tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/celebrity-activism-18497/articlescelebrity activism – The Conversation2021-09-28T11:56:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1680252021-09-28T11:56:03Z2021-09-28T11:56:03Z‘The Activist’ reality TV show sparked furor, but treating causes as commodities with help from celebrities happens all the time<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423009/original/file-20210923-13-58i90o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5251%2C3350&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Usher, shown speaking in 2019 at an event hosted by the nonprofit he started, and two other celebrities shot five episodes of the canceled series.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/recording-artist-usher-onstage-during-usher-new-look-news-photo/1164061876?adppopup=true">Paras Griffin/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>CBS quickly backpedaled after an announcement about “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210909212100/https://www.cbs.com/shows/the-activist/about/">The Activist</a>,” a new reality TV series it planned to broadcast, drew widespread backlash.</p>
<p>The show was going to pit teams made up of <a href="https://nonprofitaf.com/2021/09/10-shows-about-nonprofit-and-philanthropy-that-would-be-way-better-than-the-activist/">activists and celebrities against one another</a>. They would be competing to see who could raise the most awareness for a cause connected to health, education or the environment. Winning teams were to advance to the <a href="https://www.g20.org/rome-summit.html">G20 Summit in Rome</a> to get world leaders on board.</p>
<p>Critics panned the show without seeing any footage. Many said the premise embodied <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-did-we-do-to-deserve-a-celebrity-activist-competition-show">performative activism</a>, <a href="https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/wx59v5/the-activist-tv-show">devalued grassroots activism</a> and was <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanschocket2/usher-priyanka-julianne-the-activist-show-backlash">cringeworthy</a>. </p>
<p>On Sept. 15, 2021, less than a week after announcing the five-part series, the network and its two co-producers admitted that the concept was flawed. They said they had canceled it and would <a href="https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/activist-series-reconfigured-apology-cbs-global-citizen-live-nation-1235065908/">turn the show into a documentary</a>.</p>
<p>It isn’t clear yet what role the celebrity hosts – <a href="https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/usher">Usher</a>, who founded <a href="https://ushersnewlook.org/">a nonprofit</a> that supports under-resourced teens in 1999; <a href="https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/priyanka-chopra">Priyanka Chopra</a>, a <a href="https://www.unicef.org/india/our-partners/celebrities/priyanka-chopra">UNICEF ambassador</a>; and <a href="https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/julianne-hough">Julianne Hough</a>, who has helped <a href="https://www.looktothestars.org/news/16475-julianne-hough-empowers-women-to-get-in-the-know-about-endometriosis">raise awareness about endometriosis</a> – will play in the documentary.</p>
<p>Chopra and Hough immediately felt the need to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-58587699">apologize to their fans</a> and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CT0SRywB-5-/">voice their concerns</a>. Usher has not spoken out.</p>
<p>That a major broadcaster would expect a show linking celebrities and activism to garner viewers and that the concept would implode didn’t surprise us. We <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9Qf8BVUAAAAJ&hl=en">research</a> what happens when <a href="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/batman-saves-the-congo">celebrities get involved in activism</a> in tandem with corporations. <a href="https://www.cbs.dk/en/research/departments-and-centres/department-of-management-society-and-communication/staff/lrimsc">Quite often we find</a> that while celebrities may be well-intentioned in their efforts, the machinery behind their activism may undermine the causes it purports to support.</p>
<h2>Enticing the public</h2>
<p>Starbucks, TOMS shoes and other companies often try to turn compassion for suffering strangers, from Congolese farmers to Peruvian kids, into a commodity. Celebrities are brought in as spokespeople to <a href="https://www.fashionroundtable.co.uk/news/2021/4/20/greenwashing-how-brands-use-influencers-and-celebrities-to-market-sustainable-initiativesnbsp">widen the appeal</a> of <a href="https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/strategy/corporate-responsibility/factsheet#gref">corporate responsibility</a> efforts and sell more products. </p>
<p>To be sure, we find that some celebrities, including <a href="https://gardencollage.com/change/climate-change/celebrities-care-environment-want-know/">Meryl Streep</a> and <a href="https://borgenproject.org/tag/angelina-jolie/">Angelina Jolie</a>, are more serious about leveraging their influence burnished through their professions. However, we often see that many celebrities don’t invest enough time and energy to gain the <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315619835-28/world-stage-trevor-thrall-dominik-stecula">credibility and expertise</a> required to make a difference. </p>
<p>Celebrities have engaged in this high-profile advocacy for decades. Movie stars like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2011.637055">Audrey Hepburn</a> were performing public roles in the mid-20th century as good Samaritans. Because of their fame, celebrities can entice regular people, along with politicians, wealthy philanthropists and corporations, to embrace a cause.</p>
<p>Fans eagerly lap up news about celebrity accomplishments as well as about their private lives and charitable inclinations. Because familiar faces can shine the spotlight on their pet causes, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Celebrity-Advocacy-and-International-Development/Brockington/p/book/9780415707213">humanitarian agencies and nongovernmental organizations often tap celebrities</a> to draw attention to advocacy campaigns.</p>
<p>For example, the United Nations enlists hundreds of celebrities as <a href="https://www.un.org/en/messengers-peace/page/about-messengers-peace">messengers of peace, goodwill ambassadors and advocates</a> to communicate with the public. The ENOUGH Project promotes <a href="https://enoughproject.org/upstanders/celebrity/luol-deng">NBA star Luol Deng</a>, the model <a href="https://enoughproject.org/upstanders/celebrity/iman">Iman</a> and other famous people as what it calls “<a href="https://enoughproject.org/upstanders/celebrity">celebrity upstanders</a>” to raise awareness of crises in Africa and support efforts to quell conflicts there. </p>
<p>Likewise, corporations get celebrities to promote <a href="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/brand-aid">cause-related product lines</a>, such as <a href="https://www.red.org/">(Red)</a>, a project which has worked with Elton John, Scarlett Johansson and Gisele Bündchen to raise money, initially to fight HIV/AIDS and now also to deal with COVID-19 in <a href="https://www.red.org/how-red-works">African countries</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k3H_UcwvzCw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Enough Project relies on star power from celebrities like George Clooney.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The risks of celebrity activism</h2>
<p>Whether the goal is slowing climate change, fighting bigotry or improving access to health care, when celebrities engage in activism, excitement over the celebrities can overwhelm the activism.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/why-couldnt-the-save-darfur-movement-stop-the-killing-in-sudan.html">Save Darfur campaign</a>, which at its height brought together more than 190 religious, political and human rights organizations, is a good example.</p>
<p>The campaign eventually collapsed. And yet the <a href="https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/horn-africa/sudan">people of Darfur today are still in crisis</a>.</p>
<p>Despite research showing that celebrities <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Celebrity-Advocacy-and-International-Development/Brockington/p/book/9780415707213">catch but fail to hold our attention</a>, humanitarian agencies and nonprofits like UNICEF and Oxfam International compete to secure celebrity ambassadors.</p>
<p>When we interviewed aid workers in the field, we learned that visits to crisis zones and refugee camps by celebrities can be extremely disruptive to humanitarian operations. Without the stage management of celebrity ambassadors and control over their media appearances, it’s hard to avoid <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jun/30/secret-aid-worker-celebrities-angelina-jolie">gaffes that risk becoming debacles</a>. One example: actress <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/downton-abbey-elizabeth-mcgovern-celebrity-disaster-relief">Elizabeth McGovern</a> mixed up Dakar, the capital of Senegal, and Darfur when she went to Sierra Leone with World Vision as its “ambassador.”</p>
<p>Those mistakes that occur and the hassles that arise when famous people show up can <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367877914528532">defeat the purpose of celebrity engagement</a>. But since these celebrities often come with corporate sponsors – meaning cash – aid workers and local people put up with them.</p>
<h2>Celebrity activism as an industry</h2>
<p>As demand for star power surges, the machinery behind celebrity activism has become more corporate and professional, we explain in our new book, “<a href="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/batman-saves-the-congo">Batman Saves the Congo</a>.”</p>
<p>Today, most major charitable organizations have <a href="https://celebrityanddevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/third-world-quaterly-2014.pdf">full-time celebrity liaisons</a> to manage dozens of celebrity supporters. There are philanthropic consultants, like the <a href="http://www.globalphilanthropy.com/">Global Philanthropy Group</a>, which help celebrity clients <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jul/29/when-celebrities-become-philanthropists">find causes to represent</a>. </p>
<p>We have tracked dozens of celebrities who have <a href="https://www.elitedaily.com/p/these-celebrity-backed-charitable-foundations-are-doing-so-much-good-22972563">their own nonprofits</a>, suggesting <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1322465">long-term commitments</a>. But these organizations are sometimes founded on shaky premises that ignore local needs and can benefit the celebrity more than the cause.</p>
<p>Consider Ben Affleck’s <a href="https://www.easterncongo.org/">Eastern Congo Initiative</a>. We looked at how, in <a href="https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/frontlines/may-june-2016/drc-coffee-might-be-served-starbucks-near-you">partnership with Starbucks</a>, it claimed to transform the coffee sector in Congo to advance peace and development. Unfortunately, the initiative had no expertise in coffee production and little knowledge of rural development.</p>
<p>Despite professing to serve up a “<a href="https://stories.starbucks.com/emea/stories/2016/starbucks-eastern-congo-lake-kivu/">cup of hope</a>,” research later showed that this collaboration <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105193">made hardly any difference for the farmers it was supposed to help</a>.</p>
<p>Also, it was Affleck’s search for meaning in his own life, aided by <a href="https://www.williamsworks.com/our-story">highly paid consultants</a>, that led him to start this organization, not the Congolese.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IcloAVusC9Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Ben Affleck explains why he chose to ‘shine a spotlight’ on the crises facing the Congolese people in Africa.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Celebrities and consumer activism</h2>
<p>Many celebrity-led organizations include corporate partnerships in the form of cause-related marketing lines. Now would-be activists are encouraged to “shop to support” Damon’s water.org by buying a <a href="https://water.org/stellaartois/">Stella Artois Limited Edition chalice</a>.</p>
<p>Or, to sustain Christy Turlington Burns’ Every Mother Counts, you can “<a href="https://everymothercounts.org/what-can-i-do/gifts/">shop gifts that make a difference</a>” and purchase <a href="https://stephaniefreidperenchio.com/orange-rose/">a Stephanie Freid-Perenchio Orange Rose Necklace</a>.</p>
<p>For celebrities to promote splurging as activism risks distorting how causes can be addressed more successfully through collective action, grassroots engagement and direct donations.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-5hsLsBIzB0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Matt Damon co-founded a group that strives to increase access to clean water.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A boon for the rich and famous</h2>
