Impact & Effectiveness of Celebrity Activists in Politics & Social Issues - Prof. Rosemary, Papers of School management&administration

Download Impact & Effectiveness of Celebrity Activists in Politics & Social Issues - Prof. Rosemary and more Papers School management&administration in PDF only on Docsity! Kane 1 Katie Kane Professor Jann Honors 110:002 6 December 2006 An Examination of Celebrity Activists in Contemporary Society According to the book Celebrity Politics, approximately 10 percent of Americans get national political news from nightly entertainment shows such as the Tonight Show. For Americans under 30, the number is nearly five times as many (Orman and West 100). Citizens are looking to be entertained rather than simply educated by the nightly news. As David Schultz aptly put it, “ The new media cover politics, but only politics as it entertains, in part, because the audience the new media attract is a less politically interested audience than traditional news audiences” (20). The fact is that this American audience is less interested in hard news and more interested in entertainment, which has made celebrities effective activists and endorsers of aid organizations in this increasingly celebrity-obsessed society. Americans “expect, for example, that political campaigns for President will be replete with show biz” (Combs 124). It is no longer good enough for politicians to be defined by their stances on issues, and by the support of different political organizations. Politicians have to be able to provide the citizens with a show, something that will keep them curious and entertained; they need, in fact, celebrity power. Because of this, in order to raise awareness and support for their causes, advocacy organizations have also tapped into the celebrity craze. One area in which celebrities have become extremely involved is that of political campaigns. Politicians want celebrity endorsements in order to become more visible and more popular with different age groups. One survey shows that forty percent of 18 to 24 year olds Kane 2 were influenced by celebrities’ support of a political candidate, as opposed to 14.6 percent of older adults (Atkinson 1). In the past, it was important as a political candidate to have the endorsement of certain parties and unions; now, it is just as important to have the support of celebrities (Combs 123). The most notable case of a politician using celebrity endorsers is that of former President Ronald Reagan, a former B-list actor himself. Some of his supporters in 1980 included James Cagney, Zsa Zsa Gabor, and Hoagy Carmichael (West and Orman 38). The growing connection between politics and Hollywood has happened for a number of reasons, in a somewhat cyclical fashion. Politicians need Hollywood stars to support their campaigns because celebrities are useful in fundraising attempts and recognition. They have the advantages of fame, wealth, and can easily command press attention. In return, celebrities endorse candidates whose policies are beneficial to their industry. For example, while Clinton was in office he argued for “industry self-regulation and a television rating system, as opposed to formal government regulation” (Ormand and West 38). For this and other reasons, Hollywood stars donated large sums of money to Democratic candidates in return. In 2000, Hollywood contributed $20 million to Democrats as opposed to the $13 million that was contributed to the less Hollywood-friendly Republican party (Ormand and West 40). This is the new “celebritized” (Combs 123) political culture in which advocacy organizations must function. Because the media is so inundated with celebrity gossip, advocacy organizations have been forced, for much of the same reasons as politicians, to find a way to get their issues noticed and raise awareness in an entertainment-driven society. One way they have done this is by using celebrity spokespeople. With a celebrity spokesperson comes instant name- recognition and curiosity. Kane 5 U.N. diplomats with Ph.D.s. Jolie opens doors wherever she goes, whether it's a small country near the African equator or the capital of the United States, where Jolie has met some of Washington's top policy-makers to discuss refugee issues” (par. 6). Supporters of this side of the debate, however, cannot let themselves be naively convinced that all celebrities make good activists. For a celebrity to be an effective activist, he or she must have a thorough understanding of the cause. As economist Jeffrey Sachs says, “Celebrities open doors, without question – everyone wants to meet Bono – but the amazing thing about Bono is that they want to meet him again and again because he’s not only a celebrity but knows far more about the subject under discussion than the politicians do (qtd. in Curiel, par. 28).” This is possible for a celebrity such as Bono, because he has a specific campaign for which he works. While a politician is forced to know a little of everything, someone like Bono can focus on a small number of issues and become extremely educated on them. To cite an example of how eager our culture is to have celebrity activists, for celebrities who want to become involved in social activism, there are organizations that have been created to help them do so. Groups such as the Creative Coalition, which was started in 1989, train celebrities to become effective speakers and help them pick causes in which to become involved. By attending workshops and seeking help from groups such as these, celebrities can become better-informed activists, and will no longer have to worry about their credibility. If they fully understand the issues for which they campaign, celebrities can more effectively promote their causes while showing the world that they are justified in becoming involved with these issues. The public, however, is not always accepting. Advocacy organizations must consider carefully which celebrities to collaborate with. Most organizations carefully screen their potential celebrity endorsers before making any official deals. This is in order to avoid Kane 6 embarrassment on both sides. The organization must make sure that the celebrity’s goals coincide with the goals of the organization. The organization also has the responsibility of making sure the celebrity has the information he or she needs if questioned about the cause. Usually a celebrity is given a short “sound byte,” or a sentence or two response to have at the ready in case of impromptu questions about the celebrity’s charitable organization. While the public may be quick to accept a celebrity’s endorsement of a candidate or cause, the public is also quick to condemn a celebrity who makes a fool of his or herself by looking unintelligent. Whether or not this new form of entertainment politics is hurtful is an ongoing debate. Most participants in the debate claim that it is a matter of utmost concern. However, there are some benefits. The younger generations who may not have necessarily been otherwise aware of an issue or their political candidate are much more likely to pay attention if a familiar celebrity icon is promoting it. An election survey in 2004 by Harvard University showed that, compared with repeat voters, first-time voters were, “more likely to say (seven percent vs. two percent) they became interested ‘because so many celebrities were encouraging people to vote’ ” (qtd. in Darrow and Jackson 81). In fact, approximately 14 percent of first time voters who had been eligible to vote in previous elections cited celebrity endorsement affected their decision to vote (First, par. 4). There