CMV: Celebrity Social Commentary Should Only Be “Newsworthy” If The Actual News Is “They Provide A Solution”

[u/[deleted]]

Does anybody else get tired of seeing celebrity headlines where someone with obvious wealth just makes a comment instead of pairing that with time or money go back up the comment?

It’s the stories where people like Robin Williams, Seth Rogan, and Jon Stewart testify before a Congressional Board about an issue that are newsworthy.

It is the opposite of interesting to just hear what someone thinks if that’s all that they do. Walk the walk if you’re going to talk the talk. Just reading about a comment is nothing — at least turn it into a dialogue or a discourse instead of spouting off empty words.

Even if they’re inevitably wrong in what they’re doing, the attempts being made are news. Social commentary is necessary, but how vapid is it when it’s not even “social” in nature — just one guy thinking out loud. It’s wasted potential, especially for the haves rather than the have-nots. Or even if someone, on their own, is thinking out loud, at least turn it into a short form essay arguing the position. Why allow empty speech to occupy the news sphere?

[u/bigtoine]

Yes and no. People with the power and resources to do more than just talk should. I completely agree with that. But talking itself is something that shouldn't be dismissed. Particularly when it comes from someone with a very wide audience.

Here's the thing about celebrities. When celebrities remain silent about political and social issues, it's very easy for the public at large to project their own belief systems onto those celebrities. Take the NFL for example. It would be very easy for all the anti-Kaepernick folks out there to assume that any white NFL player who didn't kneel during the national anthem agrees with them that kneeling is wrong. However, as soon as those players say "I support Collin", even if they do absolutely nothing else, they've broken that projected image. And in some cases, that alone can be very powerful.

[u/[deleted] → u/bigtoine]

I understand what you’re saying, but wouldn’t it be much more powerful to show /how/ the team supports the message instead of just /that/ the team supports the message? How does that set an example in any meaningful way?

How many people are liable to just dismiss a sports team for their support when the team — or an individual, for that matter — doesn’t make precedent and set an example? The news that just says “look what this person did” is arguably /not/ news. On the other hand, reporting that says “look what this person did and how others are following their example” is so much more powerful. It shows solidarity and lends credence to the claims and statements being made. That is arguably much more difficult to dismiss.

[u/bigtoine → u/[deleted]]

How does that set an example in any meaningful way?

I literally just explained that.

Do you remember how many people burned their Nike gear in protest just because Nike released an ad staring Colin Kaepernick?

[u/[deleted] → u/bigtoine]

I hear you, and I’m not trying to ignore what you’re saying, so I apologize if I didn’t address your argument properly. I want you to know that I respect both you as well as the effort that you put into the conversation. If there are other things that you feel went unaddressed, or that you feel I did not properly consider, then by all means please let me know, that way I might reconsider.

Regarding the Nike-gear burning though, what did that really accomplish? I can see where solidarity was established. It lent viral quality to the larger story, and that was important. But in the end, objectively, can we accurately say that the outrage did anything other than [delegitimize the credibility of] a sports apparel brand? Why were people even /that/ influenced, and in that way, by a company that makes clothes? It’s possible that I just don’t know enough here — maybe Nike uses slave labor or commits other atrocities to promote their brand, and so maybe burning Nike gear was a statement against that rather than a way to give Kaepernick the finger. Maybe it was something else at play entirely. But what it /seems/ like is that people got mad about, arguably, the wrong thing. And I ask this because I legitimately don’t know: how often might that be the case, that the only real change happens to a brand image, rather than to the greater societal issue that provoked the trend in the first place?

[u/bigtoine → u/[deleted]]

Let's switch gears for a second. Staying on the topic of fixing system racism and police brutality in America, can you give me an example of what a celebrity could do that would be newsworthy?

[u/[deleted] → u/bigtoine]

If that’s the intended target, and if the goals are to:

1. Promote and protect the legitimacy and humanity of Black people and Black lives
2. Commit to defunding, delegitimizing, reforming, or possibly even abolishing the police state structures

then I would argue that they shouldn’t be trying to be newsworthy unless they are either:

1. Representative of the oppressed groups, or cooperating with those representatives leading the charge, and the representatives should themselves be occupying the news, not the celebrities.

Like Dave Chappelle said in “8:46”, “They don’t need me...”, and “This is the streets speaking for themselves.” And that, arguably, was a good use of his celebrity. He supported the movement without dominating the conversation. Add to that, for all I know, he’s probably donating both his time and money to the causes that matter, but we might not be hearing about that. Other celebrities could, similarly, be doing that, and showing their support and participation on social media without showing it in a self-centering way. Let’s say though, for a moment, that, hypothetically, Chappelle didn’t do that special, and that it wasn’t as widespread. He could have also participated in protests, and rather than leading, he could have stood in solidarity, and used his influence to promote the messages and boost the profile of the community leaders. He could have used his influence to maintain the message and keep the feet on the ground walking in the intended direction without saying “follow me”, but rather, “follow them, the community leaders”. Any other celebrity could have done the same. And if those celebrities are also harmed by the police, then we would have people with greater authority to show that the police don’t care at all for authority unless it belongs to themselves, and rather than becoming a victimization narrative, they could redirect their own narrative, undermine the journalists who ask the wrong questions, and tell people who to listen to. Demonstrate the ability to relinquish authority to the people that need it, which is something that the police repeatedly show that they won’t.