<p>Without any accountability, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Celebrity-Humanitarianism-and-North-South-Relations-Politics-place-and/Richey/p/book/9781138854284">we have seen these efforts generally do little</a> to help the causes or beneficiaries they are championing.</p>
<p>After studying this pattern for years, we want to know: What does celebrity activism accomplish?</p>
<p>It makes an impact, but not in the ways you might expect. We’ve observed that getting celebrities to back a cause may bring greater visibility for the celebrity and profits for corporate partners.</p>
<p>Celebrity activism can soften or rehabilitate a celebrity’s reputation, as in the case of <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Celebrity-Humanitarianism-The-Ideology-of-Global-Charity/Kapoor/p/book/9780415783392">Madonna and Jolie</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 110,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>It can also lead to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4651309.stm">higher album sales</a> or more downloads. That’s what happened for many performers, including British rock band <a href="https://www.forestgoldradio.com/live8">Pink Floyd</a> and the pop singer <a href="https://www.nme.com/news/music/live-8-3-1365228">Robbie Williams</a> after the Live 8 concerts. The point of those widely televised <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160323203946/http://live8live.com/whathappened/">concerts, held at venues across the world in 2005</a>, was to increase <a href="https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5e331623-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/5e331623-en">aid to low-income countries</a>. </p>
<p>Even as a canceled TV show, “The Activist,” is destined to spotlight the unaccountable power stars possess, far more than the causes than it’s supposed to be about.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168025/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Budabin receives funding from The Shana Alexander Charitable Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Ann Richey receives funding from the Danish Council for Independent Research (Project 6109-00158B Commodifying Compassion).</span></em></p>The producers are recasting the show as a documentary. The original version would have done more harm than good for the causes being showcased, two scholars argue.Alexandra Cosima Budabin, Senior Researcher of Human Rights, University of DaytonLisa Ann Richey, Professor of Globalization, Copenhagen Business SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1561292021-03-02T00:31:22Z2021-03-02T00:31:22ZFraming Britney Spears shows star power is shifting to the audience<p>An intriguing documentary about Britney Spears, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/framing-britney-spears.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article">produced by the New York Times</a> and <a href="https://tvtonight.com.au/2021/02/airdate-framing-britney-spears.html">airing in Australia tonight</a>, marks a change in how we view and engage with celebrities.</p>
<p>A new sense of connection and responsibility to famed individuals is emerging: where once we gawked at the public struggles of Britney, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, now there is a more concerned response. Audiences have become vocal supporters of the vulnerable, exploring cultural issues in new ways.</p>
<p>The documentary promises a “re-examination” of the singer’s portrayal, her infamous scandals and mental health. But it isn’t built on an investigation entirely by the filmmakers. It is driven by a large cohort of fans who are trying to support Britney’s efforts to regain control of her life and finances from her father-conservator — challenging how we remember her past in the process.</p>
<p>Gathering around hashtags like #FreeBritney, today’s audiences appear to be assuming the power to right past wrongs. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n1wRN5muenY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘What do we want?’ ‘Free Britney!’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/podcast-host-dj-how-the-much-lampooned-paris-hilton-has-rewritten-the-celebrity-script-155304">Podcast host, DJ ... how the much lampooned Paris Hilton has rewritten the celebrity script</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who’s ‘affecting’ who?</h2>
<p>Embedded in this rethink of what happened to Britney’s career is a movement that has coalesced around the hashtag #FreeBritney. In digital culture, hashtags have come to embody pathways for emotional connection across social media platforms. Their sharing is a way to align interests and feelings. The hashtags carry “affective power” in a similar way to the star power of celebrities — that is, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19392390903519057">they can guide choices</a>. </p>
<p>Paralleling the #MeToo movement and #BLM activism, #FreeBritney is a further cultural coalition that has built activism along digital pathways, then expanded to real protest events. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Britney design on clothing and #FreeBritney sign" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386929/original/file-20210301-21-v05soa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The #FreeBritney movement goes from online hashtag to real protest outside a court hearing concerning the pop singer’s conservatorship.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://photos-cdn.aap.com.au/Image/20210212001519991944?path=/aap_dev9/device/imagearc/2021/02-12/7f/8f/74/aapimage-7eh2ehp153lxtdogng6_layout.jpg">AP Photo/Chris Pizzello</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12673718/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Framing Britney</a> (which I’ve yet to watch) exposes some negative elements of the media and entertainment industry including its sexist positioning of the singer. Certain prominent figures in Britney’s life, including some family members and famous ex-boyfriend Justin Timberlake, are flagged through the #FreeBritney movement as advancing non-acceptable behaviour. Timberlake has apologised to Spears and to singer Janet Jackson since the documentary’s US release. </p>
<p>The #FreeBritney movement also shows how the structure of stardom and celebrity is transforming. Questions are being asked of our popular culture: who makes the public identity of stars? What is public and what is private? </p>
<p>Actor Mara Wilson’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/23/opinion/britney-spears-mara-wilson-hollywood.html">recent opinion piece</a> describes how her public identity was shaped to an accepted narrative (based around child stars getting the comeuppance they deserved for seeking fame) by an interview she gave aged 12. “Our culture builds these girls up just to destroy them,” she writes. “Fortunately people are becoming aware of what we did to Ms Spears and starting to apologise to her. But we’re still living with the scars.”</p>
<p>These days the meaning and <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6414">value of celebrity</a> is being more shaped by collective actions of social media fan activists than by the <a href="https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index.php/ps/article/view/978">legacy press and the entertainment industry</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Woman with snake onstage" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/386936/original/file-20210301-23-kpb806.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Though presented as coming from a position of strength, we now appreciate the vulnerability of a young star like Britney Spears at the height of her popularity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://photos-cdn.aap.com.au/Image/20010906000019886978?path=/aap_dev2/imagearc/2006/11-23/eb/6b/60/aapimage-5cbk5fieuco6berg798_layout.jpg">AP Photo/Beth A. Keiser</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/and-i-will-always-love-you-how-marketers-measure-dolly-partons-magic-126688">And I will always love you: how marketers measure Dolly Parton's magic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Sharing and caring</h2>
<p>This reconstruction of public persona is partly because of social media. The personal has become normalised and curated by all of us on social media, including those in the public eye. So, there is a new awareness of both the value of revealing, but also the risks of exposing ourselves. Via social media, fans have developed two-way <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563220301722">parasocial relationships</a> with celebrities. </p>
<p>New norms are developing and new shared understanding of past media’s regular shaming are now better understood and reflected upon. See here the recent re-sharing on Twitter and TikTok of celebrity interviews, such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxANawHiXr0">David Letterman poking Lindsay Lohan</a> about her repeated visits to rehab, the <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/what-happened-to-megan-fox-from-michael-bay-to-jimmy-kimmel.html">character assassination of Megan Fox</a> or Oprah Winfrey snarkily <a href="https://celebrity.nine.com.au/latest/oprah-winfrey-faces-backlash-mary-kate-ashley-olsen-resurfaced-interview/fb0fb231-e238-4486-a7e6-8014e1af0aff">asking the Olsen twins</a> about their dress sizes. </p>
<p>The celebrities are changing too. After decades of keeping their opinions private, those in the public eye are engaging more openly with issues (including hashtags) and their own personal emotional health and feelings. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1360661970924556291"}"></div></p>
<p>Singer Taylor Swift described sharing her politics for the first time in the Netflix documentary <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11388580/">Miss Americana</a> (2020). Model and cookbook author Chrissy Teigen shared heartbreaking <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/oct/28/chrissy-teigen-john-legend-describes-losing-baby-in-heartbreaking-detail-utter-and-complete-sadness">posts about her family’s experience of stillbirth</a> last year. Meanwhile, stars like <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2020/04/beyonce-savage-remix-tiktok-dance-challenge.html">Beyoncé are releasing TikTok-ready material</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/arts/music/pop-stars-tiktok-remixes.html">tapping into the collective brand power</a> beyond traditional entertainment and media promotion.</p>
<p>The long-term effects of this affective power-shift, captured in the #FreeBritney movement and the Framing Britney documentary, are hard to predict. </p>
<p>The entertainment industry’s transformation may lead to new entities that know how to curate public identities for sharing more cleverly in this different world. Nonetheless, a new cultural politics is integrating how audiences shape public personas and how they care for the real person behind the headlines.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/where-woke-came-from-and-why-marketers-should-think-twice-before-jumping-on-the-social-activism-bandwagon-122713">Where 'woke' came from and why marketers should think twice before jumping on the social activism bandwagon</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156129/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>P. David Marshall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Once, the way we viewed celebrities was framed by the legacy press and the entertainment industry. Now fans and social media are rewriting the script.P. David Marshall, Professor and Research Chair in New Media, Communication and Cultural Studies, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1294452020-01-07T06:53:45Z2020-01-07T06:53:45ZHow to donate to Australian bushfire relief: give money, watch for scams and think long term<p>The devastation of the Australian bushfires has generated an <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/bushfire-relief-how-you-can-help-those-in-need/news-story/a0476ac3538b8c373f281ea6be204421">outpouring of generosity</a> amongst Australians. </p>
<p>We have been giving directly to charities such as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and others working on the ground to support survivors. Many of us have contributed to appeals such as <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/aussies-rally-around-celeste-barbers-staggering-fire-fundraiser/news-story/b7481dce04dade93f3719bc0acac9e59">Celeste Barber’s</a>, which, at the time of writing, has raised A$42 million for the NSW Rural Fire Service.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=655&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=655&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308730/original/file-20200107-123373-1x8mj6e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=655&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">At the time of writing, celebrity Celeste Barber had raised $42 million.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Wealthy Australians, like the <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/packers-crown-donate-extra-4-million-for-bushfire-relief-efforts-20200106-p53pcm.html">Packer</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/billionaire-philanthropists-donate-1m-to-bushfire-emergency-response-20191227-p53n4b.html">Gandel</a> and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/heartbreaking-kylie-minogue-s-family-donates-500-000-to-bushfire-appeal-20200107-p53pdc.html">Minogue</a> families, have also made large commitments, as have many businesses.</p>
