Over the last few days I have been thinking about the role of celebrity in politics.
This is a question that has interested me for a long time. I have seen lots of celebrity commentary spark public debate in both helpful and destructive ways.
On Thursday, a Russian pole-vaulter named Yelena Isinbayeva, who is widely admired in her country, commented at the World Championships of the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) on the law prohibiting public expressions of homosexuality. She wanted to let it be known that she supports the law and that she thought that the choice of some athletes to paint their finger nails in rainbow colours was "unrespectful [sic] to our country."
Why she felt it was necessary to comment is not clear but her remarks have raised more international concern about the potential treatment of gay and lesbian athletes, visitors and
supporters to the Sochi Olympics.
So, what is the role of celebrity in politics? The fact is that when a public figure decides to engage in politics and participate in the public debate they have a unique and powerful role.
Remember that celebrities are also citizens and they have a right to engage in the public debate. But they have something that others don't have: they have the unique luxury of an open forum in which to comment on issues and the luxury of a hungry media just waiting for more news to fill that 24 hour news-cycle. Moreover, their comments can now become the fodder for the Twitter and social network world with thousands of followers hanging on their every word. In this context, the celebrity contribution to the debate comes with enormous responsibility.
The IAAF in their public statement supported the right to free speech and other commentators have also suggested that people should be able to express their opinions - even when we don't agree with them. While I also believe this to be true, this is not simply a case of expressing an opinion, this is a case of choosing a public forum that is a privilege of celebrity.
The question should not be "can I say this?"
The question should be "should I say this to the mass media, and what
impact will it have on the public debate?"
My point is that celebrities must live to a higher standard when they express their opinion in a public forum.
Over the years we have seen celebrities wade in on all sorts of issues of public policy and their contribution is often ill-informed and unhelpful in shaping the debate.
So why do we listen to celebrities at all? We wouldn't go to our doctor for advice about fixing our car. So why do people look to celebrities for advice on public policy? It is because celebrity has a powerful status in our society.
According to a story run by the CBC, Isinbayeva's comments did not make much news in Russia but the comments did sweep across the Western media and she has apparently backtracked on some of her comments which she claims may have been misunderstood.
But, if she had really wanted enter the debate, if she had chosen to make what she thought was an important contribution, she should have come to the press conference with her comments well thought out and scripted. If she was taken unaware by the question then she should have said, "I would like to contribute to this debate and I would be happy to speak to you at a later date when I have formulated my opinion."
I said at the beginning of the column that I have been thinking about this over the past few days and it is not just because of Isinbayeva.
I was notably impressed the other night when Ashton Kutcher made a speech at the Teen Choice Awards.
His comments were not directed at public policy but rather to the specter of celebrity. The teens screamed and screamed over his comments but he barreled along with what was clearly a well thought out contribution to the public debate about celebrity itself.
He reminded the teen crowd of what it takes to be a good person and of their responsibility to contribute.
Celebrity can be a powerful tool but without doubt it must be used with respect for its privilege.
