More Proof of the George Effect
In Slate, Jacob Weisberg writes about
what happens when celebrities act like politicians and politicians act like celebrities. In my opinion, he's a little tough on some of the celebs; I'm sure, for example, that Angelina Jolie's speech on AIDS was virtually content-free, but I also think that more than half the point of Jolie getting involved in AIDS in Africa is to raise "awareness"—a term I hate, but which is useful—and the more pointed positions she takes, the more she risks marginalizing herself. Conversely, if she took those pointed positions, plenty of people would be falling all over themselves to say, "She's a celebrity—what does she know?" Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Jacob (full disclosure: a college classmate and friend) writes that "there is the assumption—now almost automatic—that celebrities are public intellectuals on whatever issues they choose to take an interest in." I disagree. If anything, there's the assumption that celebrities are brain-dead, and that every word they say on an issue is pumped into their heads by some research assistant. Which may be true much of the time, but there are exceptions; Bono, whom I once interviewed, struck me as more informed about the issues he was working on than, say, the vast majority of the members of Congress.
Jacob continues: "As celebrities get more involved in political causes—and threaten to run, or actually do run for political office—politicians are acting more like celebrities." True enough—my old magazine was pointing this out a decade ago—but no harm in reiterating it. Jacob's skeptical about the phenomenon, and in some ways, I am too...but then I think about how hard it is to get the public's attention on anything of import, and I think, well, if a little celebrification is what it takes, then we can all hold our nose and live with it.
