The debate over the value of certain public figures, programs, and institutions is never far from the surface, especially when it comes to figures like Elon Musk and television programs like The View. In a moment of levity, Joy Behar, one of the co-hosts of The View, recently remarked that society should “cut Elon” because we already have NASA. While her statement was likely meant to be humorous, it sparked a wave of debate and commentary online. This off-the-cuff remark led to a playful response from the public: “We should cut The View because we already have Animal Planet.”
The initial comment made by Behar seemed to reflect her frustration with Musk’s repeated efforts to dominate the media landscape, especially his ventures in space exploration, which are seen by many as a modern-day extension of NASA’s historical missions. Behar’s perspective was that, with an institution like NASA already in place, Musk’s ventures—whether through SpaceX or other space-related endeavors—could be redundant, and perhaps even unnecessary. It’s a viewpoint that highlights how individuals, often with powerful platforms, are criticized when they appear to overstep or duplicate the work of established institutions.
Musk, a figure often embroiled in controversy, has made headlines for his role in revolutionizing space travel with his private company, SpaceX. In 2020, SpaceX made history with the first crewed launch into orbit by a private company. Musk’s ambitious goal of making space travel more accessible has undeniably contributed to the ongoing conversation about humanity’s future in space. In contrast to NASA’s history of government-funded space missions, Musk’s efforts emphasize privatization and commercialization of space travel. While critics like Behar might see this as a threat to the role of NASA, others see Musk’s drive as a way to push the boundaries of space exploration, providing new opportunities for collaboration, technological innovation, and inspiration.
However, Behar’s joke underscores a wider issue in the public’s perception of Musk’s dominance in both the space industry and the media. It reflects a broader sentiment that Musk’s celebrity persona and larger-than-life endeavors often overshadow the traditional work of government-funded institutions like NASA. Musk’s Twitter posts, his entrepreneurial efforts, and his general media presence often feel as though they eclipse the deep, long-term work being done by organizations like NASA, which may not have the same media appeal. Behar’s quip suggests that we might be living in a world where the commercialized space race is distracting us from the more substantial, historic work that has already been done.
The counter-comment, “We should cut The View because we already have Animal Planet,” taps into the idea that certain media outlets, like The View, also present content that is considered repetitive or less substantive compared to the range of programming available elsewhere. For those who criticize The View, it might feel as though the show is stuck in a loop of sensationalist commentary and celebrity gossip—topics that some feel could be found on other platforms, like reality TV or even nature documentaries. Animal Planet, often considered a more wholesome and educational alternative to celebrity-driven shows, could be seen as a stark contrast to the sometimes chaotic, gossip-laden environment of The View.
The comparison between The View and Animal Planet, while humorous, speaks to the broader frustration with the current media landscape. There’s a growing sentiment that certain programs, like The View, serve as distractions from meaningful or educational content. As society becomes increasingly fragmented, with various forms of entertainment vying for attention, the value of traditional talk shows, especially those centered around celebrities or hot takes, has been questioned. Shows like The View often attract attention because of their fiery debates, with personalities like Behar providing opinions that are both provocative and controversial. Yet, for some, the lack of depth or meaningful discourse can feel tiresome, contributing to the feeling that these shows, like Musk’s ventures, are essentially unnecessary additions to a crowded media landscape.
Both Behar’s statement about Musk and the counter-comment about The View reflect a larger critique of how society allocates its attention and resources. Musk, for all his accomplishments, often finds himself in the crosshairs of public discourse, and much of that discourse revolves around whether his influence in multiple industries—especially space exploration—is helping or hurting the larger goals of science and progress. Meanwhile, The View, as a mainstream talk show, continues to hold onto its spot in popular culture despite growing criticism about its relevance and depth. In both cases, the commentary suggests that there is a sense of saturation: whether it’s Musk’s relentless media presence or the repetitive nature of certain television formats, the question arises: are we getting the most value from these media staples, or are we simply indulging in distractions?
Ultimately, the statement about Musk and The View serves as an interesting commentary on our media culture. It highlights the tension between traditional, government-funded institutions like NASA, which are dedicated to long-term goals of scientific discovery, and the private, profit-driven ventures like those of Elon Musk, which often appear more flashy and attention-grabbing. At the same time, it raises questions about the relevance of talk shows and other forms of entertainment in a rapidly changing media environment, where viewers are increasingly looking for content that offers more than just sensational headlines.
Both Musk and The View are symbolic of a media landscape that prioritizes visibility, often at the expense of depth or purpose. Whether we are talking about space exploration or daytime television, the public’s appetite for more meaningful, grounded content seems to be growing. The debate between the necessity of Musk’s space race and the role of The View in the media ecosystem reflects a broader cultural struggle over where our attention and resources should be directed. Should we prioritize celebrity-driven ventures, or should we refocus on more substantial, educational, and institutional contributions to society? As these questions continue to evolve, so too will the role of media, entertainment, and celebrity in shaping our collective future.
