“Former Fly Girl JLo Supports Vaccines!”
Recently, skeptics around the web have been buzzing about a public service announcement, first aired in April of 2009, which features singer and actress Jennifer Lopez urging parents to get themselves vaccinated against Pertussis. The PSA goes right for the gut; it uses recordings of a child suffering from the characteristic “whooping” cough to try to persuade parents to get the shot in order to avoid spreading the disease to their kids.
It’s a powerful message and, given the recent resurgence of Pertussis in California, it couldn’t be more timely. Skeptics are rightly praising the spot as a welcome celebrity endorsement for the embattled reputation of vaccines. So why does the attention being paid to this PSA by skeptics make me a little uneasy? Because of what’s not being said about Lopez and her qualifications.
Whenever Jenny McCarthy opens her mouth and utters another disingenuous statistic, unverified anecdote or outright lie about the dangers of vaccination, skeptics delight in pointing out her (complete lack of) expertise. In particular, they love to make snide remarks about her career, implying – if not saying outright – that being “former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy” automatically makes her an untrustworthy resource.
The analysis isn’t entirely ad hominem, of course; there has also been plenty of examination of why each individual syllable of McCarthy’s argument is completely wrong. But a good number of otherwise cogent commentary includes that reverse argument from authority, and it seems like something of a double standard that we’re not acknowledging that the woman who’s on our side is “former Fly Girl Jennifer Lopez.”
I’m not trying to take anything away from Lopez or her message. Science in general, and vaccines in particular, can always use defending by people who can appeal to such a large fan audience. And there’s something to be said for combating celebrity promotion of anti-scientific crap with a strong celebrity endorsement of actual facts. Fighting fire with fire is, metaphorically at least, a pretty effective strategy.
Still, the disparity in the way we’re treating the two women leaves me with a lot of questions. Is it entirely honest of us to deride Jenny McCarthy’s not-terribly-intellectual career choices, while giving a pass to Lopez? Why do we focus on the most salacious parts of McCarthy’s past, and ignore her career as an actress? Are we in effect arguing that the overtly sexual nature of her early work somehow detracts from her intelligence? Isn’t her argument vapid enough on its own? Do we really have to resort to snickering over some photos in a softcore skin mag?
Furthermore, is the double standard justified because Lopez agrees with us? Should we be taking greater pains to make it clear that Lopez is a celebrity spokesperson, and not a scientist? Or should we maybe consider laying off Jenny McCarthy’s nude photos, and focus more closely on the naked falsehoods coming out of her mouth?
If I could answer any of these questions to my own satisfaction, I wouldn’t be asking them here. I hope you’ll weigh in with a comment and tell me what you think.
I would say part of the reason is the fact that Jennifer Lopez has far surpassed her role as a fly girl. By the time she became an A lister and household name, her time as a fly girl had been nearly forgotten. Jenny McCarthy became famous exclusively through Playboy. In addition, she has continued to work with Playboy to at least 2005. Being a playmate is a major part of her career ID.
Jim – While I see your point about McCarthy’s Playboy era being a larger part of her career than Lopez’s years as a Fly Girl, I still not sure how being an A-list actress or a household name makes Lopez more informed about vaccines. Are we being disingenuous if we critique McCarthy for being unqualified, but we give Lopez a pass?
Jenny McCarthy is unqualified to talk about vaccines because, plain and simply, she’s 100% fucking wrong. And her message is killing people.
JLo is not speaking as an expert, as McCarthy does. She is speaking as an advocate.
We should be focusing more on the merits of the argument, even for Jenny.
To further what Elise said, celebrities that endorse what the scientific and/or medical community support are not making unsupported claims. JMc is deliberately rocking the boat and boldly claiming she knows what others do not.
K.O., this is a good point that we should always watch out for. And, I totally agree with finding strategies that work with the public to further worthy goals. So, I’m not against celebrity endorsement. I’m against celebrity arrogance.
