Could Celebrity status hurt Obama?

[Commentary] The emergence of Barack Obama as a marketable celebrity brings a new dimension to the perennial discussion of media political bias. Usually, the reasons advanced for why the media lean this way or that fall into familiar patterns: Journalists themselves are liberal and swing coverage to reflect personal ideology; news organizations are owned by conservatives who want anti-corporate politicians marginalized; media try to mirror the prejudices of audiences and advertisers, which means supporting entrenched privilege -- such as being male or being white; media like to stir things up, so they tilt toward the sensational and the discordant. And so on. But one dimension of media behavior that doesn't get enough attention is the self-serving one: Media like what helps them prosper. If Obama draws bigger crowds, let's have more Obama coverage. But is celebrity-like coverage for a politician helpful? Probably not:

1) celebrity popularity is fickle;

2) celebrity appeal usually turns on personality attributes -- making supposed personality foibles pivotal to a candidate's appeal introduces a quirky and bizarre element into electoral calculation;

3) celebrities must keep it light: stardom is status without influence; and

4) the McCain attack comparing Obama to Paris Hilton is powerful as presidential candidates always avoid specifics if they can get by with rhetoric, but few have to live down the impression that they are.

Could upstart Obama's newfound stardom cost him the presidency? Now that's a plotline worthy of a world-class celebrity.

(Edward Wasserman is Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University.)