Celebrity Aid to Tsunami

[smudge]

I am well aware of the need to advertise for donations for certain causes, but it really infuriates me when you see photos of celebrites who have donated money to the Tsunami cause, plastered over the newpapers. Who gives a dot who they are & what they donate. Some of them can well afford the vast amounts they have donated & shouldn't need more stardom for doing so. Whereas ordinary folk like us, donate what we can afford, but do not ask for recogntion. What do you think?

[Robinia]

Yes smudge, I know what you mean.  Let's hope that we don't get a load of celebrity/soap star marathon events now.  It's quite clear that we are quite willing and able to do what we can without any prompting from them.

[The Tiggster]

I agree smudge. It's a shame that Celeb's jump on the publicity wagon at such a time.

Speaking of which, Sharon Osbourne is on the front of one of the tabloids today (I haven't read it) with the headlines that she has donated �100,000. Is that to make good PR after the prat she made of herself on X Factor?

[smudge]

The Tiggster - you read my mind. She's on the front page of our Daily paper, which is precisely what made me post my question. Other Celeb's appear, or are mentioned inside. I'm not saying they've aked for their pictures to be printed, but they obviously won't object. Having said that, they soon would if it was about something that would have an adverse effect.

[FP]

I was so embarrassed by Sharon Osbourne's behaviour on X Factor that I had to leave the room.  I can't bear to see her any more and wish she would realise what an idiot she has made of herself and fade away from public attention.  This is not an answer to your question Smudge, but I felt compelled to say it!

 

And yes, I agree with you.  �1.00 from the pocket of a person living on the breadline is true charity and gets no publicity.  However, let us not forget that the money that is donated by these celebrities is much needed and that most of it is donated for the same reasons as you and I donate.  I tend to feel, however, that celebrities who have donated for these reasons will keep low profile.

[keen2learn]

It's usually those with least who give most. It's frustrating to see celebrities and organisations organising fund-raising events to persuade working class people to part with the little cash they've got, when they could write a cheque for the total themselves without feeling any real pain. And yes, you're right about Sharon Osbourne. She owns more in jewellery that she gave, so although it was a generous gesture, it won't leave her short of the rent. Whereas for people who are living on the breadline already, even sending �20 can mean significant belt-tightening. 

[undercovers]

it really doesn't matter where the money comes from, this is a huge disaster and i think it is of the poorest taste to get all hot and bothered about who gives what - that is really not what charity is all about... and no one should be judged when making charitable donations or trying to help in one of the only ways they can (e.g. by getting their celebrity status behind it)

May i also suggest that if you don't like seeing celebs in the papers stop reading the papers that publish stories like that - these papers will very quickly learn what sells and what doesn't sell copies. 

[smudge]

undercovers - if you re-read my question, you will see that I wrote "Who gives a dot who they are & what they donate". Obviously, the most important thing, is to donate as much as you can to help the unfortunate people caught up in this terrible disaster.

 

In MHO, this should apply to celebrities & non celebrities. If you can't give with a good heart & not expect recognition, then who are you really doing it for - self ego perhaps! I watch news bulletins & read the paper every day, that is my prerogotive. I just do not like seeing insignificant faces plastered over the front page, when it should show pictures of what the cause is all about.

[smudge]

*prerogative

[Robinia]

Smudge I guessed as much - there's a song coming out. Written by Mike Read & featuring various singers. Hollywood are also doing a celebrity event.  Do we really need these?  (Sorry if this is a little away from your Q but it's still celebs in your face isn't it? I could see the point of Band/live Aid as no one seemed to be doing an awful lot but that's not the case here.)

[ursula62]

While I agree that there are too many so called celebrities these days and I don't buy any newspapers or magazines with celebrities on the covers, I'm sorry but I don't think that issue is important really.

 

The homeless mother who has lost her home, her livelihood and one of her 2 children hardly cares if we have Sharon Osbourne or anyone else on the front page of the newspaper. She just needs to know that someone somewhere cares enough to donate what they can afford to help her in her misery.

[ali_alic]

Cynical I may be, but I would like to know how many celebs would have given so much if there was no publicity to be had!

[ursula62]

Cynical or not cynical - that doesn't matter either. The important thing is that public awareness of the tragedy is increasing and more people are giving what they can. Nothing else really matters!

[smudge]

If all the celeb's wanting to participate in the making of that record, instead clubbed together behind closed doors, I'm sure between them they could double the amount of 'royalties' that could be made & pass that on to the fund. 

[littleoldme]

While I agree with smudge, I do sometimes think celebrities are a little bit stuck here. If they do make a big gesture about giving, people understandably accuse them of doing it for publicity; if they don't, they suffer from PMS - Paul McCartney Syndrome, where people accuse them of not giving anything, precisely because they HAVEN'T made a big hoo-hah over it or had their pictures plastered all over the papers.

Perhaps worse than the celebrities in my view are the big companies and big businesses who make such a display of their donations. A celebrity may not have a new CD/film/book/TV show out at that precise moment, but a business is always trying to sell and make a profit. The idea that any slight temporary dent in their profits will be more than made up for many times over by increased business due to the publicity over their donation makes me very uncomfortable.

[natalie_1982]

I'd have to agree with liloldme, if a celeb donates a huge amount everyone slags them off for being ego maniacs, and if they don't then people say "Oooh, such and such didn't give anything".

[smudge]

Thank you for all your replies, which all have valid points. As we've all said, it doesn't matter where, or from whom, the donations come from. I suppose like others, I wasn't in the mood for seeing Sharon Osbourne's face on the front page of the newspaper, especially at such an early stage into the Tsunami disaster. However upsetting it is & how awful it may sound, I would have preferred to have seen more pictures of the actual devastation on the front page. This would have been enough to prompt me into sending a donation, not a the face of a super star.