<p>The fact that so many of us have been reaching into our pockets during this difficult time is not surprising. Australia is the fourth most generous nation in the world, according to the most recent edition of the <a href="https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2019-publications/caf-world-giving-index-10th-edition">World Giving Index</a> and emergency relief is a <a href="https://www.communitybusinesspartnership.gov.au/about/research-projects/giving-australia-2016/">common cause</a> to which we give.</p>
<p>But it’s worth thinking carefully about how to give, to ensure you’re not wasting your contribution or inadvertently making things worse. </p>
<h2>Watch out for scammers</h2>
<p>One thing to be mindful of during times like these, is that unfortunately some people may seek to prey on the generosity of others. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/update/bushfires-and-scams">issued a warning </a>about fundraising scams associated with the bushfires. </p>
<p>If you aren’t sure about an organisation that you’ve been approached by, you can always check whether they’re a registered charity using the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission’s online <a href="https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity">register</a>. </p>
<p>It lists all charities registered in Australia, and details their operations, finance and governance.</p>
<h2>Money usually trumps everything else</h2>
<p>Generally, it’s best to give money. The organisations you give it to can then decide how to use it best.</p>
<p>We may be tempted to give goods like blankets or clothes, but organisations often get overwhelmed by donations of goods. </p>
<p>The idea of donating while also clearing out unused items at home may seem tempting but many organisations don’t have the resources to sort through donations. Often, the goods donated just aren’t fit for use.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1213703278699016193"}"></div></p>
<p><a href="https://dhs.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1893/management-of-donated-goods.pdf">Research</a> by the federal and South Australian governments examined this problem, saying of the 2009 Victorian bushfires:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Victorian Bushfires resulted in the donation of in excess of 40,000 pallets of goods from across Australia that took up more than 50,000 square metres of storage space. The costs for managing these donations i.e. three central warehouses, five regional distribution points, approximately 35 paid staff, material handling equipment and transport costs to distribute the material aid, has amounted to over 8 million dollars.</p>
<p>In addition, volunteer numbers reached 1,500 during the first three months provided through over 40 store fronts. Resources in the fire affected areas immediately after the event were severely stretched as a result of material aid arriving without warning and without adequate resources to sort, store, handle
and distribute.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report highlighted how this is a consistent problem during disasters, leading to the development of the <a href="https://dhs.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1894/national-guidelines-for-managing-donated-goods.pdf">National Guidelines for Managing Donated Goods</a>. These guidelines reinforce the point that donating money is the preferred way to help out during a disaster.</p>
<p>If specific requests are made for <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/northcoast/programs/breakfast/koalas-need-you-to-help-make-them-mittens-and-give-them-blankets/11714410">certain goods</a>, however, then you can respond by donating accordingly. The charity <a href="http://www.givit.org.au/disasters">Givit</a> acts as a broker that facilitates the donations of goods that meet the needs of charities and those they are seeking to help.</p>
<p>Always make sure that what you donate is of reasonable quality. It’s important not to use donation appeals an excuse to clean out items that probably should go in the rubbish or recycling bin.</p>
<h2>Donations after the bushfires are also important</h2>
<p>We’re facing a long and hot summer, with the prospect of ongoing bushfires. At some stage, they will subside and with them the appeals for donations will also end.</p>
<p>But it’s important to remember that even once the immediate crisis has passed, rebuilding after a disaster takes a long time and requires considerable resources. </p>
<p>Governments play an important part but there is also a role for philanthropy both large and small. For example, the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal has a <a href="https://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/supporting_bushfire-affected_communities.php">Disaster Resilience and Recovery Fund</a> which makes grants to local not-for-profit groups for community-led projects that address the most pressing needs that emerge 12-18 months after a disaster.</p>
<h2>The bigger picture</h2>
<p>Supporting the immediate response and rebuilding efforts is vital, but it’s also important to consider how as a nation we collectively address the factors which are increasing bushfire risk. </p>
<p>Climate change is <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-bringing-a-new-world-of-bushfires-123261">increasing the risk</a> that we will see more frequent and intense bushfires.</p>
<p>Charities provide vital support to those in need during times of crisis. But they also have an <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1037969X1504000312">important advocacy role</a> putting pressure on governments and businesses to change policies and practices.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-limits-to-charities-advancing-political-causes-71466">Explainer: what are the limits to charities advancing political causes?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are many environmental charities doing exactly this, to push Australia toward a more comprehensive response to climate change. </p>
<p>So it’s also worth thinking about how your donation can help support the policy change needed to address climate change and to mitigate the risks associated with it – including more bushfires.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129445/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Krystian Seibert is a member of the Australian Conservation Foundation.</span></em></p>It’s worth thinking carefully about how to give, to ensure you’re not wasting your contribution or inadvertently making things worse.Krystian Seibert, Industry Fellow, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/898632018-01-11T11:42:38Z2018-01-11T11:42:38ZFor black celebrities like Oprah, it’s impossible to be apolitical<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201512/original/file-20180110-46697-1d0ovb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey appear during a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Dec. 8, 2007.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Oprah-Obama-2008/0fb729cd64b5483bbc2d5de08b753c6f/62/0">AP Photo/Paul Sancya</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Oprah Winfrey’s <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/full-transcript-oprah-winfreys-speech-at-the-golden-globes/549905/">rousing Golden Globe speech</a> has many speculating whether the media mogul will become a presidential candidate in 2020, with some pundits <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-oprah-president-20180108-story.html">questioning the merits</a> of another “celebrity” president.</p>
<p>But to equate Oprah with other “celebrity” politicians like Donald Trump and Arnold Schwarzenegger skirts the history of how black celebrities have long assumed political roles – often unintentionally – within the black community.</p>
<p>When it’s viewed through this lens, the transition into politics for someone like Winfrey is more natural. Oprah, for her part, seems to understand the tremendous importance of high-profile blacks in American society. During her monologue, she became emotional when she described how, as a young girl, she watched Sidney Poitier receive the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 1964 Golden Globes – “I’d never seen a black man being celebrated like that.”</p>
<p>But the ability of black celebrities to symbolize hope and racial progress precedes Poitier. The black singers, actors and athletes of the 1930s and 1940s weren’t simply entertainers; they were living proof that African-Americans didn’t need to succumb to racist stereotypes, and could be treated with dignity, even deference. With structural racism embedded in the nation’s social and economic fabric, this, in and of itself, was a political act. </p>
<p>As I point out in my book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Black-Culture-New-Deal-Roosevelt/dp/1469619067/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515513766&sr=8-1&keywords=black+culture+and+the+new+deal">Black Culture and the New Deal</a>,” during the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. government recognized the political potency of the black celebrity, and would tap into this power to project a democratic ethos at home and abroad.</p>
<h2>Elevating the black cultural hero</h2>
<p>By the time Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to seek a second presidential term in 1936, African-American voters had become an important demographic for the Democratic Party. But with white Southerners comprising a significant part of Roosevelt’s base, segregation and discrimination were more difficult for the government to directly confront. </p>
<p>Roosevelt still needed to figure out a way to reach out to the black community. So instead of passing legislation to correct racial inequality, his administration developed cultural programs that would employ large numbers of black men and women, and promote the skills and abilities of African-Americans. </p>
<p>For example, New Deal Arts programs included individuals such as Carlton Moss, Sterling Brown and Zora Neale Hurston to create books and plays that would depict African-Americans in sympathetic, humane ways. The Federal Writers’ Project’s American Guide Series, which Brown edited, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=image+federal+theatre+project+negro+unit&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx4Jr7oMvYAhWBl-AKHa5WCisQ7AkIPg&biw=1363&bih=732#imgrc=sn5lTFp_aC7kYM">highlighted</a> the diversity of African-American communities and customs. The Federal Theater Project <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=image+federal+theatre+project+negro+unit&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx4Jr7oMvYAhWBl-AKHa5WCisQ7AkIPg&biw=1363&bih=732#imgrc=pM9_GgtVndVMVM">featured plays</a> written and directed by black men and women that grappled with pressing racial issues.</p>
<p>This was a potent political tool; federal officials understood that African-Americans would be deeply affected – as Winfrey later was when watching Poitier receive the DeMille Award – by seeing African-Americans portrayed in more realistic and respectful ways.</p>
<h2>A message of unity and freedom</h2>
<p>The stakes became even greater as America entered World War II. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Twentieth-century_events">Simmering racial tensions</a> needed to be reconciled with America’s democratic, anti-fascist ideals. </p>
<p>Cultural programs promoting racial cooperation abounded within war agencies. Office of War Information <a href="https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2015/onewayticket/site/assets/Howard-Liberman.-Poster-for-the-Office-of-War-Information-1943.jpg">posters</a> and Hollywood films such as “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035664/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt">Bataan</a>” featured white and black men working and fighting together. </p>
<p>But no one was more central to this brand of propaganda than boxer Joe Louis. </p>
<p>In 1938, <a href="http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/9404398/more-just-fight">Louis had stunned the world</a> by defeating German Max Schmeling. Geopolitically, it was a display of American superiority. But for African-Americans it was a triumph over whites. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201525/original/file-20180110-46709-1rqzdff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Heavyweight champion Joe Louis dances as German challenger Max Schmeling falls to the canvas in the first and final round of their rematch in New York City in June 1938.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Sports-New-York-United-States-/6b1caf479be5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/59/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unassuming and apolitical, Louis didn’t ever talk about racial issues. Nonetheless, he became a hugely important political figure. </p>
<p>Poet Maya Angelou <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Z2q_1A0nlvIC&lpg=PP1&dq=caged%20bird%20sings&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22strongest%20people%20in%20the%20world%22&f=false">wrote of</a> Louis’ victories as evidence that African-Americans were the “strongest people in the world”; novelist Richard Wright <a href="http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewMasses-1935oct08-00018">described</a> Louis’ victories as “a fleeting glimpse … of the heart that beats and suffers and hopes for freedom.” </p>
<p>Recognizing Louis’ profound appeal, the government quickly swooped in, employing him in the Army’s Morale Division to boost patriotism among African-Americans during World War II. </p>
<p>As one government official <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=VLGYcemVOAYC&lpg=PP1&dq=black%20culture%20new%20deal&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22the%20answer%20is%20obvious%22&f=false">noted in 1942</a>, “It might be well to ask the questions as to who would draw the biggest audiences, Joe Louis or [NAACP Executive Secretary] Walter White. The answer is obvious.” </p>
<p>During his 46 months in the Army, Louis partook in 96 exhibition fights in the U.S. and abroad as part of a troupe that included black boxers George C. Nicholson, Sugar Ray Robinson and George J. Wilson. He also appeared on posters and in films that promoted racial inclusion, such as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6YvZy_IsZY">The Negro Soldier</a>.” </p>
<p>Louis wasn’t the only black cultural hero to play a political role during the war. The Armed Forces Radio Service created a program featuring black musicians called “<a href="https://www.colorado.edu/amrc/glenn-miller-archive/gma-catalogs/jubilee">Jubilee</a>.” Lena Horne, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and others appeared in this weekly program that was broadcast domestically and to servicemen abroad. It reassured black troops on the front lines, while many white soldiers were able to listen to musicians they had never heard before. </p>
<h2>The power of the stage</h2>
<p>These federal efforts during the Great Depression and World War II are complicated. One the one hand, it could be argued that they represented a tokenistic appeal to African-Americans in lieu of real social and economic change. On the other, there’s no doubt that African-Americans were given the opportunity to be themselves, be celebrated, and move beyond the demeaning stereotypes that had existed for decades. </p>
<p>In the postwar period, civil rights leaders challenged African-American celebrities to use their platform to promote racial equality. Some, like Muhammad Ali, famously called for change, while others were more reticent. But the political stance of these individuals may not have mattered as much as their visibility and success. As filmmaker Ezra Edelman <a href="http://www.espn.com/30for30/ojsimpsonmadeinamerica/">argues</a> in his 2016 documentary “O.J.: Made in America,” even as Simpson insisted that we was “not black, just O.J.,” he was still embraced by the black community, and lauded as an African-American hero. </p>
<p>After centuries of degradation and discrimination, the accomplishments of African-Americans like Simpson or Oscar winner Hattie McDaniel possessed a political resonance. Though they were reluctant to promote racial change, by succeeding in traditionally exclusionary industries, they nonetheless became political figures. They signaled to other African-Americans that barriers could be broken down. Even if they weren’t activists themselves, they inspired others to fight inequality.</p>
<p>As a black woman, Oprah Winfrey occupies a unique space in this legacy of cultural heroes. Though it remains to be seen whether her candidacy will become a reality, she knows the significance of her actions for people of color in the U.S. and around the world. At a time when black women <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=axy_Am9HEPcC&pg=PA87&dq=black+women+marginalized&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYrfKL8M3YAhWixYMKHXEDCKMQ6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=black%20women%20marginalized&f=false">remain marginalized</a>, Oprah – media mogul, actress, philanthropist, tastemaker – embodies the American Dream. People still look to cultural figures as much as they look to politicians for inspiration. </p>
<p>As Oprah stated in her speech, her life and career demonstrate how “we can overcome.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89863/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Rebecca Sklaroff has received funding from National Endowment of the Humanities. She is an Associate Professor of History at the University of South Carolina. </span></em></p>Throughout American history, being a black celebrity has been a political act in and of itself. When viewed through this lens, the transition into politics for someone like Winfrey is more natural.Lauren Rebecca Sklaroff, Associate Professor of History, University of South CarolinaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/707112017-01-30T19:06:31Z2017-01-30T19:06:31ZCelebrity charities just compete with all other charities – so why start one?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152346/original/image-20170111-6425-1wc9zdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A medium-sized Australian charity will share more of its donors with the Salvation Army or the Red Cross than with Parkinson’s Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite the enormous number of charities in the world, more are established every year – and many also disappear. <a href="https://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/Com_Col/CC_20160524.aspx">Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission data</a> shows that, since 2012, 8,500 charities have been registered and more than 13,500 have been revoked.</p>
<p>Former tennis player Pat Rafter’s Cherish the Children Foundation, which closed in 2011, is just one of many examples of a charity that has come and gone. Rafter has <a href="http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/honour-roll/?view=fullView&year=2002&recipientID=105">a long history as a philanthropist</a>. He donated half the prizemoney from his US Open wins to the Starlight Children’s Foundation as well as starting up his own foundation in 1999.</p>
<p>But, unable to compete against established foundations, Cherish the Children was forced to close.</p>
<p>Why, then, do so many celebrities attempt to start their own charity, when they add to an already fragmented and competitive sector? </p>
<p>Whatever the motivation, the stated rationale is often that this new charity can offer something not in the market. However, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267407147_The_Underlying_Structure_of_the_Charity_Donation_Market_in_Australia">our research</a> shows these charities compete head-on with other charities. The public sees them as near look-alikes.</p>
<h2>Sharing is caring?</h2>
<p>Charities share supporters with other charities in line with their size. For example, a medium-sized Australian charity will share more of their donors with the Salvation Army or the Red Cross than with Parkinson’s Australia.</p>
<p>We see the same pattern when looking at how charities share donors. We surveyed 570 Australians who reported supporting 393 distinct charities. They gave to the Queensland flood relief and established charities, such as Cancer Council Australia, during the 12 months to April 2011.</p>
<p>The graph below shows how many people donated to each charity (percentage of donors). The Salvation Army and Red Cross dominate the market.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153387/original/image-20170119-26582-ogt23k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153387/original/image-20170119-26582-ogt23k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153387/original/image-20170119-26582-ogt23k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153387/original/image-20170119-26582-ogt23k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153387/original/image-20170119-26582-ogt23k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153387/original/image-20170119-26582-ogt23k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153387/original/image-20170119-26582-ogt23k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Faulkner M, Miller R and Romaniuk J (2011), The Underlying Structure of the Charity Donation Market in Australia.</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The interactive graphic below shows donors support multiple charities, with sharing largely occurring as predicted, based upon the size of the charity.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-224" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/224/ad91d5b3dcf8a3358a32ec6983a2d64d1f0ed853/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>Each tab shows the percentage of donors each brand shares with other charities. On average, charities share 25% of their donors with the Salvation Army and Red Cross, compared with only 3% of their donors with Oxfam – the smallest charity shown. </p>
<p>The last tab shows the predicted level of sharing based on the size of the charity. This allows us to spot any charities that share more than expected.</p>
<p>The two largest charities, Salvation Army and Red Cross, share donors with each other at higher levels than the expected level of sharing shown in the last row. </p>
<p>Guide Dogs Australia and the RSPCA also share more donors than expected, despite offering different types of services in the community. It could be a love of dogs that explains the excess sharing of donors, but these charities also share donors with Cancer Council Australia and other charities that do not feature animals.</p>
<p>So, some charities compete a bit more closely with each other. However, if charities were perceived as very different from each other there would be vast differences in donor overlap, or we would expect to see sharing of donors only between certain types of charities. </p>
<p>But despite World Vision and Oxfam both helping people overseas, they share many more of their supporters with the Salvation Army – the largest charity – than with each other.</p>
<h2>What does this all mean?</h2>
<p>The big implication is that all charities compete largely head-on with other charities. Any new charity will win most of its supporters from the biggest charities and some from the smallest. Competition for supporters will be tough.</p>
<p>World Vision Australia CEO Tim Costello has called for public figures to <a href="http://infoweb.newsbank.com.access.library.unisa.edu.au/resources/doc/nb/news/135103DF42D79D88?p=AWNB">support existing charities</a>. He would say that, but celebrities should certainly consider the evidence that they are likely to overestimate the degree to which the marketplace sees their new charity as different or necessary. </p>
<p>Charities, like all brands, are in a constant battle for attention – they must win eyeballs more than hearts. </p>
<p>This is where a celebrity can help an existing charity. It worked for Pat Rafter, who – despite failing at starting a new charity – continues to make a difference, but through supporting existing charities, including <a href="http://www.makeitpossible.com/ambassadors/pat-rafter-on-factory-farming.php">Animals Australia</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Charities, like all brands, are in a constant battle for attention – and they must win eyeballs more than hearts.Margaret Faulkner, Senior Research Associate, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South AustraliaCathy Nguyen, Senior Research Associate, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/706092016-12-22T10:27:43Z2016-12-22T10:27:43ZSwitched-on city: how London learned to love Christmas lights<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150966/original/image-20161220-9515-12bh0li.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What would Christmas, or even the weeks or months leading up to it, be without lights? They make our trees twinkle, fill our windows with a welcoming glow and set our streets alight with Christmas spirit. </p>
<p>One city that takes its Christmas lights very seriously is London – a bright and eventful destination all year round, of course, but even more so in the build-up to Christmas. One after the other, streets and squares are illuminated by elaborate light installations, which transform urban spaces and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tim_Edensor/publication/281336144_Light_design_and_atmosphere/links/5669a7b308aea0892c49b24e.pdf">alter the atmosphere</a> of the city.</p>
<p>But as well as being a dazzling spectacle, the history of London’s Christmas displays can shed light on the shifting relationships between citizens, local councils and corporations in the city. </p>
