Seong Im Hong
November 12, 2012
Sexy Celebrities verses Sexy Scientists
I thought about the three videos we were shown in class. There was the objective video, the pro-fracking video, and the anti-fracking video. We in class analyzed and criticized the pro-fracking video quite a bit, but I don’t think we looked at the anti-fracking video starring Mark Ruffalo critically enough.
I’m not disputing that he’s a knowledgeable source—I trust Professor Alexandratos to give us legitimate information—but it still stands that he is introduced as an “Actor and Director” rather than “Geologist” like that lady from pro-fracking video was. He is, despite what he knows, still a celebrity rather than a scientist. That made me ponder why exactly that foundation chose Mark Ruffalo as a spokesperson. I think the anti-fracking foundation that produced and funded that video was probably more concerned about popular opinion than introducing scientific facts into the debate. Which is, I suppose, fine, given that it’s not a news source, and hence is not morally and ethically obligated to give a fair and unbalanced opinion on the topic of fracking. And this is probably a smart move by the foundation, considering that his fans, which probably exponentially increased with the Avengers movie in which he starred as the Hulk, would be more interested in fracking and how to stop it.
On the another hand, the fact that us New Yorkers have a celebrity to speak for us will make it so much easier for the opposition to delegitimize the cause of anti-fracking. We make fun of the pro-fracking video actors for being blue-collar workers from Culture Vacuum, Middle of Nowhere, but the ridicule goes both ways, too. If we look at the anti-fracking videos with a critical/hostile eye, we can easily dismiss the impassioned speech by a celebrity as quintessential of New York City—a place of superficiality and opulence where people aren’t concerned about blue-collared workers or “making America great again”. (Though, hey, at least we’re not LA.)
I think this kind of appeal to a small segment of Americans (New Yorkers, probably not blue-collar workers, fans of Mark Ruffalo) only cause polarization. It won’t sway significant amount of people who already aren’t aligned already. Rather, it will only cement the conviction or the distaste of the demographics that already have an opinion on banning fracking.
Additionally, just the fact that we have celebrity spokespeople for environmental issues kind of doesn’t sit well with me. To illustrate, I will quote yet anther celebrity hunk, Joseph Gordon-Levitt: “The whole concept of celebrity pisses me off. While I’m not a celebrity, it’s such a weird concept that society has cooked up for us. Astronauts and teachers are much more amazing than actors.”
I dislike that we as a society have to rely on people whose talents lie far away from science to sway popular opinions on public policies that must be based on science. I suppose it’s only natural that, to sway popular opinion, we should have someone that the viewers are already familiar with (and hence more likely to have a favorable opinion of, by the way of Meer Exposure Effect) and want to identify with (i.e. attractive). And I get that, I do, that celebrities-as-spokespeople work well for all kinds of organizations. But why can’t we have scientists-who-are-celebrities-as-spokespeople? Why can’t we, as a society, celebrate science and reason to the point that we have non-quack scientists speaking regularly on TV? And I don’t think it’s that scientists aren’t hot enough to appeal to the masses. We scientists are all ugly geeks/nerds that the popular media portrays us to be. There are plenty of sexy geek/nerds who can appeal to the general population AND have solid credentials that will make them a respectable voice in the discourse instead of target for ridicule/stereotyping.
