Dearest Rachel –
You know, I really thought I had weaned myself off of my political news feed over the past week and a half. What Internet I could get over in Israel was, to be frank, less than reliable, so its main purpose was to be used to assemble and send my updates to you; that took precedence over the things I would otherwise spend my spare time drinking in (besides, what with us running around from place to place every day, there was a whole lot less of that spare time to spend on such relatively trivial avocations – and yes, when you can’t do anything about them personally, they are trivial).
However, I did make a point of checking my mail from day to day, if only to keep it from building up to such a point where I would have to deal with a thousand emails that I might come home to. This included things like a daily digest of my Twitter feed.
Now, I didn’t – and still don’t – follow Twitter to anywhere near the extent you did (or, for that matter that Daniel does). I left that to you two, as a rule, although I did enjoy you going through your feed, and reading off particularly amusing tweets as we would take long drives from here to there. It was something to pass the time. In fact, I’m pretty sure you were going through your feed at some point as we drove up to camp to meet your fate.
But I did, and do, have a handful of people that I follow, mostly because we were fans of them – and I considered them to be part of the ‘industry’ I wanted to be a part of. I actually had delusions of grandeur that, if and when the channel I dreamed of starting got big enough to be noticed, I could ‘talk shop’ with them on a peer-to-peer level. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if that wasn’t one of my main goals to begin with. I’ve since discovered that to be a less-than-worthy goal, and that realization is one of the reasons I’ve simply let go of that dream in the first place. Besides, I have you to keep in touch with now.
But lately, it seems that one of our favorite ‘explainers and entertainers’ (and by that description, you can tell who I’m talking about) has decided to make her opinions known on certain hot political topics. And while she is more than entitled to have her opinions (it’s a free country, after all), and those opinions shouldn’t really surprise me, given her age, not to mention the fact that she’s in the entertainment industry, they do leave me feeling a little disappointed.
There was, once upon a time, a point when we could enjoy an entertainer, and the content they put out, without knowing or caring what they believed, politically speaking. that goes for sports, as well, as that is a form of entertainment, when you come down to it. You didn’t have to know what Michael Jordan or Bruce Willis or Winona Ryder thought about thus and such a topic, or care that, in all likelihood, we might disagree vehemently on literally everything there is to have an opinion on (one of those reasons why, as the old axiom says, you should never meet your heroes). All that mattered was that they were good at what they did, they were fun to watch… they were entertaining.
But now, it seems that it’s incumbent on every public face (at whatever level) that they not only have an opinion, but express it in the public sphere. And perhaps, if it so happens that you find yourself on the same page with a certain celebrated figure on various topics, that’s meant to make that much more relatable to you. So, I can kind of see the logic behind it. You can find out they care about the things you care about, and they agree with you about what should be done. I’ll admit, that’s a pretty cool situation.
It isn’t, however, something that happens to me (or happened to you) often. Even some of your heroes didn’t seem to ‘get’ your perspective, and I have written evidence from you to back that up. And in that case, although that was a religious question, rather than political, the point still stands. You were, quite literally, concerned for her soul, because of what you saw as her own incomplete understanding of faith, and what it means to be Christian.
I’d wager that, these days, while she isn’t nearly the public figure she used to be, you’d be quite disappointed in her, as well. One of the things you mentioned to her was that (at the time) her beliefs were left obscure, and deliberately so (as far as you could tell), so as to appeal to a wider audience. Those who didn’t agree with her wouldn’t watch her, and she wanted to avoid that as much as possible as long as she was the face of her show (and production company). That no longer seems to be a concern in the entertainment industry; there seems to be a general consensus that they can disparage, denigrate and alienate,m half the population, and they’ll still lap up everything they’re spoon-fed. That even seems to go for smaller, more accessible, theoretically ‘democratic’ avenues, such as YouTube and the like.
And they’re probably right. I will most likely still watch Rebecca, and whatever cartoons she puts out. But I’m afraid any enjoyment I might get from them going forward will be tinged with a slight bit of sadness to know that she and I wouldn’t see anywhere near eye-to-eye on so many topics.
We’ve come a long way from those days when, while we were in San Antonio, not even three years ago, I entertained the faint notion that, since we were in her area, we might even be attending her church, and what fun it would be to bump into her there. There really is something cool about thinking that this or that entertainer isn’t all that different from you. To find out otherwise, however, becomes a tremendous letdown, that happens more frequently than I’d like to admit.
Now, you might point out that I’m being a little hypocritical here. Here I am, bemoaning the fact that an entertainer is expressing views on politics or religion that I don’t agree with, and yet, when I’m writing to you, I’ll occasionally express certain opinions on politics and religion. Where do I have the right to speak on such matters, and they don’t?
Well, first of all, they certainly do have that right. That is, after all, one of the things that our nation is built on – the fact that everyone should be allowed to speak their mind on any topic whatsoever. That does, however, hinder my enjoyment of the content they produce, knowing what opinions they have on those topics – and on a certain level, their opinion of me by extension. The fact that they might dislike me because I hold a contrary position to them, makes them that much harder to relate to – which is exactly the thing you don’t want to do when you’re trying to reach a mass audience. The best course of action in such circumstances is to try to keep those opinions to yourself; alienating a large chunk of potential viewers is never a good business strategy.
So, why do I do that sort of thing? Well, I’m not actually in that industry; I need to admit it to myself. I never started that channel, and I never will, at this point. Most of its premise, in fact, has been utterly destroyed by the events of the last couple years, both personally and politically. Anyway, for my part, I’m not trying to reach a mass audience; I literally have only one person I’m writing to – you. And, let’s be honest; we debated politics and religion on a far more regular basis than I do here online, partly for the reasons I’ve just described. There are other topics I don’t touch on, either, for that same reason (much as I’d like to discuss them). So I’m more careful than you might think.
I just wish the people whose company I want to enjoy in the public sphere would do likewise.
Talk to you later, honey. Until then, keep an eye on me, and wish me luck. I’m going to need it.
Letters to Rachel 