Top entertainment news story of 2008

Sometimes you can only be saddened by the actions of the media. These days the media fails the public so often that the youth of the nation tend to think this is the way the news is supposed to be. You know, chasing down stories about nothing ad nauseum. Yet there were days when in a year of tragedy and triumph the best and worst of it all would be recorded properly, at least in a year end list.

So for this year, who might you think have taken the top spot of the most important entertainment news story of the year? And for everyone spurring into action to write the election of Obama, that's politics not entertainment.

Could it be the death of Charlton Heston? He was 84, had been in movies since 1941. He made an astounding 22 films in the last decade of his career. For some in Hollywood's top tier that is their entire career. In total he made 82 films, just missing a film for each year of his life by 2. He starred or was in 15 great films that have stood the test of time. And I won't even mention his television career of some 51 years. And of course there is his political activism since the 1960's.

Nope not him.

Might it be George Carlin? Younger than Heston he died at 71. He was an actor of modest means, an author of some acclaim, but a comedian among the best on any list anyone will ever make. He was the first person to host Saturday Night Live, and the first to have the mike shut off and censors racing to the stage. Though infrequently in films his career as an actor spanned 14 films in just under 40 years - proving more his influence on the American culture he discussed and joked about so well. In times like these the loose of someone who can make us all laugh must be #1.

Not even close.

Well perhaps we need to look more political and philanthropic, like Paul Newman? Another logical justifiable choice considering that he was in films since 1952, was a director/producer of 12 films, and 11 of his 64 movies are unquestionably great - still drawing audiences from youth that have never heard of his name. And he was a race car driver of some skill. And he was an active philanthropist giving away millions, in fact tens of millions, long before Oprah made it fashionable. Then we have to add his political activism, for the left which Hollywood loves, and his support of gay marriage - a hot button issue in Hollywood these days.

Such a choice would be cold as ice.

Now you might start making wilder guesses. Maybe someone Black since Obama won and is not eligible in this category. Bernie Mac was a young 50. His death was sudden and shocking. He had just finished a film. He was part of the hugely successful Ocean's trilogy of films. He had huge success in television, in spite of the way in which it continues to maintain an overall view of America as if in the 1950's. He was a successful stand-up comedian, and had been in the business for 30 years. He was a family man, and had no issues. He was only in movies for a decade, but he made 27 films of which at least half were decent if not better.

You were better off picking Obama.

No the number 1 entertainment news story in America for 2008 was in fact.... Heath Ledger's death.

Because Heath ledger killed himself with an overdose of drugs. He was 28, had made 19 films of which most people could only name 8 at best. He was best known for his role as a gay cowboy, and as the worst Joker ever (in my opinion). His death was used to slather on hype to a sequel far inferior to its predecessor.

If the media were truly honest they might say that Heath Ledger won because he made them a lot of money. The movie studios used his death like a flag to rake in money, and no one would dare say anything against their film because Ledger was dead (except me). And they have kept the story going since January, fueling the chance (almost definite) of Ledger winning an Oscar - because he is dead and made a great movie about being gay. Hollywood can't resist that combination.

Maybe I shouldn't care, but I won't drink sand because the major media tells me it's water. Ledger may have been a great person, but I didn't know him. All I do know is that he was a rising star, that had performances that meant nothing to me. His last role was all hype, and he killed himself with drugs. That does not place him above a massive philanthropist and exceptional talent. it doesn't even place him above moderate talents with better resumes and longer careers.

But lest you think me too harsh, the top 10 entertainment list of 2008 as picked by the media goes on as follows:

• The writer's strike ends - money and media jobs
  
• Dark Knight becomes a blockbuster - money and inferior to Iron Man or the orginal
  
• Saturday Night Live becomes popular again - money and politics
  
• Britney Spears - making parenthood a joke and drugs interesting
  
• Paul Newman - he is BELOW Britney - HOW!
  
• TV is on the Web - money
  
• George Carlin - Way down on the list
  
• Tim Russert died - which was big news and one of the media's own
  
• Jennifer Hudson's family dies - horrible and sad.
  [Charlton Heston did not make the list likely because he was a known staunch Republican. Hollywood hates that.]
  

Out of the dozens and dozens of entertainers and celebrities that died or made real news in this past year Ledger is number 1? People who contributed more to the art and society than Ledger ever tried to do died this year, but the media can't stop talking about him. It's an insult to so many that died, and to the public the media is supposed to serve.

Any death is sad, but ranking hype and money over substance may be worse.

Hollywood legend Paul Newman passes at 83

There is sad news in Hollywood today. Paul Newman has died at the age of 83.



