Celebrity Stereotypes

In an age where social media sits at the forefront of global connectivity and communication, the political arena has never had been more exposed the unpredictable nature of public engagement and response. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the formality and ceremony of traditional political engagement has, to an extent, been abandoned. Throughout the course of the 2016 United States presidential elections, celebrities have used their status and personal platforms to voice their stance in the debate and name their preferred candidate. As prominent leaders of the digital sphere, the value of the celebrity voice as a vehicle for political endorsement is on the rise.

It is not the idea of celebrity endorsement that is new, but that the platforms

We are emotionally invested in our favorite celebrities; therefore, the idea of involving the public in politics via celebrity makes sense. In that “the “parasocial interaction” between fan and celebrity allows for a new, mediated community revolving around the celebrity’s actions and views” (Schäfer-Wünsche and Kloeckner 2016). The idea that celebrities are human just like everybody else is appealing. Joss Whedon recently released a YouTube video online featuring several of “the world’s biggest celebrities” imploring the public to vote (YouTube 2016). This video took a self-depreciating stance by poking fun at celebrity endorsements while including, as they put it, “lot’s and lot’s of famous people” in the video. While this not only evokes the pathos of humor in the viewer it also serves to humanise the people in the video. Tyron (2008) suggests that this form of communication serves as a reminder of “the ways in which campaign narratives and candidate images are constructed”. Trump has used his position as an outsider entering into politics in order to reinforce the rhetoric of his campaign. That is, he stands to “bring back people to the polls who have long shunned the political process,” like himself (Schäfer-Wünsche and Kloeckner 2016). And he’s doing so all the while backing it up with all the power and status that his celebrity affords him. But emotional connection

The value of one celebrity over another determines the weight that their voice holds in this arena. Marsh and Tindall (2010) weigh a celebrity’s ethos in politics to the longevity, reach and the initial origin of their fame. Oprah Winfrey for instance, who at the time was one of the most influential people in the world, has been largely credited for Obama’s successful run for president in 2008. Her established credibility as an advocate served only to further Obama’s credibility and authority to her audience. Wood, Corbett and Flinders (2016, p.585) cites Street (2004, p.449) in agreement that “the process of discrimination must acknowledge the aesthetic character of the representative relationship, in which notions of “authenticity” or “credibility,” style and attractiveness, are legitimate terms.” Which might be why now somebody like Scott Baio, an actively vocal advocate for Trump and the Republican Party, who has dwindled largely from the spotlight since his acting days, has been less-well received and faced a mass amount of backlash from social media. Any celebrity that publicly voice’s their opinions on the matter run the risk of discounting themselves and the candidate they’re advocating if they say the wrong