I think the level of photoshop is directly commensurate with the seriousness of the effort. In a sense I feel a little embarrassed for all of them, because who’s going to be the late night host who’s like “climate change themed show for charity? Nah.”
The photoshop is pretty egregious -- Kimmel's not even looking in the right direction. And you're right that the likely dynamic here is that a few people said "yes" and a few others felt like they couldn't say "no" (just a guess -- I don't have any inside information).
Great post. Personally, I’m okay with celebrities pushing people to vote for Democrats. It sounds mean, but if a voter is persuaded by the endorsement of some vapid actor, I don’t want them thinking for themselves anyway—especially in the general election where we really just need everyone to cooperate.
I remember when the video of celebrities singing Yes We Can came out in 2008. After 8 traumatizing years of Bush, I was sniffling like “This is so beautiful.” Now it sounds cringey, maybe because so much of the hope and change fizzled. But I’m still glad they did it, as it seemed to be positively received at the time.
The message needs to be crafted carefully so that it doesn’t make people feel patronized. And it must be the right messenger, someone who hasn’t already squandered the public’s goodwill by acting like a massive tool. (Everyone from the “Imagine” video is benched indefinitely.)
Thanks! And, yes: The messenger and the message matters a TON. Maybe that "Imagine" video will be the equivalent of a football team losing 56-0 in that there will be some soul-searching "what are we doing wrong?" conversations afterwards.
I've been catching up with all your articles and episodes since I discovered you on Coleman Hughes' podcast. I was walking down a busy* street this morning when the dulcet tones of the the TTS robot lady chanted your "We Are The World" line into my ear, and I shook up some Patagonian townies with my dorktastic roar.
(*As busy as a smalltown Patagonian street can be — there was like a dozen of us, 11 of them startled.)
I feel like there are a couple good counterexamples to the "it had to be about the issue, not about you" thing -- Angelina Jolie seems to be digging quite well into some issues but is consciously using celebrity. Amal Clooney is a bit of a loaded case -- she was an issues person before she was a celebrity -- but again she shows up on the front pages of magazines and so forth because she is very intentionally and consciously figuring out ways to tap into celebrity as a force multiplier. So I mean, it seems like if it isn't a little about _you_ then you're leaving money on the table.
Yes, there are celebrities who find a way to do it without turning everybody off! Which is why I included the "I wouldn't want to live in the Bizarro World..." line -- I don't want to be uniformly against activism. I just wanted to think about what might make it effective or ineffective.
I think the level of photoshop is directly commensurate with the seriousness of the effort. In a sense I feel a little embarrassed for all of them, because who’s going to be the late night host who’s like “climate change themed show for charity? Nah.”
The photoshop is pretty egregious -- Kimmel's not even looking in the right direction. And you're right that the likely dynamic here is that a few people said "yes" and a few others felt like they couldn't say "no" (just a guess -- I don't have any inside information).
At the bottom of the rabbit hole there's always some cynical PR/ad guy.
Excellent post.
Your essay reminds me of Tom Lehrer's "Folk Song Army."
We are the folk song army
Every one of us cares
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares.
Great post. Personally, I’m okay with celebrities pushing people to vote for Democrats. It sounds mean, but if a voter is persuaded by the endorsement of some vapid actor, I don’t want them thinking for themselves anyway—especially in the general election where we really just need everyone to cooperate.
I remember when the video of celebrities singing Yes We Can came out in 2008. After 8 traumatizing years of Bush, I was sniffling like “This is so beautiful.” Now it sounds cringey, maybe because so much of the hope and change fizzled. But I’m still glad they did it, as it seemed to be positively received at the time.
The message needs to be crafted carefully so that it doesn’t make people feel patronized. And it must be the right messenger, someone who hasn’t already squandered the public’s goodwill by acting like a massive tool. (Everyone from the “Imagine” video is benched indefinitely.)
Thanks! And, yes: The messenger and the message matters a TON. Maybe that "Imagine" video will be the equivalent of a football team losing 56-0 in that there will be some soul-searching "what are we doing wrong?" conversations afterwards.
I've been catching up with all your articles and episodes since I discovered you on Coleman Hughes' podcast. I was walking down a busy* street this morning when the dulcet tones of the the TTS robot lady chanted your "We Are The World" line into my ear, and I shook up some Patagonian townies with my dorktastic roar.
(*As busy as a smalltown Patagonian street can be — there was like a dozen of us, 11 of them startled.)
I feel like there are a couple good counterexamples to the "it had to be about the issue, not about you" thing -- Angelina Jolie seems to be digging quite well into some issues but is consciously using celebrity. Amal Clooney is a bit of a loaded case -- she was an issues person before she was a celebrity -- but again she shows up on the front pages of magazines and so forth because she is very intentionally and consciously figuring out ways to tap into celebrity as a force multiplier. So I mean, it seems like if it isn't a little about _you_ then you're leaving money on the table.
Yes, there are celebrities who find a way to do it without turning everybody off! Which is why I included the "I wouldn't want to live in the Bizarro World..." line -- I don't want to be uniformly against activism. I just wanted to think about what might make it effective or ineffective.