I think the biggest reason one wouldn’t identify JLo as a Fly Girl is that is carries very little meaning to people in general. I for one hadn’t heard of Fly Girls until reading your post but certainly can identify Jennifer Lopez. Could the same be said of McCarthy? Would a person unfamiliar with her Playboy career be able to identify her?
Neither label is terribly relevant to the actual arguments, but if you were to describe Jenny McCarthy to somebody who didn’t know why she was a recognizable figurehead what would you tell them?
Every since Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, along with their good pal Charlie Chaplin, were asked “hey why don’t you guys try selling some war bonds…” celebrities have been given credit for far more than just being a darn good mime. (They were asked to give speeches, and were told it didn’t matter too much what they said, people would turn out just to hear what their voices sounded like).
I was born in Washington DC. In the pre9-11 days access was much easier to many government buildings. I remember going to visit my brother who worked summer vacations changing light bulbs in the Senate building, and seeing the stars of the tv show “Barney Miller” coming to “testify” before congress about…crime. Yeah, actors in a tv comedy about police were speaking about crime before a Congressional committee. In fact, almost any day you would find a celebrity in town shaking hands and representing his or her pet cause.
You know, I buy Paul Newman products for 2 reasons, one, they are pretty good and two Paul Newman (and now his daughter) used his celebrity status to get the word out “buy this stuff and the profits go for a good cause”. If it had be Joe Nobody, I probably wouldn’t have paid attention, because.. I wouldn’t have trusted him. Now this sounds a little screwy, but if Paul Newman tells me the profits from his products will go to a camp for kids sick with serious illnesses, I believe him. If Paul Newman rans off with the funds for a camp for sick kids, someone will notice! He’s a public figure so he’s not going to run off to Portugal, and he has enough money he doesn’t need to steal from sick kids. His work is well documented in the press. I “know” him even though I have never met him.
I guess when JLo comes on I think “ok people are going to LOOK UP and pay attention”. Also, kudos to JLo. She could have avoided this controversial topic. She’s not getting money for this. She is going to piss some people off, including a lot of her celebrity buddies. So for her to take a risk like this, it makes me feel she really is a concerned mother. In a way you need a BIG celebrity to pull this off. Remember Jim Carey and his money have helped to fund the antivax movement, heck you have Oprah funding Jenny and her new age “health” shows (though Jim and Jenny have broken up, those millions donated are still there). You can’t have Jennifer ANniston speaking, she’s not a mom. You can’t have Angelina, because she “stole” Jennifer from Brad Pitt (the things you learn in the dentist waiting room from the magazines thre!).
For JLo, this wasn’t just another public service announcement. And for me, the risk she took with her career and public image, makes her the perfect mom to be in that ad. She really believes in this. ANd let’s face it, if you had Dr.Important speaking (probably far more qualified) we’d just tune her out. But JLo, everyone knows she has twins, we kinda feel we know her. But after she took this risk and made this spot, I feel that I know her a little better. And I kinda like her.
As someone who’s known for a website about Jenny McCarthy I have always referred to her modeling work as just a part of her biography. Here is the complete statement: “Jenny McCarthy is a celebrity from the United States. She is most well known for posing nude as a Playboy Playmate, for picking her nose on the MTV show Singled Out, and for being the former girlfriend of actor/comedian Jim Carrey.”
I have never referred to her as a “porn star” like I have read other people do. She never did work in the porn industry. She was adult/nude model and that does not disqualify what she says about vaccines. As Elyse and Sharon wrote, what disqualifies her is that she is completely wrong about what she says about vaccines and intentionally uses her celebrity status for her own self-promotion. When she speaks out she is actively asking people to buy her books or donate to her organization.
Jennifer Lopez is speaking out for an organization that she is not the controlling member of. She is also not asking people to purchase any of her products when she speaks out in favor of vaccines.
That is what the difference is.
Elyse – I wasn’t in any way suggesting that McCarthy is qualified to talk about vaccines, and I agree that her message is dangerous. But I think her qualifications and the accuracy of her message are two separate issues. Hypothetically, if McCarthy had a PhD in microbiology and was preaching the same message, she’d have the credentials, but still be wrong. (Yes, I realize that it’s unlikely, but is it impossible?)
