Tags:
Journalism of Courage
I do not understand why so much fuss is being made about actors taking to politics. The two vocations have a lot in common. To begin with, both the parties play to the galleries. The difference is in the position in which the audiences watch the show. When a politician speaks, they sit on the ground. When an actor performs they sit on chairs.
The majority of their audiences is very similar. An audience that knows only too well that both parties are role-playing. There seems to be some convergence taking place where both sides find themselves on a common entertainment platform. So far, the audience pays to watch the actors on the screen, while the entry to politicians8217; performance is free and sometimes even yield monetary or other benefits.
However, there are a few noticeable differences. Actors have an equal attraction to and admiration of the higher echelons of society. This is not necessarily true of politicians. Actors speak their lines from scripts written by professional writers who know and relate to the audiences. A politician composes his speech while he is talking and hence tends to repeat himself over and over again. Actors cannot be held responsible for what they say on the screen. Since a politician never believes what he says anyway, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word.
Actors turned politicians do not seem to know this well-kept secret. Hence the politician gets irritated by the unscripted speech of an actor. John F. Kennedy once said, 8220;Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be presidents but they don8217;t want them to become politicians in the process.8221;
I would imagine the mothers of actors would share that sentiment!
