Charity News is Bad News
I ventured into New York City this morning to one of the networks to do a remote TV interview for the Philadelphia station affiliate. When I arrived, I had the following discussion with the NY City producer, whose job it was to serve as my in-studio liaison with the reporter in Philadelphia.
Him: "So what do you do?"
Me: "I run an organization called Charity Navigator."
Him: "What's that?"
Me: "Some people have called us the 'Consumer Reports of the non-profit world.'"
Him: "Oh. So you must be here to be interviewed about someone ripping someone off in Philly?"
Now I know his response might say something about the nature of the work we do, but in this particular case, I doubt it, given that the only info he had about us was that some had compared us to a popular magazine. Rather, I think his immediate reaction, that since I was in charity work and about to be on the news meant that scammers were preying on folks in Philly, says an awful lot about the public's perceptions about charities, and more specifically, how the media covers charities. It was simply inconceivable to this veteran newsman that I would be there to say nice things about a charity. To him, if it was news, and it involved a charity pundit, someone was definitely getting scammed.
Post-script #1: In fact, I was not there to talk about a bogus charity. I was there to talk about cause-related marketing, and its impact on the upcoming Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Post-script #2: Some in the media do focus on things other than rip-off charities, and we comment on those other issues. In the last few days, we have commented for the A.P. on how one can donate their car, for Bloomberg on when a charity CEO salary is too much, for ABC News about why it's not smart to listen to celebrities about giving, and for Liz Smith's gossip column about one great charity.
Him: "So what do you do?"
Me: "I run an organization called Charity Navigator."
Him: "What's that?"
Me: "Some people have called us the 'Consumer Reports of the non-profit world.'"
Him: "Oh. So you must be here to be interviewed about someone ripping someone off in Philly?"
Now I know his response might say something about the nature of the work we do, but in this particular case, I doubt it, given that the only info he had about us was that some had compared us to a popular magazine. Rather, I think his immediate reaction, that since I was in charity work and about to be on the news meant that scammers were preying on folks in Philly, says an awful lot about the public's perceptions about charities, and more specifically, how the media covers charities. It was simply inconceivable to this veteran newsman that I would be there to say nice things about a charity. To him, if it was news, and it involved a charity pundit, someone was definitely getting scammed.
Post-script #1: In fact, I was not there to talk about a bogus charity. I was there to talk about cause-related marketing, and its impact on the upcoming Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Post-script #2: Some in the media do focus on things other than rip-off charities, and we comment on those other issues. In the last few days, we have commented for the A.P. on how one can donate their car, for Bloomberg on when a charity CEO salary is too much, for ABC News about why it's not smart to listen to celebrities about giving, and for Liz Smith's gossip column about one great charity.
Labels: Associated Press, Bloomberg, Breast Cancer Awareness Month
posted by Trent Stamp at 12:03 PM
4 Comments:
Hmm, I think his reaction might have been due more to his newscaster's mindset, which says that conflict makes a story, rather than to a distrust of charities amongst the total population (although I know you have posted some statistics regarding this). It would be more interesting to hear what your cabdriver thought (but I bet you took the subway). Just saying. Keep up with the great blog!
[Ed at the keybaord]:
Yeah, the way it was explained to me 38 years ago by a veteran newspaper guy teaching my high school journalism class - news is drama.
Or the other way around. Good things happening aren't as dramatic as bad things happening.
So that's how the media cover everything, not just charities.
Katrina is too long ago, in terms of news cycles, for waste to be the biggest thing that goes wrong with charities, so ... scamming.
And the media, true enough, help create the public's perceptions.
There just have to be additional channels to suppy the counterbalancing "good news."
In this day an age of scams and false charities and bad charity leaders... and you tell him your the Consumer Reports of the non-profit world - his response does not seem that hard to understand. :)
I think Matt is right in that it's easy to understand, but it's kind of sad too. I bet if this person met the editor of the real Consumer Reports, his first question wouldn't be "So, which car is a real piece of junk?" He would want to know which car was good. But with charities, we want the negative.
Post a Comment
<< Home