Also, her wrongness kind of gets to my point. Isn’t there enough wrong with her message that we don’t need to get on her case for being a model? And if we do that, how can we respond if the anti-vaxxers dismiss Lopez as “just” an actress?
I just saw Penn & Teller’s Bullshit episode on Vaccinations, it was great!
So creepy that we use pretty people to influence society when we should be listening to scientists and other experts.
Jennifer Lopez is a nasty idiot. Anyone who waxes their body and removes all their fur until they resemble a mannequin, then turns around and drapes themselves with other slaughtered and dismembered animals fur is a nasty idiot. She even wears false eyelashes made out of fur, wtf? So she can take her vaccination campaign and stick it. In fact, she probably needs a rabies shot.
Hey TBK!!
Glad you support vaccines, but we have a very strict comment policy here about personal attacks.
It is fine to disagree with her stance on fur, but not ok to attack/call names.
Thanks :)
Using Jenny McCarthy’s status as a sex-symbol in the vaccinations debate is silly. Pointing out her lack of expertise is really tempting, and I’ve done it as well. It has served me well to remember that I have no expertise, too, and that doesn’t stop me from promoting vaccines.
Maybe this PSA from JLo will remind us all that celebrity endorsement is not inherently a bad thing. It may not be skeptical, but it certainly has an effect. But in arguments, the MESSAGE is the important part.
Now, Jenny’s endorsement of Botox, I think, IS fair game, as it is an actual example of injecting something dangerous into someone. Which is clearly at odds with some of her vaccination claims.
But I have to say, it is really hard not to vilify someone who is doing so much harm.
I have to say that I’ve been very uncomfortable with some of the comments about McCarthy in the skeptical community. Posing in Playboy doesn’t make her an expert on vaccination, but it also doesn’t make her stupid. There seems to be a lot of comments supporting the bimbo fallacy.
That being said, as Elyse pointed out, McCarthy is presenting herself as an expert. If she were merely a spokesperson that would be different. But she is spreading the idea of “mommy instinct” and other such nonsense as being superior to medical studies.
Celebrity endorsements are important for reaching broad audiences, and it’s great to see a celeb like JLo support a worthy cause.
@K.O. Myers “Hypothetically, if McCarthy had a PhD in microbiology and was preaching the same message, she’d have the credentials, but still be wrong. (Yes, I realize that it’s unlikely, but is it impossible?)”
Michael Behe. Ken Ham. Andrew Weil. Yeah, it’s possible for someone to be educated by accredited universities, have all the proper credentials, and still spew nonsense. Granted, not about this same topic, but I know “Dr.” Weil has some wonky advocacy for cancer treatment and prevention. Same idea, different application.
Here is an interesting post related to this topic: http://nataliaantonova.com/2009/11/09/reinforcing-the-dumb-bimbo-meme-one-righteous-feminist-blog-post-at-a-time/
I had many of the same thoughts a while back when everybody was so happy that Amanda Peet was “on our side”. While I think it’s great that celebrities are able to use their fame to advocate for an important cause, I think it’s also very important for people to keep in mind that celebrities (whether they are right or wrong) and generally not experts and really should not be “trusted” for matters of importance.
If they bring to light something like vaccinations, it should act as a catalyst for the public to learn more from the medical community, not just take her word for it because we know her name (ok to be fair, we know her ass much better than we know her name, but same rule applies).
KO-
The fact that she is a model isn’t irrelevant. Her expertise is looking hot and picking her nose. “Playboy model” should not ever be used to discredit her on grounds that Playboy model = stupid. However, She is wrong. AND she’s a model. AND her expertise is entertainment. AND she claims that she IS an expert. And not a “lay expert”.
Picking on her for her former career is low hanging fruit for sure, at best, and downright misogynistic at worst.
But when you ask someone, “what’s your evidence” and the answer is, “I’m a mom and I just know.” The fact that much of your life has been focused on self-promotion and causing a stir for publicity is at least an eyebrow raiser.
