Angelina Jolie, journalist, in the Washington Post

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Alma

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
20,992
The actor on Darfur. Questions before I post the work below:

1. How much editing do you think was done? Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen?

2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter?

3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? What credibility, if any does it lose?

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

5. Do you think it's any good?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701161.html?sub=AR
 
BAHAI, Chad -- Here, at this refugee camp on the border of Sudan, nothing separates us from Darfur but a small stretch of desert and a line on a map. All the same, it's a line I can't cross. As a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, I have traveled into Darfur before, and I had hoped to return. But the UNHCR has told me that this camp, Oure Cassoni, is as close as I can get.

Sticking to this side of the Sudanese border is supposed to keep me safe. By every measure -- killings, rapes, the burning and looting of villages -- the violence in Darfur has increased since my last visit, in 2004. The death toll has passed 200,000; in four years of fighting, Janjaweed militia members have driven 2.5 million people from their homes, including the 26,000 refugees crowded into Oure Cassoni.

Attacks on aid workers are rising, another reason I was told to stay out of Darfur. By drawing attention to their heroic work -- their efforts to keep refugees alive, to keep camps like this one from being consumed by chaos and fear -- I would put them at greater risk.

I've seen how aid workers and nongovernmental organizations make a difference to people struggling for survival. I can see on workers' faces the toll their efforts have taken. Sitting among them, I'm amazed by their bravery and resilience. But humanitarian relief alone will never be enough.

Until the killers and their sponsors are prosecuted and punished, violence will continue on a massive scale. Ending it may well require military action. But accountability can also come from international tribunals, measuring the perpetrators against international standards of justice.

Accountability is a powerful force. It has the potential to change behavior -- to check aggression by those who are used to acting with impunity. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has said that genocide is not a crime of passion; it is a calculated offense. He's right. When crimes against humanity are punished consistently and severely, the killers' calculus will change.

On Monday I asked a group of refugees about their needs. Better tents, said one; better access to medical facilities, said another. Then a teenage boy raised his hand and said, with powerful simplicity, "Nous voulons une épreuve." We want a trial. He is why I am encouraged by the ICC's announcement yesterday that it will prosecute a former Sudanese minister of state and a Janjaweed leader on charges of crimes against humanity.

Some critics of the ICC have said indictments could make the situation worse. The threat of prosecution gives the accused a reason to keep fighting, they argue. Sudanese officials have echoed this argument, saying that the ICC's involvement, and the implication of their own eventual prosecution, is why they have refused to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur.

It is not clear, though, why we should take Khartoum at its word. And the notion that the threat of ICC indictments has somehow exacerbated the problem doesn't make sense, given the history of the conflict. Khartoum's claims aside, would we in America ever accept the logic that we shouldn't prosecute murderers because the threat of prosecution might provoke them to continue killing?

When I was in Chad in June 2004, refugees told me about systematic attacks on their villages. It was estimated then that more than 1,000 people were dying each week.

In October 2004 I visited West Darfur, where I heard horrific stories, including accounts of gang-rapes of mothers and their children. By that time, the UNHCR estimated, 1.6 million people had been displaced in the three provinces of Darfur and 200,000 others had fled to Chad.

It wasn't until June 2005 that the ICC began to investigate. By then the campaign of violence was well underway.

As the prosecutions unfold, I hope the international community will intervene, right away, to protect the people of Darfur and prevent further violence. The refugees don't need more resolutions or statements of concern. They need follow-through on past promises of action.

There has been a groundswell of public support for action. People may disagree on how to intervene -- airstrikes, sending troops, sanctions, divestment -- but we all should agree that the slaughter must be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice.

In my five years with UNHCR, I have visited more than 20 refugee camps in Sierra Leone, Congo, Kosovo and elsewhere. I have met families uprooted by conflict and lobbied governments to help them. Years later, I have found myself at the same camps, hearing the same stories and seeing the same lack of clean water, medicine, security and hope.

It has become clear to me that there will be no enduring peace without justice. History shows that there will be another Darfur, another exodus, in a vicious cycle of bloodshed and retribution. But an international court finally exists. It will be as strong as the support we give it. This might be the moment we stop the cycle of violence and end our tolerance for crimes against humanity.

