Jolie’s Journalism
- 11.17.2007 - 10:41 AMThe current issue of the Economist, a special edition entitled, “The World in 2008,” includes essays by a variety of well-known figures including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Dalai Lama, and . . . actress Angelina Jolie.
The thrust of Jolie’s piece—calling upon the international community to bring the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide to justice—is admirable, if a bit naive, the first quality an unusual one for the political pontifications of celebrities, the second nearly universal. She writes:
I hope that the Sudanese government will hand over the government minister and the janjaweed militia leader who have been indicted for war crimes by the ICC, and that the teenager I met in Chad will get to see the trial he seeks. I hope that those responsible for the atrocities in Darfur will be held to account, not only for that young man’s sake, but for the world’s.
But what are the actual chances of this happening? The Sudanese government has supported the continuation of this conflict for years, and the international community has been able to achieve little—despite the heady warnings of Ms. Jolie.
The phenomenon of celebrities attempting to shape foreign policy is not a new one (think Jane Fonda), but it has become de riguer of late. Despite their fame and popularity, however, it seems that celebrities are usually unable to achieve their goals in the international realm. Daniel Drezner has an excellent cover story in the latest National Interest entitled “Foreign Policy Goes Glam,” explaining why this is the case, and it applies to the specific example of Jolie:
A deeper problem celebrities face is that the implicit theory of politics that guides their activism does not necessarily apply to all facets of international relations. The goal of most social activism is to bring greater attention to a problem. The assumption is that once people become aware of the problem, there will be a groundswell of support for direct action. This is not how politics necessarily works, particularly in the global realm. Any solution to a problem like global warming, for example, involves significant costs. As people become more aware of the policy problem, it is far from guaranteed that a consensus will emerge about the best way to solve it. It is therefore not surprising that celebs have had their greatest successes in touting humanitarian causes and almost no effect on ending militarized conflicts.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
November 17th, 2007 at 12:55 PM
“I hope that the Sudanese government…”
I also hope that Bill Gates recognizes me as his long lost brother and that Koby Bryant is terrified of going one on one with me on a basketball court. Angelina Jolie almost certainly opposes our efforts in Iraq and slimes the Bush administration every chance she gets. The reality is that the dishonestly pacifist Democratic Party isn’t going to do anything to help the victims of Africa. Even conservative Republicans hesitate to get involved. Nonetheless, the GOP is the only chance Jolie has of getting something accomplished. One can only hope she realizes that in the near future.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:23 PM
While it is admirable that a celebrity would deign to take up the cause of the oppressed, appraising one as a solution to diplomatic failure is absurd. Ms. Jolie may have a sincere interest in the issues she seeks press for, but when fame is involved in diplomatic issues, personal bias and ignorance are bound to handicap the objective. Beyond her ability to attract photographers and fleeting online blurbs, what are her qualifications? Diplomatic activism should not be carried out by media darlings who are attracted to issues as they are to the latest designer accessory. “US Weekly” is not the media vehicle to bring awareness of serious issues to the public. I wager that those interested in reading an article about Darfur due to Jolie being mentioned are more interested in what she is wearing or the status of her famous marriage and orphan collecting. To suggest that Angelina Jolie is a solution to the problem is as misguided as suggesting Paris Hilton become a diplomatic foil to fight Iranian aggression
November 17th, 2007 at 3:18 PM
So what are the chances of holding the Sudanese government accountable? None. As long as China and Russia have veto powers on the Security Council and that we continue to rely on that institution for our collective security.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Has anyone else noticed a slippage in the quality of the Economist of late? More than that it seems theres a leftward drift in its coverage too, just look at their fawning Hillary coverage (and lack of coverage of the past 2 weeks of bad headlines for her). A younger generation of British leftie journalists seems to be taking over the paper, stamping it with their trademark in-your-face atheism and condescending anti-Americanism.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:34 PM
One’s moral authority is, q.e.d., rooted in the moral basis of that authority. One would not expect (nor does one find) porn stars lending their names to “worthy” causes. How does a Jolie (or a Fonda, or a Penn for that matter) differ from say, an Asia Carrera? In degree only. The career foundations of all four are rooted in fantasies of sexual titillation, violence, or pretended but impossible wish fulfillments. The kind of attention they attract to issues lasts only so much longer as that of a streaker at a football game–and the moral basis for taking them seriously is about the same.
This is as it should be. They are not Mother Teresa, nor popes, nor great theologians, philosophers or thinkers of any stripe; nor do they wield power backed by voters’ consent, or are hallowed by generations or have stood the test of any time period longer than a decade; in short, they lack the legitimacy of either heaven or earth, and for Mr. Kirchick to lavish public space on this airless topic is best of evidence of a news-challenged week.