This week we went into a lot of discussion about celebrities
in politics. The overall opinion seemed
to be that while the famous are good for making people aware, it would be best
if their involvement on specific issues were kept at a superficial level. Once they are taken seriously by the public
as actual authoritative figures on a big issue like the issues in Africa, then
things get more complicated in the public eye and for the people involved with
these issues firsthand.
That is why I would like to do my project from the
standpoint of a well meaning celebrity that might oversimplify what an NGO
needs to do in order to make their voice heard more in the community. So many of them work hard to keep issues at
the forefront, but the idea of a campaign that makes them more mainstream accessible
is an interesting notion.
Human Rights Watch has a very noble objective and the way
they go about getting their information and their dedication to keeping
themselves completely pure of any form of government involvement is an even
more of a noble endeavor. However, I
cannot help but wonder how much it actually gets accomplished with simply
shaming governments into submission. Do
not get me wrong. There are few tactics
more powerful than using shame as a form of coercion. It plays into herd mentality and is probably
9 out of 10 mother approved. But, should there be more commercials and news
pieces pushed into the public eye?
Here is my question to you.
Do NGO’s need better PR to be more effective? Could more high celebs be the answer?
Interesting question - and yes, I do think that NGO's could benefit from better PR. I don't necessarily think that more celebrities are the answer, but perhaps when running ads and campaigning, they could be clear about how Joe Schmo is able to help. For example, the texting campaign after the (I want to say) tsunami in Haiti was a way to raise awareness and provide people with an easy way to donate money to the cause. Also, there are so many NGO's, it's sometimes hard to differentiate between the "good" ones and the "not-so-good" ones. Much like many charities, in fact. Just my 2 cents, but I love the question!
ReplyDelete