This is some pretty nonsensical logic. I mean, what the hell? As if this social scheme wasn't unfair enough already.
I suppose that you can guess already that I once again made the mistake of watching television news. I always think that perhaps it'll be good to catch up on the day's/week's activities, but no, it's always just a mishmash of talking and only-slightly-related-but-not-very-helpful The only difference between New Zealand's TV news is that TVOne remains nostalgic of the time in which they were BBC-influenced, and TV3 tries to be fresh and hip and liberal and then forgets what each of those words mean right before they go to air.
Somebody in New Zeaand apparently complained, once upon some time ago, that television news would be "just like radio, but with pictures." Well that would be accurate now, if the news was short and concise and informative like radio has to be. Instead, television news has become farcical. It is just a story, albeit a poorly constructed story, about whatever they feel at the time is the most important item of the day. However, because they are in so much competition with the opposing channel, they tend to just report as much as possible as fast as possible.
Occasionally, things won't even make sense from an editing perspective. Yes, Brisbane/Queensland are in strife due to flooding. This is something of which I want to be informed. Tell me what you've got. Except when what you've got is some nobody staring at the camera saying "Oh no! My precious persian rug! Gone forever!" over and over because you have actually run out of decent footage and information. And upon realising that you have dragged out this segment of non-information for about five minutes now (which is ages in news time), you quickly flick to your anchorman and let him say the equivalent of "Oh, yeah, there's some flooding in Chile and Brazil. Lots of people are dying. But look at this dog we found, it's no bigger than a teacup!"
So I despise television news. So watching it is pretty silly, but every now and then I hope for something better. I no longer have access to sky tv, though that's not to say that international news stations are not just as ridiculous as our news stations here.
Anyway, what I saw which bothered me so, was the what I am going to call "The Celebrity Donation Situation." It sounds like an episode title from The Big Bang Theory, but unfortunately nothing so witty follows. Now I have so many issues with celebritydom, but here's the latest one.
Why is it, that when there's a huge disaster that endangers a large amount of people, why is it that some celebrity with millions upon millions of dollars at their disposal pops up on television to ask us regular joes to open our pockets and give generously?
Especially when said celebrity is most probably getting paid for the task of asking?
You have millions of dollars, you donate! You could give ten million dollars, more money that I will ever see in my lifetime, even if I live for one hundred years and have several generations of very successful children! Not only that, but that ten million dollars wouldn't even make a dent in your bank account.
Yet you have the audacity to ask me and my fellows to donate? I usually give what spare change I have to people on the street asking for help whilst waving buckets at me furiously. I am no miser. But this is just rude!
Though I suppose what gets me even more is that in these situations, celebrities like to hold auctions for stuff they've worn/used/chewed and ask us to bid for the item, with the highest bid being donated to the charity/country in need. So not only do they get positive publicity, but they don't even donate any of their money! They donate ours!
Also, with so much money, why do they wait for a situation like this to arise? Why don't they make giving a habit? Why is it that they only ever "donate" during a crisis (some select few excluded)? I mean, I figure there's only so much you can buy, before shopping gets boring.
In saying that, I don't like shopping as an activity anyway, but still!
It bothers me. Considerably. More than TV news bothers me.
Also, on a side note while I think of it, does the Cancer Society seem like a strange name to anyone? To me it sounds as though they support cancer, like the Aged People's Society supports elderly people. At least the SPCA were careful enough to add an important word like "Prevention"! Surely the Anti-Cancer Society would be better?
Despite my better judgment, I can't help myself and so must say that:
ReplyDeleteA: I definitely agree whole-heartedly about the uselessness of much news coverage. It's often laughably bad and incredibly uninformative, as you point out. However, are you really sure you want to go around referring to flood victims (or anybody, for that matter) as "some nobody?" I assume it's not the fact that the person featured was non-famous that bothered you about the scene -so I don't see how the epithet is warranted.
