Fame has gained such political currency that the opinions of actors often are treated as more valuable than the views of experts with decades of experience and volumes of research.
Nothing highlighted our nation’s star-struck silliness more than the reaction to Meryl Streep’s criticism of President Donald Trump. Streep delivered her rant during the Golden Globes, where she was being honored for a long and lustrous career.
Immediately, TV, radio and the internet seemed to fill with stories about Streep’s comments. Even Trump responded – using Twitter to call Streep a “Hillary flunky” and “over-rated.”
What seemed overrated was the attention given an actor’s opinion about the president. What Streep thinks of Trump is of no more consequence than what Clint Eastwood said in 2012 about Barak Obama.
As Americans try to make sense of an increasingly confusing and overwhelming flow of information, it would be useful to pay attention to sources who add to our knowledge and understanding. It is folly to pretend that celebrities are often among that group.
Admittedly, it’s hard to discern credible sources now that we have a White House that either will not or cannot distinguish between truth and fiction. That makes it plausible to argue that many actors and celebrities are as credible and knowledgeable as current administration officials.
But Americans interested in their own welfare and that of the country should set their standards higher than that. So should the news outlets that want to serve them.
As consumers of news, we should look for media that provide sources with first-hand experience and years of study to back them up. Our “go-to” news outlets should give us names, dates and places that can be checked. And they should provide information about the data used to either support or refute claims being made.
It would be easy to blame TV for turning celebrities into political heavy-weights. But the germs of this epidemic were spread before the advent of television.
The ties between politics and entertainment are as old as history. Even the earliest playwrights used their talents to promote or criticize their countries’ rulers.
During World War II, actors were used extensively to promote the U.S. cause. They acted in movies that promoted the war effort, of course, but they also took on other roles, including selling war bonds on national tours.
Over the past 60 or 70 years, the ties between fame and politics have grown.
By the 1980s, members of Congress were calling actors such as Jessica Lange and Sissy Spacek to Capitol Hill to testify on agriculture policy. Their expertise? They had played the roles of farmers’ wives in movies.
Since then, parades of celebrities invited to the Capitol have offered their opinions on a wide variety of topics, including Sudan’s civil war, cloning, gun rights, the Congo, domestic violence, global warming and the treatment of elephants in captivity.
Almost all of them got more attention – from Congress, media and the public – than people with true expertise about the topics being considered.
While we can applaud celebrities for caring about the world in which they live, it is puzzling why government officials would spend taxpayers’ money to hear from people with no special knowledge or insight into the issues Congress is attempting to address.
For the most part, celebrities are no more knowledgeable about the causes for which they campaign than your next-door neighbor. Which is to say: They may have some interest and knowledge in the topic, but fame does not confer expertise.
This infatuation with fame is not just a waste, it can be counterproductive.
On health care issues, for example, we would be better served if we were as familiar with Dr. Anthony Fauci as we are celebrities Gwyneth Paltrow and Jenny McCarthy. Fauci’s work involving immunology at the National Institutes of Health has made the world a healthier and safer place, while Paltrow and McCarthy use their fame to spread misinformation and unsupported claims.
Treating actors and other celebrities as authorities diminishes our ability to make good decisions that are based on the most accurate information and sound analyses available.
A Plains View 