'Competitive Compassion' surges to the limelight

 Making giving fashionable is okay but where we're going in this world seems just too over the top.  The final indicator, as far as I can see, is Oprah's new TV games show in which people compete to give big bucks to their favourite charity.  Stardom is a certainty for everyone involved.  That's the payoff.  It wasn't very long ago that I read an article in an African newspaper that begged North American do-gooders to please stay home.  The huge number of high-profile people wanting to come and build schools, etc. (just like Oprah) is causing many problems.  And it's not just big names.  A friend of mine in Canada is absolutely determined to go to Africa and build a school.  I guess all the money being thrown into international works is good.  But using charity as a way to self-aggrandizement just doesn't seem right and, in fact, on a global scale of competion, has the potential to become quite scary. 

url="http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=089fa621-50a2-4610-ae53-d729e19f148c&k=3648"]Misty Harris, Canwest News Service

Published: Sunday, March 09, 2008

 
Charity may begin at home, but it only counts if there's an audience. That's the implied message of what some are calling "competitive compassion," a trend quickly turning philanthropy into an exercise in self-congratulation.

 
Putting the "I" in charity, Facebook's Causes application allows Canadians to flaunt their benevolence with all the subtlety of a Pride parade, displaying everything from the money they've personally raised to the number of friends they've recruited for their preferred charity or non-profit.

 
On TV, Celebrity Apprentice and Oprah's Big Give have transformed philanthropy into a game show, with players competing as teams but being judged as individuals in the fight to be the ultimate altruist. Of the latter show, the Hollywood Reporter writes: "Shallow as a bird bath, the program would appear to exist less as a true philanthropic exercise than yet another self-aggrandizing vehicle in Oprah's divine quest to become synonymous with all that is virtuous and good on Earth."


 Even those with seemingly genuine intentions are having their efforts scored - something actress Drew Barrymore learned this month when her public donation of $1 million to the World Food Programme was met with widespread suspicion, as well as accusations that the gift was disproportionate to her robust celebrity salary.

 
"The cynicism surrounding today's celebrity associations with charitable causes is understandable and arguably warranted," says Patricia Leavy, a sociologist and pop culture expert at Stonehill College in Massachusetts.

 
"Charitable giving has become both a fashion trend on the red carpet and a competitive sport on TV, with celebrigiants like (Donald) Trump and Oprah vying for first prize in the PR game. I think the public knows that real giving has no entertainment value, nor is it likely to occur with cameras flashing."

 
Though the sheer number of charities and non-profits has made competition for people's compassion a longtime reality for fundraising insiders, it's only recently that individual donors have embraced the same aggressive - and highly public - approach to philanthropy.
  
Just as wealthy seniors demand their names on marquees or university buildings in exchange for their cash, it seems ordinary Canadians want as much recognition for themselves as their cause.   more.....[/q]