B: I would be prepared to bet a large sum of money myself that the celebrities who solicit donations in such circumstances often HAVE given lots of money to the cause in question, and are in fact often donating their time in order to bring in even more money.
In fact, many celebrities give huge sums of money and lots of time to help with ongoing situations, like world hunger and armed conflicts. If you want examples I am happy to provide them. (Though there are doubtless counter-examples too.)
You can argue (and make a very persuasive case) that they should be giving more than they do. However, you can argue that about rather a lot of people the world over, including anybody who regularly buys things that they don't really need. I know I'm on that list.
Speaking of the Cancer Society, I always thought the Child Cancer Foundation sounded particularly sinister!
A: By some nobody - I am referring to the general masses that the reporters interview who contribute nothing to the story, except for the fact that they are present. I was not making general comments about flood victims, per se.
ReplyDeleteB: I bet not. Can you prove that their advertising is not bought? I bet it is. Also, what's ten thousand donated when you make five million in royalties?
The fact that you've said that they are "on-going" situations shows that the money donated isn't really going where it should and somebody is making profit off the situations: *cough cough World Vision CEO's 6-figure salary cough cough*.
How many people HELP with situations and how many throw money at the problem, then take the credit for someone else's hard work? It's the whole general-soldier problem. One gives the orders, the other does all the hard work - guess who gets the credit+bonuses?
But what's an argument without a devil's advocate? I appreciate the comment - it imprves my debating skills.
I know you weren't maligning flood victims. The reference just struck me as sounding rather mean-spirited, which I know wasn't your intention.
ReplyDeleteI have done a little cursory internet research. There are certainly lots of examples of the kind of thing you're talking about, where celebrities do get paid for charity appearances, etc. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment there and I'm dismayed by how common it seems to be.
On the other hand, there are some celebrities who do seem to give lots of money and time to charity. Angelina Jolie might be a good example, since she gives lots of money (millions) and also donates her time as a UN spokesperson, apparently (within the limits of internet research) paying her own expenses along the way.
I agree with you for cases such as you suppose, but I think if you look you will also find examples of celebrities honestly trying to do good things with their money and their fame. Celebrities are a heterogeneous group, just like the rest of us. I just don't think you should assume that any celebrity asking for donations is a slimeball (which may not have been what you were doing, but it kind of sounded that way to me).
Finally, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like in your book celebrities and the rest of us are damned if we do and dammed if we don't. First you wondered why celebrities don't make giving a habit, and now you say that their giving must be useless if it's going to ongoing problems.
Few people would argue with you regarding the problems inherent in charitable giving, and I'm certainly not one of them. However, I don't think that's necessarily a reason not to donate, assuming we (or celebrities) do the research and try to ensure the dollars donated have the best impact possible.
Always happy to join you in spirited debate!
P.S. I think there should be a word to distinguish "internet research" (by which I mean spending 10 minutes googling) from real research. Any ideas? I'm going with netsearching for the moment, or maybe regoogling.
ReplyDeletegooglising? wikipediation?
ReplyDeleteI think that there is so much in this world which is a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation - and I appreciate those who go out and try to make change regardless of its effectiveness.
Yes I knew Angelina Jolie would come up. She's the obvious choice, but I'm glad that there is an obvious choice. I realise that lumping such a disparate group of people into one category is horribly bias, but sometimes it's easier to genrealise rather than specify - especially without real research to hand.
Think not of it as a specific attack and more of a rage at the idea in general. Then it all makes more sense. Just be angry with the world, and let logic follow on grudgingly behind for a change.
Also, update your blog. Or start a new one.
I like googlising.
ReplyDeleteI take your point. I am beginning to suspect that DUN DUN DUN we simply have very different rhetorical styles. Who'd a thunk it? But I fear I will have difficulty abandoning the need to hold people accountable for their logic at all times.
I'll work on the blogging someday maybe. I just got a job primarily involving replanting lots of flowers as quickly as possible. So I am both tired and not a good source for what one might call scintillating news. I expect to hear about your program, once it gets going though!