Does fame really give you responsibility?

One thing I have seen time and again in the news or on social media is that some how fame imparts some responsibility to act better then the average. I regularly hear that so and so is a role model and thus should act better. Usually this is conjunction with some scandal.

But is this really the case? Should fame demand that you are some how more socially responsible to act in a way that is considered acceptable? Should it dictate that your language or actions are held to some sort of higher standard? Does fame really dictate that you deserve a higher level of scrutiny or harsher criticism?

I will wait to hear from the community before posting my own thoughts on the matter.

MadHatter wrote: One thing I have seen time and again in the news or on social media is that some how fame imparts some responsibility to act better then the average. I regularly hear that so and so is a role model and thus should act better. Usually this is conjunction with some scandal.

But is this really the case? Should fame demand that you are some how more socially responsible to act in a way that is considered acceptable? Should it dictate that your language or actions are held to some sort of higher standard? Does fame really dictate that you deserve a higher level of scrutiny or harsher criticism?

I will wait to hear from the community before posting my own thoughts on the matter.

It's a tricky one, I see both sides.

There is an argument that if you choose to pursue a career that will lead to you being in the public eye, then you have to be willing to take on the additional responsibility and scrutiny. There is also an argument to say that getting paid such a ridiculous amount of money is part of that. They are being paid to be a role model, and so their behaviour should reflect it.

I agree with this point for the likes of Football and Film Stars etc. There is a lot more to their job than just playing football and acting. Whether these people like it or not they are 'heroes' to young children that idolise them. They knew this could happen when they took that job, and so they should be held to a high standard.

That being said, I'm not sure you could apply it to people that became 'accidentally' famous. They didn't choose that. Or even politicians (which I'm sure many will disagree with). Football/Acting/Singing and the like are effectively entertainment. Politics is about the running of a country, if you have committed a crime and it doesn't effect your ability to do your job, then I don't really see how its anyone's business.

I'm inclined to agree with B-rizzle here.

Except on the Politicians.

Politicians (In my country) are paid by the people, and should therefore be answerable to them. (That said, if a Pollie gets a parking ticket, it's not the end of the world, and breaking up with a partner is not necessarily an indication of whether or not they can do their job "Being answerable to the people" is not the same as "answerable to the whims of the Media on a slow news week when they're short on decent headlines" )

Sponsered sports heroes are generally answerable to their sponsers - and in the face of public disgust, will generally "drop" an athlete if they don't meet their image standards, so that self-polices quite well.

(Slightly different to Clubs - where the Club/Team is sponsered, but the individual player is not, that can get a bit harder to control - but same thing, even if the are winning games, I think Clubs need to maintain the allegiance of their fans/members, so will likely "punish" anyone who doesn't maintain the image)


Otherwise, happy with Brick's response - If you chose fame, you have a responsibility to do or behave in certain ways - If you choose not to, then so be it, but wear the consequences if and when they occur.

As for the accidentally famous - Meh, take your fifteen minutes and move on. There's no need to "use your fame" for anything, and there's no need for us unwashed masses to confer any responsibility or status on you.

I think they do. Because of their visibility, everyone knows and see them. If they do something extremely wrong, you can be sure to hear about it in the news. Since so many people idolize some of them, I think it does give them a great load of responsability.

No, I don't believe it does. Fame is imparted by the people, but people are not infallible when they are working to become famous and should not be held to a standard of perfection when they do.

What do they owe us?
We gave them our money or time or loyalty (and sometimes all three) because we liked whatever product they were/are selling, but we don't have the luxury to demand they they behave a certain way. The only way that we can dictate that (and not really) is to stop buying what they are selling.

Fame doesn't tie a person to a cause either, or a crisis. Sure they have a bigger platform and can move more people towards action, but they don't have to use it if they don't want to. They can make their choice and we can make ours, but we seldom do because we like what they are selling.

Really, what I think happens is that we place other people on pedestals of responsibility and abscond our own. We expect much from them so that we can demand little from ourselves. We say "why aren't they giving more money to charity?" but we have just bought their $300 earplugs. Why aren't they? Why aren't we?

Politicians are a different matter, but not entirely. In the USA they are supposed to be elected by the people. But I wonder how many people take election day seriously. A small percentage of US citizens vote and an even smaller percentage vote intelligently. But we give people our vote on election day and we (in general)are only concerned when they turn up in the headlines in the middle of some scandal. We don't watch them any other time. No wonder when we see them we vilify them. For all the good, or bad they do we see but a cipher

Fame doesn't tie a person to a cause either, or a crisis. Sure they have a bigger platform and can move more people towards action, but they don't have to use it if they don't want to. They can make their choice and we can make ours, but we seldom do because we like what they are selling.

Really, what I think happens is that we place other people on pedestals of responsibility and abscond our own. We expect much from them so that we can demand little from ourselves. We say "why aren't they giving more money to charity?" but we have just bought their $300 earplugs. Why aren't they? Why aren't we?

I'll clarify my position a bit to say I don't think anyone is required to "promote a cause" because they have the soapbox to do so - but they have responsibilities within their realm, and within the norms of their society.

A Footyball icon does not have any duty to support a charity, but s/he does have a duty to play fair by the rules of their code, and obey any laws applicable to them (if they are just laws) and, to an extent, not be a goddamn monsters ( I don't like football players much )


In short:
They don't have a responsibility to use their fame to be Social-Justice-Warriors, but if they behave immorally, they have no grounds to complain when they are caught - that is the price of fame kids.

To be famous requires nothing, and will inevitably result in having more criticism as more people will be aware of your actions. It's in their best interest to avoid overly negative press, so famous people often aren't really terrible people. You don't often hear about movie stars committing genocide.

it is unrealistic to expect everyone - or maybe anyone - other than ourselves to be conscientious

part of being a conscientious person is the determination to recognize whatever power we have, and do our best to use it in a responsible way

'Fame' is one word but encompasses a great deal of different types of people.

The 'fame' held by a politician is not the same as 'fame' held by a Youtube star with a million hits because they talk about make up or vegan food.

I think the big difference here is fame vs role model. While fame is just another word for famous, meaning you are well known, doesn't necessarily mean you have any responsibility. The real question is does someone or a group of someone(s) look to you as a role model, and does that impart you as having responsibility. Being famous just makes it easier for more people to know "of you" and to decide if you are their role model without your choice.

So that being said, if you are unknowingly or even knowingly a role model, should you be considering the responsibilities that come with that? Which is a hard one for me to answer right this moment as it may not even be your choice, and really the fault of the person who chose you as a role model...but I'll have to ponder more on that.

I do think that the more you hear someone else or multiple someone elses talk about said famous person, or any person(which by the act of several people talking about can to some degree make that person famous where they weren't), the more you are socially engineered to also talk and take interest in. If what very little you know about that now famous person as a result of said conversation is in any relation to how you think or act or believe it's hard not to consider that a role model just by human nature standards....

more pondering to do, great topic!