<p>The tradition began in 1954, on Regent Street, when local retailers and businesses – through the <a href="http://www.regentstreetlocal.info/regent-street-association/membership">Regent Street Association</a> – arranged for a display. The aim was to show that post-war London <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/for_christmas/_new_year/christmas_decorations/39383.stm">did not have to look “drab”</a> around Christmas. In the 1950s and 1960s, the installations spread to other streets, with the Oxford Street Christmas display premiering in 1959. Quickly, the lights grew to be a key part of London’s festive calendar.</p>
<p>By the early 1970s, however, economic pressures on retailers and local councils – combined with a darkening of public opinion – meant that London went largely without Christmas lights for several years. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the tradition returned once again, an initiative of local traders’ associations.</p>
<h2>Celebrity sparkle</h2>
<p>Today, in London’s famous West End, every street and square worth its name is lit up and presented as a sparkling centre of entertainment and – as ‘tis the gift giving season – commerce. A “dark” street during Christmas time signals to consumers that there is nothing going on, while lights guide the way, generating excitement and attracting attention. </p>
<p>To add to the glamour, lights are formally switched on each year by celebrities at crowded ceremonies. Big names in the past have included Kylie Minogue (Regent Street 1989 and Oxford Street 2015), the Spice Girls (Oxford Street 1996), and Helen Mirren (Bond Street 1998). Last year’s big names included Jennifer Saunders, Craig David and Holly Willoughby. </p>
<p>These “switch ons” are usually organised to create a buzz, bring people together and kick-start Christmas shopping. But they can also be used for other purposes. For example, in 2016, in central London’s Soho district, the Berwick Street switch on was used to raise public awareness about <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/joanna-lumley-sets-out-her-stall-to-rescue-soho-market-from-takeover-threat-a3378981.html">plans to privatise the Berwick Street Market</a>. Joanna Lumley – who is actively engaged in the <a href="http://savesoho.com/">Save Soho</a> campaign – did the honours.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150971/original/image-20161220-26724-165ba6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150971/original/image-20161220-26724-165ba6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150971/original/image-20161220-26724-165ba6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150971/original/image-20161220-26724-165ba6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150971/original/image-20161220-26724-165ba6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150971/original/image-20161220-26724-165ba6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150971/original/image-20161220-26724-165ba6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Swinging Carnaby Street.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some of the city’s major cultural institutions get involved, too. The Sugar Plum Fairy – from the Royal Opera House’s feature, <a href="http://www.roh.org.uk/productions/the-nutcracker-by-peter-wright">The Nutcracker</a> – performed and participated in the switch on of the Covent Garden lights in 2016, reflecting the area’s close connection to the performing arts. </p>
<p>Over on Carnaby Street, the lights took inspiration from <a href="https://www.vam.ac.uk/exhibitions/you-say-you-want-a-revolution-records-and-rebels-1966-70">the Victoria and Albert Museum’s exhibition</a> on the musical revolution and rebellion of the late 1960s. This ties in with the street’s past as a hotspot of “swinging London”. </p>
<p>So, these events present a fantastic opportunity to showcase the uniqueness of a particular area to Londoners and tourists alike – not least because images of Christmas lights always do well on social media. </p>
<h2>Too tacky?</h2>
<p>Yet these festive displays have not escaped criticism. For one thing, Christmas lights are expensive: many regional towns and cities <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/27/christmas-lights-cutbacks-local-authorities">have opted out</a> due to budget constraints. There have also been some doubts as to whether they actually improve business. In 1993, the Oxford Street Traders Association <a href="https://www.nexis.com/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SNF-77N0-007C-24H9&csi=280434&oc=00240&perma=true">decided not</a> to provide a Christmas lights display: local retailers were reluctant to cover the costs, because they were not convinced that lights attract shoppers. </p>
<p>In the late 1990s, corporate sponsors tried a more direct approach, adding large brands, slogans and logos to the displays. This time, the public complained that the lights had become too commercial, unimaginative, <a href="https://www.nexis.com/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3RHB-07W0-008G-H2BB&csi=280434&oc=00240&perma=true">“cheap” and “vulgar”</a>, prompting the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) to invite architects to come up with new ways to improve London’s Christmas light displays, the best of which <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/christmas-at-last-someone-is-seeing-the-light-1295421.html">were exhibited</a> at the Museum of London in 1997. </p>
<p>The RIBA campaign did not have an immediate effect: just one year later, Regent Street <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/227237.stm">was given over</a> to the soft drink Tango, which showered the area with bright orange bulbs and banners bearing the message “Tis the season to be Tango’d”. The display met with some considerable <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/merry-christmas-i-dont-think-so-1191255.html">public scorn</a>. Yet in 2016, it seems a different kind of branding is emerging: one which emphasises place, rather than product. </p>
<iframe width="100%" height="950" src="https://www.instagram.com/p/BOK3FYBD0ap/embed" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<p>The <a href="https://thenorthbank.london/the-northbank-bid/">Northbank Business Improvement District</a> (BID) introduced Christmas lights to the Strand for the first time last year, emblazoning its name across the displays. This is part of a strategy to create a sense of place, which appeals to both visitors and investors – similar to what has been achieved on London’s <a href="http://southbankbid.co.uk/">South Bank</a>. Whether or not the campaign will be enough to replace the area’s well-known moniker, <a href="http://londonist.com/london/christmas-in-london/the-best-bus-routes-for-seeing-london-s-christmas-lights">“the Strand”</a>, remains to be seen. </p>
<p>It may be that this whirlwind of shopping, tourism, atmosphere, business, branding, art, innovation, celebrities and photo ops has the power to bring us all closer together for a couple of months each year. At the very least, we can be certain that this year, Christmas in London’s West End will be anything but drab.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70609/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Henrik Linden is a member of the Labour Party. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara Linden does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>But they haven’t been without controversy.Henrik Linden, Senior Lecturer in Tourism and Cultural Industries Management, University of East LondonSara Linden, Lecturer in Cultural Policy and Tourism, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/694672016-12-12T03:40:59Z2016-12-12T03:40:59ZCelebrity voices are powerful, but does the First Amendment let them say anything they want?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149477/original/image-20161209-31391-6kl964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Taking a knee during the national anthem isn't risk-free in the NFL.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Protesting-Dolphins-Football/4a2a88bed8f449cfab9062479a24dab6/1/0">AP Photo/Stephen Brashear, File</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When NFL player <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-oppressive-seeds-of-the-colin-kaepernick-backlash-66358">Colin Kaepernick</a> refuses to stand for the national anthem, or the cast of the Broadway musical “Hamilton” confronts the vice president-elect, or the Dixie Chicks <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/3/11/1193171/-Ten-Years-Ago-This-Week-the-Dixie-Chicks-Found-Free-Speech-Comes-at-a-High-Price">speak out against war</a>, talk quickly turns to freedom of speech. Most Americans assume they have a constitutional guarantee to express themselves as they wish, on whatever topics they wish. But how protected by the First Amendment are public figures when they engage in political protest?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/orXogk3euMA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Recently, celebrities have become increasingly vocal regarding the collective Movement for Black Lives, for instance.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Coming out publicly, whether for or against some disputed position, can have real consequences for the movement and the celebrity. However helpful a high-profile endorsement may be at shifting the public conversation, taking these public positions – particularly unpopular ones – may not be as protected as we assume. As a professor who studies the intersection of law and culture, I believe Americans may need to revisit their understanding of U.S. history and the First Amendment. </p>
<h2>Harnessing the power of celebrity</h2>
<p>Far from being just product endorsers, celebrities <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0090-4">can and do use their voices</a> to influence policy and politics. For example, <a href="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Egelman/stuff_for_blog/celebrityendorsements_garthwaitemoore.pdf">some researchers believe</a> Oprah Winfrey’s early endorsement of Barack Obama helped him obtain the votes he needed to become the 2008 Democratic nominee for president.</p>
<p>This phenomenon, however, is not new. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1063&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1063&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149474/original/image-20161209-31352-1uldoe0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1063&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gilbert du Motier Marquis de Lafayette, early celeb.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gilbert_du_Motier_Marquis_de_Lafayette.PNG">Joseph-Désiré Court</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the birth of the nation, celebrities have used their voices – and had their voices used – to advance important causes. In 1780, George Washington enlisted the help of Marquis de Lafayette, a French aristocrat dubbed by some “<a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/123170/marquis-de-lafayette-americas-first-celebrity">America’s first celebrity</a>,” to ask French officials for more support for the Continental Army. Lafayette was so popular that when he traveled to America some years later, the press <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4233634">reported on each day and detail</a> of his yearlong visit.</p>
<p>Social movements also have harnessed the power of celebrity influence throughout American history. In the early 1900s, after the National Woman Suffrage Association was founded to pursue the right of women to vote, <a href="http://www.historynet.com/womens-suffrage-movement">the group used celebrities</a> to raise awareness of the cause. Popular actresses like Mary Shaw, Lillian Russell and Fola La Follette, for example, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=QO79UClRsDMC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=national+woman+suffrage+movement+actress&source=bl&ots=EKlau1ccmV&sig=bERJBYmVA4vtMwKoZZhoQ5RorZU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-3rvW6OXQAhULjlQKHZOjAZoQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=national%20woman%20suffrage%20movement%20actress&f=false">brought attention</a> to the movement, combining their work with political activism to push the women’s suffrage message.</p>
<h2>Celeb actions can move the needle</h2>
<p>The civil rights movement of the 1960s benefited from celebrities’ actions. For instance, after Sammy Davis Jr., a black comedian, refused to perform in segregated venues, many clubs in Las Vegas and Miami became integrated. Others – including Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee, Dick Gregory, Harry Belafonte, Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali – were <a href="https://news.vcu.edu/article/Hollywood_celebrities_unsung_role_in_the_civil_rights_movement">instrumental in the success</a> of the movement and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These actors planned and attended rallies, performed in and organized fundraising efforts and worked to open opportunities for other black people in the entertainment industry.</p>
