In recent months, social media content has been influenced by two things: political conflict and what your favorite influencer has to say about it. More of today’s issues, no matter the content, must be fed through the internet’s perspective. The Edelman Trust Barometer of 2024 tells us about the significant decline in trust in media and government. A common sentiment is that it’s better to decide on an issue based on our own research rather than having the news tell us what to think. Younger generations are turning to celebrities and social media to do this. Today’s trust is funneling into the dollars we spend on businesses and hours we spend online.
In our fame-driven culture, we often forget that celebrities are people that we choose to make famous. They showcase their lives on social media and, like everyone else, make mistakes. Embracing a message solely because a celebrity champions it, a message that grassroots activists may have long advocated, poses a risk and raises many ethical questions. For one, that celebrity might not actually know what they are talking about. Not that every single celebrity must commit to leading a revolution, but they should feel free to use their platforms as tools for communication and resource distribution. But what they shouldn’t do is attempt to add their voice to the flood of information.
An illustration of this phenomenon involves Selena Gomez, who faced criticism for not addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict. In response, she posted an Instagram story stating her decision to take a break from social media amid the ongoing events. She expressed, “I wish I could change the world. But a post won’t.” Many found fault with her stance, as her immense reach suggested that her posts could indeed influence a substantial audience, potentially amplifying awareness, and discussion. But Selena Gomez isn’t an expert when it comes to the long-drawn-out history of this topic. She’s just an actress/popstar who owns a great makeup brand. She herself is asking for us to cut her some slack and see her instead for the human that she is. She is also just one example of many celebrities beholden to this societal expectation that they must use their platform to become social justice warriors.
Celebrity activism is no longer a rarity and more of an expectation. Some would say that celebrity activism is necessary because it brings awareness to issues that would otherwise not reach the same platform. While this may be true, awareness is just the first step. The sad truth is that it’s a slippery slope to jump from true activism and performative activism, and we often fail to see the difference. After experiencing so much influencer culture in the last decade, we are starting to see a trend in de-influencing, calling people to be more critical of celebrity or trend influence and actually examine the necessity and opinions being sent to you by social media algorithms. You don’t need your favorite reality T.V. show star’s top 5 skin care products. You also don’t have to care who your favorite NFL player is voting for in the next election. The more you do care, the more you give into performative activism.
An example of celebrity performative activism occurred in a 2009. Former Spice Girl, Geri Halliwell, a.k.a. “Ginger Spice,” visited Nepal as a Goodwill Ambassador for the U.N. Fund for Population Assistance. During this trip to Nepal, she wore a sari and a misplaced Bindi, traditional Nepali attire, and greeted the Prime Minister with a kiss, which sparked cultural appropriation criticism and raised eyebrows for not adhering to traditional customs. Halliwell’s actions during these events were viewed as performative activism — a superficial display aimed at projecting a certain image rather than genuine engagement or understanding of the culture or issues at hand. Her lack of cultural sensitivity and intention to use these experiences for personal gain rather than meaningful involvement highlighted the performative nature of her actions. Instead, she herself became the topic of conversation rather than the challenges in Nepal she was supposed to be highlighting.
If traditional news’ influence is diminishing, anyone can be a journalist without the credentials or authority to communicate about an issue. For years this has been a goal for grassroot activism efforts to gain their own traction and popularity. Although there seems to be more success when collaborating with celebrities, there is not usually enough authority or correct evidence to be effective. Celebrities do not have credible ethos when they rely on their fame as their authority because they lack the credentials to back it up. Because of these instances we see the rise of disinformation and radical conspiracy theories. The cycle continues with the algorithms of social media perpetuating this issue. As we give more influence on these topics to our celebrities, we discredit the work and authority of those experts in these various fields and topics.
It may seem cruel to discredit the ability to share an opinion due to someone’s fame but here’s the thing; their voice matters, but it only matters as much as the person standing next to them. The voices that we should listen to are the ones that actually know what they are talking about. We should stop paying attention to what our favorite celebrity thinks and get back to enjoying them as sources of entertainment.
Natalie Aldous is a rising senior at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, where she is majoring in Public Relations with a minor in Tourism. Throughout her time at BYU, she has taken on leadership roles, serving as her PRSSA Chapter’s Vice President of Professional Development and ICON Coordinator. In 2024, Natalie was honored as a Foster the Future Fellowship recipient and is an active member of the National Millennial Gen-Z Community. Outside of her academic and professional endeavors, Natalie enjoys traveling, reading, and baking. You can connect with her on LinkedIn.