Paul Newman was a great actor, and had been in entertainment since the 1950’s, made 50 films, was on television and performed in the theater. He was of a generation that could act in all the formats, not just one that most today do.

He is known for phenomenal performances in films like Cool Hand Luke, The Sting (a favorite), The Hustler (another favorite), and The Color of Money. He was so good that he was nominated for 10 Oscars over his career, and he won one and received 2 honorary Oscar Awards.

He worked with some of the greatest directors and actors in the entertainment business. The list includes: Alfred Hitchcock, John Huston, Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, the Coen brothers, Lauren Bacall, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Forest Whitaker, Jackie Gleason, George C. Scott, and Robert Redford.

Newman was also an accomplished race car driver. A passion that he pursued for decades. He was able to turn professional in 1977. He took second place in the grueling Le Mans Race in ‘79 and 5th place in Daytona in ’77.

Newman was also a charitable man. One of the most noted celebrity charitable contributors he gave for the causes he believed in most, children, though his Newman’s Own multi-million dollar food company is noted as having given over $175 million to charities. The company took no profits, all the money made was given away – name another celebrity or entertainer that has done something similar.

He also created the Scott Newman Foundation, after the death of his only son due to drugs. The foundation financed the production of anti-drug films for children.

And it must be noted that Paul Newman was married for 50 years, one of the longest Hollywood marriages. He was not seen in the various paparazzi magazines, nor was he known for scandals. He was a quiet man, of good humor and respect.

Like many in his generation, Newman served in the Navy during World War II. After the war he studied at Yale, and was part of the famed Actor’s Studio in New York City.

Newman is survived by his wife, five children, two grandsons and his older brother Arthur.

Reuters slaps Oprah Winfrey over donations

When it comes to entertainers and African Americans the major news media really can’t say a positive thing. In fact when they do, you virtually always find any positive surrounded by or minimized by negatives. It’s disgusting.

Let me give you an example.

The worst example that was readily available is the news on celebrity donations. Generosity by some of the wealthiest of entertainers is a great positive. It’s uplifting to see them giving back to their communities and to people in need, here in the U.S. and overseas.

The top of the list goes to Oprah Winfrey. She gave a total of $50 million to children, advocacy for women, healthcare and education in 2007 alone. This amount is more than the rest of the top 5 celebrity donations combined. As donations go she has made a substantial gift to many that need it, and in comparison to other celebrities she stands towering above them all.

Yet Reuters wants to keep this downplayed as much as possible. To achieve this they found the need to state

“Winfrey is a former Bob Hope Humanitarian Award winner, but her girls' academy in South Africa made headlines last year after a former dormitory matron was charged with abusing students.”

Now I ask you this, why is it necessary to mention anything about the negative incident at Oprah’s South African school for girls?

The article is about celebrity donations. The goal was to document how much they gave and who they gave to. For each of the other entertainers (Herb Alpert, Barbara Streisand, Paul Newman, and Mel Gibson) there is not another mention of a negative in relation to their donations. There isn’t a whiff of controversy, except for Oprah.

Why did Reuters find it important to acknowledge Oprah for her voluntary donations, laud her past, and then slap her with an unfortunate event that she had no control over and resolved without delay. I mean if this is what they wanted to do they could have brought up Newman’s illness, or Gibson’s racial comments and lack of sobriety. But those are White entertainers.

Maybe it’s not a racial thing. But I don’t see any other reason.

Oprah doesn’t need media attention, scandal does not help her ratings. Her donations are not tied to publicity, nor is she craving a reward for what she does. She has nothing requiring her to give as much as she does. And Reuters thinks so highly of this that they felt they had to cut her off at the ankles. Wasn’t that kind of them.

I realize that negative news on entertainers and celebrities gets ratings and sells newspapers. I realize that we live in a world where media feed off of mishaps, miscues, and mayhem like vultures feeding on carrion. But sometimes good news doesn’t need to be anything else.

When you read what Reuters states in its article think of this. If you remove all mention of the South African school incident does the nature of the article change? No it doesn’t. So this information is superfluous and solely in there to denigrate Oprah Winfrey. I am insulted by Reuters.

Belinda Goldsmith wrote the article, Miral Fahmy was the editor. Both should be ashamed of themselves and embarrassed to have this published as it was. I would love to hear from either of them, or both, so that they can explain why they felt the absolute need to minimize the outstanding generosity of Oprah exclusively. I would love to hear them explain how this benefits the article or provides any new insight about celebrity donations.

Do you agree?