When Donald Trump was elected president the first time around, Hollywood star Jennifer Lawrence made no secret of how she felt.

Do not let this defeat you. Let this enrage you, she wrote in a 2016 op ed.

Since then, her views about speaking out have become more complicated.

Since then, her views about speaking out have become more complicated. Here's a bit of what she said in a recent interview with The New York Times.

I don't want to start turning people off to films and to art that could change consciousness or change the world, because they don't like my political opinions.

But what if fans demand to know your political opinions as real wars and culture wars rage? Should celebrities be expected to pick a side?

And what do they risk if they don't?

Then, in the face of Trump's tariffs and threats, many of us have embraced the rallying cry "Buy Canadian!"

What are we also watching? Canadian, reading Canadian and listening Canadian and our arts and culture in this country getting the support they really need?

Welcome to The Rundown.

Political tensions are high. Division seems to be everywhere and celebrities are no exception.

For example, in September, thousands of actors and filmmakers signed an open letter calling for a boycott of Israeli film groups over the war in Gaza.

In response, another group of actors and filmmakers signed an open letter rejecting the boycott.

So what's at stake? When celebrities express views many see as divisive? What can they gain? What can they lose?

What can they gain? What can they lose? And do their views even actually make a difference anyway?

I asked Tim McLaughlin, a crisis communications strategist, and Amil Niazi, a freelance writer and cultural critic.

To Amil, thank you so much for joining us on the program. How are you doing?

Good, good. Thank you.

There's an attraction with people in terms of wanting celebrities to speak out, and I want to get a better understanding of why.

Why do we why do we look to celebrities to speak out whether it's first or when something is happening in the midst of it?

Why do we why do we? Why are we drawn to them?

Yeah. You know, I think as culture has evolved, we want we sort of have built this parasocial relationship with celebrities, influencers.

You know, I think we really live in a very influencer-led culture right now where we have a desire for an intimacy and a connection and a very personal connection with our celebrities.

You know, we're used to seeing them on Instagram, talking directly to us on TikTok.

There's no longer that divide where, you know, a publicist controlled what a celebrity said and how they reacted, and you sort of only knew them on the press tour.

Now you have access to them 24/7, and they want you to have that access because it it helps build their brand.

But what comes along with that is a desire then, for them to speak about the pressing issues of the day, because it would be weird for them not to. Right.

The problem is that that's not their expertise.

It is not really necessarily something that they should speak about.

They don't have a connection to it.

And so you're left in this awkward space where if they say the wrong thing, they're vilified.

If they say the right thing, then now they are held to a certain standard that they have to maintain.

So it puts celebrities in a very awkward position.

And I think that you're going to see more and more sort of, you know, things like Jennifer Lawrence pop up where they really just want to say, I'm done speaking about anything that's not my craft.

All right. Well, this is what you do. So I want a better understanding of should public figures be expected to be experts on topics on issues.

You know, to Amil's point, they're not experts in these subjects.

So I think expecting celebrities to have opinions on every issue, every hot button topic that comes up, I just think that's, you know, unfair to the celebrities.

They are experts at their craft, whether it's music, entertainment, art, whatever it is, that's their expertise.

So expecting them to be experts in each social issue or politics, it's just an impossible standard to live up to.

And it also sets the precedent. Once you speak out, once you're then expected your fans and your audience is expecting you to chime in to every single conversation.

So I think the the figure then sort of loses their identity as well in that process.

Who are they without the advocacy role?

You know, so I often think it's in the celebrities' best interest to not chime into conversations.

And most often they have more to risk by doing so.

I'm curious in terms of the pressure that celebrities or influencers might be getting, is it from their following?

Is it what they're seeing on social like? I need to get into this conversation.

Yeah. I mean, once you have, you know, your peer kind of do something, then, you know, you feel a certain degree of pressure to, to align with that.

And certainly your, your audience and your fan base, you know, we're so engaged and interacted online.

It's a two-way conversation now.

So your, your fan base really can say, we expect this of you and the celebrities are going to see that and, and have a, you know, perhaps want to respond to it in order to try and preserve the connection with that, that fan base.

All right. Let's talk about sort of topics.

People are were quite comfortable speaking up on Jemmy Kimmel when he was taken off the air.

Canadians and Americans will remember on SNL when, you know, Mike Myers opened his shirt and showed, you know, Canada is not for sale and elbows up.

But there are other conversations that are a bit trickier.

Gaza. Why is it that certain topics require require refinement? Rightfully so.

But why are they trickier to handle?

Well, I mean, you can just extrapolate the comfort level of having a conversation about Gaza at work, sometimes even at home amongst your friends. Right?

Everyone has a very often personal connection to it.

They are often, you know, ill prepared to speak about the context of this conversation.

And I think that people often have a very visceral reaction to the celebrities take, you know, whether it's Amy Schumer coming out and, you know, her opinion or whether it's Hannah Einbinder at the Emmys saying, you know, go birds free, Palestine, either side is going to electrify the people who care about the issue, whether it's on this side or that side.

So if it's if it's a hot button issue, you know, in any circumstance, then of course the celebrities speaking out about it is going to be a hot button issue as well.

To help peel the curtain back a little bit.

What what should a public figure consider before they post or make a statement?

Are these is there conversations that you have had with people to be like, okay, let's, let's let's take a moment here. Let's take a breath. What what do we encouraging them to post or not post.

Yeah, absolutely.

I think half the battle is having the conversation ahead of time proactively, because clients often come to me in a reactive state.

They've posted something online that's usually emotionally driven.

And now we have quite a mess to clean up because it wasn't thought out, it wasn't well-planned, and now they're in over their head.

So if we can take a step back, that's kind of the first piece of advice is take a step back.

Let's think strategically about this.

And look, I'm not here to tell you one way or the other if you should or you shouldn't do it.

But what I'm going to bring you through is a risk assessment, and then you can decide if it's worth it from you, for you.

So we'll get a lay of the landscape.

Understand.

You know, what's the generally the popular opinion on this topic?

Are you with the popular opinion or are we going to be fighting an uphill battle here?

If you have a more unpopular opinion, we're going to look at your audience.

Are you going to lose a significant chunk of your fan base?

Does your audience expect this of you?

Do they even care?

Or should you just stay in your lane and then are there financial repercussions?

And then are there financial repercussions?

You know, these celebrities have brand deals.

They have, you know, contracts.

So does your contract allow you to potentially chime in in this conversation safely?

Are you going to risk turning off brands to wanting to work with you because it's a controversial topic.

So once we do that risk assessment, it often opens the client's eyes to say, well, I don't know that I want to put this deal or this gig that I've booked at risk by speaking out.

But sometimes they're closely connected and feel super passionately about the issue.

And we can speak out in a, you know, in a more thoughtful way and do it properly.

But I certainly recommend that that risk assessment, I think, is really critical for understanding the landscape.

You talked about Jennifer Lawrence and a lot of these situations.

The conversation is fluid.

Things are changing depending on where you jump in. It's kind of important.

And so actress Jennifer Lawrence recently said she does not want to take away from her craft by speaking up anymore.

What's your take on her statement?

I'm sort of divided on something like that.

On the one hand, I agree that I don't necessarily want to hear from Jennifer Lawrence on, you know, if Canada should be a sovereign country or.

Stay in your lane, okay.

Stay in your lane and and often the best thing that they can speak about is their craft and how sometimes that naturally intersects with politics or what's happening in the world, but oftentimes it doesn't.

So she should just talk about acting.

And to your point, she in that clip, you know, she says, I'm taking on roles that reflect my.

Exactly. She wants her art to speak for her.

And I think a lot of creatives feel the same way.

And they do want their art to be the thing that, you know, navigates those conversations and you can perceive it however you want.

And that's the conversation. That's the debate.

On the other hand, it can come across as cowardly that she doesn't want to risk her brand deals.

She doesn't want to risk, you know, Givenchy or Balenciaga or whatever.

I don't know what brand deal she has, but when money's on the table, that's when people either show their mettle or they, you know, shirk away from these hard conversations so it can be perceived, I think, as sort of the cowardly decision that you don't you you don't know what to say or you're not brave enough to say it.

So it can be perceived, I think, as sort of the cowardly decision that you don't you you don't know what to say or you're not brave enough to say it.

And so you're just sort of saying, like, I'm going to say nothing.

And, and as, as, you know, from some of these heated conversations we've been having, silence can speak volumes.

I am curious, though, how much influence do they really have?

Does it actually move the conversation outside of, say, a, you know, a tweet thread or an Instagram thread?

Is there actual movement on? Sort of.

No, I don't think so.

Someone like Miss Rachel, who who keeps it in the conversation, who really this is something that she believes so strongly in and she's willing to risk it all to, to keep these kids at the forefront.

Yeah, I think she could.

But for the most part, you know, Jennifer Lawrence saying XYZ is not going to have a real tangible impact on the conversation.

No. All right. We're going to talk about Miss Rachel.

So let's bring this up. As you mentioned, Miss Rachel, very popular children's educator, entertainer, millions of followers and has a Netflix program as well.

She recently posted this.

It reads tag celebrities, leaders and politicians who have spoken out about Gaza.

Let's thank them and follow them.

And then she commented right at the bottom there. We won't forget who was silent and who showed up to.

Is there something inherent in this moment in social media that makes praising and shaming effective?

Well, there's sort of my professional answer and then my personal answer.

I want to kind of talk about Miss Rachel, though, first, because I think she's one of the few.

She's certainly an outlier, in my opinion, but she's one of the few that have done it right.

And I think she can be she can dig into this conversation at a deeper level than I think some others.

Because her career started on YouTube.

She owns that audience, and she makes a very lucrative career just through her YouTube.

The Netflix deals and all of that came later.

So she doesn't rely on that audience.

So I think that's the difference for her, and it's clear her passion about it.

It's not gimmicky.

She's not feeling this pressure from her audience to say something.

It's true and it's from the heart.

And she's connected. The connection to her brand is children.

She's led with that.

So I think that's what works for her.

As for audiences putting pressure on these celebrities to to speak out or are shaming them if they do or don't?

What I'm actually seeing a lot of is, is, is bot farms amplifying some of this engagement.

So so it's become trickier in today's age, you know, this digital era to differentiate what's legitimate criticism and what's being amplified by people with with an agenda.

You know, shaming is ineffective.

Shaming may, in the short term provide, you know, some benefit.

But over the long term, studies show that shaming is ineffective for behavioural change and and truly convincing someone that their position is is wrong.

So I think, you know, this is a personal opinion, but, you know, the shaming culture to me is just it's gone too far.

So that's on the shame side of things.

And as for its impact on celebrities, and if they do or they they don't speak out, we have to better understand that that sentiment, if it's, you know, if it's legitimate, if it's true, and then kind of do that risk assessment that I mentioned.

All right, Amil, same question here.

Yeah. I think it's really tricky because, you know, of everything has said about the legitimacy of who is sort of like putting the pressure on these celebrities.

Is it their fans or is it, you know, sort of trolls or, you know, people with nefarious sort of influence?

But I do think that we are stepping out of a shaming culture.

I think you're starting to see more and more, if you recall, like during the Black Square era, you know, during the pandemic when there was a lot of pressure on celebrities to post a black square, to sort of let black voices be amplified on social media, it was a kind of an absurd movement.

It proved very quickly to be, you know, a little bit of a joke. Right?

And so it put, put the ones who posted it in a very awkward position and ones who didn't post in a very awkward position, and it wasn't legitimate in the end.

So I think we're coming out of a place where people feel like they have to follow the trend in the moment.

You know, at the same time of the Vlack Square, you also had a lot of notes, apologies, you know, celebrities sort of being like, I'm sorry, I did this thing.

And we had an expectation they would apologise for their mistakes.

More often than not, we see apologies, don't move, don't work, they don't work.

And people moved on.

So many things have happened since that.

That was only like a month ago.

So much is in the news cycle these days, like from Trump to, you know, whatever.

Like there's just so much that that changes so frequently and so fast that celebrities now don't really have to say anything.

Yeah. Because then your apology then becomes the second news cycle.

Becomes a joke, becomes fodder for the trolls.

And so I feel like we're stepping away from that type of accountability to something else.

And I feel like it is the Jennifer Lawrence style, where it's like, I'm going to say nothing until it's my turn to go on the press tour.

All right. Well, we are unfortunately going to have to leave it there.

As you said, there's so much.

There's so much.

So I'm sure that we will have to come back to this conversation. Another point.

Thank you so much for your insights.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Since Trump's trade war and annexation threats, we have seen a new wave of patriotism.

Go to the grocery store and you'll often see shoppers scanning labels for mention of Canada.

But are Canadians doing the same with music, movies, TV shows, and more?

Rundown producer Colin Ellis sat down with Barry Hertz, deputy arts editor and film editor for The Globe and Mail to talk about why Canada needs to get more elbows up with arts and culture.

Barrie, thanks again for joining us on The Rundown.

Oh, thank you for having me.

You wrote a piece recently for The Globe and Mail called "Why We're Blowing a Generational Moment for Canadian Culture."

What do you mean by that?

Well, I just kind of got to thinking about this elbows up sentiment that everybody is kind of wrapped around in.

And, you know, we've been very much told to like, look at the grocery labels of where our orange juice is coming from and protect lumber and protect automotive and everything like that. Like all these industries that need our support.

And yet there's not a lot of conversation about the one thing that makes Canadians Canadian, which is our identity, which is our culture.

And we haven't really been protecting that or emphasising it or even trying to marginally boost it.

So because it's hard to really define what Canadian culture is, I feel like this question whenever you're asked, what is Canadian culture? People kind of try to grasp at straws as to what it means.

I think so, but I don't think we necessarily have to define what Canadian culture is more so what are the pieces that make it up?

So what are the stories that we consume?

I mean, that's culture, right?

So what are the books that we read?

What are the plays we watch?

What's the art that we take in?

What are the movies, the television shows on our screen?

Where do we get our news?

Where do we get our ideas?

And where does our imagination spark?

That's all culture.

So what are we doing to support all those different elements?

You said a poll that found Canadians overwhelmingly want their culture and stories protected 88%, saying that the country should support domestic television and film productions like the way they are encouraged to buy Canadian, but our Canadians actually doing that.

It's a difficult thing to measure, but if you kind of look in certain places, you can see hints of it.

You know, CBC Gem streaming viewership, there's a percentage increase.

I think it was about 24% from the past six months compared to the previous year.

Same with Crave, which is kind of the major Canadian streamer, although, you know, both of those services have a lot of foreign content on them.

I was going to ask, yeah, yeah.

So and so it's hard to it's hard to really say.

But I think that's also a problem that we're not really marshalling this sentiment properly.

There's not this drive out there.

And I feel if we started kind of speaking more about it and really kind of examining what we value in our day to day lives, that makes us Canadian. Other than the things that we put on our grocery carts, then I think people would kind of come around to the idea.

What do you think the role is of Canadian cultural institutions?

You mentioned the CBC, but what do you think the role of these institutions are in, like a turf war?

I think that they're there to not necessarily, you know, talk back against the US or anything like that, but just to remind audiences, to remind consumers that, hey, these these are the stories that matter to us.

This is what we're kind of fighting for.

We're not going to engage in the fight, but we're going to remind you of what makes Canada, Canada and why you feel so attached to the country.

So let's talk about what stories we tell each other, what our imaginations run on, what enlightens us, what educates us, what entertains us.

At the end of the day, everything that kind of makes honestly like day-to-day living worth living.

Is it hard to unify behind, let's say, not to pick on them, but the CBC can, considering that one political party is pretty outspoken about defunding it. And then there's the government kind of sends mixed signals about its funding. Right, too. Right.

I mean, I think the CBC, if funded and managed right, can be a real weapon and a shield for Canadian culture.

I mean, this is something that is so tied into Canadian identity more than anything else. I think out there right now in terms of, you know, an established agency or something like that.

Canadians have strong feelings about the CBC one way or the other.

And yes, it is become this like centre of polarisation on the political spectrum.

But why?

I guess my question is for those who campaign on something of a defund the CBC motto, why do we want to get rid of something so easily that has been so long a part of our history, and that can be managed again in a correct way if we just do it right.

You know, one of the things that Mark Carney has said on the campaign trail is that in terms of per capita funding for public broadcasting, we're like 40% behind places like the UK or Australia or France.

Those are countries that seem to value cultural output more than we do in terms of the public purse.

Why the hesitancy?

What about Canadian Heritage, which oversees Canada Council for the Arts and Telephone? What's happened to their budgets?

I mean, they have also been on a downward slide.

And, you know, Mark Carney gave that edict out across departments that you've got to trim 15% back from your budgets coming up.

And that is a big problem.

Canadian Heritage has seen their funding decrease and we'll see their funding steadily decrease if that mandate is kind of continued.

And they oversee telefilm, which funds so many Canadian films, basically every Canadian film that you've probably could think of.

The Canada Council for the Arts supports artists of all stripes in terms of funding.

So what happens when we claw this back is we're going to have a generational impact, because those sectors need, more than anything, stability.

It takes so long for a piece of art to make its way into the world.

You know, a feature film.

We're talking three, four years in a very good case scenario from pre-production until, you know, distribution television series are the same.

A book can take God knows how long.

So if we rob that, then we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot, because the next time, and this isn't going to be the only time that we engage in some kind of cultural war or cultural standoff with our neighbour to the south, we're just going to be that much more diminished.

I want to timestamp this conversation because we're talking before the federal budget comes out, so maybe they'll announce some new funding for these institutions, I guess.

I wonder what you see as the economic upside to funding the arts.

Well, I don't think you have to look too far.

Just look at the data.

You know, the cultural sector brings in something like 63.9 billion GDP.

It employs 600,000 workers, both the artists and the artisans who support that.

So this is not some kind of piddly little industry that can easily be plucked out of the economy without any harm.

And then you only have to look at what the global impact of that is in terms of countries that are really committed to supporting their cultural industries.

I'm just going to pull South Korea out of the hat, which about a decade ago significantly increased the percentage of money going to the arts and art development.

And now we see not only are they making billions in cultural exports, but in terms of soft power, South Korea is everywhere.

Squid Game is at the top of the Netflix charts in every country.

K-pop, K-pop Demon Hunters will not-- I cannot get that song to stop playing in my house because I have children.

So we could really be a dominant force not only at home but abroad if we committed.

What about the online streaming act?

I thought this was supposed to compel the streaming services to to put a lot of money into local productions.

Is that doing anything?

I mean, that's exactly what it was designed to compel.

And, you know, arguably it is philosophically the most elbows up piece of legislation that we have because it is very much saying, hey, all, you like Hollywood giants who are trying to come in here and take all our Canadian subscription money and subsume our culture, you know, maybe just pay your fair share, do what every other broadcaster in Canada has been regulated to do since time immemorial, which is support the production of home-grown content.

And of course, the Hollywood outfits, being Hollywood have said no.

And I've been, you know, very bullish about it and have taken the Streaming Act to court and filed appeals and what was once viewed as a piece of legislation that could really be the key to unlocking so much potential for the Canadian film and television industry going forward, has been really held up and put in another kind of deep freeze situation.

And what was once viewed as a piece of legislation that could really be the key to unlocking so much potential for the Canadian film and television industry going forward, has been really held up and put in another kind of deep freeze situation.

I hear you on, you know, the importance of of elbows up in Canadian culture.

That said, though, you know, when whenever there's an election like the issues that always top the polls are like affordability, housing, crime, health care, like these are the things that I think a lot of Canadians think of as their number one priority.

So how do you kind of make culture? How do you put that in that list?

I mean, it's not easy.

And I don't you know, I don't begrudge all those people who put all those priorities first because those are essential priorities.

But without the backbone of Canadian culture and identity, what are we really fighting for?

Who are we?

Why not just roll over and become the 51st state and, you know, handle all those economic and crime and health concerns over there?

Are we fighting for ideas or are we fighting for identity?

Well, when it comes to that identity piece, I mean, something that made me laugh this year was the Canadian Screen Awards.

What, one best picture?

Yeah. I mean, okay, so I have a big problem with the Canadian Screen Awards because we had some of the acting prizes, for instance, went to Sebastian Stan, not a Canadian, Cate Blanchett, not a Canadian, Jeremy Strong, not a Canadian.

Love all those three actors to death. They're great.

And they were great in those performances, but they're not Canadian.

And, you know, I, like many in the industry, kind of had a little bit of a stink about it.

And to their credit, the Canadian Academy has gone in, reorganised the rules and said you have to be a Canadian to have some of those prizes, the Canadian Screen Awards.

I love what they're trying to do, like the CBC.

There's a lot of problems there.

But let's take this opportunity right now when we're talking about this, we're talking about Canada as a thing versus the US is a thing and not, you know, rolling over.

Let's use that moment to do something about it.

So best picture shouldn't have gone to The Apprentice, is what you're saying.

I mean, I I'm going to say a polite. Yes.

Well, Barrie, thank you so much for joining us again.

This was great.

Oh, thank you for having me.

Creating a new show is an opportunity, and we want your help.

What do you want to know more about?

What makes you watch?

Take the survey at tvo.org/rundownfeedback or leave us a comment on YouTube and let us know what you think.

Until then, see you next week.