Using "celebrity" for something relevant
Juwon Ajayi
Issue date: 3/27/09 Section: Opinions
|
So, what is wrong with celebrities having political opinions? Like most people, they are aware of what is going on in the world and, like most people, they feel a certain way about it. Are we going to begrudge them the right to have a thought outside of "I'm wearing Dolce tonight" because it ruins the image we have of them in our heads?
Never a big fan of the Dixie Chicks, I remember being shocked when I read about their very opinionated views on the Iraq war and America's involvement in it. Guilty of making assumptions, I had originally pegged them as women whose strongest opinions were probably on what an infant's first solid food should be. Reading that this successful band felt passionately about an issue-one that I would deem more relevant than anything in the tabloids-made them more human to me.
We read about these people, watch their movies and/or shows, listen to their music and fool ourselves into thinking we know what they are about. Should celebrities, unlike everyone else, not have the right to voice their opinions? Isn't saying that an actor should "stick to the movies" like saying a banker should only be allowed to discuss the financial market or a teacher should only be allowed to discuss the FCAT? In a recent Sandspur article, Jennifer Stull (Class of 2012) stated "being a celebrity does not make a person's opinions any more important than those of any other citizen who is equally uninvolved in politics…" I do not think that celebrities think they are more important but rather that society itself puts celebrities on that pedestal. Celebrities only have power because society gives it to them. They remain relevant because people care. Telling celebrities to keep their opinions on politics to themselves and to keep their focus on their work is like telling President Obama to stop talking about which dog he is getting his daughters and focus on our crappy economy.
Be the first to comment on this story