<p>By the 1980s, you could watch Charlton Heston and Paul Newman <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=7Q3QE-n8q4UC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=Charlton+Heston+and+Paul+Newman+nuclear&source=bl&ots=-eRL7vFhFg&sig=rb4q3wEvuYDCpF9ztOnT3mSkfgs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTx9SN9OXQAhVKw1QKHaa9BDkQ6AEIRjAL#v=onepage&q=Charlton%20Heston%20and%20Paul%20Newman%20nuclear&f=false">debate</a> national defense policy and a potential nuclear weapons freeze on television. Meryl Streep <a href="http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/alarscarenegin.html">spoke before Congress</a> against the use of pesticides in foods. Ed Asner and Charlton Heston <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=-OHQCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=Nicaraguan+contras+ed+asner+heston&source=bl&ots=dwjrso1QRO&sig=yj8m0oS3JrWqTKiL7_4PyqZ4-hY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAmYfD9eXQAhUhrFQKHfbcD94Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=Nicaraguan%20contras%20ed%20asner%20heston&f=false">publicly feuded about</a> their differing opinions of the Reagan administration’s support of right-wing Nicaraguan militant groups.</p>
<p>Whatever you think of how well thought out their opinions are (or aren’t), celebrities have the ability to draw attention to social issues in a way others do not. Their large platforms through film, music, sports and other media provide significant amplification for the initiatives they support.</p>
<p>There is, in particular, a measurable connection between <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849904040206">celebrity opinions and young people</a>. Most marketing research shows that celebrity endorsements <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209029">can improve the likelihood</a> that young consumers will choose the endorsed product.</p>
<h2>Antagonism toward celebrity activism</h2>
<p>Celebrities have been important partners, strategists, fundraisers and spokespeople for social movements and politicians since the earliest days of modern America. Recently, however, celebrities speaking out about policy and politics have received some harsh responses. </p>
<p>Kaepernick, in particular, has received <a href="http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a48246/tomi-lahren-kaepernick-facebook/">scathing criticism</a>. Fans of his team <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762239/You-never-play-NFL-Canada-49ers-fans-burn-Kaepernick-jerseys-national-anthem-114million-sport-star-refused-stand-protest-black-oppression.html">have burned his jersey in effigy</a>. Mike Evans, another NFL player, drew so much criticism for sitting in protest of Donald Trump’s election to the presidency that he was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/11/15/nfl-player-who-knelt-in-protest-of-donald-trumps-election-pledges-to-stand-for-anthem-again/?utm_term=.7c6cdf41259a">forced to apologize</a> and say he would never do it again. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html?_r=0">#BoycottHamilton trended on Twitter</a> after the cast of the Broadway show Hamilton addressed Mike Pence. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"799828567941120000"}"></div></p>
<p>President-elect Donald Trump jumped into the fray, tweeting that he does not support the public expression of sentiments like those of the “Hamilton” cast. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"799972624713420804"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"799974635274194947"}"></div></p>
<h2>Unprotected speech</h2>
<p>All of this raises significant questions about speech, protests and the law. Often celebrities, commentators and pundits talk about being able to say whatever they want thanks to their right to freedom of speech. But this idea is based on common misconceptions about what the U.S. Constitution actually says.</p>
<p>What is allowed under the law starts with the text of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment">First Amendment</a>, which provides that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The language essentially allows for freedom of expression without government interference. The right to free speech includes protests and distasteful speech that one might find offensive or racist.</p>
<p>But, the First Amendment as written applies only to actions by Congress, and by extension the federal government. Over time, it’s <a href="http://faculty.smu.edu/jkobylka/supremecourt/Nationalization_BoRs.pdf">also come to apply to</a> state and local governments. It’s basically a <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf">restriction</a> on how the government can limit citizens’ speech. </p>
<p>The First Amendment does not, however, apply to nongovernment entities. So private companies – professional sports organizations or theater companies, for instance – <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=hlr">can actually restrict speech</a> without violating the First Amendment, because in most cases, it doesn’t apply to them (unless the restriction is illegal for other reasons). This is why the NFL <a href="http://www.michiganreview.com/the-nfl-vs-freedom-of-expression/">could ban</a> DeAngelo Williams from wearing pink during a game in honor of his mother, who had died from breast cancer, and fine him thousands of dollars when he later defied the rules and did it anyway.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149476/original/image-20161209-31370-1jq2fx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">DeAngelo Williams is outspoken in supporting breast cancer research. The NFL can limit when he can display his position.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Seahawks-Panthers-Football/2777653831ae429aa42a301b9d7b3b01/16/0">AP Photo/Nell Redmond</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>How does all of this affect celebrities? In a nutshell, if a celebrity is an employee of, or has some kind of contract with, a nongovernment entity, his speech actually can be restricted in many ways. Remember, it’s not against the law for a nongovernment employer to limit what employees can say in many cases. While there are other more limited protections <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/15/winter-2015/chill-around-the-water-cooler.html">based on state and federal law</a> that protect employee speech, they are incomplete and probably wouldn’t apply to most celebrity speech. Any questions about what a public figure can or cannot express, therefore, will start with the language of any contracts she has signed – not the First Amendment. </p>
<p>For better or worse, celebrities can make significant impacts on policy, politics and culture, and have been doing so for centuries. But speaking out can put them at risk. Celebrities can be fined by their employers, like DeAngelo Williams, have their careers derailed, like the <a href="http://www.savingcountrymusic.com/destroying-the-dixie-chicks-ten-years-after/">Dixie Chicks</a>, or <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/21/sport/colin-kaepernick-death-threats/">receive death threats</a>, like Colin Kaepernick. Even so, their involvement can provide an influential platform in promoting and creating societal change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69467/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shontavia Johnson provides consulting services for Johnson International Group LLC, an organization that provides business assistance to entrepreneurs and entertainers. </span></em></p>Americans enjoy a right to free speech, and some public figures really exercise that right. The Constitution might not protect them the way they think it does, though.Shontavia Johnson, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/579172016-04-19T04:31:51Z2016-04-19T04:31:51ZThe problem with Western activists trying to do good in Africa<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119147/original/image-20160418-1266-692tg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are shortcomings in celebrity led campaigns against "conflict minerals" such as the one in which US actress Robin Wright is involved</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/vY8iw6JaN0/?taken-by=robingwright&hl=en">Robin Wright's instagram</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent years Western advocacy groups have achieved unprecedented success in mobilising Europeans and North Americans behind a <a href="http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/eastern_congo/conflict-minerals">“conflict minerals”</a> campaign to help end the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). </p>
<p>They have also attracted strong criticism, both internationally and in the DRC, for the perceived negative impact of their work.</p>
<p>Over the past three years I have been working on a documentary, <a href="http://www.wewillwinpeace.com/">“We Will Win Peace”</a>, which is part of this critique.</p>
<p>As one local activist told us during the making of the film, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The advocacy led by these organisations, we hadn’t understood the goal, as Congolese … If we had been informed before of their intentions, we could have done something.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, speaking to a group of small-scale rural cultivators, one said </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We didn’t understand what was happening or why such a decision had been made … No-one explained to us what was going on.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So what was the goal, and what is going on?</p>
<p>It is important not to conflate the work of all DRC-focused advocacy organisations under the same umbrella. But central to the success of the <a href="http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/eastern_congo/conflict-minerals">“conflict minerals”</a> campaign was the emergence of a dominant narrative that placed Western consumers at the heart of the solution. </p>
<p>A key element of the storyline is that armed groups in the eastern DRC are raping women to access and control mineral resources. If Western consumers exerted pressure on electronic giants like Apple and Samsung to stop buying these minerals, they could prevent rape and help end the conflict.</p>
<p>In the US, celebrities and sports stars are engaged by organisations such as the <a href="http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/espn-features-packers-qb-aaron-rodgers-commitment-congo">Enough Project</a> and <a href="http://robinwright.org.es/robin-wright-at-stand-with-congo-gala-in-bermuda/">Stand With Congo</a> to help promote the campaign. The message appeals particularly strongly to student groups and middle- and upper-class liberals.</p>
<p>The campaign has led to policy successes in both <a href="https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/archive/dodd-frank-acts-section-1502-conflict-minerals/">Washington</a> and <a href="http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/eu-commission-backs-voluntary-scheme-in-draft-conflict-minerals-law">Brussels</a>. The US policy – <a href="http://www.auditanalytics.com/blog/an-initial-look-at-conflict-minerals-dodd-frank-section-1502/">Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act</a> – requires companies to reveal their supply chains when sourcing minerals from the eastern DRC or neighbouring countries.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/111621365" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The foundations of the “conflict minerals” campaign can be traced back to 2001. It was then that a United Nations panel of experts recommended an immediate embargo on the trade in minerals from the eastern DRC due to their systematic exploitation by armed groups as a means to <a href="http://repub.eur.nl/pub/79895/">finance their activities</a>. This was followed by numerous <a href="https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/campaigns/democratic-republic-congo/faced-gun-what-can-you-do/">NGO reports</a> pursuing a similar line of argument.</p>
<h2>Shortcomings</h2>
<p>But there are three shortcomings to the “conflict minerals” campaign that came out of this work.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>It misrepresents the causal drivers of rape and conflict in the eastern DRC; </p></li>
<li><p>It assumes the dependence of armed groups on mineral revenue for their survival; and </p></li>
<li><p>It underestimates the importance of artisanal mining to employment, local economies and therefore – ironically – security.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Compounding these shortcomings was a fatal flaw in the US legislation enacted in 2010. When Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act was passed it was not possible for companies sourcing minerals from the eastern DRC to determine whether those minerals were or weren’t contributing to conflict.</p>
