When Silence Speaks: The Politics of Being Un-Political

In a society where attention is influence, the things that don’t get attention are the ones that matter the most. In recent years, political and social issues, ranging from immigration policy, the current administration, foreign conflicts, and more have increasingly intersected with digital media spaces. Spaces for entertainment have become entangled with political and social conflicts, with media figures being constantly urged to speak up. But this raises the question of the roles of figures in the media: whether they have the responsibility to inform their audience on these issues. A democratic society, which relies on informed citizens and their diverse perspectives, depends on public opinion which can be shaped by the visibility of certain voices. As a result, the choices of media figures raises important ideas about influence, responsibility, and what equal representation is in a true democracy. Although it is not the responsibility of public figures to speak up on social issues, in today's political climate, the neutral stance of media figures challenges democracy by underutilizing the impacts of their platform, neglecting political awareness, and diminishing public expression of opinions.

Voter Demographics and Influence

Voting patterns show an evident generational divide, with younger people participating in elections at lower rates than the older generations. This stark difference emphasizes the apparent lack of democratic representation as seen in the underrepresented younger generation in votes. But one of the biggest tools factoring into this is voting motivations and influence. The younger generation is far more immersed in media and pop-culture, which increases their exposure to content from public figures and can make them more susceptible to their influence. These figures, whether celebrities or influencers, are closely connected with cultural impressions, where these opinions can circulate quicker and create discussion. As a result, while younger voters may have a lower turnout, they are more easily impressionable when it comes to politics. This was verified in a 2024 Harvard Study, finding that celebrities influence voting significantly, stating, “While some polling shows that people claim they aren’t influenced by celebrity voices when it comes to politics, more rigorous evidence indicates that these voices are incredibly powerful. For example, nonprofits report higher rates of online voter registration or poll worker sign-ups when a celebrity promotes these calls to action” (Spillane) This influence creates a complexity in traditional voting structures not seen prior. Before the emergence of social media and celebrity idolization, political campaigns almost solely relied on the candidate and whatever means of publicity they took, but rarely involved public figures, who were seen as completely separate from political matters. But this has changed in recent years. Political candidates now rely on celebrity endorsement to power their campaigns, because they know the impact it can bring. Think of Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign, which was made in part to celebrity support from big names like Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, and more. But this is not to say that media and politics have always been historically separate. Political discourse has always been a part of the media, seen in song lyrics, like Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” or films with underlying messages, like 1962’s The Manchurian Candidate. Politics and entertainment have always intersected in art and entertainment, though oftentimes subtle. But it’s a new development to see political conversations directly intersect and be impacted significantly by media figures. Neglecting to acknowledge these impacts underutilizes the wide effects they can possibly have. 

The Power In Speaking Up

When public figures do choose to speak on political or social issues, their influence can extend beyond entertainment. Their statements can help to increase awareness and encourage their audiences to engage with issues they may not usually pay attention to. A 2025 Trinity College study shows the real life impacts of this. “Qualitative responses supported these findings, indicating that adolescents often transfer trust from celebrities to endorsed candidates.” (Martins) This indeed demonstrates the correlation between celebrity endorsements and political decision-making. It’s clear that a celebrity's words do matter, that they do have an impact. But now that this is evident, it’s still a big step for a public figure to be able to separate themselves from their career for causes they believe in, despite potential backlash. For instance, in Taylor Swift’s 2020 documentary, Miss Americana, a moment with her PR team reflects how public figures may feel the pressure to choose how to use their platforms and make the decision to speak out, saying “‘I don't care if they write that. I'm sad that I didn't two years ago but I can't change that. I'm saying right now, that this is something I know to be right and you guys, I need to be on the right side of history.’” (Miss Americana 1:02:17-1:02:25), referring to her desire to put a statement out regarding midterm elections. Taylor Swift undeniably has a large fanbase and these fanbases can be quick to amplify messages quickly, making media figures significant in shaping public opinion. Taylor Swift’s decision to speak out demonstrates that public figures can use their platforms to move beyond just entertainment and influence civic awareness. Limiting this leaves discourages democratic engagement and underutilizes the impacts of a powerful voice and platform.

