The headline this morning reads, "Steven Spielberg endorses Hillary Clinton". Spielberg is quoted as saying, "I've taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House."Now this is not about Hillary Clinton, but rather about Steven Spielberg. I know you will agree with me that he is a brilliant filmmaker who not only has proven himself with commercial success, but also with artistic achievement.
My question is this: How does impressive film making and commercial success qualify someone to give a public opinion about something that is not in his area of expertise? Isn't the guy who works in the warehouse across town and has himself taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates just as qualified to have a political opinion?
The list is endless: Tom Cruise talks about psychiatry, Oprah Winfrey recommends a book, and Ludacris tells Pepsi "what to do" in a song lyric.
And because a person is perceived as "successful", we hold on to every word they say and make our decisions based on their opinions.
Well, that's my opinion. Do what you want with it.
2 comments:
I hear you brad. But I have to say that the reason people listen to 'successful' people's opinion is because it took smarts, passion, luck, to get where they are at. So people trust that successful people use the same qualities to create their opinions. Whether or not that is the case is another story.
I agree. The Spielbergs of our society do use their smarts and passion (I am not sure how much credit I give to 'luck') to get to where they are.
But their place in our world does not qualify them to become experts in areas outside their field of expertise. How they feel is really only their 'opinion'. Their 'opinion' should not count more than anyone else's.
Post a Comment