26 Apr Cynicism About American Idol Gives Back
Last night my family watched American Idol’s charity event “Idol Gives Back” to raise money for charities in Africa and the United States. (You can watch some of the program here.) American Idol has partnered with organizations such as Malaria No More, UNICEF, Save the Children, The Global Fund, Boys and Girls Club of America, and America’s Second Harvest to fight problems such as poverty, AIDS, and malaria.
Within an hour they had raised tens of millions of dollars. There is little doubt that that money will make a dramatic impact in the lives of millions of people. As indicated on the show, $10 will buy a malaria net, and $15 is enough to immunize a child from major diseases.
But not everyone was inspired. Ann Althouse was especially cynical about Idol Gives Back:
As for the charity event, how painful to see the incredibly rich Ryan Seacrest and Simon Cowell commiserating with a 12-year-old African boy who breaks down in tears over his dead parents. They present him as a hero for being the father of the house in a hovel in a shantytown the size of Central Park with over a million people, many of them parentless children. They are using the boy to encourage the audience to give money, but it just seems so crazy to me that the two millionaires won’t just hand the boy the amount of money it would take to rescue him and his sister. Maybe they did when the cameras were gone…. I’m not impressed that they raised $30 million. There were 70 million votes Tuesday night, and how much did they invest putting the show together? How much ad money did they earn with this 2 hour display of nonentertainment. And all those celebrities participating? Yeah, Ellen gave $100,000, but did the other celebs cough up an equivalent portion of their great wealth? It was a big PR thing, raising a paltry amount of money for all the parading of human suffering. And only $5 million from the corporate sponsors, purportedly based on the number of phoned in votes but capped at $5 million? I am not impressed by this stunt, which was all about the “American Idol” image. Better to give the money quietly, out of the vast sums they make on the show.
I think Althouse is dead wrong on this one. Sure Simon Cowell, Ryan Seacrest, and other celebrities love the spotlight. But this is not complicated. There is not a lot of nuance about the importance of raising private aid to alleviate poverty in Africa. There is little doubt that at least some of the celebrities are sincere in their desire to make a difference in the world. (Indeed, based on their track record, I find it impossible to believe that Bono or Angelina Jolie are not serious about their charitable activities). But it appears that Althouse seems to think that celebrities by definition can never be sincere about wanting to help by using their star power to raise millions of dollars.
What she is missing is that this event was not just about raising money. It was also about raising awareness. I for one can attest that my children were touched by the images of a dozen children sleeping on a dirt floor in Africa, or a woman dying of AIDS, or a mother in Appalachia crying as her kids read from a book, something she cannot do. My children were inspired by what Bono said and absolutely insisted that we give money (which we did). Althouse may be cynical about this celebrity charity event, but my kids were not.
Roger, Didn’t see the show, but sounds like I would have had a reaction considerably closer to yours. The show sounds like it raised awareness, as you say, and educated. Presumably that ALSO helps raise money. And I don’t understand Althouse’s assumptions about fundraising. If celebrities should have given money privately, who’s to say that they didn’t? From a fundraising perspective, if one puts on the show, it seems to me that you’re almost committed to NOT having the hosts hand over their own whopping check — I think it’d be far worse to suggest to the audience that someone else with far greater means was already taking care of the problems. And shouldn’t we defer to the wisdom of the partnering charities, unless we think they’ve been bewitched somehow? That said, there is something grating about seeing the wealthy stiff-arm the impoverished and desperate — if that’s what happened — and, even more, to see the latter trotted out and used instrumentally for purposes that are predominately commercial in character. So I think it’s fair to complain that the worthy causes were getting too small a slice. Not sure what the solution is, other than to apply pressure to… Read more »
Your cynicism is well-founded, my friend.
Me too.
Well, considering Ann Althouse’s track record in intellectual honesty, the only thing worth noting is that she’s still taken seriously by a fellow academic.
I admit to not understanding why anyone reads Althouse in the first place. She does not in any way distinguish herself as a law blog, and there’s so much ‘out there’ that’s better and thus more deserving of our time and attention.
Patrick,
I agree with you that Althouse is not a law blog. I read her occasionally not for enlightenment but rather because she is quirky, authentic, and offers some entertainment value.
Roger Alford
Roger,
Fair enough, but then you might agree with me that her blog blurbs are more than a tad misleading:
“Formidable law blogger Ann Althouse.” – Slate
“Legal scholarship as performance art.” — Jack Balkin
[For what it’s worth: I’m not sure how one might come to the conclusion that her posts are ‘authentic.’]
I was a bit spooked when I read her profile and discovered that we both like the Beatles, the Byrds and the Kinks, so I’m hoping she doesn’t share my affection for blues, folk/bluegrass and jazz.
Frankly, I never give to these maudlin “public” emotive fests; preferring to donate privately to discreet charities with proven track records. For my entire life of 43 years I’ve been bombarded with “starving children in Africa” pleas, and anything Bono is associated with is certain to not get any money from me. In fact, the more celebs associated with a cause, the less I pay attention. For the record, my wife and I adopted three (3) orphans just over a year ago, so anyone who harbors the thought I’m cold or hard-hearted is distinctively barking up the wrong tree.
Given the nature of the beast, it’s understandable that worthy causes will call upon celebrities to bring attention to their work. Bono may be associated with perfectly worthwhile and important endeavors and it seems rather perverse to cite his association as the sole reason for not giving money to such groups. Of course one often has to make very painful decisions as to which organizations and causes one is going to contribute to, but it would be best that such decisions are based on rational reasons rather than idiosyncratic and emotive reactions to celebrity involvement. I happen to prefer ‘maudlin “public” fests’ or being ‘bombarded with “starving children in Africa” pleas’ to someone who publicly proclaims his ‘discrete’ (?) donations to charities and make further insinsuations as to his magnanimous gestures or nature because he’s adopted three orphans.
erratum: ‘makes further insinuations’