Marc Ellis' TV career rooted

[Lou Girardin]

I say fuck him for not sharing!

I'd say he'd be glad to.

[Wolf]

As for Marc Ellis being someone to look up to and emulate, Dave, have you EVER watched his shows? He's an idiot! Okay, he's an entertaining idiot, but he's not exactly someone most people would aspire to be!

I agree in part - I don't think he's entertaining...

I think Ellis is a total dork. I don't even find him entertaining - always turn of the TV when he and Ridge have one of their stupid shows. And Sports Cafe is total shit as well - they're all dicks IMO. I wouldn't want to be like any of them and I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who would.

But, for all I think Ellis is a wanker, I have never heard it reported that he has spoken out in favour of drug taking (even though I never watch his shows, I'm sure it would have hit the news if he had said anything like it) in any public medium. So how does the revelation that he's been taking E on the sly constitute "influencing the public"?

The entertainment industry is filled with drug users, very few of whom widely publicise the fact - they perform (act, sing, play instruments etc) and entertain us but their drug use is not promoted as a cool way to live. The only time we hear about it is when they get caught and the media goes ballistic (and if the truth were known we'd probably find a lot of the overly-moralising tabloid journalists and editors are into drugs as well).

Some greasy little paparazzo snapping a photo of Buck Studleigh doing a couple of lines of coke within the marbled walls of his Beverley Hills mansion and spreading it around the rags does not constitute an attempt to "influence the hearts and minds" of impressionable fans on Studleigh's part.

And does anyone honestly believe that your average fan who idolises a TV or Sports star (who publically promotes a wholesome and clean lifestyle) is suddenly, on learning that said star has been secretly doing drugs, going to decide to take drugs to "be like their idol"? The fan is more likely to feel betrayed - "I thought he was so cool, but now I find his wholesome image is all bullshit" - than inclined to emulate them.

Remember, these are people who put on a good face for the public - pure wholesome and healthy - in much the same way Beauty Show contestants are not permitted to tarnish the show's image by smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, doing drugs or associating with their boyfriends in public. They are not "promoting a drug-dependant lifestyle".

Honestly, who here has seen a famous actor speaking on behalf of themselves (i.e. not portraying a character) saying "Hey fans, you should really do drugs, they're really cool and will make you as popular as me" ?

Most of the ones who are public about drug use are those who have battled it, and they are hardly taking a "pro-drug" stance - e.g. Drew Barrymore is quite public about the fact she was on a lot of different drugs and has managed to get off all of them (except for cigarettes) - not exactly your Pro-Drug Poster Girl, is she? Running around saying how she has done everything possible to give up drugs and is glad she has succeeded.

I do not condone drug use, but I cannot accept that some celebrity "role model"privately doing drugs constitutes corrupting the hearts and minds of NZ's youth. If they were running around like Nandor, saying "drugs are cool we should legalise them" it would be a different matter, but they're not. I think Ellis is a wanker, but I would not accuse him of "promoting drug use".

[Big Dave]

law to have to pass a test before being allowed to drink booze!

Ain't that the troof - I've worked with some editors and journos in the past that had a 'switch'. Great guys and a joy to work with, but at the commencement of the 4th pint they become 'instant arseholes'.
Doesn't help that i ride - therefore I don't drink except for the quiet one or two at home so I was always straight trying to deal with these jokers.

You have my sympathies on dealing with pissed idiots for a gig.

[Big Dave]

I think Ellis is a wanker, but I would not accuse him of "promoting drug use".

Accuse him of what you like - He's guilty by association.

[Phurrball]

WRT commentary in this thread regarding Ellis' sentence:

The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out a list of mandatory considerations that a judge must take heed of when sentencing an offender, these are in addition to any matters raised in the usual pleas in mitigation and aggravation that may be offered by counsel on each side. It isn't like the judge plucks a sentence out of the air in splendid isolation from the surrounding circumstances - including consideration of the collateral effects that a conviction would have on the offender.

Like it or not, I doubt any here would argue that naming a celebrity/sports star does not have a collateral effect on that person. That effect is much greater than the effect when 'Joe Nobody' is named. Judges do take this into account when sentencing.

Before climbing into me on this one - this is just what happens, I am not accounting for the judges' decisions. I imagine in this case that Ellis' career prospects will have taken a turn for the worse in a way that is probably more costly to him than any punishment a court could mete out - that, and he'll have all sorts of fun when travelling overseas. [or should that be 'trying' to travel overseas].

Re Zed's comments -

Personally, I don't want this addict or any of his contemporaries entertaining me or my family, knowing that he's probably under the influence at the time. The words and actions of these junkie celebs are very influencial in the lives of their audience which is a danger to society IMO. Then again, if you're on drugs you'll totally disagree with me anyway - won't you.

Firstly, it's called choice - if you don't want to be entertained by any given person, choose to be entertained by something else. It seems a little of a stretch to think that any person who has taken drugs is 'under the influence' all the time, any more than any person who has had a drink is drunk all the time. Lastly, is it not an entirely bad thing to have the odd high profile person fall from grace, only in that it gives us a chance to explain to our children something about the choices that person made; why these may have been wrong choices; what consequences that person will face; how to avoid finding themselves in the same position...

I personally don't care what the police, judges, lawyers, doctors, street sweepers, entertainers, sports stars, teachers etc do in their spare time; be they gay, taking drugs, putting on their socks before their underwear...just as long as it doesn't affect them in their professional role as affecting myself, my family, or other people requiring their services. Yes, this could include the ‘role model’ aspect - and that's the risk such a person takes with illegal activities - fall from grace, and your career is seriously hobbled, if not stuffed.

That's my $0.02...I think it's a justifiable position...

[Big Dave]

I personally don't care what the police, judges, lawyers, doctors, street sweepers, entertainers, sports stars, teachers etc do in their spare time;

I certainly do - if it involves a conflict of interest in what they do professionally. That equals hypocracy.

[scumdog]

I certainly do - if it involves a conflict of interest in what they do professionally. That equals hypocracy.

Add 'drunk' to my slogan of 'loud and uncouth' and does that make me a hypocrite??

[Big Dave]

Add 'drunk' to my slogan of 'loud and uncouth' and does that make me a hypocrite??

No - because as you said, drinking is not illegal - if you were having a smoke then busting stoners it would.

[Phurrball]

I certainly do - if it involves a conflict of interest in what they do professionally. That equals hypocracy.

BD - you left out my next bit in your quote! You put it better than I did; my language there was ham-fisted - but basically conflict of interest was what I was getting at as a threshold. Bottom line, most people are hypocrites to some extent...in a perfect world, one would avoid hypocrisy in the professional role, but we aren't in a perfect world...

If professionals want to risk a conflict of interest, that's their call...pretty silly to choose conflict I would think...Drugs and moral turpitude are somewhat different to 'crimes proper' IMHO in that they are victimless. I see no necessary conflict between dubious leisure activities and a professional role - so long as the 'DLAs' do not substantively affect the professional role.

Hmmm...does any of that make sense, sometimes I wonder...