"You can't trust politicians. It doesn't matter who makes a political speech. It's all lies - and it applies to any rock star who wants to make a political speech as well"

Bob Geldof’s statement reflects a deep cynicism towards both politicians and celebrities who step into the political arena. He contends that political discourse, regardless of the speaker’s background or status, is fundamentally untrustworthy. For Geldof, the act of delivering a political speech is tainted by dishonesty, suggesting that speakers, politicians and rock stars alike, are prone to distortions, manipulation, or outright lies. This perspective calls into question the integrity of public figures and the value of their commentary on social or political matters.

Geldof’s generalization sweeps across traditional politicians, who have long been criticized for evasiveness and failed promises, and includes rock stars who leverage their fame for political advocacy. Often, celebrities are perceived as distant from the realities faced by everyday citizens; when they speak on political topics, their expertise and motivations become suspect. By equating rock stars with politicians in terms of trustworthiness, Geldof levels a critique at the culture of celebrity activism, implying that fame does not confer credibility or insight.

At the core of Geldof’s remark is a warning about the dangers of accepting public pronouncements at face value, regardless of the messenger’s status or proclaimed ideals. He expresses a frustration with the performative aspects of public speeches, where sincerity is often overshadowed by the desire for applause or influence. The broad sweep of “it’s all lies” underscores a sense of disillusionment with the mechanisms of influence in modern society, where image and rhetoric can be wielded just as effectively by musicians as by career politicians.

Ultimately, Geldof’s words challenge the audience to be skeptical of those who use their platforms for political messaging. Whether motivated by personal conviction or the pursuit of relevance, the veracity of their statements remains open to doubt, demanding critical thought rather than blind acceptance.