The yin and yang of celebrity attachment to charitable causes
This quote from the Salamon readings caught my attention:
"Another source of tension is that, while the UN agencies are mandated to set up operations in any and all areas of need, NGO's are free to pick and choose their countries of operation. This results, UN personnel argue, in an overwhelming number of actors responding in situations that attract media interest and a dearth of agencies responding to the "forgotten emergencies", leaving gaps in basic service provision"(p.247).
Taking their use of actors literally, it made me think about celebrities that have been very active in philanthropy, namely Angelina Jolie and Bono. They're the two that come to mind as examples of public figures who use their powers for good and not evil, so to speak. It could be argued that through their participation in various UN and other NGO missions, they've brought media attention where there might previously have been none. The Salamon quote sounds resentful of this concept - but I have to wonder, is it really a bad thing? I guess in situations when the celebrity (ie. a Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton) is really only involved to boost their public image, the criticism is warranted. But when celebrities with legitimate interests in certain causes get involved, and they're able to generate interest through the sheer power of the media,which evokes a greater public awareness and response- it's hard to see that as negative.
It would seem to me that with the scope of the UN's mandate to help "any and all areas of need", as well as the sheer number of NGOs, there shouldn't be any "forgotten areas" (theoretically, of course - I know a number tend to slip through the cracks). So that's a legitimate criticism of celebrity attachment to causes - but it also seems wrong to criticize the celebrities who choose to use their power and resources to truly make a difference. I guess it's a double-edged sword.
This article about George Clooney's recent activities in Darfur also brings up some of the same points and criticisms.
What do y'all think?
FYI...
Angelina Jolie's UN journals
DATA, Bono's organization dedicated to Africa
"Another source of tension is that, while the UN agencies are mandated to set up operations in any and all areas of need, NGO's are free to pick and choose their countries of operation. This results, UN personnel argue, in an overwhelming number of actors responding in situations that attract media interest and a dearth of agencies responding to the "forgotten emergencies", leaving gaps in basic service provision"(p.247).
Taking their use of actors literally, it made me think about celebrities that have been very active in philanthropy, namely Angelina Jolie and Bono. They're the two that come to mind as examples of public figures who use their powers for good and not evil, so to speak. It could be argued that through their participation in various UN and other NGO missions, they've brought media attention where there might previously have been none. The Salamon quote sounds resentful of this concept - but I have to wonder, is it really a bad thing? I guess in situations when the celebrity (ie. a Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton) is really only involved to boost their public image, the criticism is warranted. But when celebrities with legitimate interests in certain causes get involved, and they're able to generate interest through the sheer power of the media,which evokes a greater public awareness and response- it's hard to see that as negative.
It would seem to me that with the scope of the UN's mandate to help "any and all areas of need", as well as the sheer number of NGOs, there shouldn't be any "forgotten areas" (theoretically, of course - I know a number tend to slip through the cracks). So that's a legitimate criticism of celebrity attachment to causes - but it also seems wrong to criticize the celebrities who choose to use their power and resources to truly make a difference. I guess it's a double-edged sword.
This article about George Clooney's recent activities in Darfur also brings up some of the same points and criticisms.
What do y'all think?
FYI...
Angelina Jolie's UN journals
DATA, Bono's organization dedicated to Africa
posted by Giselle @ 2:10 PM
1 Comments:
At 6:18 PM, September 25, 2006,
Evelyn said…
Gisele, thanks for the great post! I think that we have never seen celebrities more engage to humanitarian causes than now. When famous celebrities like Angelina and Bono engage with humanitarian causes, they raise the voice of the people of the oppressed ones. They turn people’s attention to where the problems really are.
I found it interesting how many celebrities are engage in humanitarian causes, here is a list of famous people:
- Whoopi Goldberg, Halle Berry, Audrey Mia Farrow, Jessica Lange, Ricky Martin.. ohh the list is endless! Check it out http://www.unicef.org/people/people_ambassadors.html
I think is absolutely brilliant that celebrities are donating their time, money and energy to contribute to make the world a better place for all!
Post a Comment
<< Home