Stephen King writes a new essay . . .

I understand what you and others are saying, I am merely pointing out the inconsistancy in the application of the principle that is being voiced in this and in other threads regarding partisan political activism by celebrities. However, to snipe at celebrities of a political stripe one is opposed to, complaining that they exert the undue influence of their celebrity status, (conveniently ignoring the undue influence of one's own string of agreeable political activist celebrities), seems just a little self serving and hypocritical. (this remark is not directed at you personally, but at the sentiment generally)

Both sides of politics, and the ideological divides that exist within society shamelessly exploit celebrities' brand power to promote their political agenda. If one were to be consistent, one would need to beat about the head BOTH conservative, AND "liberal" celebrities (and their partisan backers) for engaging in such partisan politicking, simply because their show pony celebrity status is an influence over the masses disproportionally greater than would be the case were they merely Joe or Josephine nobodies. Even the secular saint, Chuck Heston, continues to be used (beyond the grave) for his special influence as a celebrity, but nobody seems to deny Chuck a voice to sing the political songs that some find most appealing simply because Chuck was a celebrity swords and sandals actor.

It would be far more honest to say "I don't like (celebrity) X and I don't agree with or don't like what he /she says or the way they say it", than to carp on about celebrities in general using their influential persona to gull the masses into believing tripe that one doesn't believe in or agree with. It seems like a case of sour grapes when a celebrity is singin' a song that one don't like.

 

You picked an example, let's run with it. Chuck lived and breathed what he believed in, it wasn't an act, an endorsement, but a statement of fact. There was absolute conviction in what he felt about the use of guns, and the Second Amendment. It defined him. He understood it, could teach it, if you wanted to learn, You could not separate the man from his belief.
You can not compare this to say...The Dixie Chicks, who were paid to put on a concert, but decided to spout their politics to the crowd, as part of the paid performance.
One leads by example, the other takes advantage of a captive audience. Chuck didn't go to the NRA and say" Hey give me a job, what do you want me to think?" He lived the life, they wanted to emulate. He was asked, to speak for them. Dixie's broke their contract with their fans, in my opinion. they took advantage of their own fans. These are opposites of behavior. one is honest, the other dishonest. No matter what the message, the Dixie's method was wrong.