Summary:
The article discusses the controversial and despicable comments made by certain celebrities, media personalities, and political figures celebrating the murder of Christian conservative Charlie Kirk. It explores the underlying motives for such behavior, including market-driven hatred, the exploitation of controversy for profit, and the alignment of public personas with audience expectations. The piece also raises questions about the authenticity of these individuals’ beliefs and their impact on societal norms.
What This Means for You:
- Media Literacy: Be critical of celebrity statements and recognize that controversy is often manufactured for profit.
- Ethical Consumption: Support public figures who align with your values and avoid those who exploit negativity for personal gain.
- Political Engagement: Remember that celebrities may act differently in private; prioritize voting and activism over idolization.
- Future Outlook: Expect continued polarization as sensationalism remains a lucrative strategy.
Original Post:
A number of show business, news media, and political personages have proclaimed vile comments, cheering the murder of Christian conservative Charlie Kirk.
So, too, have entertainment-industry has-beens who grab for modern relevance. None will be named by this writer, who doesn’t wish to aid miserable lost souls’ quests.
I believe there are at least two reasons some celebrities acquit themselves so despicably.
First, unfortunately, a hatred market exists. Just as there are garbage-hearted people with wallets, there breathe conscienceless graspers with big eyes. Whether someone is selling a candidacy, a movie ticket, a TV program, a recording, or any other commodity, market cultivation is surely a consideration.
No matter the sorrowfulness of Charlie’s assassination, status hunters prioritize profit in grubby calculations. Potential sales-chart downturns from foul public brayings would be negligible. A star’s audience yesterday likely knew his leanings and will remain beside him today. Indeed, ardor might be heightened.
Persons previously outside a celebrity’s base — well, they were already not in the equation. Save for this: Non-fans who vocalize criticism play as much of a role in maintaining celebrity as do rah-rah fanatics. Controversy means headlines. Headlines mean sales.
“Why do you think Frank Sinatra punches some driver in the mouth?” Alice Cooper manager Shep Gordon asked writer Bob Greene, in the seventies. “To get into the straight press — which is hell of a lot harder than getting into the entertainment press.”
From Greta Garbo donning slacks in the 1940 to the Sex Pistols cursing on 1976 U.K. television to current pop and rap annoyances hurtling toward cameras to bellow gory sensationalism about the late Christian debater, celebrity has often been a schemed contrivance, not an organic product.
Also, audiences want to believe they and a celebrity are as one — that the person on screen, stage, or stump shares their opinions. Surely, that is especially the case for callow enthusiasts. Their generational contrarianism is a knee-jerk animal. Many, I suppose, are eager to shout or do absolutely anything to antagonize the world at large. To feel significant.
They will spend monies on whoever claws most attention-gettingly at existing mores.
Important to remember is that entertainment names may say one thing in public — to curry fan approbation — but seize opposite voting levers in the booth.
There is a second possible explanation for celebrities’ stated terribleness: They may truly be terrible.
Iowan DC Larson is the author of That a Man Can Again Stand Up and Ideas Afoot. He counts among freelance credits Daily Caller, The Iowa Standard, and American Thinker. His political blog is American Scene Magazine.
Image via Raw Pixel.
Extra Information:
For further reading, explore these resources:
- American Thinker: A platform for conservative commentary and analysis.
- Daily Caller: A news and opinion website covering politics and culture.
- The Iowa Standard: Focuses on Iowa-specific news with a conservative viewpoint.
People Also Ask About:
- Why do celebrities make controversial statements? Celebrities often use controversy to generate attention and maintain relevance.
- How does sensationalism affect public opinion? Sensationalism can polarize audiences and perpetuate negative stereotypes.
- What is the role of media in celebrity culture? Media amplifies celebrity personas, often prioritizing profit over authenticity.
- How can audiences discern genuine beliefs from public personas? Audiences should critically analyze actions alongside public statements.
Expert Opinion:
“The exploitation of controversy by celebrities underscores a broader societal issue: the commodification of outrage. As audiences, we must prioritize critical thinking and ethical consumption to counteract the normalization of such behavior.”
Key Terms:
- celebrity controversy and public opinion
- market-driven hatred in media
- Christian conservative figures in politics
- sensationalism in entertainment industry
- ethical consumption of media content
ORIGINAL SOURCE:
Source link