As Election Day approaches and the United States faces troubles both domestically and abroad, there’s no shortage of news. One of my favorite and most prestigious publications is The New York Times and its hard-hitting, daily political stories about presidential campaigns, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, and the economy. The Times is well-lauded for its breaking news coverage and well-researched investigation pieces. Oh, and all things Taylor Swift, apparently.
Swift and her boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs tight-end Travis Kelce, have been a hot topic in the news since their relationship went public in September 2023. Swift’s presence at Chiefs’ games was subject to backlash from some NFL fans, who felt that too much media attention was dedicated to Swift instead of the sport. Some even speculated that Swift had a hand in the Chief’s 2024 Superbowl Win in an effort to win Biden the presidency.
I never really cared about the media attention during football games—the NFL actually gained two million female viewers—and Swift is arguably one of the most famous and influential celebrities of our time. Her net worth is over $1 billion, and her Eras tour broke the record for the highest-grossing tour in history. She is (and always has been) a pop sensation, and I’ve been a loyal fan since I could walk and talk.
But a recent article in The Athletic, the Times’ sports publication, caught me off guard. Titled “How many Chiefs games will Taylor Swift attend in 2024? How her tour schedule aligns,” the feature goes into great detail speculating whether Swift will be in attendance at Chiefs’ games, or if Kelce will be able to swing by an Eras performance. I’m talking charts and graphs.
View this post on Instagram
As a journalist, I’m never going to argue that a publication shouldn’t post something unless it’s factually incorrect or poses ethical issues. But where a story is posted matters—if the Times wants to spend resources writing another celebrity-idolizing fluff piece, they can be my guest. But it’s not like there’s a shortage of sports news out there for The Athletic to choose from.
The Paris Paralympic Games ran from Aug. 28 to Sept. 8, and during that period, The Athletic posted just two stories about the Games on their Instagram. The same number of posts was allocated to the latest updates in the Swift-Kelce matchup during that same timeframe. I find it ridiculous that a reputable sports publication is devoting equal coverage to a pop star romance and one of the biggest sporting events in the world. Since when did The New York Times become The Daily Mail?
View this post on Instagram
I’m also frustrated with the media’s unwillingness to criticize Swift. After the release of her most recent album “The Tortured Poets Department” in April, Times critic Lindsay Zoladz dug into the album, and criticized Swift for once again playing the victim card. My favorite part of the review is when Zoladz attacks the song “Who’s Afraid of Little Old Me?”:
“Given the enormous cultural power that Swift wields, and the fact that she has played dexterously with humor and irony elsewhere in her catalog, it’s surprising she doesn’t deliver this one with a (needed) wink.
Plenty of great artists are driven by feelings of being underestimated, and have had to find new targets for their ire once they become too successful to convincingly claim underdog status. Beyoncé, who has reached a similar moment in her career, has opted to look outward. On her recently released “Cowboy Carter,” she takes aim at the racist traditionalists lingering in the music industry and the idea of genre as a means of confinement or limitation.”
I don’t love the practice of pitting successful female artists against each other, but Swift has long defended herself on the platform of feminism, often neglecting the difficulties intersectional artists like Beyoncé face in the industry. The review’s 371 comments proved just how difficult it is to critique Swift at her current popularity, with one comment reading, “Amazing that this writer feels that they are in a position to critique Taylor Swift’s lyrics or music.” Man, I sure do hate it when a music critic critiques music!
Most recently, Swift is being praised for her political prowess. The Times’ first Instagram post following last Tuesday’s presidential debate was the announcement that Swift endorsed the Harris campaign.
Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris after Tuesday night’s presidential debate. In a post to her 283 million Instagram followers that featured a photo with her cat, the pop superstar said the debate convinced her to weigh in publicly. https://t.co/701odKOlG1 pic.twitter.com/J7vmSo8KYH
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 11, 2024
But why is she just now breaking her otherwise political silence? Is she trying to mobilize her millions of fans, or is it merely a response to false rumors that she endorsed former president Donald Trump? At lower points of popularity, like in her “Lover” and “folklore” eras, Swift actively posted about political news and opinions, and her social media posts actually felt like they were written by her. Now, every post feels like an AI-generated promotion for another overpriced, low-quality sweatshirt or a new CD in five different colors—I can’t decide if I want “Midnights” in moonstone blue, blood moon, jade green or mahogany, so I guess I should just buy them all!
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
Because of her fame and vast audience, Swift’s endorsement is likely to have some effect on voter turnout. She knows this. So why has she kept quiet throughout the campaign? Many celebrities have spoken out about the war in Gaza as well, and despite pushback from fans, Swift has yet to acknowledge the issue.
Swift is no longer the 20-year-old girl who received unnecessary hate and backlash from powerful men in the industry. She’s a 34-year-old billionaire who still writes songs about high school romances and uses past wrongs as a buffer against criticism.
I think it’s time that we stop giving billionaire celebrities praise for simply existing. Music, movies, and media play huge roles in our lives (especially as Emerson students!), and I don’t think it’s unfair to hold them to a higher standard in shaping popular culture and society because of it. We live in a capitalistic, consumerist society. Perhaps if we started demanding more from our celebrities, they would supply it.
