#155 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday September 28)
Good morning!
DEIFICATION OF CELEBRITIES
Should we be looking to our sports heroes and entertainment celebrities to provide us direction on politics? There are those who seek to influence us (often to purchase products of their design or to further dietary, work-out and medical advice they want to share). Then there are those who take it upon themselves to be visibly and verbally engaged in politics. There is another group that are dragged into the public to share their views. But there is a fourth group, which could be a helpful focus in communicating public service announcements (“PSAs”) and appealing to subgroups of society that might actually listen to them.
Brad Mindlin believes we “desire and expect our notable entertainers and sports figures to take public and positive positions. Hence the huge influencer industry. We want to follow them. Are we simply lemmings? But what makes George Clooney, Robert DeNiro and many others an expert in anything other than their trade? Why should we listen to them about global warming when they fly around in their private planes to their yachts? (No idea if Clooney or DeNiro do that but you get my point). A one-time photo of with at-risk kids or in another country may simply be a photo pushed by PR.”
Brad is right. This is where we are. Celebrity means everything. If you’re a big enough celebrity, you can outshine the news, the pundits, university professors and scientific studies. We even are in the age where celebrity is bestowed on those who seem to have no real talents. Paris Hilton was at the leading edge of the “professional celebrity” business. The Kardashians followed. Now there are influencers all around on the Internet, who do nothing more than broadcast their opinions, preferences for products, and political views.
But given that we live in a world of celebrities, why not take advantage of this? Why hasn’t our government capitalized upon our society’s weakness of following celebrities? Why haven’t the powers-that-be marshalled as many celebrities as possible to advertise the necessity of vaccination and masks? I’m convinced that people have politicized the issues regarding the pandemic is because they don’t trust the politicians and officials speaking to them. Fine. Let’s talk to them through people they do trust. I think they may actually have listened to the message and taken the pandemic more seriously if movie stars, sports figures, and influencers were leading the messaging. After all, “know your audience!”
HOW TO SELL VACCINES TO THE “NON-BELIEVERS”
There are two primary reasons why people should become vaccinated. First, it increases public safety, reducing serious cases and deaths (while providing fewer “human incubators” for more mutations). Second, it reduces the impact on our health care system. We need to reduce hospitals being overwhelmed by COVID cases, exhausting already overworked staff and displacing patients who otherwise need medical care. Alan Rosenbach thinks I place too much emphasis on the first, while the better argument against anti-vaxxers is the latter.
Alan takes me to account over failing to mention why most anti-vax people feel the way they do. It has little to do with either of these important reasons to get vaccinated. The big reason is tribalism and cognitive dissonance. This tribalism is enhanced by a lack of trust in institutions. Alan points out that, “Nearly all of the anti-vax folks are angry at Fauci for his comment at the beginning of the pandemic that ‘masks don't work.’ Remember, at the time it was hard for health care personnel to buy masks. Fauci changed his tune once masks became widely available. If you counter an anti-vax person with this explanation, he or she will change the topic to ‘can't trust experts.’ Or Hillary's emails.”
This is an interesting point. Did Fauci intentionally mislead us early in the pandemic, thus casting all of his future proclamations in doubt, fueling the lack of trust in institutions and, particularly, fueling the “government is manipulating us” argument? Perhaps; but, if true, it was a calculated risk that had the short-term benefit of protecting healthcare workers and their patients.
Have a great day!
Glenn
From the archives: