British TV tends to be marginally better at this, and even then only in selected ways.
Conversely, television portrayals of Christians are positively true-to-life compared to those of other religions. Try being Jewish, Hindu or Muslim and finding a realistic representation of your religion anywhere in popular media (or at least popular media not being marketed to your particular subculture).
Forget, just for a moment, whether celebrities SHOULD use their fame and status to shill for their favorite causes.
Are they EFFECTIVE spokesmen and spokeswomen for their causes? I would say… generally no, but it depends.
Look at it this way- have we all heard athletes giving God or Jesus a plug after winning the Super Bowl or the NBA title? Sure. Some fans think that’s wonderful, some find it annoying, but never mind that. The question is, has ANYONE ever started going to Church because of Kurt Warner and Isaac Bruce’s testimony?
The secular leftists of the SDMB snort, “Hell no.” And they’re undoubtedly right. But it works both ways. Did ANYONE hear Meryl Streep’s talk at the Golden Globes and change his mind about Donald Trump? Of COURSE not!
Kurt Warner has every right to talk about Jesus, and Meryl Streep has every right to talk about politics. But is either of them winning any converts? Almost certainly not. Both are “virtue signalling,” but not winning over anyone who didn’t already share their beliefs.
Do celebs EVER have any impact? Occasionally, but only when they call attention to an issue most people are unaware of. Bono has probably drawn a lot of attention to various causes that more serious spokesmen couldn’t. Indeed, I’ve heard Bono admit that he’s not particularly bright, doesn’t have any expertise on world finance, and SHOULDN’T be taken seriously when he talks about things like Third World debt. But, he says rightly, his fame means that there are people who WILL listen to him who would never listen to a professor from the London School of Economics.
Since he HAS a pulpit, whether he deserves it or not, who can blame him for TRYING to use it to help people?
I think the point wasn’t to speak against Trump but rather to speak against complacency about Trump. Trump supporters wouldn’t have been moved, but Trump opponents might have been inspired to consider action rather than acceptance.
I don’t agree portrayals of Christianity are true to life compared to other religions, or anything else necessarily that TV/movies tend to distort. That might be your opinion, but I don’t see it.
In some cases it’s at least partly the same distortion that necessarily enters in to create drama. You can’t have a high voltage police drama about a wholly peaceful city with all honest police, nor one about a priest or minister who is true to their faith in ordinary circumstances. Certain types of drama pretty much require it be a violent neighborhood and/or bad cops. Likewise the clergy would have to stick to their faith in difficult circumstances or be bad guys (sex scandal with Catholic priests, for-profit huckster standalone Protestant ministers etc). I feel that US TV/movies prefer the clergy as bad guys if central characters. Though it might be because it’s easier and a lot of the stuff is just lazy. It’s a rule with many exceptions. As one random example I thought “The Sopranos” portrayal of Catholic clergy was subtle and clever, like a lot of its depictions outside the cartoonish and anachronistic mob violence aspect, though not really favorable, OTOH not really central characters.
As to other religions, seems you might be speaking from Brit POV where Hindu’s especially and Muslims also are a more significant minority. I could see a US Hindu viewer saying their religion was almost wholly ignored in domestic TV/movies. With Muslims it’s obviously different, but the theme is very likely to be Islamic radicalization. Within that IMO Hollywood bends over backward to have positive Muslim characters in any such story, though OTOH I could see a Muslim asking why that has to be the Muslim related story as often as it is.
Jews are strongly represented in the US entertainment industry. There’s nothing sinister about that AFAIC, but it’s silly to speak of the Jewish community as if powerless, or one which has to lobby strictly from the outside, to determine how and whether Hollywood depicts Jews and Jewish topics. Devout Christians as well as Hindu’s and Muslims are much less strongly represented in the industry, though there are examples of all. Non-believers, often of Christian background, are also heavily represented.
I’d actually like to see some stats on this.
I’ll make it simple: name me a Hollywood Studio chief who ISN’T Jewish.
One will suffice for now.
Sixty years ago, you could have said “Walt Disney and Darryl Zanuck.” Now?
I’ll make it simple; is the US entertainment industry solely represented by studio chiefs?
Because if so, I have to say I’m impressed at how much work they get done.
So, it is NOT significant that every Hollywood studio has a Jewish CEO? Really?
“Significant” in terms of what? Corry El’s contention seems to be that the high proportion of Jews in the entertainment industry influences the portrayal of Jews in popular entertainment, which IMHO is a reasonable inference. What is it that you’re claiming about the “significance” of disproportionate Jewish representation in the entertainment industry?
This is ridiculous, on several levels. If you don’t think Christians are well represented in the entertainment industry then you must be unaware of the past 80-some years of movies and 60 years of television. Other minorities tend to get represented mostly at the initiative of artists and writers in proportion to their numbers and market power – the rise of black comedians cracking jokes about black culture, the Jewish undercurrents of the Seinfeld show and just about anything by Woody Allen, the Muslim-themed Little Mosque on the Prairie (and no, it’s not about the “radicalization” of Muslims – it’s about Muslims being just as silly and funny as the rest of us).
