Meg Lawrence asks whether the views of celebrities really matter in our society.
Celebrity is the new religion. But did you realise it’s also the new oracle of reason? It’s nothing new, since the golden age of cinema celebrities have used their fame and public position to voice ideas about politics and society. But in this modern age, where social media is at its height, celebrities have an unparalleled opportunity to share their opinions with the world. How thoughtful.
Don’t believe me? On Twitter, the most followed people are Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, whose followers amount to over 100M. If you have an interest in politics, you might like to know that Barack Obama takes fifth place on this list, with 26M followers. Clearly there are many who want to hear what Justin had for breakfast, but when do the opinions of celebrities become overbearing? We all have the right to exercise our freedom of speech, but when does this cross the line?
I’d hazard a guess that the answer is when they have absolutely nothing to add to intellectual debate. For example, in a recent interview surrounding his new Die Hard movie, Bruce Willis condemned any gun laws that could infringe rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Whilst Willis dismissed links between his new gun-filled movie and his protests against the proposed legislation, it is rather coincidental that he chose to promote both at the same time. Bruce Willis is an action movie star. The debate should be confined to how good an actor he is, not his views on gun legislation. The day Barack Obama appears in the latest Die Hard movie we can perhaps spare some time to listen to Willis’ political ramblings.
Dame Helen Mirren recently announced that she believed victims of date rape shouldn’t expect the issue to go to court. Mirren stated that she had been a victim ‘a couple of times,’ but believed it was a matter that should be sorted between those involved. This relates back to the dated ‘she was asking for it’ defence, which shows complete disregard for the safety and respect of women. Even politicians should think twice before sharing their bigoted views with the world.
Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe backed Mirren’s statement, saying, ‘(a woman) should accept that she has got herself into that position. What’s she asking for? A cup of tea?’ It’s particularly frightening when a member of the party that leads our country holds such backward, harmful views. According to the Home Office, 60,000 women are raped every year, but of these cases only ten per cent are known to the police, and of those known only six per cent result in a conviction. No wonder more women don’t come forward.
Despite this, there are times, although I hate to admit it, when celebrity expression is invaluable. Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign was endorsed by celebrities such as Jay-Z, Stephen Spielberg and George Clooney, each of whom will have induced some public opinion into voting for Obama. Am I guilty of only wanting celebrity endorsement when I happen to agree with the individual’s opinions? Maybe. But I satisfy myself that my opinions aren’t to the detriment of others.
Celebrities need to remember why they’re famous. While it may be great that Hilary Duff supported Obama, who really cares? We wouldn’t ask a chef to express their view on the latest medical advancements, so why should celebrities be able to express their opinions about areas which they have no expertise in?
If a famous person can use their status to motivate others to take action, it is to be applauded. But I would hope that they would think long and hard about the power of their influence. It’s easy to lose count of the number of celebrities who complain about intrusion into their private lives – I believe the greatest travesty is how they manage to intrude into ours.
exeposedev 