JLo is not saying “I am a mom and I just know.” She’s saying, “Support this campaign by the March of Dimes.”
And we’re still not forgiving her for Gigli and Bennifer.
McCarthy embarked on a self-directed campaign of ignorant misinformation. She went on talk shows and wrote books and blogs to disseminate her scientifically ridiculous and medically murderous ideas, and credentialed herself as a mommy and a student of Google U.
Lopez has done one PSA for an outside group in which nothing she says goes contrary to scientific consensus.
I really don’t see a double standard or even a comparison.
I think the point has been made that people use celebrities for endorsements or public service announcements, simply for the reason of name recognition. IT isn’t a new thing at all. It is sad that some celebs pick the things to endorse or promote that are silly or erroneous. It is also sad that some need to hear from a public figure of that sort to get information, especially about health issues. Promoters of such things use what they feel will work when it comes to getting the message across.
It is ineffective to “shoot the messenger” especially in the case of Ms. McCarthy. Instead of attacking her, it to me is far more productive to point out the flaws in the message she was convinced to tell.
I am not sure the advocate versus unqualified expert argument is robust. Either way, the individual is representing ideas. Celebrities regularly endorse products/idea produced by “experts” with on paper credentials that would make them qualified. The quality of the ideas is the relevant question.
Logic is a cruel mistress. An ad hominem is an as hominem, regardless of whether the person is right or not. If we allow McCarthy’s posing for Playboy to be anything more than a biographical identifier, we are endorsing an “ends justify the means” approach. If our goal is to manipulate people into behaving as we would wish, then maybe we can take that approach. If our goal is to teach people to think critically, then we cannot.
Personally, I have no interest in what either of them has to say as they’re not doctors or scientists. They’re entertainers. Just like I don’t particularly care what Tim Robbins (or any other entertainer) thinks about politics.
But then, these ads aren’t directed at me, nor any other rational thinker. They’re a tool to win the people who can’t think rationally. Unfortunately there’s a lot of people who would give more credit to someone like JLo than they would their own family doctor.
It’s not a tactic I would personally choose. I’d rather improve critical thinking skills and education. But I am looking at the war, not a battle. A general looking for a quick win might choose differently, and I can at least empathize with that decision.
McCarthy’s “interest” in her organization is not an argument either. Paul Offit, for example, has a personal interest in vaccinations. The distinction is that science supports Offit’s positions.
On the spokesperson/advocate note, would the situation be different if McCarthy was only acting as a spokesperson, but on behalf of a medical doctor who made the same claims about “mommy instinct”, etc.? The arguments would still be bad science.
Someone must have said it already, so I’ll restate it and agree with them: you are comparing apples to oranges here. Jenny McCarthy is a recognized leader of a movement while Jennifer Lopez is an actress hired for a part in a PSA. The two roles simply cannot be compared. Getting lost in the sexual pasts of either woman is entirely pointless and neither scores or loses points or what have you for being a playmate model or a mainstream Hollywood actress.
Do we know that JLo was “hired” as opposed to doing it because she believes in the cause?
James Randi “is a recognized leader of a movement.”
Mr. Randi is also a celebrity, professional entertainer, and lacks any academic qualification in a biomedical field or physics or scientific research. Yet, his opinions outside of his direct area of expertise (magic) are not dismissed out of hand, because he generally runs his ideas through the critical thinking mill first.
It is the ideas that matter, not the source.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that making what amounts to a false comparison actually underplays the harm that McCarthy has done. A pro-vax PSA isn’t even comparable to McCarthy’s amount of work against science and health. Calling out a “double standard” implies that the two women are more or less equal in terms of their contributions, and that just isn’t the case.
Ok. Now I am curious. Just how much impact is Ms. McCarthy’s anti-vaccination campaign supposed to have been? Is there evidence that all of a sudden there is a rise in stances against vaccinations and can they that supposed rise be traced to McCarthy. Are we giving her just a little bit too much credit, as the “evidence” of a link of vaccination and autism has been around awhile, longer then her public campaign, which really didn’t last all that long?
