Žižek actually has touched this subject a couple of times. Basically, he sees his popularity and entertainer status as a potential attempt to reduce the serious undertones of his work.
Here is his quote from Zizek! transcript:
There is a clownish aspect to me, like they
put it in “New York Times,”Marx Brother, or whatever.
All that, I maybe flirt with it. But nonetheless, I’m getting tired of
it,because I notice that there is, as it were, when there are some
stupid reports on me, reactions to me, a kind of a terrible urge,
comparison, to make me appear as a kind of a funny man. And the true
question would be, where does this urge come from? Why is there this
necessity to portray me as somebody who can only thrive through jokes?
And even my publishers buy it. You know that my Lenin book…
introduction of Lenin’s… was almost turned down by Verso? Why? First,
they always, at Verso, gave kinks at me… Oh, you are just making
jokes, then I told them, “Okay, now you have a book, Lenin’s text,”
Their reproach was, So, you know, much more than it may appear is
going on here. It’s quite a complex phenomenon. I’m almost tempted to
say that making me popular is a resistance against taking me serious.
And I think it’s my duty, for this reason, to do a kind of a public
suicide of myself as a popular comedian or whatever.
This is in line with some of his other ideas he often talks about, namely ideological perception of a quality in a way that enables precisely what it is supposed to disable. Examples:
In Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, private Joker is an undisciplined cynical soldier who doesn't take the army very seriously; he is not some "kill-them-all" mindless drone brainwashed into believing whatever the superiors tell him. Yet ultimately, he functions perfectly as a highly effective killer and operates exactly as expected by the military. To Žižek, Joker is not a successfully trained soldier in spite of his cynical detachment, but because of it; it is the layer of humane normality that he uses as a neutralizer of the terrible reality of war and his involvement in it. In contrast, private Pyle totally internalizes the military ideal imposed on him throughout the course of his training, and ends up killing himself. It is Pyle who is, to Žižek, an unsuccessfully trained soldier. Žižek talks about this in this The Pervert's Guide to Ideology segment. Similarly, in many other contemporary war movies, you will find soldiers who are depicted as very humane - they cry and suffer together, they are nice to children, are compassionate, reflective etc. Yet precisely the focus on their humanity a normal person can identify with (or even admire) can be used to neutralize the critique of the political aspects of their actions - e.g. participating in an illegitimate, unethical war where people are wrongly being murdered and subjugated. It is the focus on the distance-providing humanity of the participants that enables the dehumanization to take place.
In a typical postmodern workplace, authority figures (CEOs, bosses, etc.) act as regular employees (their subordinates), as if they are all buddies and equals. In reality, subordinates must do as they say and the power hierarchy is very real. To Žižek, this quasi-equality is a dishonesty that disallows the subordinates from even feeling subordinated. In other words, it is precisely the pretense of non-existent power hierarchy that enables the hierarchical status quo, and minimizes the possibilities to attack it (if desired). Žižek talks about this in the 2013 Vice interview.
To Žižek, contemporary "bourgeois moralism disguised as the left" tries to self-impose itself as authentic left, but is in fact directly preventing the latter to form (source).