Blue Crab Boulevard

Daniel Drezner, writing in the Los Angeles Times, takes a look at celebrity activists, the good, the bad and the ugly of the phenomenon, as it were. He asks whether celebrities should be the ones setting the global agenda.

Celebrity involvement in politics and policy is hardly new. Shirley Temple and Jane Fonda, for example, became known as much for their politics as their films. Actors, including Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Fred Thompson, have taken the more traditional star route to power: running for political office. The template for the Live Earth concerts earlier this year was the 1985 Live Aid concert, which in turn echoed the 1974 all-star concert for Bangladesh.

But today, the power of soft news has given stars new leverage. Their rising clout has as much to do with how we consume information as it does with the celebrities themselves. Cable television, talk radio and weblogs have radically diversified the news sources available to Americans. The more competitive marketplace for news and entertainment affects how public opinion on foreign policy is formed.

Matthew Baum argued in his book "Soft News Goes to War" that a large share of Americans get their information about world politics from such soft-news shows as "Entertainment Tonight," "Access Hollywood," "The View," "The Daily Show" and "The Tonight Show" — or from Gawker, TMZ and PerezHilton. These shows and websites reach an audience that is normally unattainable by the New York Times or "Nightline," according to Baum. Yet hard-news sources cover celebrity politics too. Think of how many times you saw Madonna in Africa on CNN, or Sean Penn in Venezuela. And frankly, if the Washington Post has to choose between an Op-Ed article by Jolie and one by a lesser-known expert on Sudan, which author do you think will be published?….

….But celebrity activism doesn't always achieve its ends. Richard Gere, for instance, has devoted decades to the cause of Tibetan independence, to little avail. And although Bono has been invaluable in promoting debt relief, his (Product) Red campaign, which aimed to generate money for the U.N. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, has been a disappointment.

Even if celebrities are judicious and focused in promoting their causes, there are limits to what they can do. Promoting a policy agenda is one thing; implementing it is another thing entirely. A celebrity who harps on a cause risks generating fatigue with the general public. As Bono recently told CNN: "Look, I'm Bono and I'm sick of Bono. And I fully understand. … I look forward to a time when I'm not such a pest and a self-righteous rock star."

A deeper problem celebrities face is that although they're good at bringing attention to a problem, it does not automatically follow that there will be a groundswell of support for direct action. This is not how politics necessarily works, particularly in the global realm. Any solution to a problem such as global warming or Darfur involves not just goodwill but a willingness to incur significant costs. As people become more aware of the policy problem, it is far from guaranteed that a consensus will emerge about the best way to solve it.

Drezner also dryly notes that celebrities stands on issues can actually backfire. Many Americans certainly think celebrities should stick to entertainment and keep off the global agenda items. There are celebrities that have been relatively effective, depending on what they were supporting. (Think Audrey Hepburn as a good will ambassador for UNICEF.) But the self-righteous ones do become very annoying and probably actually harm the cause they are pushing. (Think Sheryl Crow and her "humor.")