When it comes to getting embroiled in politics, for studios, media companies and celebrities there is simply no turning back.
That is the underlying premise informing this column, or in legal terms, the theory of the case. This dynamic has become timelier and more acute in the decade since Donald Trump officially entered politics, but in point of fact the encroachment of all things political predates his shift from firing people on “The Apprentice” to firing off tweets at those who oppose him.
This current framework in pop culture and politics can be traced to Barack Obama’s election in 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party movement, as J. Walker Smith, the knowledge lead at the research and marketing firm Kantar, suggested in a February interview regarding the risk major brands face when advertising in the Super Bowl.
“We’ve just been through a long period of activism and populism, both left and right,” Smith told TheWrap.
Obama’s election also came not long after the introduction of Twitter, a platform that further fueled this polarization, while facilitating the ability of people — famous or otherwise — to publicly pop off about the day’s events.
Whatever its origins, the reality of today’s politically infused world offers few safe harbors or havens. Public figures have increasingly been forced to take sides, as an inordinate number of high-profile celebrities did during the 2024 presidential campaign, including mega-stars like Oprah Winfrey and Taylor Swift lining up behind Kamala Harris.
After the election in November, the public appeared to exhibit signs of news fatigue. Liberals in particular took a respite from media consumption to lick their wounds. That included a ratings decline at MSNBC, whose numbers predictably rebounded once Trump took office and began giving the network’s top hosts fresh outrages about which to opine.
That Nielsen-chart parabola, in a way, underscores the sheer force behind this trend. There’s no burying one’s head in the sand or avoiding conflict however much we might like to declare at least a temporary truce in the culture wars. The current media environment is set up to drag in even those who try to stay out of it.
Take Megyn Kelly. The former Fox host turned podcaster regularly rails against big names in Hollywood, recognizing that there’s nothing the internet loves more than a good fight.
In a concentrated span, Kelly has targeted (or “eviscerated,” in Web headline parlance) Winfrey as an “out-of-touch billionaire” for endorsing Harris; slammed Selena Gomez, labeling her “unwell” for a video in which she tearfully discussed U.S. immigration policy; and exulted over MSNBC replacing Joy Reid, prompting a tit-for-tat exchange with Don Lemon.
For good measure, Kelly accused Blake Lively of “ruining her career” as details emerge from the Justin Baldoni lawsuits, and donned her movie-critic hat to skewer the Oscar-nominated “Conclave” for being “disgusting” and “anti-Catholic.”
Kelly’s trolling about “out of touch” celebrities, of course, belies her own elite status from her days as a sought-after journalist, which included receiving nearly $70 million alone for a brief stint at NBC News.
Yet her reinvention as a digital pugilist reflects how to make noise in this environment. In that endeavor, she’s hardly alone, as her former Fox News colleagues at “Fox & Friends” demonstrated by expressing their outrage at Tom Hanks for spoofing MAGA on the “SNL” 50th anniversary special.
Taken together, such cultural critics constitute a loud (very loud) chorus of those who reap the benefits of a politically charged, short-attention-span age, where headlines ping like a hummingbird from one bright object to the next.
The bottom line is: There’s no running from this state of affairs, no hiding or changing the rules. Those who seek to avoid controversy will likely discover that trouble finds them if they possess the sort of profile somebody eager for clicks and views can exploit.
Early in Trump’s first term, some experts argued that brands (which would broadly include celebrities) couldn’t afford to sit on the sidelines. Before Super Bowl LI in 2017, for example, Landor managing director Chris Lehmann told CNBC that companies needed to address social issues and take a position, “hopefully one that aligns with the customer’s own values.”
Today, many have chosen, at least tacitly, the path of least resistance. Even if that’s a misguided decision, it’s understandable given the maelstrom of madness awaiting those who willingly wade into the fray.
We saw it Sunday with a mostly apolitical Academy Awards, spared from Trump tweeting about the show in real time, as he did last year. But the telecast drew criticism from the left for failing to address what’s happening in the U.S. and by extension around the globe, while there was still enough to offend conservatives that “Hollyweird” trended on X.
Taking a stand, as Jane Fonda did with her passionate speech about combating the current political climate with empathy at the Screen Actors Guild Awards last month, will spur one kind of coverage from foes, but remaining silent risks prompting charges of complicity and cowardice from perceived allies.
With so much traffic at the intersection of pop culture and politics, collisions seem inevitable. And to borrow a line from “Casablanca,” “In this world today, isolationism is no longer a practical policy.”
