Do you think celebrities use their status for political influence?
Yes
Side Score: 12
|
 |
No
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Arnold would be a rare case of celebrity running for office. Did his status as a celebrity have influence on people's votes? Yes. Is there anything wrong with it, no. Votes are cast for someone's favorite candidate and we all define it by different means, some more simple than others. I have also heard of Ventura and Clint Easwood for more recent celebrities turned Politicians...but I feel most celebrities promote or oppose causes rather than running for office. My only issues arise with those who use their status to influence their fans beliefs/bend the truth to support a/their cause. A celebrity can quickly mass a lot of support/opposition by simply stating they do/don't support something. Side: Yes
1
point
In that case I agree. It's the reason endorsements are such a lucrative business. Fans are usually uncontrolled, and flock to their celebrities idols no matter what the purpose. It's even like with that Nicki Minaj and Justin Bieber song. Everyone was on the 'Hate JB' bandwagon, then she made a song with him and everyone was willing to give it a try, for her. Side: Yes
1
point
Celebrity endorsement of a candidate does more than make people vote, drone-like, for the candidate endorsed by their favourite celebrity. Rather, it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought politics was interesting to pay attention to it. Especially in an age of easily accessible information, people can easily access sufficient information about political personalities and policies to cast a meaningful vote. As a consequence, you have more potential voters, from a wider cross-section of society, note the key role played by personalities like will.i.am in engaging young people during the Obama campaign. Rock the Vote with a large amount of celebrity support registered 2.6million voters in 2008 and it and other celebrity campaigns had been prominent in 2004 as well which was probably a key factor in 2million more 18-29 year olds voting in 2008 compared to 2004 or 6.5million over 2000.[1] Some of the people thus enthused may go on further with their interest in the political system, some may simply start listening to news shows or reading blogs that they would otherwise have shunned. Either way, celebrity involvement has a beneficial impact on our political system that it would be foolish to discard: the larger and more diverse the voter base, the more politicians are held to account and the more likely we are to reach the best political outcomes. [1] Brubaker, Jennifer, ‘It doesn’t affect my vote: Third-person effects of Celebrity Endorsements on College Voters in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections’, American Communication Journal, Vol.13 Issue 2, Summer 2011, p.8. http://ac-journal.org/journal/pubs/2011/ Side: Yes
1
point
There is no particular reason why someone who is interested in a particular politician-endorsing celebrity would choose to do political research. Given, in particular, the segregation of news, where magazines and blogs tend to specialise (on, say, politics or celebrity life) it is hard to see why crossover would occur. The internet, whilst it makes information more accessible, accentuates this problem: where you can skip from news item to news item so easily, you are less likely to read an in-depth piece of political analysis by your favourite celebrity if you are not, in the first place, interested in politics. Further, it is worth considering a balance of harms here: on the one hand you have a smaller, but better informed voter base (those interested in politics without celebrities), and on the other hand a larger but less well-informed voter base (assuming not all the people who see a celebrity endorsement and go on to vote do any research first). That former scenario, without the uninformed voters, is the most likely to lead to the best political outcome. Side: No
1
point
Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries. Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics[1]. Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans[2]) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned). [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206 [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74, http://books.google.co.uk/ Side: Yes
1
point
If the celebrity involvement can be proven to be otherwise harmful or unjust then it is immaterial that it impacts one side more than another: if it really does advance the cause of some more than others, if we can prove this is an unfair and therefore illegitimate advantage, it should be stopped. Similarly, we place limits on the relationship between big businesses and politicians, with laws that attempt to prevent corruption and undue influence. Side: No
1
point
There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem. Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact. Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed[1], Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction”[2], where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis. [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/ Side: Yes
1
point
This may well be a side-benefit of celebrity involvement in politics, however, the effect celebrities have on the promotion of minority interests is not decreased by their prohibition from party-politics. They can still engage in general advocacy and campaigning on specific issues important to them without endorsing parties or candidates. The policy-vote relationship that celebrities have with voters works in the opposite direction than for politicians: where politicians must choose the policies they believe will attract voters, celebrities first attract voters and then advocate for particular policies. This adds to the danger of celebrity participation; a celebrity may be endorsing a particular candidate because of that candidate’s support on that issue. Fans of the celebrity who may be influenced by the endorsement may have no interest or even be opposed to the issue for which the celebrity is endorsing the candidate. This would make celebrity endorsements as a result of minority issues positively counterproductive. Side: No
i think celebrities are merely using their 'celebrity status ' to influence the vote. And to the effect, the mainstream media appears to be reaping in the benefits (which should come as no surprise.) It is also possible that said celebrities may in fact be donating or inadvertantly advertising for a specific candidate, it is in fact possible afterall. Here are a few examples of celebrities using their 'celebrity status' to influence the vote: Spencer Pratt (another The Hills cast member), Donald Trump, Chuck Norris, Daddy Yankee (PuertoRican Rapper), Jon Stewart (of the Daily Show), Angelina Jolie, and many more other celebrities as well. so in my views celebrities use their status for political influence Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politician’s policies and ideas. Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies. This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrityinterference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect. Side: No
1
point
This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way. Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population. Side: Yes
1
point
Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama.[1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so. Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information). This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due. [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012, http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/ Side: No
1
point
This ‘injustice’ needs to be weighed against the effects of the policy. If you prohibit celebrities from participating in party-political campaigns, commit an injustice against the celebrities. You violate the right to self-expression of the celebrity. Everyone in a free society has the right to express their political views; indeed, this is something we hold to be a hallmark of such freedom. Celebrities should be no different, and should hold those same rights. Further, they cannot be said to have consented into such a loss of rights (given that not all chose the level of fame and power they find themselves with). Further, it is a bit melodramatic to suggest that people with influence ‘effectively have more votes’. By this metric, we would have to also prohibit the persuasive from participating in political campaigns. People have differences in their abilities to persuade others to follow their lead, and this is something that we simply have to take measures to ensure does not disproportionately impact upon any given party. Side: Yes
1
point
Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies. Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets[1], i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three.[2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno,[3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own. This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion. [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007, http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/ [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151 http://www.princeton.edu/~mprior/ [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/mbaum/ Side: No
1
point
This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way. Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population. Side: Yes
I'm uncomfortable with celebrity's getting involved in politics. Yes some of them are smart and pay attention to the world and what's happening in it. But what I hate is when some dumb bimbo like Lindsey Freeken lohan sits by her pool and rants about the advantages of socialism hey Lindsey tell me again how your daddy got so rich. We are talking about people who all they had the intellect to to in life I'd read words off a sheet of fucking paper and you want them to influence voters? Listen to one of them talk off camera about some thing other than their personal life of there new movie or album it's the most arduous rant of nonsenceacle dribble you will ever hear. Now as I've said some are smart some know what's up some get it but most or at least the ones that get the most media coverage can't Freeken think without a script in front of them. Side: No
|