What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver.
 
Springsteen wrote an op-ed for the NYT in 2004. Penn took out an ad because his piece was freaking huge -- it was good, but we just wouldn't run an opinion piece of that length. I see nothing wrong with running this, but then I find op-eds boring more often than not.
 
As an op ed/column, I think it is fantastic. What is going on in Darfur is the neglected story of our day, and this piece went beyond the self-absorbed actor who thinks what they have to say matters more than Joe Sixpack on meaningless issues. The genocide in that region isn't meaningless and if people take a little notice because Angelina Jolie's byline is on the piece, I am all for it. It was written honestly, by someone who has been there, and presents a reasonable point of view and argument without the hyperbole you often get from actor activists. I wish more people gave a **** about Darfur. If this is what it takes, so be it, and the Washington Post certainly doesn't hurt itself by running it. It was solidly written.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Alma said:
The actor on Darfur. Questions before I post the work below:

1. How much editing do you think was done? Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen?

2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter?

3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? What credibility, if any does it lose?

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

5. Do you think it's any good?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701161.html?sub=AR

Seems to be the antiseptic work of a public relations writer....but I don't think it much matters if she wrote it or not....we have to assume it represents her thought, and she does have the U.N. credentials....if her name draws people to the issue, good....the Post gains by those who would read it under her by-line but skip a politician's self-serving plaint...the Post loses nothing.....I'd run it if I were certain it represented her beliefs, and I'd ask her to do me another when there's reason....don't think it's "good," but it's servicable.
 
This was an op-ed, right? Not a column in the news pages? If it's op-ed, no problem. It was reasonable and she seems to have plenty of cred on this issue.
 
The Big Ragu said:
The genocide in that region isn't meaningless and if people take a little notice because Angelina Jolie's byline is on the piece, I am all for it. It was written honestly, by someone who has been there, and presents a reasonable point of view and argument without the hyperbole you often get from actor activists.

I very much share Ragu's viewpoint here. Good for her, good for the Post, good for the attention paid to Darfur.
 
Alma said:
The actor on Darfur. Questions before I post the work below:

1. How much editing do you think was done? Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen?

2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter?

3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? What credibility, if any does it lose?

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

5. Do you think it's any good?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701161.html?sub=AR

It doesn't matter if she wrote it or not. It represents her. She's doing things that carry depth and weight. She could have went to the Oscars and worried about her hair,nails and dress.

There is NOTHING transparent about her and because of this she's an actor with a soul. I suspect when she gets old and fall out of favor with the boxoffice - she'll get an Oscar for humanitarian reasons.
 
Sportsbruh said:
Alma said:
The actor on Darfur. Questions before I post the work below:

1. How much editing do you think was done? Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen?

2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter?

3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? What credibility, if any does it lose?

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

5. Do you think it's any good?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701161.html?sub=AR

It doesn't matter if she wrote it or not. It represents her. She's doing things that carry depth and weight. She could have went to the Oscars and worried about her hair,nails and dress.

There is NOTHING transparent about her and because of this she's an actor with a soul. I suspect when she gets old and fall out of favor with the boxoffice - she'll get an Oscar for humanitarian reasons.

Oh, it kinda matters if she wrote it. It's "by" her.
 
Sportsbruh said:
Alma said:
The actor on Darfur. Questions before I post the work below:

1. How much editing do you think was done? Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen?

2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter?

3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? What credibility, if any does it lose?

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

5. Do you think it's any good?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701161.html?sub=AR

It doesn't matter if she wrote it or not. It represents her. She's doing things that carry depth and weight. She could have went to the Oscars and worried about her hair,nails and dress.

There is NOTHING transparent about her and because of this she's an actor with a soul. I suspect when she gets old and fall out of favor with the boxoffice - she'll get an Oscar for humanitarian reasons.

Do they give out Oscars for humanitarian reasons? I know they do for lifetime achievement in the industry, but do they for charity work?
 
Alma said:
Sportsbruh said:
Alma said:
The actor on Darfur. Questions before I post the work below:

1. How much editing do you think was done? Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen?

2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter?

3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? What credibility, if any does it lose?