<p>As a result and due to confusion over the implications of the legislation, international buyers withdrew, and an <a href="http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-40-10/s74010-324.pdf">effective mineral boycott</a> enveloped the region. The socioeconomic impact on Congolese living in this mineral-dependent region <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/publication/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-dodd-frank-1502-conflict-minerals-civilian-livelihoods-and-unintended">was severe</a>. </p>
<p>Today the policy solution pursued in the DRC by a range of foreign companies, NGOs and donors revolves around an expansion of the Congolese state into areas <a href="https://www.itri.co.uk/itsci/news/new-hope-for-conflict-free-minerals-from-north-kivu-drc">formerly beyond its control</a>. The aim is to establish and oversee mineral certification, traceability and validation systems that can attest to their “conflict-free” status.</p>
<p>Early evidence suggests this process is catalysing the previously lethargic formalisation of artisanal mining and, with it, the establishment of formal <a href="https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5781683">land tenure agreements</a>. In doing so, it provides conditions that might be amenable to forms of state-led development that have eluded the region for so long. </p>
<p>But the establishment of property rights and formal titling unleashes new processes of dispossession, economic exclusion and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420712000104">social differentiation</a> built on pre-existing inequalities. Thus, such changes often benefit wealthy and powerful elites, and negatively affect the lowest classes of labour and already marginalised social groups.</p>
<h2>Dissonance</h2>
<p>Herein lies the main tension in the work of Western advocacy organisations, and the reason they invite critique: there is a heavy dissonance between their stated constituency and their actual constituency, or who they work for and who they work with.</p>
<p>Reading the reflections of the radical American organiser <a href="https://archive.org/stream/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals_djvu.txt">Saul Alinsky</a>, it’s clear that he was always close to the constituency he worked for. He either lived in the community he was helping organise, or he had been invited in to help them pursue solutions to problems they themselves defined, to paraphrase <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2013/04/30/reclaiming-activism/">Alex de Waal</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the relationship between advocacy organisations headquartered in Western cities and their marketed constituency of marginalised and disadvantaged African groups is far more tenuous.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119110/original/image-20160418-1269-1rq0i5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119110/original/image-20160418-1269-1rq0i5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119110/original/image-20160418-1269-1rq0i5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119110/original/image-20160418-1269-1rq0i5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119110/original/image-20160418-1269-1rq0i5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119110/original/image-20160418-1269-1rq0i5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119110/original/image-20160418-1269-1rq0i5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Informal miners dig for gold at an open pit in the DRC.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Finbarr O'Reilly</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the most striking elements during the making of the film was the difficulty of finding Congolese groups in rural and peri-urban areas who knew about and supported the “conflict minerals” campaign. This suggests a lack of engagement with the people who stand to be most directly affected by campaign outcomes.</p>
<p>Instead, many Western advocacy organisations use short visits to the DRC to work predominantly with government, business and other elites in national and provincial capital cities. The result is that the disruptive and contingent process of state-building and formalisation they engage in and promote often works against the very people they claim to represent.</p>
<p>And so organisations such as the Enough Project claim that <a href="http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/impact-dodd-frank-and-conflict-minerals-reforms-eastern-congo%E2%80%99s-war">progress is being made</a>, and critics counter that <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/02/how-dodd-frank-is-failing-congo-mining-conflict-minerals/">harm is being done</a>. There is truth to both perspectives, but they are focused on different aspects of the same process. </p>
<h2>How to resolve the tension</h2>
<p>Western advocacy organisations could change how they market their interventions and talk about their work. Helping bring the state back into local development processes in peripheral countries such as the DRC is an entirely legitimate and valuable pursuit. Yet they may not want to do this because it will likely be difficult to mobilise people and funding around long-term and socially disruptive goals.</p>
<p>Alternatively, they could reorient their efforts to working with, not just for, the non-elites they use to promote their public image and in whose name they justify their external interventions. What their work would lose in structural impact, it would gain in honesty, legitimacy and local impact. The groups and classes of artisanal miners, peasants and other workers we spoke with would come to know more concretely who the organisations are. They would also provide more appropriate solutions to their own problems and struggles than the pursuit of overseas policy change, which fails to respond to their immediate needs.</p>
<p><em>A longer version of this article appeared in the <a href="http://roape.net/2016/02/16/western-advocacy-groups-and-conflict-in-the-congo/">Review of African Political Economy</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57917/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Radley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The relationship between advocacy organisations based in Western capitals and their marketed constituency of marginalised and disadvantaged African groups is tenuous. What then, is the goal?Ben Radley, PHD Researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University RotterdamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565312016-03-18T17:14:19Z2016-03-18T17:14:19ZAre people getting a bit tired of being lectured to by do-gooding celebrities?<p>Veteran foreign correspondent and broadcaster Michael Buerk is getting tired of “bleeding heart” celebrities. In an interview in the latest issue of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/12194238/Michael-Buerk-lashes-out-at-celebrities-who-parade-their-bleeding-hearts.html">Radio Times</a>, Buerk said that he was “a little sniffy about celebs pratting around among the world’s victims”. He went on to single out actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Emma Thompson for wearing their hearts a little too regularly on their sleeves: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>feather-bedded thesps pay flying visits to the desperate to parade their bleeding hearts and trumpet their infantile ideas on what “must be done”. There’s only so much of the Benedict and Emma worldview you can take.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This caused the Guardian’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/16/actors-compassion-michael-buerk-benedict-cumberbatch%20">Anne Perkins</a> to (not unreasonably) wonder what Buerk thought of Band Aid’s response to his BBC news reports from famine stricken Ethiopia in 1984. Wasn’t it the actions of the celebrity partnership of Bob Geldof and Midge Ure, and the resulting publicity, that caused the world to pay a lot more attention to famine and its causes?</p>
<p>Whatever the truth of that, Buerk’s antipathy towards the likes of Cumberbatch and Thompson is shared by a vocal hierarchy in politics and journalism. As I’ve written before, in the case of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-charlotte-church-kept-cool-in-the-eye-of-a-tabloid-and-twitter-storm-48957">Charlotte Church’s</a> political campaigning, many people are transparently suspicious of celebrities having political opinions. </p>
<p>As if being proficient in one area disqualifies involvement in another, anyone not from their protected elite of recognised voices is denied the opportunity to meaningfully contribute. It could be, in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00149.x/full">John Street’s words</a>, that criticism of celebrity activism has its roots in a fear that it debases “liberal democratic political representation” and marginalises relevant expertise.</p>
<p>It is certainly not a new phenomenon. Street notes that as far back as the 17th century non-political public figures (such as the poets John Dryden, John Milton and Andrew Marvell) were voicing their opinions on the English civil war. And in the 19th century, the most celebrated and noted critic of governmental social policy and advocate for reform in Britain was Charles Dickens.</p>
<p>But of course modern celebrity is an entirely different entity. As <a href="https://webfiles.uci.edu/dmeyer/celebs.socinq.pdf%20">Meyer and Gamson</a> highlight, today’s celebrities do not generally come not from the arts or literature but from the mass media of film, television, sport or pop music. The distrust or suspicion of a pop star’s views on, say, global warming may be because the star’s renown is based on public attention and not through institutionalised learning or experience. When you add to the mix the fact that modern performers’ careers are transient and often based on relentless self-promotion and the gaining of wealth, it’s not difficult to see why audiences may question authenticity and motives.</p>
<h2>Pro-Bono?</h2>
<p>Perhaps the star who has come in for the most criticism over the years is U2 frontman, Bono. In 2013 the environmentalist and activist <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%C2%A0http:/www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/17/bono-africans-stealing-voice-poor">George Monbiot</a> wrote a scathing attack on the singer and his “ONE” campaign to end poverty and preventable diseases in Africa. Far from working on behalf of the extremely poor, Monbiot asserted that ONE was a collection of multi-millionaires who were a projection of US corporate power. </p>
<p>He also referred to <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Frontman-Bono-Power-Counterblasts/dp/1781680825">The Frontman: Bono (in the Name of Power)</a> by Harry Browne which positions Bono as someone who, without any kind of mandate, has become spokesperson for Africa. Bono’s approach to Africa, writes Monbiot quoting Browne, is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a slick mix of traditional missionary and commercial colonialism, in which the poor world exists as a task for the rich world to complete.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But it’s hard to argue against the proposition that, in purely commercial terms, these big names with their undeniable star power bring the audience to the product. It’s pertinent to note the views of Jane Cooper, UNICEF UK director of communications, who told the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/celebrities-good-causes-benefit-themselves-more-than-the-charities-9655350.html">Independent</a> in 2014 that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Celebrities have a unique ability to reach millions of people, many of whom may not normally be engaged on the suffering of the world’s children.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Celebrity trumps sincerity</h2>
<p>We also may ask ourselves whether celebrities have finally superseded politicians in the ability to engage with audiences. So it’s apt that, in the US, we now have the ultimate celebrity politician in the shape of Donald Trump. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-celebrity-politician-1457907805%20%C2%A0">Gordon Grovitz</a> recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Trump’s campaign has obliterated whatever line remained between politics and entertainment”. And the Donald’s main selling point? That he’s saying the unsayable and representing the disenfranchised who resent the political elites. </p>
<p>For Donald Trump we may one day read <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/18/katie-hopkins-jon-ronson-interview">Katie Hopkins</a>. It’s not only The Apprentice that they have in common. Could the future be the Reagan–Thatcher style love-in recreated for electorates more interested in sound bites than sincerity? Perhaps that’s Buerk’s real fear.</p>
<p>Of course, a conga-line of celebrities has already formed to decry Trump and all he stands for and some have gone as far as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-the-eight-celebrities-who-have-vowed-to-leave-america-if-the-republican-property-mogul-a6932826.html#gallery">threatening to leave America</a> if he should win the presidency in November. They should be careful – the US electorate can turn on social elites just as easily as political elites and the prospect of waving goodbye to Miley Cyrus or Jon Stewart could be very enticing to some of Trump’s target demographic. </p>
