Hollywood continues to prove its love for social media is equalled only by its distaste for facts. Not that this is anything new. Last week, we had Rosie offering to “pay” two senators $2 million each to change their vote on the tax bill. This week, we have Entertainment Weekly trying to justify her attempted bribery. We also have actress Jenna Fischer, Pam from The Office, giving false information about the tax bill in a tweet that was not only heavily shared but was then “justified” by Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau.
When O’Donnell offered Senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake $2 million each to change their vote on the tax bill, few people laughed. For one, Rosie hasn’t been funny for years. For another, they recognized the so-called offer for what it was — a bribe. She wanted to give politicians money to influence their vote. That’s illegal. Fortunately for the American people, the senators voted for the bill and didn’t take her up on her offer.
But that wasn’t the end of it. In true Hollywood tradition, Entertainment Weekly had to try to spin the story into one of big, bad Conservative America doing its best to silence poor little Rosie.
Of course, in doing so, it fails to point out a couple of things. The first is that her “offer” was an attempted bribe, something blatantly illegal. But that’s okay. We all know the laws for the little people don’t apply to Hollywood and its so-called elite. But the second is a bit more problematical for EW. To begin, if you are going to complain about a “backlash”, you need to make sure your own reporting is complete. EW’s failure to report on Rosie’s attack on Ben Shapiro when he called her out for her actions — and on Twitter’s eventual ruling that Rosie’s tweet violated its terms of service — smacks of preferential treatment and shows just where the rag’s — er, media outlet’s — loyalties lie. Forget truth. Let’s make sure we press the “right” point of view. The little people will thank us for it once we have them all brainwashed.
But it doesn’t end there, at least not where Hollywood and the tax bill are concerned. Jenna Fischer, who played Pam in The Office, tweeted the following:
This tweet obviously hit a sore spot with a number of people, judging by the many times it was retweeted. It would have hit one with me as well except for one thing — it’s wrong. The new tax bill doesn’t do away with the tax break for teachers who have to buy their own supplies. What it does, however, is place a $250 cap on the deduction. Something Fischer either ignored or didn’t know until after being called out on it.
Now, to be fair, Fischer did finally admit she was wrong.
However, she didn’t remove the original tweet. Instead, her “correction” reads like someone from her PR team wrote it for her. Too bad they didn’t vet what she first tweeted.
Still, it was the response from former Obama speechwriter, Jon Favreau — no, not THAT Favreau — that took the cake.
Perhaps Fischer should have waited to tweet until she’d read the talking points? Can you imagine the howls of outrage that would have come from the media had a conservative actor misrepresented Obamacare or anything else that came out of the Obama administration? Wait, we saw that every time gun control came up or the Affordable Care Act and anyone dared speak against it.
Hollywood needs to understand that the American public isn’t nearly as gullible as it wants to believe. It needs to get over its love affair with Hillary Clinton and realize she is not and will not be our president. Being a “star” doesn’t give you some infinite power to tell us what laws we should enact or which politicians we should vote for. Educate yourselves before attempting to educate the rest of us or, better yet, just do your jobs and be entertainers, keeping your opinions to yourselves. Otherwise, you risk discovering just how little we care what you think when it comes to politics.
UPDATE: Jenna Fischer, in a class move, not only deleted her original tweet but issued an apology and a statement she has asked everyone to read and share. We don’t often see this kind of honesty and call for dialog from Hollywood and my hat is off to Fischer.
I don’t understand why teachers spend their own money for work?
Are they deviating from the curriculum? If they are supposed to be doing it , the students should pay a fee.
Can I imagine the howls of outrage had a conservative “misrepresented” ObamaCare? No.
Rather, I remember the bowls of outrage when conservatives accurately described ObsmaCare’s provisions. You didn’t get to keep your insurance Plan, or your Doctor, or not have to pay for many mandatory coverages you didn’t want or couldn’t use. But, anyone who said that was personally vilified.
“What it does, however, is place a $250 cap on the deduction. ”
One slight correction. Per the following article dated June 2017:
https://www.thebalance.com/educator-expenses-tax-deduction-3192990
The deduction was already capped at $250.
This new tax bill does not change that one bit, one way or the other.
Many teachers will also benefit greatly from the increased standard deduction.
Unless they pay no taxes at all, or have so many itemized deductions the increase won’t be felt, everyone should benefit from the increased standard deduction.
But, hey, what’s $18 a week, right? Hmmm… spread over the school year, that’s… $702. More than they spend on school year supplies, out-of-pocket (by the numbers above).
Interesting, no?
BTW, a Hollywood success I can report (assuming Hollywood made the movie) is Darkest Hour, about Churchill becoming Prime Minister at the beginning of the 2d World War. You’ll want to stand up and clap during a few parts.
One might think that these Hollywood types were intelligent, if they’d just keep their mouths closed and act.
You may want to update this post. Jenna Fischer DID remove the tweet, along with one of the most gracious apologies I’ve seen in years.
Of course,isn’t the increased standard deduction going to likely leave them in the same place tax wise even if the deduction isn’t ‘named’ school supplies?
How many administrators do they have per student? How many did they have back in the 50s? Seems like if you restored that balance you’d free up a lot of funds so teachers wouldn’t have to purchases supplies, you could probably even afford a few more teachers to reduce classroom size.
18 Comments