I think often they're asked because they've expressed interest in a topic or cause, and they realize that any benefit their name and the exposure they have at the moment is wasted if they ignore questions about it.
That they misstep is probably no different than any fledgling PR person the first day on the job, and sometimes I don't doubt it's media baiting them with questions to expose their lack of knowledge of some areas of the topic, as it makes for good coverage.
A lot of the times I give celebrities a lot of leeway in their knowledge, because most the time it's obvious that they just want to help because they feel fortunate for their current situation and want to give back. Sometimes that seems to be misapplied because of their lack of deep understanding on the topic, but at least their hearts seem to be in a good place.
It’s likely worse with celebrities who are generally smart and well-read on a wide range of subjects, who think that because they think they know a thing or two, that they should bestow their pearls of knowledge upon their audience.
The reality, though, is that they are in fact an illustration of the popular understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect, because they don’t know how much they don’t know, sometimes even after a demonstration of the contrary.
I know about at least one such person who gave very thoughtful interviews on politics and blogged opinions and how he knew how to put things right, ran for a seat in the parliament twice, actually got elected both times, and failed miserably at his job both times, ending his mandate prematurely.
> the popular understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect
You had me (my upvote) at hello (the acknowledgement of the popular misunderstanding). ;)
We are all fools on many topics, most topics. One of my mentors in the past used to say there was no substitute for experience in an area. If you were joining a project and the members had a head start you should listen and learn because their experience was way ahead of your opinions on how it could be done.
Why not participate in the norm of stating the source of your claims. It's easy enough to start a sentence with "I read in the Guardian" or "If I remember correctly" or "I heard from a professor once".
It even helps just to share your credence in your claim, e.g. "I suspect this is true", or "I'm pretty sure this is how something works".
We all sometimes have a tendency to talk about the things we know jack about while posing as experts because we read an article in the Guardian about it once, or an abstract from a paper. Some more than others.
In the world of show business and television, I’ve seen celebrities — singers, stand up comedians, those kinds of people — often being asked about their stance on complicated political issues or life advice as such — and they spoke bullshit with a mild air of authority instead of running away, which a sensible person should have done. The thing, though, is, that the fact they are celebrities means there are crowds of fans who will listen to whatever they say as if it was God’s own truth.
Hey, you can treat what I just wrote as uninformed bullshit, likely you even have reasons to, like data to contradict my statements. It’s ok. I’m likely a fool.