What effect do celebrities who advocate on behalf of social issues have on the overall cause?

Positive
Negative
No effect
Resources for this issue
Reviews of this issue

This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

6/20/2008 9:29:41 AM

Set as news: False

6/19/2008 1:07:42 PM

Set as news: True

6/19/2008 1:07:05 PM

Set as news: True

6/18/2008 10:59:45 AM

Set as news: True

previous version of issue

What effect do celebrities who advocate for global issues have on the overall cause?

    2/19/2008 3:41:07 PM

    I personally like "on behalf of" better...

    2/19/2008 3:18:53 PM

    What effect do celebrities who advocate on behalf of social issues have on the overall cause?

    2/19/2008 12:35:08 PM

    I think "celebrities" works well in this context. I honestly don't think anyone would assume we're referring to politicians.

    2/19/2008 10:15:23 AM

    I feel like using the phrase "celebrity" shifts the focus away from government... you don't generally refer to your senators and "congresspeoples" as celebrities... although Mr. Obama could "change" that...

    2/18/2008 7:23:02 PM

    Just to be clear, we're talking about people famous for things other than holding public office or working in the government? People who are famous for something not related to the cause they are advocating? Is there any way to indicate that?

    2/18/2008 5:51:12 PM

    Agreed. Let's change to "social issues."

    2/15/2008 5:22:33 PM

    Completely agree, Marina... "social issues" for sure. I was thinking that earlier but I guess I had a bit of a brain fart <oops!> and never ended up including it in my previous comment... thanks for bringing it up!!

    2/15/2008 2:08:26 PM

    Decent and timely issue. Is "global issues" the right term, though? What about celebs speaking out on domestic issues?

     

     

    Maybe "social issues"?

    2/15/2008 1:43:56 PM

    Yes gethro, but the issue isn't "should celebrities engage in public advocacy"... it's "what effect do they have on the cause"... so the effect could be the same by holding up a sign as it is with spending millions of dollars...

    2/15/2008 1:26:18 PM

    ha...this seems like we're getting too specific. Plus, aren't there degrees of advocacy? Someone who holds up a sign outside a big corporate office is different from someone who spends millions of dollars to raise awareness or actually improve conditions.

    2/14/2008 4:36:06 PM

    Good issue. I like it.

    2/14/2008 11:46:23 AM

    It's called the "Bono Effect" or the "Bono-ization" of activism (CNN); everyone from Angelina Jolie to Oprah is involved with raising awareness about issues like poverty, global warming and AIDS.  But does lending one's fame  to an issue help or is it just fomenting a backlash to the boldface names' cause du jour?

     

    Is it, as NACLA put it, "the 'Bono-banalization' of global problems in which it is assumed that poverty can be solved by the use of a credit card while clinking champagne glasses at a party in Davos."

     

    According to ABC:

    But do fans actually follow in stars' philanthropic footsteps?

    Studies about Americans' charitable giving habits and reports from those who work in philanthropy say that while a famous name can raise a cause's profile, it doesn't necessarily get people to open their wallets.