A Newspaper That Hates Other Media
The NonProfit Times is out with their annual "Top 50 Power & Influence" list. It's not really the top 50 most powerful people in the sector. Bill and Melinda Gates aren't on the list. Neither is Warren Buffett. Missing are Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, and Rep. Charles Rangel, the men who oversee charity regulation in this land. They lose most credibility when they exclude the editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Stacy Palmer, and the most influential reporter around, Stephanie Strom of the New York Times. But other than that, it's a fine list.
I didn't make the cut. Not surprising, given that a) I'm not one of the 50 most powerful people in the sector, and b) even if I was, this newspaper isn't going to celebrate our aggressive attempts to rein in renegade charities. But my "competitor" Art Taylor of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance is included. I actually salute this and congratulate Art. He is a fine and honorable man, and runs a quality organization. Watchdogs have a vital role to play in this sector and it's nice to see someone recognize this. I think our group is much better than the BBB, but Art probably thinks the same of his. Donors will eventually decide.
But I do have a problem with the description that accompanies Art's selection. Writes the NonProfit Times: "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance continues to be the benchmark of nonprofit watchdogs. While others run to do TV and operate blogs, Taylor and company actually help charities become more transparent in providing donors with useful information."
"While others run to do TV and operate blogs?"
Who do you think they're talking about?
Ignoring the fact that our web traffic is exponentially higher than the BBB, and that I believe that we've done more in 5 years to promote non-profit transparency than anyone else in the sector, let's talk about the real problems with this line of logic:
1. Art Taylor is an accomplished man who leads a good organization. He deserves a better bio than "Art Taylor, he's not Trent Stamp."
2. Art does TV all the time. I bet he'd like to do more. Sometime around 1950, television became an accepted and relatively effective way to deliver your message to the masses. I do more TV than Art. This is bad? I don't have my own television network; I appear when national outlets call me to comment on the sector or explain charitable issues to their viewers. If the Today Show called the editors of the NonProfit Times tomorrow and asked them to appear on their show to talk about their list of the 50 most powerful people in the sector, would they turn them down to stay home and write another editorial defending telemarketers?
3. Operating a blog is a bad idea? Using an electronic format freely available to all to quickly offer up news and opinion on the work we do and the sector in which we work is counter to our mission in what way? I'm missing this one too. Furthermore, I "write" this blog, not "operate" it. It's not a piece of heavy machinery.
I'm not sure if Art Taylor deserves to be on this list or not. But if he does, he deserves to be there on his own merits, not because of the fact that he isn't me, or because he doesn't do as much TV as I do, or because he doesn't operate a blog.
I didn't make the cut. Not surprising, given that a) I'm not one of the 50 most powerful people in the sector, and b) even if I was, this newspaper isn't going to celebrate our aggressive attempts to rein in renegade charities. But my "competitor" Art Taylor of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance is included. I actually salute this and congratulate Art. He is a fine and honorable man, and runs a quality organization. Watchdogs have a vital role to play in this sector and it's nice to see someone recognize this. I think our group is much better than the BBB, but Art probably thinks the same of his. Donors will eventually decide.
But I do have a problem with the description that accompanies Art's selection. Writes the NonProfit Times: "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance continues to be the benchmark of nonprofit watchdogs. While others run to do TV and operate blogs, Taylor and company actually help charities become more transparent in providing donors with useful information."
"While others run to do TV and operate blogs?"
Who do you think they're talking about?
Ignoring the fact that our web traffic is exponentially higher than the BBB, and that I believe that we've done more in 5 years to promote non-profit transparency than anyone else in the sector, let's talk about the real problems with this line of logic:
1. Art Taylor is an accomplished man who leads a good organization. He deserves a better bio than "Art Taylor, he's not Trent Stamp."
2. Art does TV all the time. I bet he'd like to do more. Sometime around 1950, television became an accepted and relatively effective way to deliver your message to the masses. I do more TV than Art. This is bad? I don't have my own television network; I appear when national outlets call me to comment on the sector or explain charitable issues to their viewers. If the Today Show called the editors of the NonProfit Times tomorrow and asked them to appear on their show to talk about their list of the 50 most powerful people in the sector, would they turn them down to stay home and write another editorial defending telemarketers?
3. Operating a blog is a bad idea? Using an electronic format freely available to all to quickly offer up news and opinion on the work we do and the sector in which we work is counter to our mission in what way? I'm missing this one too. Furthermore, I "write" this blog, not "operate" it. It's not a piece of heavy machinery.
I'm not sure if Art Taylor deserves to be on this list or not. But if he does, he deserves to be there on his own merits, not because of the fact that he isn't me, or because he doesn't do as much TV as I do, or because he doesn't operate a blog.
Labels: Art Taylor, Baucus, Bill Gates, Chronicle of Philanthropy, NonProfit Times, Rangel, Stephanie Strom
posted by Trent Stamp at 12:12 AM
4 Comments:
Well said, Trent.
I'm always amused by the fact that the NP Times is clearly a joke of a publication (it's a freebie, subsidized by the list brokers) and yet, honorable (and semi-powerful) people brag every year that they've been included on their Top 50 list. Hypocrites....
Boo, you operate a blog. Scary. Newspapers should be our only source of information. They're never wrong. Blogs are sooooo evil.
No worries, Trent - NP Times is obviously behind the times. Blogging is increasingly becoming one of the most effective ways to communicate and reach donors and general public alike in the Digital Age. Additionally, I personally don't find BBB Wise Giving Alliance to be the 'be all, end all' of charity review sites by any means, as a recent search for three different well-established charities/federations turned up nada on their site. Meanwhile, these entities were easily located on Charity Nav. Keep up the good work!
Whoa...who died and left the NPT in charge? They seem antiquated on so many levels and have left out so many people (in my opinion) - plus I couldn't find their criteria for the choices they did make.
Sigh. In an age where the front-runners of political parties are using Facebook as one of their tools, NPT might do well to stop worrying about blogs. Catch up guys - it's a techno world.
Post a Comment
<< Home