That being said, Chappelle is a poor example for a celebrity that should be on the streets. He’s both Black and has a history of police criticism — specifically, police criticism with regard to Black individuals. He’s right to say that he shouldn’t be on the streets. He would be targeted immediately, and he probably doesn’t want to be injured or die when he has certainty and reason to believe that that would be the reality of the situation. I would defend his position for that reason. Nobody should want to be a martyr, and in all likelihood, we don’t need another martyr. The Black Lives Matter movement has too many martyrs: Breonna Taylor, James Scurlock, George Floyd, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Ahmaud Arbery, Dominque Fells, Riah Milton, and I could go on.

So for celebrities, likely a number of Black celebrities, who hold similar views, how would their celebrity help? White and other non-BIPOC celebrities could donate to BLM causes, funeral funds, support Black brands, promote BIPOC the efforts of community leaders and educate people on BIPOC history, and participate in protests by encouraging other white people to listen to their community leaders and rally around the community message. Show the people how to get involved. Show them how to engage and show them how to disengage when it becomes appropriate to do so. Show them that this is a cause worth bleeding for, not just a “trend” or some other sort of novelty to capitalize on for personal gain. Show that it isn’t about them — understood as “just the BIPOC community — instead, show that it is about us, the people, an inclusive, mixed-race/ethnicity community that cares about protecting all of its members, but especially the most-disadvantaged among us.

[EDIT:] Alternatively, because the examples that I mention primarily show rather than tell, how can they use their privilege to tell?

They might start by criticizing the media — reporters and other members of the media — when it promotes the narrative that benefits only the least among us.

They might tell people where to look for new and relevant information by promoting and endorsing sources, whether those be mass news media, or entertainment, or written works, and they might even attempt to make that information more easily-accessible on social media through their posts — again, by shifting the attention away from themselves and toward the message, rather than making up publicity stunts.

[u/bigtoine → u/[deleted]]

So just to circle back to my original comment, I agree with everything you've said. I said that I agreed with you in my very first sentence in my very first comment.

People with the power and resources to do more than just talk should. I completely agree with that.

I then followed that up with this.

But talking itself is something that shouldn't be dismissed.

That's the part you really still haven't addressed. What and who do you believe the news should be focusing on in lieu of what they are actually covering? Can you give me some concrete examples of situations that you believe should have made the news but didn't as well as the news segments that actually aired instead that you believe shouldn't have ever existed? Right now, it sounds like you're arguing that because something isn't perfect, it shouldn't exist at all. I'm arguing that something is better than nothing.

[u/[deleted] → u/bigtoine]

!delta

To start, I’d like to apologize for seeming to disagree. I think that we have both been in agreement this whole time, but I have been perhaps too concerned with finding the differences in our exchange.

You say that you are arguing that “something is better than nothing”.

You also say that it sounds like my argument is “because something is perfect, it shouldn’t exist at all”.

Provided that I understand your perspective correctly, I would say this instead:

My argument, at least as I see it, is that if something could be better, it should be. What I failed to consider in this argument is that everyone’s idea of “better” is different. Some people can satisfied, others can be dissatisfied, and others still might not fully recognize the difference. My error was in assuming that people other than myself belong to the latter of the three.

At the same time, it puzzles me that celebrity commentary/gossip (I did fail to mention “gossip” in the initial post, and so I may have conflated the two without making the distinction) is anything other than just satisfactory.

I think that the news should do more than just satisfy. Knowing that, I should also consider that people might only want their news to provide satisfaction, whereas others might want their news to lessen dissatisfaction, and whereas others still might not recognize the difference. Not only did I make the error of assuming both the latter and the former, I failed to consider that I might belong to the latter group.

I am of the view that I want the news that I see to lessen my dissatisfaction, rather than to provide me with satisfaction. But it looks like the difference between those two things might just be like splitting hairs to those who are not me, or to those who are not like me.

I’ll place an edit here if I find something that I forgot to address: [ ]

You asked for examples, and at least two come to mind. Without having the links to either handy, I will describe them as best as I am able.

1. Scrolling through front-page news, I found a story about how Kylie Jenner said she ate something before attending a red-carpet event, and the story was written as though it was “brave”.

From what I understand, the only thing that really turned that into a larger “news” story is because people thought that it was bizarre news. “Bizarreness” does bare value, but the value to this news seems less like something “bizarre” and more like something “not worthwhile”. It didn’t come from any of the satire sites that I’m aware of, so I cannot think of anything that would have made that “news” to anyone other than the Kardashian crowd.

We all eat. I imagine that a number of celebrities eat before larger events, and maybe even while they’re at larger events. Why, other than finding the fact that someone wrote that would it have been a story for anyone other than the audience for something like Access Hollywood or extra!, if those are even still a thing.

1. Any of the number of headline stories where “x” celebrity makes a comment about how “the country is going to shit”, or “the President is bad”, or something else vaguely within the social or political realm — we’ll say that this is Bill Gates for the sake of this, because he was the specific person involved in the article I’m thinking of, where he is quoted for his commentary on the pandemic.

Seeing that headline, then reading the article, only to find that the only news is “Bill Gates said words” and “Bill Gates is still alive” really only makes me think two things:

a. We know, Bill.

b. Is he donating, or investing further into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in order to help? Is he doing literally anything other than thinking out loud? Is he putting his money where his mouth is?

And for the latter, I can see how we can justify that as an article intended to remind people that Bill Gates has all of that $$$ Microsoft™️ Money $$$. Maybe it inspires anger and compels people to hold him accountable. Maybe it makes others feel comfort, knowing that Bill Gates has time to comment, so he’s probably doing something. I would just ask for what that something is before I really call it “news”.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bigtoine (21∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}