We live in an age of self-congratulation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the proliferation of awards shows on TV.
Where once the Academy Awards were a much-anticipated special occasion, these days one can't seem to change the channel without running into another awards show. It's to the point where the idea of a channel devoted exclusively to awards shows is conceivable. With the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys, Grammys, Teen Choice Awards and so on, we seem to be awash in accolades. As a result, awards shows have become little more than occasions for like-minded insiders to pat each other on the back and drone on endlessly about all those they want to thank.
While the commonness of awards has contributed to diminishing their status, far more damaging is the blatant politicization of the process. Filmmakers, musicians, journalists and statesmen alike are all too often awarded prizes based not on merit but on political affiliation. Invariably, that affiliation tends toward the left side of the political spectrum.
Dixie Chicks Sweep Grammys
The Dixie Chicks' sweeping of the Grammys this month was a glaring example of this trend. Their new album, Taking the Long Way Home, won all five of the Grammys for which it was nominated, including best song for the petulant anthem "Not Ready to Make Nice" -- even though sales were much lower than their earlier albums. But the Dixie Chicks' win was less about music than about politics.
Following lead singer Natalie Maines' anti-President Bush outburst during a London concert in 2003, country music fans abandoned the Texas trio in droves. Coming on the eve of the Iraq war, Maines' comment that "We're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas" rubbed the group's patriotic country music fan base the wrong way. That she delivered it in a foreign country didn't help. As a result, some country music radio stations boycotted the Dixie Chicks' music, concerts were canceled for lack of ticket sales and album sales plummeted.
On the other hand, the Dixie Chicks' political stance immediately endeared them to the liberal establishment. Suddenly, they became the new darlings of the anti-war crowd, many of whom were hardly country music fans to start with. Indeed, I've overheard more than a few of these newfound fans remark that Maines' Bush-bashing was the sole reason they bought the group's new CD.
The Dixie Chicks have certainly made a career out of their perceived martyrdom. Since the London concert, the group has fashioned itself as the victim of a campaign of censorship, rather than acknowledging that consumers have simply been exercising their right to express themselves with their pocketbooks.
One can hardly claim censorship while appearing on numerous media outlets, including "60 Minutes," "Larry King Live" and not one, but two Time magazine covers, all the while whining about suppression of free speech -- not to mention the group baring it all for the cover of Entertainment Weekly in a calculated effort to appear risque. Then there was the Dixie Chicks' 2006 documentary, "Shut Up and Sing," in which the trio further employed the London episode to boost their careers. In the end, the Dixie Chicks' victimhood marketing paid off. The Grammy judges certainly fell for it.
Maines, of course, chalked the victory up to "people using their freedom of speech with all these awards," but in actuality it was people using their position of power to reward those with whom they share political viewpoints. It was hardly an endorsement of freedom of speech, or even music, for that matter.
'Inconvenient' Docuganda
Hollywood has long been a source of political award-giving and the Academy Awards are the pinnacle of this trend. Everyone expected last year's nominee for best picture, "Brokeback Mountain," to win simply because it portrayed gay couplehood, but instead the race-baiting and contrived "Crash" took the prize. The critical acclaim for both films seemed to be centered more on the message than the medium.
But it's documentaries that are the main avenue for pushing politics in Hollywood these days. It's hardly surprising that former Vice President Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," was nominated in the documentary feature category. And it will come as even less of a surprise if Gore's film takes home the Oscar. Anyone who has judged Gore's documentary on its merits as a film will know that these awards have little do with craft and everything to do with politics. Gore's view of the coming catastrophe he associates with man-made global warming conforms to that held by the overwhelmingly liberal Hollywood establishment. Hence the nomination.
Recent years have seen a similar pattern with leftist filmmaker Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" taking home the Oscar for documentary feature in 2002. Despite numerous allegations of falsehoods, inaccuracies and deception in the making of the film, Moore's diatribe against Second Amendment rights won the day. Moore's equally questionable 2005 documentary, "Fahrenheit 911," was rumored to be up for an Oscar nomination until Moore insisted that it be confined to the Best Picture category. Apparently, that was taking it too far, even for the Academy, and they passed. But the initial Moore win spoke to the Academy's willingness to award what some have labeled "docuganda" under the banner of documentary as long as the political message meets preconceived political views.
