." Since the only people who weren't going to be allowed were those with Political views contrary to his own. Kevin Costner, a Republican, did not receive the same letter.
Ok, so Dale disagrees with Tim, and Dale controlled who got invited to the event. That's fine, obviously Dale has the right to do that. The irony of course is that by doing so he made what would have been a low-key event that only baseball fans would have heard about, into a national debate. There isn't a single thing he could have done better to help publicize Robbins' politics. Its like those people who protest a movie because they find it offensive and only end up giving it more publicity by their actions.
Even Dale realized this as evidenced by this statement on the Baseball Hall of Fame's website, "There was a chance of politics being injected into The Hall during these sensitive times, and I made a decision to not take that chance. But I inadvertently did exactly what I was trying to avoid. With the advantage of hindsight, it is clear I should have handled the matter differently."
Eric closes by saying, "I am fully prepared to accept any and all back lash that may come from doing so. Why can't movie stars like Tim Robbins?" Because there is backlash, does that mean he should just accept it and shut up? Doesn't it mean he should respond himself? Open Debate, back and forth, arguing two opposing viewpoints; it's what America was built upon.