Is the Charity of the Wealthy Just a Publicity Stunt?

[slapper]

We are always that being doubtful but just like on what others been saying that we cant be able to blame out someone on why they are really that thinking up this way because we do know that there are tons of situations on which there are some actions that there's really that intent behind with those on which it will really be that ending up on having that kind of using up this kind of field like charities for their own benefit on which those actions arent that heartfelt or something that according into their own will to do the good deed. Well, we arent that forcing them but i do agree into the point that whether its stunt or not, the good thing on here is that there are actually people who do able to benefit out of these actions specially if its really that talking about charity works and other similar thing in behind.

It is really just that too much if we are making up that kind of generalization from those people who are making up such action. Not everything does have an intent and there are ones who do even doing some charity works in silent on which even the media doesnt know about. This is where we can really say that there are people who do make out such initiative on helping out those people who are in need without exposing or telling into the things that they've been doing for the human kind on which i could say that these are the individuals who are really that doing purely in regarding about charity works.

Though in reality intent doesn't feed anyone, people enjoy breaking out motives. You could talk all day about whether someone contributed food only for appearances on television or whether a billionaire made a tax break donation. People still have to eat meanwhile. What then is the actual contention in this? That generosity ought to be pure? That's a utopian fantasy

The illusion of charity fuels the economy, which keeps institutions ensuring that charity is constantly required intact. Poverty would have disappeared years ago if generosity operated as people believe it does. Rather, it's a cycle: provide enough to look nice, but not enough to change the status quo. Therefore, it is useless to examine motives . What needs questioning is why dependence on charity exists at all

And the silent donors? The ones offering unannounced assistance without recognition? Indeed, they do. Still, passive charity doesn't challenge power systems either. It's only a moral personal challenge. The true power move is changing the structure such that philanthropy is not required rather than contributing. That would, however, mean facing hard facts about wealth, power, and who gains from keeping people dependent

[tottong]

Even the wealthy can't escape their craving for attention, and charity is their most "cost-effective" tool. After all, a donation leads to endless media exposure, and their public image skyrockets. On the other hand, it is precisely because of these celebrity stunts that the public’s focus is drawn to distant social issues.

For some rich people might do these activities as a step to achieve self -image and the company for the better even though not all of it is like that.
There are many public figures who deliberately make content in carrying out activities and even it is included in their social media channels to benefit financially.
That's how most people now because everything must be published, even though there are positive and negative values that will happen later.

Nothing can limit it now because social media no longer has problems with activities that do not need to be shared with anyone for this kind of person because everything is done for the public interest in any agenda or activity.

[Hanadawa]

-snip-

I think that charity activities should not be publicized even though we know that this is the era of social media so there is no limit for someone to do publicity. But on the other hand we cannot judge the charity activities of rich people as a publicity stunt. In my personal opinion if rich people do not do excessive exposure for their charity activities I think it is a noble act and shows their sincerity in doing charity activities. But if they publish on all social media, do live broadcasts, and upload charity content with various clickbait then I think they are the ones doing publicity stunts.

[Reatim]

-snip-

I think that charity activities should not be publicized even though we know that this is the era of social media so there is no limit for someone to do publicity.

it is hard to know anymore these days what is genuine and what is not on the internet we never know what their genuine intentions are some people may just be sharing their charity donation on the internet to spread awareness but it is very possible that they are also just hiding some real intent behind a kind story

But if they publish on all social media, do live broadcasts, and upload charity content with various clickbait then I think they are the ones doing publicity stunts.

if their content includes charity then they most likely are earning money from that and we can conclude that maybe helping people is not as genuine and as high in their priority list as we must think

[DrBeer]

It's amazing how our world works !
You are rich and successful, all your life you do something, earn, produce - you are not a good person ! You are rich and give money to charity to solve the problems of the poor or sick - you do it not with an open mind but for advertising! You are poor, lazy, do nothing useful, complain about life and are bitter at the more successful - you are a “cool guy” and your problems are the fault of those who are more successful, not lazy, who should support you and give you money

[DanWalker]

I think that charity activities should not be publicized even though we know that this is the era of social media so there is no limit for someone to do publicity. But on the other hand we cannot judge the charity activities of rich people as a publicity stunt. In my personal opinion if rich people do not do excessive exposure for their charity activities I think it is a noble act and shows their sincerity in doing charity activities. But if they publish on all social media, do live broadcasts, and upload charity content with various clickbait then I think they are the ones doing publicity stunts.

