With 2008 just around the corner, the country is itching for the opportunity to vote in the next President of the United States. That’s right, the Bush regime is finally nearing its end. Over the course of the upcoming year, the public will have their TV’s, newspapers and radio stations dominated by the presidential elections. This of course is not necessarily a bad thing as citizens should be fully informed about the candidates they will be voting for.
However, the upcoming presidential elections also mean that our TV’s will be plastered by celebrities reminding us how important it is for the younger generation to vote. Who can forget P.Diddy’s 2004 “VOTE OR DIE” campaign which he created to get individuals 18-35 to the polls. That year also saw countless other celebrities doing commercials and using various other platforms such as award shows to urge young people to vote. Call it shameless self-promotion or genuine concern, one cannot deny the heightened awareness and excitement among young voters.
On one hand, society should do whatever it takes to make sure that the younger generation is educated and informed about what is going on in their country. However, the larger issue may be that society is ultimately forced to rely on celebrities to promote issues and causes fundamental to the growth and development of our country and the world.
Majority Mind Question
Should we as a society rely on celebrities to play the role of educators to ensure that the younger generation is fully informed about issues pertinent to society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Celebrities are people who have other people's attention. What they decide to do with is up to them. I like some politically-minded celebs -- George Clooney is cool, "Vote or Die" was cool -- while others like Bono or Sean Penn seem like self-absorbed jackasses to me.
I don't go in for the idea that celebrities shouldn't speak about politics. It's more like, some celebrities are more appealing as political speakers than others.
A related question is, do celebrities actually have to anything to influence people's votes? I think in a lot of cases they do more harm than good for their political causes/candidates.
First, I agree with Rob in that most celebrities are self-involved iconoclasts who have no right to speak as harshly or as informed as they often do. With that in mind, there are few exceptions- Clooney and DiCaprio (for the Green movement) being the most popular two (I'd hesitate to throw Clooney in there- he comes off self-involved to me as well). The reality is that Celebrities are role models (like it or not, sorry Charles Barkley) and their appearance brings attention and media towards wherever they go (yes Paris, even the club). Should celebrities stop being so vocal?
NO. NEVER. NOT EVER UNEQUIVOCAL NO! Because they make people care, waaaaaay more than you or I can with our million hours of community service. They show up for 15 minutes and shake hands with the NGO director, and the cause is on Access Hollywood the next day. That's a good thing. If we need to sacrifice a little "self-involved" pompous jerkdom to allow our various causes to gain some charisma, then I'm all for it.
Rob, we don't vote. Not by ourselves. But if you enjoyed Ocean's 13 you are THAT MUCH MORE likely to care about saving the whales. That's the reality. And if you like Kanye West, you believe that George Bush really doesn't care...that's the scope of their influence. There's no hiding that. We need more celebrities joining causes, but not just for movie junkets (WHICH HAPPENS WAY TOO MUCH).
Imagine if Denzel or Julia Roberts made sincere attempts to support their causes. They are taken so seriously that their mere presence at the podium would garner millions. That's a bad thing? Not that they ever will though (they can't because they're afraid of losing box office sales).
The right celebrity is everything. I don't want Nicole Richie saying anything about anything, but Will Smith can say whatever he wants. Weird how that works, but hey...that's Hollywood
Post a Comment