Angelina Jolie's Freedom of Press, on Her Terms

[WanderAimlessly]

Typical:

Angelina Jolie’s Freedom of Press, on Her Terms
Thursday, June 14, 2007
By Roger Friedman

Angelina Jolie’s true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.

Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called “A Mighty Heart.”

But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.

Full Story

 

[child_of_God85]

I’m not going to hold something this minor against her. She’s a great and wonderful person. She does a lot more humanitarian work than most Catholics could ever boast of. Why hold something like this against her. Alot of the press is corrupt anyways.

 

[blessedtoo]

I’m not going to hold something this minor against her. She’s a great and wonderful person. She does a lot more humanitarian work than most Catholics could ever boast of. Why hold something like this against her. Alot of the press is corrupt anyways.

Please help me Lord! Can someone explain to me why a woman who broke up a marriage, had a child out of wedlock, boasts of her bisexuality, and flaunts her promiscuous lifestyle is revered and idolized by our culture? It’s postively disgusting. Humanitarian? Are you kidding? Did you know the Catholic Church has been establishing missions in 3rd world countries for centuries? And all without the adoration of the media.

 

[CatholicSam]

Don’t fear those who can kill the body but do no harm to the soul, rather fear God who can throw both body and soul into hell. Remember that verse from the Gospel (Matthew, I think)? Then is it not better to care for people, body AND soul, not just the “body” part as AJ is doing in her humanitarian work?

All I can say is that she is doing humanitarian work, and that is a *little *seed of goodness that hopefully will sprout true good fruit that can only ripen within the Will of God (and as a previous poster pointed out, having babies out of wedlock and promoting bisexuality are not pleasing to God). Let’s pray for her conversion

 

[child_of_God85]

It’s never been proven that she broke up Brads marriage. Rather to the contrary, I heard what broke up his marriage was Jennifer Anniston’s unwillingness to have children.
I didn’t say she’s doing more than the Catholic church (it says it very clearly in my post if you read the whole thing), I meant she’s doing more humanitarian work than the the average Catholic lay person.
I don’t see the media being involved with her humanitarian work as a bad thing either. It brought awareness to the third world countries. I admire her for the good she’s trying to do for others who suffer. Didn’t Jesus even say to take care of the poor and sick.
She wasn’t raised as a Christian, so as far as her life style, she probably doesn’t know any better. If someone isn’t raised to think morally, is that their fault or their parents?
From what I’ve seen of her in interviews, she’s a very humble, good person. I and I know I’m not wrong for thinking that.

 

[mary_bobo]

Please help me Lord! Can someone explain to me why a woman who broke up a marriage, had a child out of wedlock, boasts of her bisexuality, and flaunts her promiscuous lifestyle is revered and idolized by our culture? It’s postively disgusting. Humanitarian? Are you kidding? Did you know the Catholic Church has been establishing missions in 3rd world countries for centuries? And all without the adoration of the media.

I will not judge Jolie, however, this idiocy (IMO) just shows what matters to our citizens. If most were not so fixated on celebrity, no matter for what reason, things like this would not get so much media play.

 

[CatholicSam]

I meant she’s doing more humanitarian work than the the average Catholic lay person.

Um, yeah. The average Catholic lay person isn’t a multi-millionaire But that doesn’t mean that her soul is more pleasing to God than the poor little shut-in Catholic who can do no humanitarian work but only offer up their suffering to Christ. Let’s not slip into the world’s way of thinking that more good deeds equals a more worthy/good/useful person.

 

[mesquite_magic]

I don’t have a problem with her asking that journalists not ask about her personal life. The interviews were, after all, about the movie, not weather or not she’s having another baby. This said by an avid “Entertainment Tonight” junkie who ran out and bought the People mag with Shiloh on the cover

But seriously, I like that she does things her way. She’s a strong business woman, and seems pretty smart too. It’s not like she’s out flashing her crotch at photographers and checking into rehab in order to get her name in the paper.

She is an amazing actress, who uses her fame to further good causes.She has done a lot for international adoption. Her kids look healthy and happy. She does a lot for humanitarian aide. I respect that.

Kim

 

[child_of_God85]

I don’t have a problem with her asking that journalists not ask about her personal life. The interviews were, after all, about the movie, not weather or not she’s having another baby. This said by an avid “Entertainment Tonight” junkie who ran out and bought the People mag with Shiloh on the cover

But seriously, I like that she does things her way. She’s a strong business woman, and seems pretty smart too. It’s not like she’s out flashing her crotch at photographers and checking into rehab in order to get her name in the paper.

She is an amazing actress, who uses her fame to further good causes.She has done a lot for international adoption. Her kids look healthy and happy. She does a lot for humanitarian aide. I respect that.

Kim

Well said:thumbsup:

 

[CCM08]

I think Angelina Jolie is the perfect embodyment of the story of the widow’s might. Sure Angelina Jolie does some charity, of course the cameras are always at hand and it’s not as if she’s avoiding an excessive life style so she can help the poor with all that money she doesn’t need. In much the same way in the story the rich made a huge show out of giving their tithing, which though it was a lot of money didn’t affect them in anyway. As such it wasn’t of much interest to God, whereas the widow that gave her last mite (roughly speaking, a penny) without any attention or fanfare certainly was. As such someone that parts with the snickers bar they bought with their last dollar well outside the view of any news camera has done a great deal more charity work than Angelina Jolie.
Adopting a few kids, while nice and a good PR, doesn’t do anything to actually help the thousands and thousands of other kids in Africa and Asia that live in deperate poverty.

