Not the point.

He's effectively equivalent to a TV news anchor reading a a teleprompter about the topic, except his message is being delivered to a larger network than many broadcasts and the message itself is less neutral and more sympathetic.

This is good from an information dissemination perspective, which has been a massive problem for this topic in the past. It's a sign that the topic is finally starting to grab mindshare in popular culture. That is a prerequisite for many, if not all, of the possible remedies to the problems of govt illegality and overreach.

Trying to paternalize on a subject this central isn't going to work. We are far from the era of central media control supported McCarthyism. If you want to play it like it is unimportant, you end up looking compromised by coming up with no valid counter arguments. If you don't care what others express in a smart concise way and attempt a one liner like that, why would others care about your lateral failed attempt to discredit the source. Stay well.

So actors are out strictly because they're actors. So whose opinions, views or insights should we consider? Knowing nothing about you I guess I shouldn't care what your views are either, clearly you couldn't possibly have any insight into any situation.