In today’s modern world, one saturated by the entertainment industry and overrun by intense political contrast, popular culture presents a line where these two extremes must blend. On a national scale, this intersection is demonstrated via award shows.

Many advocates of award season and its allotted extravagances believe that these events serve as a platform for political discussion while also avoiding argument. However, the problem with this goal seems to be that only one political perspective- that of the Democratic party- is historically expressed, creating a “safe space” with zero political diversity. Hence, a new, grander form of political polarization is underhandedly promoted, preventing those with opposing views from wanting to watch such ceremonies at all. These shows lose viewers on the Republican side of the political spectrum, contradicting their so called goal of avoiding polarization by hindering the range of the viewer pool itself, due to the political tint of the “light hearted” comments made all throughout the events.

Another controversy surrounding shows like the Oscars, the Emmy’s and Grammy’s is the exclusive nature of the programs themselves. Attended by, arranged for, and hosted by the rich and famous, award shows serve as an excuse for stars to give themselves praise and cleverly named statues, and the rest of the world happily watches these performances. But why? From a political perspective, some believe that award shows give influential people a wildly public platform for the advocacy of “hot-topic” issues. Yet, when delved further into, the famous individuals who preach such messages completely contradict them with their ways of life. Comically referred to as “limousine liberals,” award shows are ground-zero for millionaires advocating for wealth distribution, Hollywood A-listers rooting for the “little guy,” and the most influential names in the entertainment industry condemning the corruption of the powerful.  

On average, Hollywood contributes 150 million dollars- each- into such award shows every year. 50 million of that total goes into hosting the event, and 100 million is spent on advertisements. After realizing such staggering cost margins, one has trouble listening contently to an actor or actress’s speech about poverty and class divisions, all being emotionally recited between the categories of Best Original Screenplay and Best Animated Short Film.

Award shows seemingly have a long history of exemplifying wealth and privilege during times of crisis, the first Oscars event premiering the same year as the start of the Great Depression, 1929. However, it is only within the last decade that award winners’ speeches have been sprinkled with contradicting remarks about the state of the country, all the while evidently using their fame and fortune to remain in the more lucrative portions of the 1%.

I believe that the convergence of politics and entertainment can be a beneficial way to spread awareness, but I firmly emphasize that the usage of award shows, specifically, to do so is antithetical and naive. The award show circuit itself is a politically contradictory gathering of some of the richest men and women across the globe, the events themselves being hosted by those who are celebrated, reinforcing a vicious culture of egotistical entertainers and the public’s idolization of them.