Everyone has an opinion about politics and politicians, and will continue to offer those opinions for years to come, whether their opinion has been solicited or not.

Possibly due to the many social media outlets’ influence on folks’ belief that whatever they do or think is relevant to others, those aforementioned opinions on the realm of politics are permeating the Internet, airwaves and every other means of information distribution.

As a form of entertainment, the onslaught of these opinions is to be expected, as unfounded, unresearched descriptions of a situation make for a fine way to chuckle or waste a few minutes.

The line must be firmly drawn when it comes to uninformed “celebrities” putting forth their insights into matters they are not well-educated in and then being put into situations where the public is led to believe these people are someone knowledgeable.

A current example of this rests with the ramblings of “SNL” alumna Victoria Jackson.

There is speculation running rampant on Internet chat boards as to whether her spiel is an homage to the brilliant comedic stylings of Andy Kaufman — or Joaquin Phoenix for those needing a more current celebrity who emulated the power of full-blown character acting — or if Jackson legitimately believes in the conspiracies and asinine rhetoric spewing from her gob.

If it is a joke, then amazing. It is a fine work of art and ought be applauded. If it is serious, well, Jackson still has every right to slap up YouTube videos and enjoy the chatter from the viewers bored enough to comment.

In either case though, there is no reason for her thoughts to be featured in any context other a passing reference in entertainment coverage.

Fox, MSNBC, CBS and CNN have given her videos and/or actual flapping jaw air time to some degree.

What this boils down to is that either the “news” outlets many Americans turn to are really just striving to grab as many viewers and rating points as possible — distinctly possible — or that the understanding and interest of “news” has dropped so low as to merely pander to the extremely short attention spans of the public when it comes to what to cover for politics.

The trend of celebrity interaction into the political arena is fine, so long as the messages the celebrity is giving are put into the proper context: so the public knows that this person is not an expert. This is acknowledging the lazy nature of many to not look further into information, but that is an unfortunate way people live today.

With this trend in mind, is the public no longer interested in “hard-news” coverage, preferring the simple and edited-for-TV soft-core coverage?

The line needs to be defined between what constitutes news and what is merely entertainment, and that line needs to be redefined soon, lest the public slide into a world akin to that of the film “Idiocracy.”