PC Nobels
Beyond the realm of entertainment, awards once thought to be symbols of achievement in the realm of culture, science and international affairs have also succumbed to politicization. The most blatant of these is the Nobel Peace Prize, which is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. On its Web site, the committee describes Norway as a country with a "progressive parliament" and a "very distant past as autonomous military power," with the implication being that such qualifications somehow lessen "the highly political nature of the Peace Prize." But in reality, it's quite the opposite. Nominees and laureates alike are routinely chosen because they fit the mold prescribed by the committee's left-leaning politics.
Here again, Gore has again come up for nomination. How this film in any way contributes to peace is beyond me, but clearly the two "green-thinking" Norwegian members of Parliament who nominated Gore share his views on the alleged perils of man-made global warming. It's certainly difficult to imagine a member of the growing chorus of dissenting scientists being nominated for a Nobel anytime soon.
In a satirical nod to the Gore nomination, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for a Nobel by the Landmark Legal Foundation. Something tells me Al Gore has the better chance.
U.N. Wins Big
Past Nobel Peace Prize laureates further prove the point.
The United Nations has been the recipient of two Nobel prizes, one awarded to the U.N. peacekeeping forces in 1988, and the other split between the U.N. as a whole and former Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2001. The fact that U.N. peacekeeping forces have been engaging in sexual abuse and human rights offenses against those they are assigned to protect and that Kofi Annan presided over a legacy of mismanagement, corruption and scandal never seemed to enter into the equation. The U.N. itself is overwhelmingly composed of leaders from dictatorial or terrorist states, all transparently aligned against the United States, Israel and democratic nations in general. This hardly qualifies it as an organ of peace, not to mention a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Carter and Arafat
Defenders of former President Jimmy Carter often point to the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded for "his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts." Never mind that Carter's pursuit of peace has more often than not led to further bloodshed or entailed appeasing dictatorial and terrorist states while unfairly castigating the United States or Israel.
According to Steven Hayward, author of "The Real Jimmy Carter," Carter spent years lobbying for the Nobel, and he was eventually rewarded for his efforts. But the Nobel bestowed upon him had decidedly political overtones. Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge publicly stated that it was intended to be a rebuke of President Bush and current American foreign policy. As he put it, Carter's Nobel "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken ... it's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."
Even worse was the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, along with Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, in 1994 for his "efforts to create peace in the Middle East." This decision alone speaks volumes about the Nobel's path to absurdity.
Far from creating peace in the Middle East, Arafat exported his brand of organized terrorism all over the world. He was known for giving fiery speeches in Arabic encouraging the annihilation of Israel, while delivering speeches to the international community claiming just the opposite. But the fact that he signed meaningless pieces of paper, shook hands with his enemies and smiled for the cameras was apparently enough for the Nobel committee. For when it comes to the arbiters of "peace," appearance seems to be more important than results.
Pulitzers for Liberals
The Pulitzer Prize also appears to have been influenced by politics, which may explain why liberal recipients, at least since the 1960s, tend to dominate. This may have something to do with the fact that those choosing the winners are themselves politically oriented to the left.
In an interview last year with conservative talk-show host and columnist Hugh Hewitt, ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin was hard-pressed to name one conservative among the current crop of well-known journalists who had won a Pulitzer. Halperin alluded to the existence of some, but described them as "privately conservative," meaning that should word of their political persuasion get out, their livelihood might be imperiled. Hardly an endorsement for conservatives winning the Pulitzer.
Similarly, in a 2004 National Review article on the topic, Henry Payne pointed out that "In the last 10 years, not a single conservative editorial cartoonist has won a Pulitzer. In fact, of 30 nominations for the prize during this time (three are sent to the Pulitzer board every year), only five have been of conservatives." This may be because the field of journalism is generally seen by its liberal practitioners as an activist profession that is by its very nature anti-establishment. Pulitzers, it seems, are awarded accordingly.
There are certainly exceptions to the cases cited above, but it's safe to say that the politicizing of the awards process is accelerating. As a result, awards that were once seen as prestigious are now viewed, at least by those who lean rightward, merely as hollow gestures. Such cynicism does little to promote a culture of achievement.
This politicizing also dampens creativity, for if all one needs to do to be rewarded is to produce work that repeats the generally held mantras of his peers, very few will buck the trend. In this way, not only is independent thought inhibited, but it is actively discouraged.
Somehow, I doubt that's what the framers of all these honors had in mind.
Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com. Read her blog at cinnamonstillwell.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment