KONY 2012’s Fame Problem

KONY 2012’s Fame Problem

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” 
— Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya in “The Princess Bride.”

STRAIN OF FAME: Jason Russell, co-founder of Invisible Children and director of the "Kony 2012" documentary, suffered a nervous breakdown after the video went viral. (Photo: Brendan McDermid/Newscom)

If you haven’t already seen it, San Diego-based not-for-profit organization advocacy group Invisible Children recently launched a video campaign called KONY 2012, designed to raise public awareness and attention toward their goal of seeing U.S. forces capture abductor and child-soldier-exploitationist Joseph Kony .

Now that the KONY 2012 video has already reached over 80 million views in a really short time, the campaign has entered the national conversation. As such, there is a commonwealth of informed voices coming out of the woodwork to shoot it down offer informed rebuttals to their strategy. (Here are several such examples, including  two right here on UrbanFaith.)

Most of these criticisms are, rightfully, engaging the biggest questions concerning the issues of what is best for Uganda, the limits of awareness and advocacy work, and the role of NGOs in Central Africa in general, and how these interact with the larger economic and foreign policy interests of the U.S. government. These are some of the most important issues surrounding the KONY 2012 campaign, and should be debated fiercely.

But I have a much more fundamental issue with the campaign, and it’s with the word “famous.”

Taken from the YouTube page, here is IC’s own description of the KONY 2012 campaign:

KONY 2012 is a film and campaign by Invisible Children that aims to make Joseph Kony famous, not to celebrate him, but to raise support for his arrest and set a precedent for international justice.

Can you see the inherent contradiction there?

Fame can’t be tamed

Now, more than ever, perception is reality. And in today’s hyper-saturated world of media, I’m not sure how possible it is to make Joseph Kony famous without inadvertently celebrating him. When in the history of public activism have people ever rallied around a personified symbol of opposition without raising the profile of that person?

After all, there’s a reason why, if we go back to the obscenity controversies surrounding 2 Live Crew in the early ‘90s, Luke fans and anti-censorship activists never went around wearing T-shirts or putting posters with the images of former attorney and censorship zealot Jack Thompson. They never wanted to give him any more exposure than necessary. (And believe me, if there’s anything Jack Thompson wanted, it was more exposure.)

So even if, after painstaking research and deliberation, one were to decide that another military intervention to remove Joseph Kony would be in everyone’s best interests, it’s still a huge leap in logic to conclude that the best way to make that happen is by affixing posters and stickers to public structures with his name and/or image on them.

Because even if we ignore the potential social costs of such civil disobedience (going in at night and blanketing our cities with propaganda could be viewed as overly aggressive or even illegal depending on how and where you go about it), the question must be asked — is making Kony famous even a good idea?

Famous for being famous

It used to be that fame was desirable as a consequence of living a life of significance or achievement. You wanted to be famous for something. Curing cancer, winning the Super Bowl, writing the great American novel, et cetera. “Baby, remember my name,” right?

Over time it became clear that to be famous in the 21st century doesn’t require any particular skills or achievements. People like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian have made whole careers out of being famous for being famous — in their cases, being born into famous families. But now, with the KONY 2012 campaign, what we’re seeing is the term “famous” being used in a totally opposite way, to be famous for something really bad.

If only there were other words in the English language that could express this idea — oh wait, there are. Words like “infamous” and “notorious” do the job quite well. To paraphrase a scene from a favorite Sports Night episode, there’s a big difference between famous and infamous. One’s famous, the other’s infamous. That’s why they have those words.

That’s why this whole “make Kony famous” thing doesn’t sit well with me.

Considering how much Twitter has been incorporated into today’s political process, part of me wonders if the biggest reason why the KONY 2012 went viral so fast was because the name “Kony” makes for a great Twitter hashtag. I know he’s a terrible man and has been brutalizing children for decades, but still. It’s no secret that they deliberately chose an election year for this campaign, because it should be the kind of thing that politicians across the aisle should be able to agree on.

But what happens after 2012, especially if he doesn’t get caught?

I suspect he’ll become the new Che Guevara — just another polarizing, countercultural figure whose actual life will become distorted in order to fit the dominant political or social agenda of the day.

And not to pull a Jesus Juke, but every time I see or hear “make KONY famous” I keep thinking about the Chris Tomlin tune “Famous One.” If Kony is our new standard for fame, then maybe Tomlin needs to record it again under the title, “Famous (For-All-The-Right-Reasons) One.”

Maybe that wouldn’t work on Twitter, but I’m a big guy — I could probably fit it on a XXL T-shirt.

Fame bites back

And just when it seemed this story couldn’t get any more controversial, news broke of the bizarre detaining and subsequent hospitalization of IC founder and filmmaker Jason Russell, who was reported to be wandering naked and yelling obscenities on a Los Angeles street. The latest reports say Russell is suffering from a brief reactive psychosis due to exhaustion and stress and that he’s expected to remain hospitalized for weeks. (I join others in offering up prayer for his recovery.)

In general, I’ve resisted the rather cynical argument that KONY 2012 is more about the filmmakers than the children for which they purport to be advocating. Because even though there is an air of White privilege about the whole thing, it’s undeniable that Invisible Children has been successful at bringing awareness of these complex issues to a generation of affluent teenagers who wouldn’t have known or cared otherwise. On balance, I consider that a good thing.

But given the public nature of this latest indiscretion, Jason Russell is flirting with this new oxymoronic definition of fame himself. And if he was only just an entertainer, you might just chalk it up to the axiom of there being no such thing as bad publicity. But that’s clearly not the case here. Even though Invisible Children is not an explicitly Christian organization, Russell has roots in the Christian establishment. So in the light of eternity, the stakes are a lot higher for how he conducts himself, and it’s clear that he has not been able to handle all of the pressure and attention. And despite Invisible Children CEO Ben Keesey’s impassioned plea for folks to give his friend some space, I’m sure that privacy will be much harder to come by now that this has happened.

The good news for Jason Russell is that, whether through the buzz surrounding KONY 2012 or because of the TMZ coverage, he now has an even greater balance of attention currency — and after his recovery he gets to decide how to spend it. Hopefully, it will be used with an honesty and humility different from the slick, professional marketing that we’ve seen so far. Hopefully, we’ll witness an organization so humbled by circumstances that it’s willing to admit its missteps.

That, more than the viral video, would impress me greatly.

But if Invisible Children expects everyone to pretend that nothing has happened and go back to being inspired to stop Joseph Kony … well, it doesn’t understand how fame works these days.

Can Madea Save Kim Kardashian?

Can Madea Save Kim Kardashian?

CONTROVERSIAL CHOICE: Tyler Perry's decision to cast reality-TV personality Kim Kardashian became even more controversial after the starlet announced she was divorcing Kris Humphries, her husband of 72 days. (Photos: Newscom)

After a week of watching the fervent character assassination of Kim Kardashian in the comments section of his website, Tyler Perry recently turned the tables on his Christian fans asking why the reality star should be excluded from his latest film about faith, forgiveness and the healing power of God.

Though there had been some initial concern over Perry’s casting choice (due largely to Kardashian’s limited acting experience) the outrage over her role grew to epic proportions when it was announced that Kardashian was divorcing husband of 72-days, NBA player Kris Humphries, after a highly publicized and rumored to be profitable wedding. (Kim Kardashian’s mother Kris Jenner recently denied the reality star made a multi-million dollar profit off of the televised nuptials.)

Within days of the divorce news, thousands had signed a petition pleading to have the Kardashian shows removed from the E! Network and disheartened fans of the Madea creator left angry comments expressing their disgust and disappointment over his inclusion of the Keeping Up with the Kardashians star in the film. Currently, more than 100,000 people have signed the petition.

One Perry fan chided, “You now partner yourself with a woman who makes sex videos and takes the holy institution of marriage as a mere “performance” to acquire money and increased publicity. Truly, shame on your sir.” Another questioned Perry’s intentions for using Kim Kardashian, saying, “If you are looking for publicity, [and] using this as a stunt to promote your movie, by using this witch. I have lost what respect I have of you.”

Imploring fans to “hear him out,” Perry is now suggesting that fans consider the value of casting Kardashian. Reflecting on the moment he made the decision, he wrote on his website:

I thought, what better person! She literally has millions of young people following her. I thought and still do think, that it would be very responsible of her to be a part of this film. To have the young people that look up to her, see her in a film that is about, what happens in life when you make the wrong choices. Whether you’re aware of it or not, to be honest with you I wasn’t, millions of young people adore her and are following her every move.

And if not for the children’s sake, Kim Kardashian’s involvement in the The Marriage Counselor might simply be a transformative experience for her own life. Some commenters on Perry’s site are viewing things in an almost evangelistic light, taking a more optimistic defense of the filmmaker’s decision by pointing out that Kardashian’s role in the film could be the initial steps of spiritual healing in her life. “Good for you, Tyler for standing by your decision and not trying to play God,” one fan praised. “Kim has a road to walk with God and I am so thankful that you are not trying to stand in the middle of that. Being in your film will be planting seeds in her life and you will be doing His work!”

I’m not sure if her off-screen antics should now disqualify Kardashian from appearing in the film, but I sure wish Perry had made a stronger choice to begin with. Despite her popularity, perhaps he should have used this role to pump up a hardworking young actress who could use the limelight — maybe Joy Bryant or Tatyana Ali — instead of turning the spotlight on a woman who has more shine than she can sell.

What do you think? Is the questionable morality and limited acting experience of Kim Kardashian grounds for Perry to cut her from the film? Or do you agree that this could be the rich starlet’s chance at redemption?

The Marriage Counselor stars the young powerhouse actress Jurnee Smollet, as well as Vanessa Williams and Brandy Norwood.