| dc.description.abstract | As technological and business demands have transformed the operation and demands on news and entertainment media, celebrity activists have proliferated. Only a few years ago, the notion that these celebrities were anything other than opportunistic was laughable. Less likely was the prospect that celebrities might have real power to change minds or affect outcomes. It is difficult enough for politicians to set public agendas. Can celebrities compete? This dissertation compares celebrities to politicians and focuses upon one key area of potential power: media agenda setting. If celebrities hope to change the public agenda to focus on the issues they think are important, can they gain attention for those issues and are they persuasive? The results of a time series analysis and an experimental study conclude that they are capable of not only competing with politicians in "spotlighting" and persuasion on political issues, but may at times, exceed their abilities. These findings potentially upend what many political scientists assume about power, particularly scholars who study policymaking, policy entrepreneurship, and social movements. According to the data presented in this dissertation, celebrities produce larger spikes of media attention when advocating on a public issue than politicians do, a relationship that bears out across media types. More celebrities generates more media attention, while politician/celebrity joint interventions seem to have mixed results, implying that politicians benefit more from the public attention celebrities generate than celebrities benefit from public association with politicians. Moreover, celebrities are capable of persuasion on political issues of public importance, despite whatever personal feelings people have for them. The more perceivably important the issue, the more likely the celebrity is to be persuasive. However, celebrities are more likely to persuade on issues that are less polemic. Celebrities do not have the legitimacy or credibility/expertise of politicians, but many make up for these weaknesses by allying with credible transnational advocacy groups. The more institutionalized they are, the more likely they are to be able to persuade target audiences. Finally, the more they are perceived to be "authentic" based on their skills and talents, the more effective they are at persuasion. | |
