I saw another celebrity political effort this weekend, this time directed against fracking. Fracking, for those not in the know, is the fracturing of rock by pressurized liquid. Critics cite a number of negative impacts on the environment. The benefits are, of course, increased natural gas production which, in turn, would have a huge impact on the economy.
Celebrities are entitled as any other American is to their thoughts and the right to express them. I don't begrudge them that. But what irks me is the disingenuous and inconsistent nature of the exercise of their rights.
First and foremost, aside from being wealthier than the average American, celebrities, especially those in the entertainment industry, have access to so many more means of communication with which to spread their messages. From television to radio to movies, from sound technicians to artists to computer graphic designers, these people have at their fingertips things that ordinary Americans don't have or don't have in the volume the celebrities possess them. And to argue that an ordinary American can post something to Youtube and claim that it's the equivalent of putting a PSA on a network is simply stupid.
Furthermore, there's the caché of celebrity. Celebrities are, for better or for worse, relied upon more readily than some anonymous blogger because their faces and voices appear repeatedly, whereas the anonymous blogger typically isn't known beyond the radius of the subscribers who have found the blog. Various attributes come into play, not the least of which is a physical attraction to the celebrity making the appeal. Add to that the curious imposition of knowledge or wisdom to a person whose sole claim to fame is imitating other people and it's a very intimidating force with which to contend.
To be sure, there are some celebrities who take the time to get informed on issues that matter to them. In this regard, they are at least as well informed as ordinary citizens and in some cases are quite well informed, setting themselves apart from the hoi polloi. But getting informed doesn't always mean that the information-gathering was done in a balanced fashion, and the risk is that scientists and academics, eager to bring attention to themselves and their causes, not to mention donations that such attention brings with it, latch onto the celebrity to indoctrinate him to the cause. It's amazing to me that a person with a basic high school education, sometimes a person with an avowed distaste for studying, is suddenly not only the spokesperson but a self-proclaimed expert on a given topic, merely from having met with an expert or two in the field.
Partly, the blame rests with the public for putting these people on such a pedestal that whatever comes out of their mouths is treated with the same respect as if Moses were coming back down with the two tablets. The public can't distinguish, sufficiently, that all that's happening is that another person, albeit one with some visibility and access to media portals, is exercising his or her First Amendment rights. Instead, because so-and-so says X, X must be correct and I should support X, or so goes the thinking. And this is especially true among the youth and young adults.
This leads to the most unconscionable part of the equation. Celebrities protest that they are merely exercising their rights as Americans to air their views. Although this is partially true, by no means is that all they're doing, and they know better. Any celebrity who's ever been on a press junket knows the effect of persuasion, especially on younger listeners. I can't recall how many times I've seen celebrities tout this or that film that is wretched in interviews only later, fifteen or twenty years later, admit what a horrible movie it was. But at the time, whether for lucre or self-gratification, they went out there and shilled the project so that it would bring in enough money or garner them enough fame to set them up for the next project or get a prestigious award that would further their careers. For them to act the part of the concerned citizen who's only speaking his or her mind and try to blend into the masses is ludicrous. They know, better than many, the effect their presence has on a project. And if that project is something they believe in, all the better.
I don't begrudge celebrities their right to speak their minds. But they have to come clean: They have greater means, they have a too-receptive audience that's predisposed to like them and hence their message and their message is usually one-sided and not thought out. For them to argue that they're only doing what any other American has the right to do is overly simplistic and shameless. If they're merely exercising their rights, why is the Obama administration reaching out to the celebrity community for assistance on Obamacare?
Curiously, this tendency is something the Left favors over the Right. When was the last time a right-wing campaign was put out in mass-media for anything? Whether it be abortion, or gun rights, or immigration, or fracking or anything? The Left seems to recognize the value of utilizing media to its advantage far more than the Right does which, ironically, undercuts its argument that it's merely exercising its rights under the Constitution. It is, more rightly, engaging in propaganda, something still protected by the Constitution but propaganda nevertheless.
Americans need to wake up and reject the assault on speech by the Left. As Jorge Santayana famously said, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
That being said, I simply need to mention two names to summarize this argument:
Josef Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment