It is true that celebrities can grab the public’s attention on charity for those in need, but some argue that those popular people would reduce the meaning in other ways. In this essay, I will outline both viewpoints and share my suggestion.
It is no doubt that celebrities draw people’s attention to different issues—refugee rights, poverty, and climate change. Those people have a vast following once they share their daily posts or speak up for someone, resulting in thousands of feedback and comments to them globally. Take Angelia Jolie as an instance. She spent her whole life participating in the different kinds of activities. She stood with those victims who escaped from the war, those who suffered from poverty, and also aroused people to focus on global warming. Based on what she did, the public really started to execute their action to donate money for those in need, besides reducing their carbon dioxide effusion to support their lovely superstar. Therefore, celebrities’ influence can be a catalyst to make the word better than what we have imaged ever.
Nonetheless, despite the influence famous people brought, the public might shift their spotlight on the scandal of superstars rather than the kind behavior they had made. Moreover, some would argue that what they did were just slacktivism, leading to people doing something meaningless to charity and pretending they were kind people. However, even though above those events were hard to prevent, most people still showed their way to help the world better. It seems to me that the influence of celebrities can not be underestimated. They may not be more knowledgeable than experts, but they can shift public awareness to the vital issues.
In sum, the influence of celebrities can grab the audience’s attention to charity, while it cannot also be deniable that the public would focus on famous people rather than the issue. From my perspective, I believe we still need the involvement of celebrities to get more aid from the world.