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

5. Do you think it's any good?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701161.html?sub=AR

It doesn't matter if she wrote it or not. It represents her. She's doing things that carry depth and weight. She could have went to the Oscars and worried about her hair,nails and dress.

There is NOTHING transparent about her and because of this she's an actor with a soul. I suspect when she gets old and fall out of favor with the boxoffice - she'll get an Oscar for humanitarian reasons.

Oh, it kinda matters if she wrote it. It's "by" her.

and your point?
 
Alma said:
Oh, it kinda matters if she wrote it. It's "by" her.

I know what you mean, and we don't know that she didn't literally write it....but if not, it's still "by" her the way Dubya's State of the Union is "by" him.....
 
Alma said:
The actor on Darfur. Questions before I post the work below:

1. How much editing do you think was done? Plenty. But whether it was done before the Post received it as a submission remains an open question. I'd assume the UN polished this to a pretty bright shine before it ever went out. Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? She seems a pretty smart, earnest person, and I don't doubt that she labored over it. Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen? No. The first-person is the default setting for narrative in the age of memoir. Much easier to use, and since she's the one synthesizing the experience, why not use it?

2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? Yes. She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter? I don't think it does.

3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? Not much. What credibility, if any does it lose? None.

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Yes. Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

5. Do you think it's any good? It's not bad by the standards of any Op-Ed page. Although I'd offer even money that they tried to place it at the NYT first.
 
why do you assume she didn't write it?
She's got more on the ball than Britney Spears and the like. It's not inconceivable she could string a few words together.
 
1. How much editing do you think was done? Do you think she wrote it, spoke it out loud and somebody wrote it, or just put her name on it? Note the repeated use of "I." Did you read that as a smoke screen?

I would think she wrote it/told it to someone who wrote it for her. I know when Wayne Gretzky used to "write" a weekly column in The National Post, it was spoken to another columnist who acted as stenographer. However, that's not to say that she didn't have enormous influence. She is passionate about this issue and is one or two IQ points above, say, Paris Hilton.


2. Regardless of that, do you take this seriously as a column? She's been to Darfur, much less Africa, more times than most journalists, she must know what goes on there, I'm sure she's baby-fed all the handy stats...yet...still...she's an actor. And she's this actor. Does it matter?

I don't think the general public looks at her as "this actor" in a negative way. Maybe, years ago when she was making out with her brother at The Academy Awards or exchanging vials of blood with Billy Bob Thornton, people would roll their eyes or laugh. But Jolie has gained real credibility by (properly) adopting children out of poverty and charity work. People now see her as someone with something intelligent to say.


3. What gain does the Washington Post get from running this? What credibility, if any does it lose?

Well, it is Angelina Jolie. People will be curious. It doesn't lose any credibility because 1) the author has much of it on this issue, and 2) no one is going to disagree that the people of Darfur need help, even if they're not going to do anything about it.

4. Would you run it if you were an editor? Sean Penn took out an ad. He paid for his words, whether he wrote them or not. Not Jolie.

Yes, I would. She's been there and the piece does not read like it's written in crayon.

5. Do you think it's any good?

If I was editing it, I would have told Jolie and her ghostwriter that it's missing something: the passion I would expect from her on this issue. Too many statistics, not enough emotion. I don't want to read numbers I can google, I want to read what she sees and what she feels.
 
Elliotte, do you think she might have toned down the passion to be taken more seriously? I thought it was a pretty boring read, though I agree with pretty much all she says on the issue. But her tone may have been taken that way to seperate hersel from the Susan Sarandon-types who scream bloody hell with so much passion that most of society just looks at them as Hollywood nutcases living in their own world, instead of as someone who actually knows what they're speaking of.
 
Elliotte Friedman said:
If I was editing it, I would have told Jolie and her ghostwriter that it's missing something: the passion I would expect from her on this issue. Too many statistics, not enough emotion. I don't want to read numbers I can google, I want to read what she sees and what she feels.

I disagree. I think the most persuasively written pieces are the ones with a little detachment, and this has some. Her passion comes through a) because she's taking the time to write/"write" this; and b) because of her aforementioned credibility on this issue.

Seriously written celebrity columns on serious issues aren't exactly a dime a dozen. That made the piece come across even stronger.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top