The Myth of Neutrality

When facing uncomfortable discourse, media figures often take a “neutral” stance on politics as a form of staying out of political issues. But what isn’t understood is that neutrality is silence and staying silent shows no opinion. The idea of neutrality assumes that not speaking out or having no opinion is separate from influence, but it’s in fact the opposite. It expresses to the audience that not being opinionated on pressing issues is okay, but this can have negative effects. In media culture, attention is limited, so choosing not to say anything can shape public understanding and creates an unfair narrative that doesn’t promote equal representation. As Elie Wiesel remarked in his 1986 Nobel Prize speech, “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” (Weisel) The issue with neutrality is that saying nothing leaves opportunity for misinterpretation and support for one side over the other. In this way, there is no such thing as neutrality. Every choice contributes to how information circulates and how valued certain issues are. There is no room to be un-opinionated on domestic or global issues. Many popular figures build their audience through relating with and supporting their fans and it’s important to speak up on issues that affect their fanbase, even if it doesn’t affect them. And in this period of time where politics are so polarizing, not using your platform is a loud enough message in itself. Contrary to her actions a few years prior, in November 2025, Taylor Swift found herself at the center of cultural debate again, but this time, for the opposite reason the last. “In the last two weeks, the Trump administration has used music from Taylor Swift’s latest album, The Life of a Showgirl, in three posts on social media...Swift, however, has said nothing in public. The silence is surprising from an artist known to be litigious over unsanctioned use of her music or likeness.” (Kheraj) While some defend her right to remain neutral, others argue that her silence is meaningful because it withholds a powerful voice from important public conversations. Taylor Swift is one of the most popular artists of this time, and it is undeniable that she has an unwavering fanbase that has been seen to have influence. But this invites an even wider conversation. Even figures known for previous political engagement can choose silence selectively, showing that neutrality is often strategic. Not speaking up against the spread of hateful rhetoric can neglect political awareness because followers often encounter social issues through these figures, especially younger audiences who may engage with political news through cultural spaces. When media and media figures fail to take social and political issues seriously, it minimizes their importance. A scene in the 2021 political satire, Don’t Look Up portrays how social concerns are seen as entertainment as opposed to serious, life-threatening issues. A scene shows the two leads discussing with hosts of a morning show the potential impacts of a comet approaching Earth. “‘The entire planet? Okay, as it’s damaging, will it hit this one house in particular that’s right on the coast of New Jersey? It’s my ex-wife’s house.’” (Don’t Look Up 39:11-39:17) The hosts do not openly oppose the scientists. Instead, they make jokes, mock, and make light of a consequential situation. This shows that neglecting awareness doesn’t always come from misinformation or opposition, it can come from trivialization.

The Power of Disruptive Action

As often seen in the media, figures who unabashedly express their opinions can go down in one of three routes: provoke backlash, face consequences, or inspire change. One of the most notable examples of provoking backlash is singer Sinead O’Connors 1992 Saturday Night Live performance, where her public protest of the Catholic church led to widespread backlash and consequential career impacts. “We have confidence in the victory of good over evil” (O’Connor), she says as she tears up a photo of Pope John Paul II. The moment sparked immediate backlash with many viewers and media outlets criticizing her for breaking expected norms of live performance and celebrity behavior. Her protest is an example of disruptive action forcing attention onto a silenced issue, using visibility to her advantage, despite the backlash she had received. The next route, facing consequences, is echoed more recently, with actress Melissa Barrera being fired from Scream 7 after posting social media comments calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict, which led to backlash and fewer acting opportunities for nearly ten months. Speaking to Deadline, “On how she felt during that period, the singer and actress said, ‘It was the darkest and hardest year of my life, and I had to reevaluate everything. There were times when I felt like my life was over.’” (Tinoco) She described this period as one of the darkest years of her life, saying she had to reevaluate her career and personal values. The production company stated they had zero tolerance for antisemitism, which sparked debate and divided fans on whether actors should face consequences for their personal views. Her situation demonstrated how public expression can carry industry consequences, but it’s undemocratic to discourage figures from speaking up. In the final route, disruptively expressing your opinions can create change. In Suzanne Collin’s dystopian novel, The Hunger Games, the lead character, Katniss Everdeen becomes an unwilling symbol of rebellion against the totalitarian dictatorship. Upon becoming a figure of revolution, she reflects in her narration:

The Mockingjay. It isn't enough, what I've done in the past, defying the Capitol in the Games, providing a rallying point. I must now become the actual leader, the face, the voice, the embodiment of the revolution. The person who the districts--most of which are now openly at war with the Capitol--can count on to blaze the path to victory. I won't have to do it alone. They have a whole team of people to make me over, dress me, write my speeches, orchestrate my appearances--as if that doesn't sound horribly familiar--and all I have to do is play my part. Sometimes I listen to them and sometimes I just watch the perfect line of Coin's hair and try to decide if it's a wig. Eventually, I leave the room because my head starts to ache or it's time to eat or if I don't get aboveground I might start screaming. I don't bother to say anything. I simply get up and walk out. (Collins 10)

Collins utilizes extended metaphors, parallel structure, and intentional diction to show how Katniss’s dramatic expression as a figure of rebellion has garnered her newfound attention and shaped collective resistance. The extended metaphor of the Mockingjay represents Katniss’s transformation into a political symbol, showing how her iconization now fuels the drive for rebellion. The parallel structure of “the face, the voice, the embodiment” reinforces the intensity of Katniss’s role as a figure, with Collins placing intentional wording like “blazing the path to victory” to portray the stir, the commotion, and the conversation that arises from disruptive action. The descriptions of intentional clothing, actions, aesthetics, all play a role in creating conversation that brings awareness to the revolution and brings change. 

Together, O’Connor, Barrera, and Everdeen all represent the same thing: disruptive political action that can be seen as unconventional and cause a stir. But each with differing results shows that while public expression has the power to shape political awareness, consequences against such actions restricts free expression, and ultimately influences the diverse voices necessary in a democratic society. 

The Responsibility of the Figure

However, despite these widespread influences, some argue that expecting public figures to participate in social or political discourse places an unfair burden on the role of entertainers. While some argue that their influence creates the obligation to inform oneself on civic awareness, especially given their reach in younger generations, others believe that expecting political engagement from entertainers whose platforms are unrelated to social issues places unfair pressure on figures to publicly speak on issues. Actor Josh Duhamel agreed with the latter, saying, “‘If you really want to be successful in this business, why would you make half of your audience despise you by your beliefs? Maybe they don't care. I don't know” Duhamel said of celebrities who speak out.” (Blickley) While speaking out may alienate part of a figure’s audience, prioritizing popularity over expressing opinions neglects the foundational ideals of democracy, which emphasizes free expression. The argument that the public should rely on politicians or news to be informed on these issues doesn’t properly acknowledge that entertainment media is such a multifaceted platform that is so accessible and has reach that can influence the public more than other platforms are able. While some embrace this, others avoid it entirely, but there is no way to avoid discourse in whole. The relationship between public figures, their influence, and politics reveals complex challenges for democratic representation. At the end of the day, if they’re a figure with a platform, what are they using it for? 

In a world where celebrities can shape public opinion from a single statement, it’s impossible to ignore their impact on democracy. The failure to speak up underutilizes the power of their platform, and taking a neutral stance neglects political awareness. Furthermore, limiting those who do speak up restricts public expression of opinions. While their message can inspire cultural expression, their silence withholds an important voice. As Spillane’s Harvard study demonstrates, celebrity endorsements can measurably increase civic engagement with politics. But oftentimes, to avoid difficult discourse, neutrality is the route taken, with fear of deplatforming or losing an audience. But as Nobel Prize winner, Elie Wiesel says, there’s no room for neutrality in politics. Every choice made is intentional. Together, these perspectives create the narrative that media influence isn’t just whether or not a celebrity should speak up. It’s about how their words are being used to engage in social issues. However, there’s something to say about the reliance on celebrities to be informative for the public. The prevalence of celebrity idolization and parasocialism, while helpful to spread messages, can be harmful. Because, many people often form their opinions on social issues based on what someone they look up to says, political and social awareness can be fueled by a celebrity’s words. This is why the solution is not blind expectation that every public figure should speak, but use their words as beginning points for further conversation, engagement, and research on political and social issues. These figures and the public should work in dialogue with each other; the media figures utilizing their power of platforms and the public utilizing their power as voters to ensure equal, healthy representation in the country where each voice is being rightfully heard and used. Public figures may shape conversations, but true democracy lives in the willingness to learn, to question, and to act for oneself.