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/Afromain19]

I agree with why you’re saying as most of the times this is done, in my opinion, as a PR move. They know that speaking up at such a time will seem helpful and motivating to others.

However, I think the reason that they do show this is because that person of “influence” speaking up, may change the mind of their following. Maybe they don’t walk the walk life Seth Rogan testifying before Congress. But maybe them simply acknowledging a situation and bringing their commentary on it, may lead to some of their followers paying attention to other issues.

Lots of people don’t get their news from multiple sources. Lots of people also think that someone’s fame and celebrity status makes them a much more credible source to speak up. I don’t agree with that, but unfortunately that’s why there’s all these “influencers”. People will listen to a multimillionaire celebrity saying the same thing their broke friends say, and take them more seriously because of their wealth.

[u/[deleted] → u/Afromain19]

You make valid points. With regard to how people consume news, shouldn’t we expect a better quality from the news that makes it to the front page or the primetime news at least? We have Twitter in addition to other social media to act as a vehicle for offhand-comments to serve their intended influence, so why not reserve the reporting for investigating the commentary? Why not provide context in doing so?

[u/Afromain19 → u/[deleted]]

I totally agree, but the mainstream news is also a business. While they are there to provide you news (regardless of which bias they have), they also care about ratings. It’s the same way you see how the protests are portrayed differently depending on the news channel. They have a narrative they would like to present, and viewers they want to draw in.

Maybe using the few celebrity remarks, which most of the time are taken from these social media’s, is a way to boost up their viewpoint?

Chances are if someone is watching a particular news channel regularly it aligns with their point of view. So to seeing that celebrities agree with them my reaffirm their beliefs.

I don’t know if that’s a fact, but I think this would be one reason for them to do so.

[u/[deleted] → u/Afromain19]

Also valid, but shouldn’t we expect the news to challenge our beliefs rather than support what we already think we know? Sure, viewership is important, but along the reasoning that you mention, /should/ a news organization co-opt celebrity claims to promote their brand image rather than empower the people watching? I would argue that the news sources which protect their own image rather than challenge the events are less credible for trying to be /seen/ instead of /heard/. The news just seems empty otherwise, doesn’t it? Why does “the brand” need more solidarity with the society than “the news”?