When we sift through all the unnecessary personal acrimony in this thread, there is an interesting point here. Will there be a major backlash to Bono's high profile?
My Hypothesis: The U.S. mass media's reaction to anyone (including Bono) is dependent upon the degree to which his/her rhetoric and actions favor the interests of the the powers that be, which includes the U.S. government and media owners (U.S. corporations). A backlash occurs when a celebrity figure with access to the public provides the public with access to information these entities didn't want them to know, or when he/she threatens their financial interests. That, simply, is the difference between being "the only band that matters" and "shut up already, you're just a rock star/actor/whatever".
There have been two major U.S. anti-U2 backlashes so far. The first started in late 1987 and extended through 1989. It began (almost to the day, if you compare U2 bootlegs and post-concert media reviews as I have) in late 1987 when Bono began to speak very openly and frankly during concerts about the devastation that the U.S. was inflicting on Nicaragua. Until that time, U.S. citizens simply didn't know what was going on down there. That's when the first "please shut up"s began to be seen in post-concert reviews. The backlash was made easier by the band's rather haughty demeanor (I agree with critics on this one) during the Rattle & Hum movie. More importantly, in the movie the band directly implicated Western corporations ("silver and gold") as a major contributor to the apartheid South African government. Hence the virulent backlash.
The second backlash was in 1997. The band a) proudly refused corporate sponsorship for their multi-million dollar Popmart tour; and b) openly referred to the "corporate monster" during their concerts. The usual group of potential sponsors and music industry denizens were outraged that a) they lost a lot of cash; and b) U2 was setting an example for other bands that might follow suit - that would be a major threat to their moneymaking machine. So the media machine did another job on U2. Even now, the way Pop and Popmart are retrospectively panned as failures by the media is completely at odds with the facts: the Pop album received good reviews initially (not Joshua Tree - like reviews, but good) by most reviewers, being a stadium tour Popmart actually sold more tickets than Elevation, Popmart made millions of dollars, and Popmart was a great show compared to other artists' shows (but perhaps not as great as other U2 shows in the opinion of many, including me).
This is not conspiracy theory. This is the way that the media works. People without good relationships with powerful politicians and business leaders (nowdays, the business leaders own the media so it's even more simple) don't become editors. Reporters self-censor their stories to make them acceptable to editors. And everyone in that industry needs good relationships with Clear Channel in order to be viable.
So my prediction is that as long as U2 continues to be Clear Channel's posterboys, espouses American patriotism, approves of American military action, and aids in the illusion that governmental leaders and corporations are really interested in debt relief, reviewers are going to be very wary about knocking them. Anyone in the music reporting industry knows you don't get promoted easily these days without a good relationship with Clear Channel.
This will change if: a) Bono tries to play hardball to pressure Bush into supporting debt relief, or if he expresses public dissatisfaction with the public relations pennies the West will inevitably throw at the problem; b) Bono criticizes American foreign policy or corporations publicly.
I believe Bono has learned the lessons of the past very well, and that he's fully aware of all this. I think he was politically astute in seizing the opportunity presented by 9-11 to ingratiate himself with the U.S. elite. I think he greatly enjoys the material and publicity gains he receives from this (who wouldn't?). I also think that he genuinely believes that this access to the U.S. elite is his last and best chance to help people in the 3rd world.
I don't totally blame him for trying, but I do think he's completely deluded in this. The politicians he's dealing with are very professional at using celebrities for publicity, throwing lip service and compliments in their direction, TAKING THE POLITICANS GAINS OF ASSOCIATING WITH HIM, and KEEPING THE MONEY.
But as long as he doesn't complain about this too loudly, he'll be applauded for years, and may even be nominated with Sachs for the Nobel Peace Prize some day. If he does complain vociferously or especially if he implicates Western corporations in being a part of the African problem, he'll lose mass media access faster than a speeding bullet and we may even see a backlash.
OK, now you can all start throwing tomatoes at me.
