“Keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay in show business”

There is a bluntness to this sentence that feels almost shocking now, largely because it runs directly against how public life operates online.

The quote comes from Dolly Parton, responding to repeated pressure to comment on political events. Speaking in an interview, she said:

“I’m not being political. I don’t do politics. I’m not getting into any of that because I have a lot of fans out there and I don’t want to offend anybody. Besides, I just don’t get into that.”

She then made the part people tend to overlook clear:

“Of course, I have my opinion about everybody and everything. But I learned a long time ago, keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay in show business. I’m not in politics. I’m an entertainer.”

When the interviewer pushed back with, “And yet, you’re also a role model,” Dolly didn’t hesitate:

“Yes, I am. That’s why I don’t talk about people.”

That exchange explains more about longevity, influence, and public trust than most modern commentary ever does. Dolly is not rejecting responsibility, she is defining it. She is separating personal belief from public performance, and understanding that influence does not automatically confer authority.

Why restraint has always worked

This instinct did not start with social media, and it did not start with Dolly Parton. For decades, the most successful public figures understood that neutrality was not weakness but protection. One of the clearest examples of this was Queen Elizabeth II, and the principle she embodied consistently throughout her reign, “never complain, never explain.”

Whatever people think of the monarchy as an institution, it is notable how little personal hostility was ever directed at her as an individual. People criticised what she represented, debated the relevance of the royal family, and questioned the structure she sat within, but rarely focused their anger on her personally. That wasn’t accidental, it was the result of extreme discipline.

By refusing to explain, justify, or personalise political tension, she remained separate from it. She allowed criticism to land where it belonged, on the institution, without turning herself into an emotional lightning rod. From a reputational perspective, she was almost the perfect public figure, widely respected, rarely hated, and largely insulated from the type of personalised outrage that now dominates public life.

We used to understand disagreement better

This approach once extended far beyond royalty and celebrity. I remember being told very clearly as a teen never to discuss politics, money, or religion at work. Not because those topics were unimportant, but because they were personal, emotionally charged, and capable of damaging relationships very quickly. The aim was coexistence, not consensus.

Earlier in my career, I worked across a lot of temporary roles. I moved between offices to learn different aspects of SEO, Google, PR, and social media. I worked alongside people with completely different backgrounds, beliefs, and temperaments.

Did I disagree with some of them? Of course. Did I dislike some of them? Also yes. Did it ever occur to me that they should be publicly shamed, lose their job, or be erased because they didn’t agree with me? Absolutely not. You adapt… You do the work… You accept that difference is normal and that’s how functioning societies actually operate offline.

Online, that tolerance is close to non-existent.

The pressure to have an opinion online

Social media has fundamentally changed how disagreement is handled. Silence is no longer neutral. If you don’t post your opinion, people assume intent. If you do not comment, a narrative is created for you. Public figures are increasingly judged not on their work, but on what others believe they think…. This creates a distorted sense of reality.

Online spaces reward certainty, outrage, and speed. They reward people who speak loudly and emotionally, often without context, and they punish hesitation or nuance. Because much of this behaviour happens behind screens, sometimes anonymously, the social cost of aggression is dramatically reduced.

You can see this even in the reaction to Dolly Parton herself. When clips of that interview circulated online, the overwhelming majority of responses were positive. People expressed admiration, affection, and respect for her clarity and warmth.

And yet there was still a small but loud group making lazy assumptions about her politics, suggesting she must secretly hold views they disliked simply because she refused to disclose them. That response says far more about the internet than it does about her.

Dolly has been navigating public life long before social media existed. She understands how show business works structurally. She knows that universal appeal requires discipline, not constant disclosure. That is not ignorance, it is expertise.

Online noise and real-world impact are not the same thing

One of the most damaging misconceptions in modern discourse is the idea that online outrage reflects real-world behaviour, but in most cases, it does not.

The loudest voices tend to be the smallest group, but they dominate timelines, comment sections, and screenshots. This creates the illusion of mass backlash, even when audience behaviour, ticket sales, streaming numbers, brand value, and long-term career performance remain unchanged.

Time and again, the return on outrage does not match the noise and this is why many public figures who ignore online pressure continue to succeed, while those who constantly respond find themselves trapped in cycles of explanation, apology, and exhaustion.

What actually happens behind the scenes

I’ve lost count of the number of times a client has said, “Maybe I should post about this… what would you say?” What they usually mean is, I’m unsure, can you tell me what the safest/best opinion is for me to say.

That puts a lot of weight on me who is not the public figure, not the role model, and not the one with millions of followers. They are relying on me to understand the situation well enough to give them wording that feels acceptable, sensible, and unlikely to cause backlash.

But that raises a bigger question. If the entire opinion is coming from me, then what is the point of them posting anything at all?

None of their fans care what I, the PR girl from the UK think about American politics or a global conflict. They care what the artist thinks, and if the artist does not understand the issue well enough to explain it in their own words, then broadcasting a statement under their name is misleading at best. From my side, allowing a politically charged/strong opinion statement to go out under someone else’s name, written fully in my opinion and words, to millions of followers, when I know they don’t really understand what the situation isabout, would be completely irresponsible.

This is why, before anything is written, I ask questions, simple ones and not in a patronising way but to see if they have they actually read about it. Do they understand the context. Can they explain what they are supporting or criticising without prompts and often, the answer is no.

That’s not an insult, it is simply the reality that being talented, famous, or influential does not require being well informed on complex political or humanitarian issues. Many people aren’t well educated in these areas and that’s fine, but why do we expect a singer to be? If a journalist were to follow up and the person could not answer basic questions, it would be immediately obvious that the words were not theirs. That does not just look awkward, it exposes the gap between the statement and the understanding behind it, and it damages trust. For that reason, I will only write or shape a statement if the client understands what is being said and is comfortable with the responsibility of putting it out to a large and often very young audience.

In an ideal world, more public figures would take the approach of Dolly Parton. Not because she is disengaged, but because she recognises the limits of her role. She knows that being influential does not make you an authority, and that staying out of political commentary is often the most responsible option. And like she says, she’s an entertainer, not a politician.

Outside of a very online minority, most people do not want or care about their favourite singer’s political opinions. They want consistency, comfort, and honesty, not borrowed opinions presented as conviction…. Also they want their favourite artist/actor to be a nice escape from a difficult world.

Difference does not need policing

None of this is an argument for stripping people of personality or expecting universal agreement, and it certainly isn’t a call for public figures to be silent. This is about reputation, choice, and consequence. People can do what they like. I regularly help draft emotionally charged and politically driven statements for clients, and while I don’t always agree with the position being taken, that isn’t the point. If someone understands the issue, accepts the responsibility, and chooses to speak after being advised of the risks, then that decision is theirs. What matters is clarity and ownership.

It is also worth saying something that now seems oddly contentious. It’s not the audience’s business who someone votes for, and it does not change the quality of their music, their acting, or their work. Adults are capable of holding more than one idea at once. I think Scientology is completely batshit and still consider Top Gun one of my favourite films. People are interesting because they are different and disagreement isn’t always a threat, it’s part of living in a functioning society.

Why restraint still matters

The public figures who build lasting careers tend to understand this instinctively. They focus on their craft, their artistry, and the relationship they have established with their audience. They are selective about when they speak, and equally deliberate about when they do not.

Restraint, in this context, is not apathy. It is an understanding of influence, scale, and consequence.

And in a culture that increasingly rewards reaction over reflection, the decision not to turn every belief into content is often what preserves credibility in the long term.