By Samuel BENNETT-BYWOOD (MAM-S6ENC)
Edited by Julia DEC (MAM-S5ENC)
Earlier this year, Brittany Broski, comedian and podcast host with over 7.5 million TikTok followers, faced backlash after a leaked Instagram video surfaced showing her claiming it “wasn’t her place” to comment on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a comment for which she was promptly criticised. As a result, Broski went on to apologise for her silence on the issue but equally highlighted the absurdity that she, of all people, was expected to weigh in on a conflict happening in a completely different continent that she knows little about. She described how this expectation felt remarkably “dystopian” – specifically seen as she hosts a comedy podcast, which tends to avoid the topic of politics. And this is by no means an isolated incident: practically anyone with a media platform has, to some degree, been forced to make a statement about today’s occurrences on the world stage, no matter their niche.
While those crying to politicise entertainment seem to have their collective heart in the right place, they misunderstand, and often intentionally misrepresent, the role of media. Expecting celebrities to weigh in on complex geopolitical issues, especially ones they have no expertise in, is a bit like turning to your hairdresser for tax advice—just because they can handle your split ends doesn’t mean they know what to do with your split assets! With their millions of followers, worshiping them like they found the Holy Grail, the last thing anyone needs is celebrities sharing their “hot takes” about the housing crisis or the effect of corporate monopolies on local economies. If I wanted Dua Lipa to explain levitating interest rates to me, I’d quite frankly ask AI.
While it may seem like a step in the right direction when a celebrity speaks up about a cause, the problem is not only that — by doing so, they’re inadvertently prioritizing this social issue over all the others (for example, by speaking up about the war in Ukraine, they’re also sidelining the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Congo), but they also risk over-simplifying or flat-out misrepresenting an issue with real lives at stake. When the lives of the marginalised are left at the whim of the general public’s opinion, having half-baked opinions broadcast to the masses has the potential to, and usually does, cause a lot more harm than good – in the land of democracy, ill-informed voters make dangerous decisions. And if celebrities try to combat this by speaking out about every issue, they are suddenly no longer a celebrity but a person blindly chucking tomato soup at what they think might be a Picasso painting.
Additionally, if the pressure on celebrities to speak out becomes more mainstream, I can anticipate that it won’t be long before activism, like most other things, becomes just another tool big cooperations wield for increasing profit margins. Lockheed Martin, the American military weapons manufacturer, could easily pay Taylor Swift to tweet how Israel has a right to defend itself, increasing public support for their heinous military actions, in turn making them a lot more money (well, well, well). Activism becoming commodified by the military industrial complex, turning genuine struggles into PR opportunities that prioritize profit over peace, is just the tip of the potential-for-very-bad-things iceberg.
Ultimately, if we fail to examine our parasocial relationship with celebrities, we run the risk of letting our deification of them cloud our judgment. Instead of looking to actors and pop stars for their expert opinion, we should try to remember that writing catchy tunes doesn’t qualify as hitting the whistle notes on foreign policy. Newspapers on the other hand…