I think it’s an easy jab (pun intended) to point out that Jenny McCarthy is a Playboy model in order to discredit her. Why is this even necessary? Does it make her more wrong? No. She’s wrong and hurts people not because she poses nude or picks her nose; she’s wrong because she refuses to accept scientific consensus and actively promotes bullshit. These things are not related at all. IMO, when we, as skeptics, refer to McCarthy as a “Playboy Model” or “nose picker,” we’re doing nothing to bolster our arguments. She’s a scientific evidence denialist and that is what I wish I saw more of, not links to her career as a nude model.
Bravo to K.O. for calling attention to this.
@Sylvie, if you look at the Illness Timelines page of the Jenny McCarthy Body Count (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Illness_Timelines.html) you will see that there has been an increase in vaccine preventable illnesses since 2007 when Jenny McCarthy started telling parents to not vaccinate their children.
As I say on the main page of the JMBC “Is Jenny McCarthy directly responsible for every vaccine preventable illness and every vaccine preventable death listed here? No. However, as the unofficial spokesperson for the United States anti-vaccination movement she may be indirectly responsible for at least some of these illnesses and deaths and even one vaccine preventable illness or vaccine preventable death is too many.”
-Derek
How nice of her, but could she not find a pair of pants to wear for a serious cause? Or did the person posting this article pick a sexual picture to sell the point. Call me an asshole, but using sex to sell says that the advertiser doesn’t have confidence in what they are selling.
Something just struck me. I never had shots as a kid,(parents abstained for religious reasons) but I had a good bit of the diseases. I did have whooping cough. Mumps, chicken pox, one strain of measles. I’ve had tetanus shots on one measles strain, but I’ve never had the diphtheria vaccine. I wonder if I should get some updating. And if so what. Oh yeah I get the flu one every year. As an asthmatic and working close and personal with people, I’m stupid not to.
To me the point is the description of her as a ‘Playboy model.’ We don’t call other people ‘Women’s Day models,’ so why the distinction? The only reason is to play on the connotations of dumb bimbos and untrustworthy sluts. Somehow being a Playboy model makes her even worse than just a model.
Call her an unqualified model. Highlight her skill at self-promotion and the money she’s making out of it. Ridicule her stupidities and demonstrate the numerous changes in her story. Call her a hypocrite for using botox. But bringing Playboy into it is actually an attack on women, not just her. It is using all the stereotypes about women who are sexually available being dumb, desperate, bad girls. And that isn’t ok.
oh yes please update! Because adults can pass on illnesses to children and older people with impaired or underdeveloped immune systems. Talk to your doctor. Get ready to get jabbed!
Bonobo, I DID pick that photo on purpose, but to MAKE the point, not SELL it.
When skeptics have tried to discredit Jenny in the past, they have used photos oo her in various states of undress to increase the argument that she is unqualified.
The article discusses how we are not using the same standards when applying it to our own celebrity spokespeople.
Sylvie, excellent point, and I am sure Derek would agree, that correlation does not equal causation. And yes. Go get your shots!
Calling attention to McCarthy’s career as a model is fair game, but specifically pointing out that she’s a Playboy model is a subtle form of slut shaming. Yes, she’s a model. Yes, what she is doing is destructive in a way that deserves shaming. But shaming her for showing her naked body in a skin mag should be kept separate.
Yes, Ms. Lopez has done a lot since she was a Fly Girl. She’s heaps more famous, and has built up a much more successful career as an actress, dancer, singer and icon than has Ms. McCarthy. However, Ms. McCarthy has also come a long way since her days as a Playmate or on Singled Out. She’s had her own, albeit short-lived, TV show and more importantly, had exposure amongst her target audience, mothers, as a bestselling author on parenting. Considering her books (the first couple of which are very light on the anti-vax stuff) sold very well, it’s no wonder she and her fans consider her an “expert.” She wouldn’t be a bestseller if she didn’t know what she was talking about, right? *eyeroll* Her status as an author gives her the patina of credibility, especially since it has been so long since the peak of her career as a model.
