A savvy man once said: “The biggest factor in attracting aid is not the amount of human suffering caused by an event, but the amount of media coverage it receives.” 

Celebrities traditionally love to depict themselves as humanitarians, often rushing to seize headlines in relief efforts following natural disasters.   But are Hollywood celebrities politically selective when publicizing human tragedy?

The problem is that celebrity showcasing of natural disasters, such as concerts for domestic relief, can be politically touchy: They imply governmental inaction or mishandling, hence the “need” for private fundraising, and second, they highlight tragedy and suffering by Americans in our country.  Together these are political buzzkill for an administration in full reelection mode desperate to keep a happy face on the state of the union.

Does Hollywood tend to publicly spotlight American suffering when Republicans control the White House?  Recall FarmAid during the Reagan Administration?  Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp rallied to “help” the suffering of farmers facing foreclosures under a backdrop of relentless media presentation of their suffering.  Yet during the Obama Administration, more homeowners have suffered foreclosure and repossession than anytime in history.  Yet no sweet music there.  No nationally publicized Hollywood relief to emphasize the suffering plight of Americans under Obama.

During Bush 43’s Administration, “A Concert for Hurricane Relief” was thrown together with, well, whirlwind speed and nationally broadcast on NBC, MSNBC and CNBC, showcasing artists including Harry Connick Jr., Wynton Marsalis and Tim McGraw. Matt Lauer of the “Today” show acted as host of the telethon.  ”Shelter From the Storm” was another big Hollywood fundraiser featuring a Bush-bashing Kanye West.  Such star-studded Katrina fundraising is still ongoing.

(more…)

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is drawing a lot of attention from Americans right now, particularly the residents of the Gulf Coast who will have to absorb the brunt of the spill’s economic and ecological impact. Consequently, every cable news outlet in the country is hosting guest after guest to talk about the spill and how its ramifications might be curtailed.

Earlier this week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, host of Anderson Cooper 360, had actor Robert Redford on his show to talk about the spill. Not surprisingly, what viewers heard from Redford was how the spill demonstrated that big oil companies are bad, that it was George W. Bush’s fault (more accurately, Dick Cheney’s), and that Obama has done his level best to handle this mess in a Presidential manner.

Cooper began the interview by asking Redford what he thought of BP’s response to the spill thus far, and Redford answered by saying we were seeing the fruits of “a failed energy policy” that was “the consequence of the collusion between government, Congress and big oil companies.” Redford went on to say that it was our “terrible energy policy” had “allowed this [spill] to happen” in the first place. (more…)

So what gives? Are these areas just not glamorous enough? Do celebs not want to further highlight The One’s pathetic response?

Celebrities love causes. They love them for a couple of reasons: one, it makes them seem like “serious” people despite making a non-serious living as entertainers – or, as in the case of “professional reality show stars,” making a living by leeching off the system. Two, it’s free publicity. After all, you aren’t a celebrity if you aren’t being “celebrated” by an adoring public.

As such, celebrities often embrace “feel good causes” that enhance their PR value and their egos. Take “green living,” for instance. Why all the Hollywood hooh hah about carbon footprints and other such nonsense? Christopher Grey of WND has a theory:

Celebrities want attention, but they also want credibility because they typically don’t have any. Environmentalism is an easy cause for them to promote to get attention and at the same time appear somehow thoughtful and even educated because it is allegedly based on science. Of course none of this has anything do with reality, but this is the entertainment business. Reality is not important at all. Image is everything. Talking about recycling, stopping offshore drilling, solar power, and electric cars is a lot easier than really trying to do something for people in the world like feeding the hungry, helping abused children, or building houses for the homeless.

It also deflects attention from the obvious fact that celebrities are often some of the most wasteful, energy inefficient, materialistic, shallow, and superficial people in our society. A classic recent example was James Cameron, who talked about how his film, Avatar, was a shining example of environmentalism. Obama echoed this praise. This was the most expensive movie ever made about a war on an alien planet. What exactly about this movie helped to conserve resources or save our planet? The answer is absolutely nothing.

(more…)

A few months ago, a friend of mine told me about an online show called “The Dirty Bomb Diaries.”  While I was skeptical at first, as I had not watched much online media, I was pleasantly surprised by the 16-episode drama.  The show follows the story of an unprepared woman as she deals with the fallout of a dirty bomb attack in her city. From finding food and water, to dealing with possible nuclear poisoning the show was riveting from start to finish.  As a result, I got in touch with the creators of DBD to talk with them about what inspired their story.

–

Sean Hinchey and Eric Tozzi, the writer and director of DBD respectively, had been friends for years before Hinchey came to Tozzi with the idea of a fictional blog about a unsuspecting individual dealing with the aftermath of a disaster.  Hinchey says that he had “always had a strange fascination with real life disasters” as they’ve always contained stories “about humans overcoming incredible odds to save themselves or help others.”  The team decided that it would be fascinating to explore the emotional toll that a dirty bomb detonation causes, thus raising the stakes even higher.  As Tozzi explained, “a dirty bomb is meant to cause mostly psychological harm on a large population…the initial blast doesn’t cause massive damage, but the spread of radiation…is the real worry.”  Couple that pandemonium with limited access to resources like food and water, and suddenly there is widespread panic and fear.  Out of this inspiration, The Dirty Bomb Diaries was born. (more…)