By Elice Giorgione
Staff Writer
It’s no secret that Hollywood celebrities are quite active in the political, social and environmental arenas of our nation, often speaking out for or against critical issues that are germane to the world today.
This supplementary role that so many actors, musicians and sports figures have assumed is perhaps even akin to that of a politician in a sense. Especially now, in a time of war, celebrities are becoming increasingly vocal and opinionated, and consequently are experiencing the backlash of public criticism.
Many people argue that celebrities use their status and wealth simply to pursue their own personal agendas rather than out of any sincere concern for the issue at hand. In fact, actors are commonly accused of trying to manipulate public opinion and broadcast their respective convictions as superior.
Now, granted, some of Hollywood’s elite do indeed take advantage of their fame in order to disseminate “platform propaganda.”
An example of such is Michael Moore at this year’s Academy Awards where he used his Oscar nod as an opportunity to campaign against President George W. Bush and the war. “West Wing” actor Martin Sheen also took a stand against Washington with his anti-war march prior to the war through the streets of Los Angeles.
Although the right of celebrities to monopolize public opinion is a questionable matter, what is often overlooked, however, is the fact that many stars do indeed use their status to promote some extremely worthy causes. Best actress Oscar winner Nicole Kidman, for example, channels her celebrity power into raising both awareness and funds for the UCLA Reproductive Cancer Program where she serves as chairperson. She also is a goodwill ambassador for the United Nation’s Children’s Fund, a past member of the international relief organization and she even spent this past Christmas visiting sick children in Australian hospitals. Former “X Files” star Gillian Anderson is also very active in the charity scene, working with such groups as PETA, Buskaid, the Trevor Project, the AIDS walk and Neurofibromatosis Inc., for which she has even petitioned Congress.
Then there are those celebrity proponents of the environment who seek to take a stand against global warming, pollution and species extinction, all arguably beneficial causes that benefit mankind.
Cameron Diaz even went so far as to abandon the traditional limo ride to the Oscars this year, replacing it with a chauffeur driven hybrid vehicle. Several other actors also opted to forgo their flashy stretch arrivals in an attempt to make a similar statement.
One major problem with all of this activism is that sometimes celebrities can become so inextricably linked with a cause that it becomes almost a running joke.
Then there’s also the notion that finding the season’s altruistic crusade or humanitarian effort is as cliché as choosing between Gucci and Versace. Bob Oettinger, president of Celebrity Outreach Foundation said, “there are causes that become chic. AIDS and the environment haven’t had a difficult time finding celebrities because they’re the chic causes in Hollywood.
“Other causes that are just as important, like Alzheimer’s, literacy or drug prevention, have a harder time because they’re not the cause du jour,” he said.
Despite this problem though, there’s absolutely no valid reason why a celebrity, merely by nature of profession, should not be allowed to support and speak on behalf of a cause they believe in or are personally affected by. Basically it comes down to a simple question — if an action is going to create good for a number of people and thus have a positive effect upon the world, should we really question the motives behind it? If celebrities suddenly began to disassociate themselves with the causes they promote because of the contention that they are “only in it for the publicity,” we would be forfeiting so many opportunities for the betterment and remediation of our nation’s problems.
Only five years ago hardly anyone even knew what stem cells were, but Michael J. Fox took the initiative and made such research a priority on our country’s medical agenda.
Had it not have been for him, we would have sacrificed invaluable reason in this field and much the same can be said for so many other celebrities whose endorsement and monetary support is essential to the development of our world’s charity causes.
We live in a country where free speech is expressly protected under the First Amendment. Yes, in some cases, celebrities, just like many other prominent figures in our nation, do abuse this right. However, we must not fail to recognize the potential impact of their support nor overlook the genuinely philanthropic actions of many prominent Hollywood names.
Robin Bronk, executive director of the Creative Coalition (an organization that pairs celebrities with causes), stated quite accurately that “Celebrities are up there with other pillars of the community — they’re voices of influence.”
And if the people who are privileged enough to attain this status and have the means to facilitate change do not take advantage of it, then we may never know what potential progress we have lost.
April 03, 2003