So what are we doing attacking her career as a Playmate? Better to attack her books, her writing, as frivolous, crass and anti-intellectual (which some of her critics have done).
I don’t really know what a fly girl is, so saying “former fly girl JLo” doesn’t actually make any sense to me. I think saying “(former?) actress and pop star” is legitimate, and just as much a dismissal of her knowledge in this category as calling her an adult model. Also, I actually know who JLo is, I didn’t really know who McCarthy was til the vaccine nonsense.
The fact is the only major career thing McCarthy has done is Playboy and adult stuff; calling her a former Playboy model is probably the easiest way to spark the memory of the most people as to who she is. I don’t understand why it’s sexist to refer to her by how most people know her. Does it subtly discredit her? Sure, no one should take anything anyone in the entertainment industry says as true just because they’re famous.
That PSA is an emotional appeal delivered by an actor and it uses a lot of manipulative techniques to make its point. It’s point is valid, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s not doing them. I mean it’s 30 seconds in before she actually starts getting to her point and her closing line is a totally manipulative one, “What would you do if your baby caught this from you?” I think that’s a lot more troubling than calling McCarthy what she is.
@Ashley:
JLo began her career as a dancer In Living Color, the variety show that starred Jim Carey, several Wayans brothers and David Alan Grier, among others. She was part of an often scantily clad group of women that served as transitions between comedy sketches. The dancers were known as “Fly Girls.”
@Ashley: It’s pretty rare to find a PSA on this or similar topics that do not appeal to emotion. What’s nice is finding one that appeals to emotion AND is scientifically sound. I can’t possibly imagine finding that “more troubling” than McCarthy’s antics, which are far more extensive and damaging. Not by a long shot, so to speak.
@JennaMarie My point was just that people don’t know JLo as a fly girl and they do know Jenny McCarthy as a Playboy model. But thanks for explaining what a fly girl is :)
@ZenMonkey I have a huge, huge problem with misinformation and an even huger problem with the nonsense McCarthy spews. I was just saying I have a bigger problem with the tone of the PSA than with calling McCarthy a former bunny; whatever issues I have with the PSA are very minor compared with my problems with anti-vaxers. However, this PSA makes me feel icky because it’s essentially saying that people who don’t get vaccinated want to kill their children.
Well Shoot. I already get allergy shots once a month. I guess I need to figure out what I need and what I don’t.
If we are going to forbid the use of any effective rhetorical techniques that appeal to anything other than reason, we might as well go home now. Bringing a knife to a gun fight time.
We must, however, always apply strict scrutiny to make sure that the messages we are communicating are sound, regardless of the medium used to communicate those messages.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments everyone. You’ve given me a lot to think about. I especially appreciate the point that McCarthy does make her own instinctive maternal “expertise” an issue when presenting her message. That is an important distinction between the two Jennies, and I can see that making discussion of McCarthy’s actual qualifications more relevant.
That said, I agree with the point that taking shots at McCarthy for being a nude model isn’t terribly constructive. The overtly sexual nature of that work doesn’t make her any less qualified (or intelligent) than someone like Lopez, whose career has been slightly less explicit. Focusing on that aspect of McCarthy’s past is unnecessary at best, and at worst betrays a troubling bias that belies the public stance against discrimination and exclusion that most skeptics take.
Further, I think it behooves us to be honest when we’re using tactics that aren’t strictly scientific or rational. A celebrity endorsement can be very effective, but the spokesperson is primarily a conduit for the knowledge and expertise of others. If we’d dismiss a celebrity endorsement of pseudoscience because of the non-existent credentials of the spokesperson, I think it’s appropriate for us to acknowledge that same weakness when the fame is leveraged on our behalf.
Thanks again for your comments.
@rugbyologist: Exactly. What, we should have only unknown physicians droning on in front of a whiteboard about why you should vaccinate, in a 30- or 60-second PSA? Who’s going to pay any attention to that? Bring on the “your kid could die” as far as I’m concerned, only as long as the science is solid of course.