Let me give you an example.
The worst example that was readily available is the news on celebrity donations. Generosity by some of the wealthiest of entertainers is a great positive. It’s uplifting to see them giving back to their communities and to people in need, here in the U.S. and overseas.
The top of the list goes to Oprah Winfrey. She gave a total of $50 million to children, advocacy for women, healthcare and education in 2007 alone. This amount is more than the rest of the top 5 celebrity donations combined. As donations go she has made a substantial gift to many that need it, and in comparison to other celebrities she stands towering above them all.
Yet Reuters wants to keep this downplayed as much as possible. To achieve this they found the need to state
“Winfrey is a former Bob Hope Humanitarian Award winner, but her girls' academy in South Africa made headlines last year after a former dormitory matron was charged with abusing students.”
Now I ask you this, why is it necessary to mention anything about the negative incident at Oprah’s South African school for girls?
The article is about celebrity donations. The goal was to document how much they gave and who they gave to. For each of the other entertainers (Herb Alpert, Barbara Streisand, Paul Newman, and Mel Gibson) there is not another mention of a negative in relation to their donations. There isn’t a whiff of controversy, except for Oprah.
Why did Reuters find it important to acknowledge Oprah for her voluntary donations, laud her past, and then slap her with an unfortunate event that she had no control over and resolved without delay. I mean if this is what they wanted to do they could have brought up Newman’s illness, or Gibson’s racial comments and lack of sobriety. But those are White entertainers.
Maybe it’s not a racial thing. But I don’t see any other reason.
Oprah doesn’t need media attention, scandal does not help her ratings. Her donations are not tied to publicity, nor is she craving a reward for what she does. She has nothing requiring her to give as much as she does. And Reuters thinks so highly of this that they felt they had to cut her off at the ankles. Wasn’t that kind of them.
I realize that negative news on entertainers and celebrities gets ratings and sells newspapers. I realize that we live in a world where media feed off of mishaps, miscues, and mayhem like vultures feeding on carrion. But sometimes good news doesn’t need to be anything else.
When you read what Reuters states in its article think of this. If you remove all mention of the South African school incident does the nature of the article change? No it doesn’t. So this information is superfluous and solely in there to denigrate Oprah Winfrey. I am insulted by Reuters.
Belinda Goldsmith wrote the article, Miral Fahmy was the editor. Both should be ashamed of themselves and embarrassed to have this published as it was. I would love to hear from either of them, or both, so that they can explain why they felt the absolute need to minimize the outstanding generosity of Oprah exclusively. I would love to hear them explain how this benefits the article or provides any new insight about celebrity donations.
Do you agree?
2 comments:
Comment as posted at 1800blogger.com, where I am a contributing author.
MomGrandma Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pm e
You’re wrong. What about when Kathy Lee Gifford was charged with using ‘child labor’ in sweat shops. She’s white, isn’t she?!
MomGrandma,
I’m wrong? What am I wrong about? Do tell.
Are you saying that the information about the trouble at the South African school (which was resolved) was relevant to the donations made by Oprah a year later? Are you saying that not mentioning negative information about others mentioned in the same article was fair-minded?
Perhaps you mean that since there have been some negative news on White entertainers and celebrities in the past (your example being about a decade old) then any current diminishing news is ok? Or you mean that when negative news is referenced in a positive news story ONLY in regard to the Black people involved, that’s just normal?
Let’s think about this.
When was the last time that Lindsey Lohan was doing a puff-piece that she was asked about her drunken photographs? When Britney Spears is doing a charitable act (I assume that she has, though I am not aware of any) when do you hear reference made to her retreat from detox?
In fact when do you hear about any non-person of color being featured for an act of charity or public good where they are diminished with past acts or news that is negative? I cannot recall a time.
Even in your example, Gifford was addressed for the act by itself. When she goes out and does positive acts you don’t hear about the child labor allegatioins. Because to do so impunes the charity and work being done. It tains the act with garbage that has no relevance.
You tell me I am wrong. Ok, then please explain how the negative reference I discussed helps encourage charitable donations, put a postive light to any charity Oprah gave to, or makes Oprah look better.
I really want to hear that.
Post a Comment