It's not the celebrity, it's the subject

[Guest guest]

Here's a good newspaper article for a change:

 

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE

Ruben Navarrette Jr.

June 29, 2005

It's not the celebrity, it's the subject

 

I can't believe I'm defending Tom Cruise.

 

But someone has to do it. Cruise has been

criticized and ridiculed after a heated exchange

with " Today " show co-host Matt Lauer the other

day over a rather important topic: the possible

overuse of prescription drugs that supposedly

treat depression or other forms of mental illness.

 

It all started when Lauer came to the rescue of

Brooke Shields, who – while promoting a book –

disclosed that she had therapy and took

antidepressant drugs to combat postpartum

depression.

 

Cruise doesn't believe in psychiatry ( " a pseudo

science " ) or antidepressants ( " mind-altering,

antipsychotic drugs " ), and he said as much after

Shields made her remarks.

 

Lauer thought that Cruise was being judgmental,

and that he should keep his opinions to himself.

He also thought Cruise should stipulate that –

while the actor didn't approve of taking

antidepressants – those for whom the drugs had

worked should be free to take them.

 

Why should Cruise keep his opinions to himself?

Shields didn't keep her bout with mental illness

to herself. She advertised it to sell books.

Cruise is entitled to his opinion, just like

anyone else.

 

The problem isn't that celebrities have opinions.

It's that the rest of society is quick to treat

them as experts. They're not experts. They're

movie stars with opinions. And they should be

free to express their opinions, and the rest of

us should be free to discount them if they don't

hold up.

 

But Lauer seemed to be saying that Cruise didn't

have a right to his opinion because many people –

like the millions of Americans who use

prescription drugs – might find it offensive.

 

Cruise held his ground. He didn't just give in to

Lauer's brand of " I'm OK, you're OK "

psychobabble. When asked if it was OK if drugs

worked for Shields, Cruise said, no, it wasn't.

 

" I disagree with it, " he told Lauer.

 

Cruise suggested vitamins and exercise as a

viable alternative and said drugs only " mask the

problem. "

 

I enjoy a good fight. How many other celebrities

– in the same situation – would have caved in and

said whatever they thought the interviewer wanted

to hear?

 

Instead, Cruise kicked off a debate over a

subject that a lot of people don't feel

comfortable discussing: whether Americans are too

quick to turn to prescription drugs and whether

their doctors are too quick to prescribe them.

Cruise zeroed in on " drugging children " with

Ritalin, which is supposed to treat hyperactivity

or attention deficit disorder.

 

That's a hugely important discussion, and it

shouldn't matter who gets the ball rolling. Even

if the push comes from a – gasp – celebrity, and

one who has links to – gasp – Scientology.

 

So far the public isn't buying it. According to

an online poll by MSNBC, 69 percent of viewers

said Cruise was " just plain wrong " on the role of

doctors and the use of drugs to alleviate mental

distress.

 

Those people are naive. My friends who are

doctors tell me that they are constantly being

lobbied by drug companies, trying to convince

them to prescribe some of this and more of that.

 

Could this have anything to do with the economic

incentives and perks that drug companies offer

doctors and hospitals? What do you think?

 

That's the discussion we need to be having. And

if it's finally under way, it is no thanks to the

scores of newspaper reporters and radio talk show

hosts who piled on Tom Cruise. After watching the

interview and the reaction, I felt embarrassed –

not for Cruise, but for many of my colleagues in

the media.

 

All of a sudden, the issue went from being about

drugs to being about celebrity and Scientology.

Talk show hosts in Southern California ribbed

" Dr. Cruise " for thinking that he knows anything

about psychiatry. A writer for The Washington

Post joined in, asking: " Should we address him as

Dr. Tom Cruise from now on? Or will the Rev. Dr.

Cruise suffice? " And how's this for a headline

from one online newspaper: " Tom Cruise 'Today

Show' Scientology Rant Hurts Image. "

 

What Scientology rant? The guy was talking about

– or rather trying to talk about – our society's

increasing dependence on mind-altering and

mood-altering drugs. And at no point in the

interview did he even attribute those views to

his religion.

 

Do you suppose it's possible for an entire

profession – in this case, the news media – to

suffer from attention deficit disorder? The

problem is that Tom Cruise raised a serious

issue, one that deserves serious attention.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

__

Sports

Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

http://football.fantasysports.