was a study performed in 2005 surveying first-year university political science students who were Anglophone Canadian. An article entitled “The Influence of Celebrity Endorsements on Young Adults’ Political Opinions” says that the results of the study “suggest that celebrity endorsements make unpopular statements more palatable, while increasing the level of agreement with already popular opinions” (Darrow and Jackson 80). The survey included statements by four celebrities: Alanis Morrissette, Avril Lavigne, Derek Whibley, and Kane 7 Wayne Gretzky. Half of the sample group was given a statement by each celebrity with the celebrity’s name attached, and the other half was given the statement without a name attached. Each statement pertained to the United States. Overall, the study showed that “celebrity endorsement increases the probability of respondents agreeing with the statement in three of the four cases” (Darrow and Jackson 86). The survey also examines which celebrities out of the four affect the most changes of opinion, and why. Some of these reasons include likeability, physical beauty, and similarity between celebrity and perceiver. Interestingly enough, the survey also asked participants to “name a celebrity whose opinions on politics they would respect” (Darrow and Jackson 88), as the celebrities whose statements were included are not the “most credible experts available on U.S. or Canadian foreign policy” (Darrow and Jackson 88). Bono, lead singer of U2, was the top choice. Some use this issue of credibility as an argument against celebrity activists, claiming that celebrities have no place in the world of politics because they are uninformed and have no experience that makes them qualified for political work. According to this side of the debate, “Celebrities become products and are endowed with expertise outside of their celebrated area… Serious political issues become trivialized in this attempt to elevate celebrities to philosopher- celebrities” (West and Orman 118). Many of those involved in the debate fear that it is dangerous to have celebrities involved because the American political system is slowly becoming a “politics of distraction,” where people are distracted from the real issues by the glamour and hype of celebrities (Weiskel 1). Detractors of celebrity activists claim that celebrities have no business involving themselves in what they call “rock-star economics.” The general opinion is that celebrities ignore the fundamental causes within social problems such as poverty in Africa. According to Kane 10 the concerns of the presidency (Ormand and West 101). However, the bigger issue with this is that the President’s sexual affairs were now considered critical political news. The general public likes “glamour, hoopla, tinsel, beautiful people, a good show” (Combs 123). Some sources, such as the book Celebrity Politics by Darrell M. West and John Orman, say that celebrities are more recognized and admired than anyone else in today’s culture, that people want to meet the sports stars, movie stars, and musicians, not the career politicians. Politicians are not revered in contemporary society, but instead are at the bottom of the list of trustworthy and respectable professions, according to West and Orman, who say “Even though Americans tend not to trust politicians, they have greater respect for and confidence in celebrities who enter the world of politics” (102). This is, in itself, a matter of concern. Should the national public be concerned that people are watching late-night entertainment shows as their sources of news rather than the network evening news? Should they be concerned that young people need celebrities to tell them to vote, and people trust movie stars more than their elected officials? It is indeed frightening to some that the public not only accepts entertainment as news, but demands it, that they want actors and musicians rather than regular politicians. Timothy Weiskel of Harvard University is extremely concerned, saying, “Celebrities become politicians and politicians aspire to become celebrities as voters are relegated to the role of fans. All the while, power is ever more concentrated in the hands of a few who stage-manage pseudoevents from behind the scenes” (Weiskel 394). It is unfortunate that the American political system has become so theatrical and nearly indistinguishable from the entertainment industry. The effect of this “celebritization of politics” (Combs123), according to Victoria Sackett, is that “The public has learned to take politics less seriously and stars more seriously. Politics is the perfect meeting ground. Once a field that was Kane 11 restricted to the able and trained, it is now open to anyone with an opinion and a presence” (Orman and West 14). The merging of popular culture and politics has become so complete that movie and sports stars are running for and winning public office, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, now Governor of California and Ronald Reagan, former President of the United States. However, one must also keep in mind that in America, celebrities are also private citizens, and therefore have every right to actively engage in political activity. Private citizens are entitled to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Celebrities themselves should not be disparaged for advocating causes in which they believe. In fact, they should be applauded for being active and trying to promote social change in the world, whether one agrees with the particular celebrity’s stance on an issue or not. While being a celebrity certainly does not automatically qualify a person to become a political leader and does not necessarily make them a knowledgeable spokesperson, it does not automatically disqualify him or her either. A celebrity has just as much potential to be educated and concerned about an issue as the average American citizen. Celebrities have the resources to become educated, and the organizations that are more than willing to help. Therefore, in order to change this trend of making politics into a second show business industry, the citizens can consciously do so by voting and adding their own voices to the clamor and shouts of gossip. They can, if they so choose, “take back the power in the current celebrity political system, and say no to the system that features politicians as celebrities, celebrities as politicians, celebrities as endorsers, and celebrities as social activists” (Orman and West 118). Through their votes and their own activeness, “citizens can decide which celebrities will be taken seriously and which celebrities will be allowed to cross over into other areas in which they have Kane 12 yet to show talent” (Orman and West 118). Despite the popularity of celebrity politics, the political process is not exclusively relegated to celebrities, and no one is forced to agree with an endorser’s opinion. Perhaps this, then, is the real issue. Clearly, from the standpoint of the advocacy organizations themselves, celebrities are beneficial as activists in today’s culture. They are the perfect spokespeople to maneuver through such an entertainment-driven society and political arena. They raise money and awareness that many aid organizations would not otherwise receive. This research has shown that celebrities have an effect on voter turnout, and also on the way citizens vote. The problem is no longer determining whether celebrities are effective activists. Research now must be done to determine the repercussions of such a celebrity-driven culture on politics, humanitarian aid, and the world.