It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Celebrities and Politics. How to influence an election.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Recently, I've been seeing an outlandish amount of celebrities weighing in on various presidential candidates and their vice-presidential picks. Most of these celebrities, or so it appears to me, have little to no training in the understanding of politics whatsoever. And I simply cannot fathom, how or why or what purpose they are serving or gaining from speaking out about a certain political person/candidate.

I am beginning to think that celebrities are merely using their 'celebrity' 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: Oprah Winfrey, Matt Damon, Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson (whom sprang into popularity with the MSM due to a suspected relationship with Lindsay Lohan), Heidi Montag (cast member of The Hills, famous MTV series), Arnold Schwartzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Curt Shilling (ex-Philadelphia Phillies Pitcher), Spencer Pratt (another The Hills cast member), Donald Trump, Chuck Norris, Daddy Yankee (PuertoRican Rapper), Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair (WWE star), Robert De Niro, Ted Nugent, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Rosie O'Donnell, Tom Cruise, Madonna, Jon Stewart (of the Daily Show), Angelina Jolie, Tiger Woods, and many many many many many more other celebrities as well.

So is endorsing and thus influencing the election through the means of being merely a 'celebrity' just? Is this what it has come to, who has the most popular friends? And on that note, many of Hollywood's celebrities are also negatively speaking out about politicians and the presidential nominees and their running mates.

So what is your opinion on this matter?

A simple google search will provide a ton of celebrities and tell just whom they are endorsing or whom they are 'un-endorsing'.






[edit on 18/9/2008 by agent violet]




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I will tell you what I think.

Not much.

I always respond to those who seek to validate themselves with celebrity comments like this: "Why should I care what so-and-so says about this matter? Why should their opinion become more important than my own, or of those who I respect and trust? These are show business people, actors, entertainers, and self-promoters who thrive on attention and glamor."

But that's just me...

$.02



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Maxmars, completely agree with you. I just find it odd how many of these people whom hold celebrity roles, can put so much effort into something that clearly (many at least) have no education in such political affairs.

I am also glad that you raised that quote, because I am wondering (possible conspiracy of course) if many of these actors and actresses are scripted and 'paid' to endorse or 'un-endorse' certain political people, such as the presidential nominee and their running mate.

So are celebrities merely 'acting' off of a possible script of sorts, when they are endorsing these elections? what a sinister plot indeed.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by agent violet
 


Well, I'm not really sure that the actors (or celebrities) themselves are complicit in any particular malfeasance; I mean, they might actually believe what they are saying, who knows for certain. But I bet that at least some of them would be willing to take on any role that pays well.

On the other hand, deception and evil have a way of working themselves into media, like fish to water (or so I have come to believe).



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   


But I bet that at least some of them would be willing to take on any role that pays well.


In which case, I would think that it is possible for certain celebrities whom have a bad-image of sorts to be paid by rivals of certain candidates to endorse them.

example: (not factual, just an example) rosie o'donnell has a semi-controversial image, one that a candidate would not want to be associated with.

So, Mcain hires(used loosely) rosie o'donnell to 'endorse' Obama, knowing that her image is tainted of sorts. So in effect politicians and their affiliates may be utilizing a reverse-endorsement strategy of sorts.

Is this possible? or heard of before?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by agent violet
 


It's an interesting notion, but I can't honestly say that I have heard of it being used. I have to admit, it sounds reasonable. Imagine the payday of having been paid to 'endorse' a candidate and then having that candidate pay you NOT to endorse him or her.


It would be ironically funny if that's how some of the campaign dollars are spent.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I don't see any difference in celebrities endorsing someone than you or I endorsing them. We come on ATS and other places and say who we like and why... We don't have any more political knowledge than the celebrities do. We are reaching a large audience and I would bet that many of us would make an ad and endorse a candidate if we could...

I don't think there's any conspiracy afoot.
They're going to endorse who they want to win. They're going to "use" their celebrity to reach a wider audience and hopefully influence their "fans". I don't know how many fans would be influenced, though. I wouldn't.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't see any difference in celebrities endorsing someone than you or I endorsing them. We come on ATS and other places and say who we like and why... We don't have any more political knowledge than the celebrities do. We are reaching a large audience and I would bet that many of us would make an ad and endorse a candidate if we could...


I believe that the difference is the people who are reading ATS are marginally more informed than the public at large simply by virtue of being here. I would even go out on a limb and say that the average ATS reader is more informed than the average TMZ.com hound because of the subject matter they spend their time reading - news vs. celebrity gossip. Of course this is only my opinion.

But the point is to people who are uninformed, celebreties seem informed simply because they're on tv, speaking in a serious tone of voice, with a serious look on their face, possibly in black and white. To the uninformed all that tv magic translates to intelligence.

Some people on ATS are more informed than others, but none of us garner media attention when we make a comment or are able to put our faces out there on tv and have it mean anything to anyone. Besides Robbie Williams, of course.

I don't think there's any conspiracy though. I think it just boils down to celebrities making use of their right to free speech, no matter how annoying it is.

Again, only my $.02

p.s. To Max - I agree wholeheartedly. Star



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yeah, that's about what I was going to say. They're doing the same thing we do when we endorse whoever our candidate is. The key difference is they have a large public audience, while we just have friends, family, and other acquaintances. Some of them might be informed, but a lot of them I am sure are not, and I'd rather get my information about politics as close to the source as possible, rather than 'what is lindsay lohan's interpretation of what she saw on fox news about obama vs mccain.'



new topics




 
0

log in

join