Anyone who has been watching the news in recent years, and that includes just about everyone, could not help but occasionally, or perhaps even frequently, stumble across a strange sight: celebrities in environments as unbecoming as Washington, D.C. or earthquake-devastated Pakistan. You have, on one front, U2’s Bono being given unprecedented access to world leaders, and on the other hand Bob Geldof organizing the widely publicized Live8 concerts to raise awareness about poverty in Africa and elsewhere in the world. On another front, Angelina Jolie has been representing the UNHCR, the UN’s branch which deals with refugees around the world, and has in its name been travelling to places as far as Sierra Leone and Chechnya. Recently, she, along with Brad Pitt, visited Pakistan, and both were received by its president, Musharraff. So, one might ask, what gives? What’s gotten into those celebrities, and how is it that high-ranking officials across the world are agreeing to meet with them?

The answer is rather simple: what’s happening is what has been happening for a very long time. Basically, celebrities are using their fame, and sometimes their fortune, in order to bring attention to the plight of less well-to-do people around the world. The involvement of celebrities in charitable causes is not new or rare by any means; an entire industry seems to be built around organizing charity events and attracting celebrities to them. What is new, however, is the extent of the involvement, its global reach, and the level of seriousness that it being increasingly attached to it. It’s one thing to have a rock star rail against the rich countries of the world; it’s a whole other thing to have Geldof being received by Tony Blair. Access to those powers that be means access to those means by which things can actually get done. This does not mean that Britain will automatically increase aid to Africa, of course. But the issue, by being raised, and by receiving publicity, might make the public think about the issue, and when the public becomes interested, the politicians, if they wish to retain or increase the number of voters who will vote for them in the next elections, will have to become interested as well.

Indeed, it is by being manipulators of the media that celebrities can have the greatest effect. The main reason why celebrity involvement in international causes has come more to the forefront is because communications systems have expanded drastically. Aside from television, radio, and cinema, there is now, on a global level, the internet, which effectively gives those who are able to get headlines unprecedented power. We might not like it, but Angelina Jolie will get more headlines discussing the plight of refugees in Sudan than officials from Guatemala or Niger will in urging the global community to help them deal with, respectively, a devastating hurricane and a famine. Realistically, most will probably care more about how Jolie looks than about what she’s saying, but at the least, the viewers or readers can, in addition, come into contact with information that, dealing with matters of life and death, is of supreme importance. Granted that the sight of Pitt and Jolie together is far more interesting to most people than that of Pakistanis struggling to prepare for the upcoming winter, but at the least, awareness of the plight of millions of people in another part of the world is raised. Raising awareness is certainly not something inconsequential; often, it takes the public becoming aware of a problem in order to move many to action. If one is looking for proof, one need only consider whether the public response to Katrina would have been as great as it has been had it not been for the horrendous images of a devastated New Orleans and its desperate residents. The answer would likely be a no, and in the case of Guatemala, which was devastated by hurricane Stan, the answer is a definite no.

That being said, it should be emphasized that, although celebrities have some power, it is by no means unlimited. For one, it is ultimately up to the public to decide whether to donate money or not, or whether to respond to an article or television report or not. It is, moreover, up to the public to decide whether the celebrities will have any power at all. The celebrities’ most powerful playing card is that of gaining attention, but this works only if people are willing to pay them any attention. In fact, this is only possible if people are willing to pay, whether it is for a movie ticket or the celebrity’s latest CD. Given the fact that the public has grown to be (rightly) cynical of Hollywood’s publicity campaigns, celebrities might in fact cause more damage than good.

There is, for one thing, the issue of credibility that must be considered: “Who do these people think they are?” the viewer might ask, when listening to a rock star bemoan the greediness of corporate America or the stinginess of the Western powers. All this criticism, of course, comes from millionaires who have benefited from corporate America and the economic system as coordinated by those Western powers. Any suggestion of hypocrisy would be and is anathema, and it doesn’t take much to change the channel if that hypocrisy becomes all too blatant. In addition, many celebrities simply do not know what they are talking about. Neither Bono nor Jolie have degrees in political science, and Geldof is certainly not an international economist with a proper understanding of market forces and economic pressures. Lastly, there is the issue of authenticity that must necessarily be brought up: whom are those celebrities doing all this for- the poor and the needy, or for themselves? Who is to say that this is not merely another publicity campaign on the part of people who are, after all, in the business of acting and make-belief? The answer, from a cynical point of view, is that there really is no way of knowing.

 In all fairness, it appears that some exceptional personalities such as Angelina Jolie and Bono have done their homework, and the consistency that they have displayed in participating in many causes goes a long way in adding to their credibility. Ultimately, however, we cannot fully know what their true intentions are. From a pragmatic viewpoint, whatever their motives are, for as long as celebrities either donate money themselves, or raise awareness about an issue in order to lead others to donate, it cannot be all that bad. So, should we care about what their motives are? The aid recipients sure don’t.