Anyway, the whole thread is ridiculous. As I said before, it’s amazing that conservatives have no problem with billionaires like the Koch brothers and all their friends virtually running the whole political system and bamboozling the public with bullshit about everything from climate change to libertarian fantasies about regressive tax and social policy, and they celebrate the further enabling of moneyed political corruption through asinine rulings like Citizens United by calling it “free speech”. But when a celebrity dares to say something that sounds vaguely liberal or anti-conservative, those same conservatives pull out all the stops to shut them up and call them illegitimate.
No, it’s not. I have no idea if it’s true nor do I know why anyone should care. Amazingly, it’s not something I obsess about.
Who said that? **Corry El **made claims about the demographics that are represented in the US entertainment industry. I asked for a cite. You responded to me with your question about Hollywood studio chiefs, which doesn’t answer my question, unfortunately.
I did a little quick googling on your question anyway. Going from this list and some googling, it looks like the CEO of Fox Entertainment Group is a Christian, and I couldn’t find out what the Warner Bros. Entertainment’s or Universal Filmed Entertainment Group’s CEO’s religious leanings were, perhaps you know better than me (or are more skilled at googling!). The CEOs (or chairmen) of the other three “major” studios there all do seem to be Jewish.
[Oh-So-Trivial Nitpick] Although some scenes in the Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman TV series (staring Dean Cain) were set in his character’s home town of Smallville, his character was a fully-grown adult when the series began. A younger version of Cain’s character was played by Tom Welling in Smallville, which was about the character’s teens-to-twenties and set mostly in and around his hometown. [/OSTN]
This is still a thing?
Those are to me, the best points made so far in their thread.
I will say that yes, at some times in my life I did listen to a celebrity talking about something (ex. years ago John Denver talking about the environment) but now I kind of take it with a grain of salt. I think what got me was years ago was when a famous Christian celebrity was telling other people how to raise their kids and I felt they were wrong. Ever since then I became more skeptical.
Your right. If the message is one I agree with, ok. If not, it does nothing for me.
Use whatever terminology you like. The relevant point is that when a candidate is often seen with rich celebrities, does fundraising with rich celebrities, has rich celebrities speak at her convention, and has rich celebrities appearing at a great many campaign events, it rather gives the impression that the candidate likes associating with the rich more than genuinely caring for the needs of the working class. Doubly so when the candidate already had a reputation for not connecting to the working class very well.
Last spring, George Clooney held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Ordinary folks could sit at the table too, for the trifling sum of $353,400. Is it really far-fetched to say that such events might have contributed to Hillary’s difficulties among working class voters?
My apologies in advance - I haven’t read the whole thread.
I was pretty cynical for many years about celebrities making political statements and fronting charity work. I thought that individually they had bought their own hype and believed they were “important”. Also that someone in the background was writing speeches and paying them to speak.
Maybe that is sometimes true. But I changed my mind.
The power and influence a personable celebrity can bring to a public issue is beyond measure. It is simply incredible. Ordinary people notice and they listen. After all the celebrity has no personal interest, no axe to grind, no selfserving interest to promote.
If an issue needs attention and the media can’t or won’t take much notice. then the only certain way is for a person of public interest (and sympathy) to speak up. It works.
Yes, celebrities have more opportunity to converse with well-informed people. But do they listen if they don’t like what the well-informed people are saying and do they speak to well-informed people on both sides of the political spectrum? I’d say no, they’re too used to their bubble.
Whereas Trump of course is a “blue-collar billionaire” :rolleyes:
A few years ago 23 New Zealanders went to India as volunteers for a Habitat For Humanity building project. We paid our own way.
Before leaving we sought publicity to highlight the effort. My local newspaper did a story but that was it. The TV channels were not interested.
This project was led by Jimmy Carter and was a major charity event internationally - about 2000 volunteers turned up.
On the 4th day at a house being built by NZers, Brad Pitt turned up. He proved to be a decent guy who laid bricks alongside the others and did as he was asked by my friend who was the foreman. There was a 100yd vacant zone around the house patrolled by armed police and for most of the day, there was a huge media crew circling it. BBC, ABC, NBS, Fox, etc.
In the late afternoon we started getting texts from home telling us that Brad Pitt was in India working with Habitat. Did we know that? Lol…
Apparently tv had picked up the Pitt story and was broadcasting quite detailed footage
of the work. All over Europe and the US. Even New Zealand.
From that moment the project broke through to international news and gave a great boost to the charity.
All because of one guy. An actor. A decent bloke.
Not every famous person is particularly credible. But why would those who works in Hollywood not be “spokespeople” for the USA? It’s not like Hollywood is a different planet. It’s strongly connected, culturally, to the rest of the USA.
You may as well say that people in politics aren’t representatives, because they’re a subculture. Or the clergy. Or Americans who make > $100K/year.