 

[blessedtoo]

I think Angelina Jolie is the perfect embodyment of the story of the widow’s might. Sure Angelina Jolie does some charity, of course the cameras are always at hand and it’s not as if she’s avoiding an excessive life style so she can help the poor with all that money she doesn’t need. In much the same way in the story the rich made a huge show out of giving their tithing, which though it was a lot of money didn’t affect them in anyway. As such it wasn’t of much interest to God, whereas the widow that gave her last mite (roughly speaking, a penny) without any attention or fanfare certainly was. As such someone that parts with the snickers bar they bought with their last dollar well outside the view of any news camera has done a great deal more charity work than Angelina Jolie.
Adopting a few kids, while nice and a good PR, doesn’t do anything to actually help the thousands and thousands of other kids in Africa and Asia that live in deperate poverty.

Brilliantly articulated! Thank you!

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I think Angelina Jolie is the perfect embodyment of the story of the widow’s might. Sure Angelina Jolie does some charity, of course the cameras are always at hand and it’s not as if she’s avoiding an excessive life style so she can help the poor with all that money she doesn’t need. In much the same way in the story the rich made a huge show out of giving their tithing, which though it was a lot of money didn’t affect them in anyway. As such it wasn’t of much interest to God, whereas the widow that gave her last mite (roughly speaking, a penny) without any attention or fanfare certainly was. As such someone that parts with the snickers bar they bought with their last dollar well outside the view of any news camera has done a great deal more charity work than Angelina Jolie.
Adopting a few kids, while nice and a good PR, doesn’t do anything to actually help the thousands and thousands of other kids in Africa and Asia that live in deperate poverty.

Agreed very well put.

 

[gmarie21]

Adopting a few kids, while nice and a good PR, doesn’t do anything to actually help the thousands and thousands of other kids in Africa and Asia that live in deperate poverty.

While it may not help all of them, other celebrities and non-celebrities have cited her as their reason for deciding to adopt in poor countries instead of going the IVF route. So, the adoption of some means the world to those some who were removed from poverty to live a life of luxury compared to the orphanages in which they came.

For us practicing Catholics, what a celebrity does or doesn’t do really doesn’t affect our decisions, but for the rest of the world who are in and of the world, someone doing good and inspiring others to follow them in doing good isn’t an evil thing.

 

[CatholicSam]

While it may not help all of them, other celebrities and non-celebrities have cited her as their reason for deciding to adopt in poor countries instead of going the IVF route. So, the adoption of some means the world to those some who were removed from poverty to live a life of luxury compared to the orphanages in which they came.

For us practicing Catholics, what a celebrity does or doesn’t do really doesn’t affect our decisions, but for the rest of the world who are in and of the world, someone doing good and inspiring others to follow them in doing good isn’t an evil thing.

Well, then those same worldly people look at her and say, “Yeah, you don’t have to be married to live together–look at Angelina Jolie and how much GOOD she is doing! I want to be just like her!” :nope:

 

[gmarie21]

Well, then those same worldly people look at her and say, “Yeah, you don’t have to be married to live together–look at Angelina Jolie and how much GOOD she is doing! I want to be just like her!” :nope:

With or without Jolie, they would or would not think that way. I think many hesitate to think about let alone make the decision to adopt non-babies, or children from another country or children from a different race. She has publically shown that it is okay to have a diverse family. I don’t know of a single media person before her who purposely adopted a child who did not look like them. In our country there still is a huge battle if it is okay for a white couple to adopt and African American child and vice versa.

 

[bear06]

I’m not going to hold something this minor against her. She’s a great and wonderful person. She does a lot more humanitarian work than most Catholics could ever boast of. Why hold something like this against her. Alot of the press is corrupt anyways.

Yeah, she’s Mother Teresa. Maybe you haven’t heard about “most Catholics” because they don’t have a publicist promoting her every kind move.

You might want to ask yourself if you think that her life might actually encourage others to steal someone else’s husband and become unwed mothers. Look what a good person she is.

 

[gmarie21]

Yeah, she’s Mother Teresa. Maybe you haven’t heard about “most Catholics” because they don’t have a publicist promoting her every kind move.

I don’t think anyone is saying that she’s a Mother Teresa (and if they are, they need to seriously sit back and think long and hard about the huge differences between the two on all levels). And yes, I am sure she loves the attention, but again, I think more Americans at least are starting to look outside of America and see that there actually is a whole world in need of love and compassion. Unfortunately for Jolie, while she may be smart, she isn’t smart enough to see the complexities of the problems in each individual country. Then again, she’s a UN ambassador, so that explains why sometimes she can’t see past her nose.

 

[CatholicSam]

With or without Jolie, they would or would not think that way. I think many hesitate to think about let alone make the decision to adopt non-babies, or children from another country or children from a different race. She has publically shown that it is okay to have a diverse family. I don’t know of a single media person before her who purposely adopted a child who did not look like them. In our country there still is a huge battle if it is okay for a white couple to adopt and African American child and vice versa.

Yes, she shows it’s OK to have a diverse family–one where the mommy and daddy aren’t married

 

[gmarie21]

Yes, she shows it’s OK to have a diverse family–one where the mommy and daddy aren’t married

Well, then there is always the debate if it is better for children to live in impoverished orphanages or to be living with a single parent who can care for them and their health. Also, there are many “diverse” families on this board who are good and faithful practicing Catholics.

 

[Dale_M]

But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.

I don’t know about the ban on Fox News at the movie premiere, but Jon Stewart asked Ms. Jolie about the contract when she was on The Daily Show last week. She said it was entirely her lawyer’s idea, and that she was against it, and even seemed embarassed. Jon Stewart did ask her questions of a personal nature, and she answered them freely.