<p>One final thing on Trump from Grovitz’s excellent article: the media that claims to detest Trump needs him to keep going. He sells newspapers. He boosts ratings. And in the end, it’s the money, stupid. As the president of CBS, Les Moonves, <a href="http://quotes.wsj.com/CBS.A">told a recent investor conference</a> that the Trump-dominated campaign: “may not be good for America,” but “it is damn good for CBS … The money’s rolling in and this is fun … Bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Just because they are famous doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about.John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/441032015-07-08T04:22:10Z2015-07-08T04:22:10ZWhat’s missing from celebrity activism in Africa? The people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86848/original/image-20150630-5827-1ox995u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ben Affleck championed the piece of legislation requiring companies reporting to the US Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose their use of ‘conflict minerals’ originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Yuri Gripas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Celebrity activism and support for African humanitarian causes – such as the <a href="http://www.enoughproject.org/">Enough Project</a>, Akon’s <a href="http://akonlightingafrica.com/">Lighting Africa</a> and <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/kony-2012">Kony 2012</a> – has become mainstream. But what are the consequences, and is this something we necessarily want to promote?</p>
<p>Celebrity activism is nothing new. At the turn of the 20th century, prominent British journalist, author and politician <a href="http://archives.lse.ac.uk/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=MOREL">Edmund Dene Morel</a>, and Anglo-Irish diplomat and human rights activist <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/casement_01.shtml">Roger Casement</a> successfully challenged King Leopold’s <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3516965.stm">violent</a> and autocratic rule of the Congo Free State. They did so with the help of notable friends: <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/arthur-conan-doyle-9278600">Arthur Conan Doyle</a>, <a href="http://web120.extendcp.co.uk/oakdaletrust.org.uk/wa-cadbury.org.uk/home/">William Cadbury</a> and <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/joseph-conrad-9255343">Joseph Conrad</a>.</p>
<p>In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, suffragette <a href="http://www.sylviapankhurst.com/her_campaigns/sylvia_&_suffrage/sylvia_the_suffragette.php">Sylvia Pankhurst</a> consumed herself with lobbying in favour of a fascist-free, and later independent, Ethiopia. A few decades later Bob Geldof and <a href="http://www.bobgeldof.com/content.asp?section=31">Band Aid</a> raised US$ 150 million for the victims of famine in Ethiopia.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86856/original/image-20150630-5836-8gi7c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86856/original/image-20150630-5836-8gi7c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86856/original/image-20150630-5836-8gi7c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86856/original/image-20150630-5836-8gi7c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86856/original/image-20150630-5836-8gi7c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86856/original/image-20150630-5836-8gi7c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86856/original/image-20150630-5836-8gi7c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bob Geldof and Band Aid raised US$150 million for the victims of famine in Ethiopia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Neil Hall</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although some of the most famous campaigns sought to provide a palliative solution to one-off disasters such as famine or Ebola, most modern-day celebrities are not content with fundraising or short-lived remedial goals.</p>
<p>They have chosen to champion socioeconomic causes that have more expansive and lasting pretensions. The latest generation of American <a href="http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0100">celebrity activists</a> has most commonly knocked at the doors of Congress, demanding changes in US policy towards their cause célèbre.</p>
<p>Celebrity activism has grown more powerful in the past decades. The spread of internet and communications technologies has broken down the oligopoly on news, opening many new stages for celebrities and their causes.</p>
<h2>Just causes versus personal brands</h2>
<p>Should we question the motives of these celebrities, who hire expensive PR experts to “sell” their convictions? As Daniel Drezner <a href="http://danieldrezner.com/research/glam.pdf">writes</a>, engaging in causes clearly benefits these individuals too. It provides them with access to new outlets such as political talkshows or international forums and helps polish their personal brands. </p>
<p>Causes are to celebrities what corporate social responsibility is to business. Every established name has to have, at least, one. Mother Jones recently ironically published <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/africa-celebrities-madonna-oprah-brangelina-george-clooney">a map</a> of the African countries celebrities have “claimed”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=649&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=649&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86852/original/image-20150630-5832-17q8bdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=649&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mother Jones’ map of African countries that have been claimed by celebrities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mother Jones</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Celebrities undoubtedly help make causes known to a larger audience. They are often effective in obtaining pledges from governments, policymakers and businesses. The problem is that they are often much less effective in transforming these commitments into appropriate and effective policies.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y4MnpzG5Sqc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Darrel West writes that the fascination for <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Events/2007/8/01sustainable-development/2007west.PDF">celebrities</a> raises the risk that “there will be more superficiality and less substance in our political process”. </p>
<p>As West points out, it: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… drains attention from experts with detailed knowledge, and risks the skewing of civil discourse toward solutions which may not represent effective long-term remedies for complex policy problems.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Beyond ‘celebrityhood’</h2>
<p>A stark example of this is provided in the new <a href="http://www.wewillwinpeace.com/">documentary</a>, We Will Win Peace, which tracks the impact of <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/dodd-frank-democratic-republic-of-congo-117583.html#.VZpdynkVjIU">Section 1502</a> of the US’s Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. </p>
<p>Championed by celebrities from Ben Affleck to Nicole Richie, this section required companies reporting to the US Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose their use of “conflict minerals” originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), or an adjoining country. </p>
<p>This stipulation was presented by the <a href="http://www.enoughproject.org/">Enough Project</a> as an essential precursor to preventing conflict, and thus sexual violence, in the DRC. The project is an international advocacy organisation replete with celebrity frontmen and women who campaign against genocide and crimes against humanity. </p>
<p>The documentary, alongside <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425843_file_Seay_Dodd_Frank_FINAL.pdf">other pieces of research</a>, shows the implications on the ground of this simplified rendering of the facts. </p>
<p>With de facto international boycotts on minerals from the DRC, and a government ban on artisanal mining, tens of thousands of miners and businesses ended up unable to make a living. This pushed many individuals either towards the illicit mining industry or a rebel group, thus paradoxically exacerbating the very violence it set out to reduce.</p>
<p><a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2013/04/30/reclaiming-activism/">Alex de Waal</a>, in an article for the <a href="http://fletcher.tufts.edu/world-peace-foundation">World Peace Foundation</a> in 2013, outlined three fundamental pillars on which ethically driven activism could be based. </p>
<p>First, it should respond to and collaborate with local people, rather than impose exogenously generated agendas. The Dodd-Frank Act campaign should have involved asking local activists, populations and mining experts in the eastern DRC about mineral supply chains emanating from the region and whether they could be altered to improve the situation. Evidence suggests this consultation failed to take place beyond a narrow segment of civil society – the church.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86855/original/image-20150630-5867-fwy0vt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86855/original/image-20150630-5867-fwy0vt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86855/original/image-20150630-5867-fwy0vt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86855/original/image-20150630-5867-fwy0vt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86855/original/image-20150630-5867-fwy0vt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86855/original/image-20150630-5867-fwy0vt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86855/original/image-20150630-5867-fwy0vt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In drafting sections of the Dodd-Frank Act, local activists and mining experts in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo should have been consulted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Kenny Katombe</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, activism should be fact-driven, reflexive and responsive, and cognisant of that as contexts change, so too must it.</p>
<p>Third, it should speak to power but also firmly against it, and should not presume that all change is possible from within.</p>
<p>The final point appears particularly pertinent. It raises the question as to whether celebrity aspiration for change would be more relevant if decoupled from the belief that this is best achieved through shifts in policy. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.01293.x/abstracthttp://example.com/">recent research</a> has shown, the problem with celebrity causes is that they tend to de-politicise policy and activism. They too often obfuscate the complex dynamics of power and socioeconomic relations in favour of a simple, catch all, solution. Celebrities can improve this situation by bringing back into the debate more stakeholders, researchers and local voices.</p>
<p>Thus celebrities speaking truth to power, rather than half-truths that may inadvertently serve the interests of power, may be a more promising way forward if celebrity advocacy relating to Africa is to lead to meaningful socioeconomic change. </p>
<p>The celebrity advocacy circuit for change in Africa lacks celebrity participation in bottom-up movements, as opposed to top-down advocacy. Bottom-up celebrity advocacy, à la <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/04/charlotte-church-pay-70-percent-tax-to-protect-public-services">Charlotte Church</a> and <a href="http://www.russellbrand.com/">Russell Brand</a>, should itself not be void from criticism. </p>
<p>Yet if the cycle of simplified celebrity advocacy messages leading to ineffective – even harmful – African policy is to be broken, genuine engagement with, and commitment to, the people they advocate on behalf of is critical. It may provide a welcome step forward from the current status quo.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44103/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Georgia Cole receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Radley is Co-Producer of We Will Win Peace.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean-Benoit Falisse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Celebrities help make causes known to larger audiences and can be effective in obtaining pledges from policymakers. Yet their simplified advocacy messages can lead to ineffective or harmful policies.Georgia Cole, Researcher in the Department of International Development, University of OxfordBen Radley, PHD Researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies , Erasmus University RotterdamJean-Benoit Falisse, DPhil candidate, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.