Do you know about the Domino Effect? I agree with you that there will be negative aspects if someone takes advantage of charity for personal gain but it cannot be denied that some celebrities/big companies publicize their charity activities. Sometimes it will create an effect and go viral, which in turn creates more charities, more money, and more people helped. Isn't that better?

As long as more poor people are helped, I support public charity regardless of its actual purpose. Because it brings more benefits than disadvantages.

[Belarge]

Even the wealthy can't escape their craving for attention, and charity is their most "cost-effective" tool. After all, a donation leads to endless media exposure, and their public image skyrockets. On the other hand, it is precisely because of these celebrity stunts that the public’s focus is drawn to distant social issues.

I do not see these thing from this view because I think most of these wealthy men also have their own problems and those who are below their class always feel very entitled tot their wealth and seek every little opportunity to call them names and paint them black that’s why they always try to have evidence that they have the people at heart.
The truth is that, most times these wealthy men are been pressured to do the things they might not even be ready to do and the moment they don’t do what the people want, how they want it and when they want it, they start calling them names, so what they have to do now is that they take pictures of what they do and also try to upload it as future proves to avoid been dragged

[Alone055]

The truth is that, most times these wealthy men are been pressured to do the things they might not even be ready to do and the moment they don’t do what the people want, how they want it and when they want it, they start calling them names, so what they have to do now is that they take pictures of what they do and also try to upload it as future proves to avoid been dragged

What sort of pressure? Who can pressure someone to do charity work if they don't want to do it originally? I don't agree with that. Your wealth is yours, and it's your choice to do whatever you want with it. No one in the world can pressure you to do a certain thing that you are not interested in doing in general, and charity can be among those things. If I have worked my a** off my whole life, made it in life, and now have everything I could wish for, I'll take my own decisions; even if I'm popular and people know me, I wouldn't do charity out of pressure, if I want to do it, I would do it, but if I don't, I wouldn't. It's as simple as that.

Those who give money to charity only to keep a positive image of themselves aren't doing it sincerely, and that is the same as doing it for publicity. If you think that people know you, and you need to stay a kind and generous person in their eyes, so you have to do charity work and it should be done publicly, then you are doing it only for yourself and your personal benefits.

People who do charity work not for others to like them or their work, they do it without letting anyone know because they know they are doing it for a good cause and not to get publicity from the act.

[justdimin]

I think that charity activities should not be publicized even though we know that this is the era of social media so there is no limit for someone to do publicity. But on the other hand we cannot judge the charity activities of rich people as a publicity stunt. In my personal opinion if rich people do not do excessive exposure for their charity activities I think it is a noble act and shows their sincerity in doing charity activities. But if they publish on all social media, do live broadcasts, and upload charity content with various clickbait then I think they are the ones doing publicity stunts.

Do you know about the Domino Effect? I agree with you that there will be negative aspects if someone takes advantage of charity for personal gain but it cannot be denied that some celebrities/big companies publicize their charity activities. Sometimes it will create an effect and go viral, which in turn creates more charities, more money, and more people helped. Isn't that better?

As long as more poor people are helped, I support public charity regardless of its actual purpose. Because it brings more benefits than disadvantages.

That is why PR for charities should never be bashed. It may look coy and irritating when someone donates a lot of money to some charity and goes out and promotes it like crazy, but it at least takes attention to some problems. I remember something vaguely about some company making a donation, and spent more than the donation itself on NFL super bowl for advertising their donation.

I do not remember how much it was and who the company was, but they literally spent more on advertisement of their donation then the amount of donation itself. This may anger a lot of people, but do we know how much donation that charity got after the advertisement? Maybe that is the point? Not the donation itself, but PR of the donation causing more donations?

[knowngunman]

Nope it's not the most "cost effective" tool, it's selling religion.

