It’s the new
accessory apparently. They’ve added another must-have to their handbags and
shoes and sunglasses. Now they’re all aiming for a charity venture tucked
underneath one arm as they hook their Prada handbag and toy Chihuahua on the
other.
Now maybe these are
the words of a cynic, who knows, however, it is undeniable that the world of
celebrity has become more heavily entwined with the world of humanitarian
activism. There have always been the select few celebrities that have been
known for their morals and have stood up to shout or sing a clear message to
the people, Bono, John Lenon, Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman and Bob Geldoff to name
a few. And these few were known for their songs of freedom and truth. They were
activists in their careers too. But now it seems celebrities of all shapes and
sizes are flocking to sign up to create their own foundation.
I have always loved
the idea of working for a charity (something that I now do) and have always
been one to support fundraising and charity ventures. Money or food or water to
the needy is exactly what the world should do more, so in that respect, surely
it’s a great thing that so many celebrities are setting up their own
foundations to help people and give something back to those who need it. The
only reservation I have is this… Is it really plausible that this wave of
popularity for helping others is something that so many celebrities have had
the inspiration to do out of pure generosity? There is no denying, that
appearing to give back to the world, and care for those less fortunate than
you, is a very effective PR maneuver. But is it cynical to look at it this way?
Or realistic?
This week, Lady Gaga
has set up her own foundation, the 'Born This Way Foundation' to help those who are bullied. News also
circulated that Cheryl Cole is setting up her foundation, 'The Cheryl Cole Foundation' to help young people
in the North East realise their potential. And of course we have the more
established ventures, such as Elton John’s AIDs foundation.
No one can deny the
need for more humanitarian aid, more compassion and more fairness in this
world. But do we believe all these foundations are set up with the right
intentions? I am sure that all the celebrities who take a hand in helping
others, do it with good intentions. But where has the humility gone? These seem far too much like acts of vanity for me to be entirely comfortable. The most
inspiring stories, in my opinion, are the ones you hear about somebody leaving
a bag of money outside a charity with an anonymous note. They do not seek
recognition, they do not need thanks, they wish to remain anonymous, because at
the end of the day, they know it is not about them, and it is not themselves
that need the publicity. It’s the people they are trying to help. Unfortunately
when a celebrity sets up a foundation or gives a large amount to charity, the
focus is almost always turned onto them. They get the limelight and not the
people who need it most. The media should be focusing on bringing awareness to
the causes that the charities support, not the founders, just because they had
a number 1 album and wore Gucci down the red carpet last week. If anybody needs
less publicity, it’s the people that are in our newspapers every week. And it's not just me that feels suspicious. At the end of 2005, there were headlines that the charity organizations involved in the Make Poverty History campaign were angry and felt that the whole thing had been hijacked and become about the celebrities, not about making poverty history. After all, what do most people remember from that campaign? Of course it's the hype of the Live8 concert, and not the ultimately far more important G8 Summit.
Furthermore, if a
celebrity really feels that there are others who so desperately need money and
support more than they do, why aren’t they giving out of their own pocket? They
live extravagant lifestyles, often own a multitude of houses and cars. Would it
really dent their pockets that much to give the odd few thousand a year, or
even a month? Probably not. But then even if they did do it, you just know that
suddenly their face would be all over the news, and maybe surprise surprise
their next single might be released a month or two later? Although I do not
wish to come across as though I am preaching to the masses. I do not always
give when I have the chance, or perhaps even when I should. I could give a little
more each month than I do, I am as guilty as anybody else of being selfish. But
just because Lady Gaga say ‘Stop Bullying’, should we suddenly see her as the
new Mother Teresa? No.
So what do we think?
Should we shut up and just be happy that there’s money being raised for a good
cause? Or do we recognize that these organizations may well be the well hatched
plan of a PR agency who have decided their client needs to come across as a bit
more caring, a bit more down to earth, a bit more compassionate? Personally, I
don’t want to complain about any money being raised for a good cause. But I
think I’d be a bit happier about it if I knew the organization stood for
itself, and wasn’t just another brand name a celebrity can attach itself too.
Perhaps they do all have hearts, and they do all believe in their cause, I hope
they do. But I don’t like the idea of compassion and charity becoming the next
big thing in the world of celebrity must-haves. It should be exactly what it
says on the tin, and it should be all about the people it’s helping. Not the
people who have slapped their name in the title.
No comments:
Post a Comment