Selling religion is the most profitable, you only need to wear simple religious clothes, being humble, claim if you were one of highest holy people, and act like the most religious person. You not only get media exposure and good public image, but you also have a power to control many people to anything you want without money.

I think the biggest advantage of having charity is you can use it for tax avoidance, the rich can claim the money they have were from charity and claim the money they use are for charity.

Lol    A typical example of what is happening in Africa.

This religion selling narrative succeed in majorly African settlement and in less educated areas. The rate at which people worship their religious leaders and obey whatever they preach to them either right or wrong is alarming. I'm glad people are beginning to open their eyes by seeking religious knowledge to resist some of their slavery teachings. It's funny how some of them don't even practice what they preach to their gullible believers.

As for the wealthy, not all their charity is an attempt for public stunt. I will agree with Op if he specifically mentioned politicians in his post.

[davis196]

Even the wealthy can't escape their craving for attention, and charity is their most "cost-effective" tool. After all, a donation leads to endless media exposure, and their public image skyrockets. On the other hand, it is precisely because of these celebrity stunts that the public’s focus is drawn to distant social issues.

"Cost effective"? I don't think that donating money should be considered the most "cost effective" way for someone to gather attention.
Nowadays everyone can become famous by just saying or doing something stupid on social media. This is way more "cost effective" than making donations. Most rich people are already famous, so I don't think that they are donating money out of the desire for attention.
Nobody is supposed to brag about donating money to charity. This shows lack of morals and arrogance, but some rich and famous people think that donations could help them build a better public image of themselves.

[Strongkored]

Even the wealthy can't escape their craving for attention, and charity is their most "cost-effective" tool. After all, a donation leads to endless media exposure, and their public image skyrockets. On the other hand, it is precisely because of these celebrity stunts that the public’s focus is drawn to distant social issues.

They know how to use their wealth for greater benefits under the guise of charity, taking advantage of the poor so that they will appear as generous people but actually have other agendas. Can't blame them because even poor people are very happy with the charity they receive.

However, if you pay attention to social media, currently there are people who cannot be said to be rich but use charity to gain sympathy so that they have many followers and money flows into their accounts with the intention that they can channel it to the charity event but still the person gets more profit than the recipient of the charity, so that finally he became rich.

[fuguebtc]

However, if you pay attention to social media, currently there are people who cannot be said to be rich but use charity to gain sympathy so that they have many followers and money flows into their accounts with the intention that they can channel it to the charity event but still the person gets more profit than the recipient of the charity, so that finally he became rich.

There have been a number of similar cases in my country, some of them have been discovered by the community and reported to the authorities . That could be seen as a downside to social media fundraising, but we can't just look at a few isolated cases and say that online charity appeals are bad, they need to be banned . Because there are also many philanthropists who want to help others but do not know where to start or not everyone has the ability to spend a large amount of money on charity .  Therefore , having an individual/group calling for charity will receive great support from many benefactors as well as help more people in difficult circumstances .

[Moreno233]

Nope it's not the most "cost effective" tool, it's selling religion.

Selling religion is the most profitable, you only need to wear simple religious clothes, being humble, claim if you were one of highest holy people, and act like the most religious person. You not only get media exposure and good public image, but you also have a power to control many people to anything you want without money.

I think the biggest advantage of having charity is you can use it for tax avoidance, the rich can claim the money they have were from charity and claim the money they use are for charity.

Lol    A typical example of what is happening in Africa.

This religion selling narrative succeed in majorly African settlement and in less educated areas. The rate at which people worship their religious leaders and obey whatever they preach to them either right or wrong is alarming. I'm glad people are beginning to open their eyes by seeking religious knowledge to resist some of their slavery teachings. It's funny how some of them don't even practice what they preach to their gullible believers.

As for the wealthy, not all their charity is an attempt for public stunt. I will agree with Op if he specifically mentioned politicians in his post.

Religion is not the problem of Africa but poverty. Poverty makes people accept all manners of doctrines in the quest for solution to their poverty. Religion is just one of those tools some people use to exploit people who are searching for solution to their problem. Some religious preachers even convince their followers that if they do certain religious practices that they will become rich even though that does not involve getting a job or a skill that pays. People believe them out of frustration because poverty can make someone think abnormally.

If the governments of these African countries will wake up and industrialize Africa with their raw materials and provide high paying jobs, conducive environment and security, I can assure you that most religious places will become empty as it is happening in Europe.

[Sticky Bomb]

Before the existence of social media, some of the wealthy people we know in our society made donations to our community members, not because of public stunt but because of the love they have for their community.

I know up till today, there is still some wealth people who are helping their community members without looking for public validation. They are doing everything out of love because they know the blessings that followed when you give.

The media would paint a positive or a negative picture of a good story and whichever one you believe is your choice. I love your explanation and up till date, so many big men donated for the movement and sustainability of many organizations without even caring about media coverage and some still choose to remain anonymous.

Actually, some media publication is for the awareness of the importance of some charitable activities. I reference to learning the importance of visiting orphanages from a media publication of a visit by an influencer. I realized from one of more visits there that many wealthy men does this as a hobby. Most times we're pessimistic when we see things and it's a personal problem rather than an valid reflection of publicity intentions.

[Die_empty]

There have been a number of similar cases in my country, some of them have been discovered by the community and reported to the authorities . That could be seen as a downside to social media fundraising, but we can't just look at a few isolated cases and say that online charity appeals are bad, they need to be banned . Because there are also many philanthropists who want to help others but do not know where to start or not everyone has the ability to spend a large amount of money on charity .  Therefore , having an individual/group calling for charity will receive great support from many benefactors as well as help more people in difficult circumstances .

These social media charities are also popular in my country. You will see them giving alms to the poor or helping people who need it with the attention of gaining sympathy and followers on social media.  I guess there are people who do it genuinely to help people, but others use the medium to get more money from the public.

"Cost effective"? I don't think that donating money should be considered the most "cost effective" way for someone to gather attention.
Nowadays everyone can become famous by just saying or doing something stupid on social media. This is way more "cost effective" than making donations. Most rich people are already famous, so I don't think that they are donating money out of the desire for attention.
Nobody is supposed to brag about donating money to charity. This shows lack of morals and arrogance, but some rich and famous people think that donations could help them build a better public image of themselves.

There was a time when people were leaking their own sex tapes because they wanted to gain attention. But it is not everyone that can do some of these weird things to get popular. So they just engage in the giving path to gain attention.

[moneystery]

I think that charity activities should not be publicized even though we know that this is the era of social media so there is no limit for someone to do publicity. But on the other hand we cannot judge the charity activities of rich people as a publicity stunt. In my personal opinion if rich people do not do excessive exposure for their charity activities I think it is a noble act and shows their sincerity in doing charity activities. But if they publish on all social media, do live broadcasts, and upload charity content with various clickbait then I think they are the ones doing publicity stunts.

there is a verse that says 'but when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing' that is a verse that is specifically made for people who do good but expect praise or recognition from others. and it is rightly aimed at rich people who do charity, but they expect that others can see them as good and wise people who help others, even though they do it only as a public stunt. i really disgust people like that, that's why i never like to see influencer content on tiktok or youtube who do social actions in the month of ramadan, because if they want to do good, they should do it without a camera in front of them.

[CageMabok]

I think that charity activities should not be publicized even though we know that this is the era of social media so there is no limit for someone to do publicity. But on the other hand we cannot judge the charity activities of rich people as a publicity stunt. In my personal opinion if rich people do not do excessive exposure for their charity activities I think it is a noble act and shows their sincerity in doing charity activities. But if they publish on all social media, do live broadcasts, and upload charity content with various clickbait then I think they are the ones doing publicity stunts.

Sometimes the charity work of rich people always gets more attention from various parties because usually rich people always have many friends and people who like them so that in every activity they will be published by others without them realizing it. And I also have an opinion that is not different from yours in this case because if the publication is not done by themselves, of course the value of their nobility will always be there and should be appreciated as a good example for other rich people in the future.

[ITExpert]

-snip-

I think that charity activities should not be publicized even though we know that this is the era of social media so there is no limit for someone to do publicity. But on the other hand we cannot judge the charity activities of rich people as a publicity stunt. In my personal opinion if rich people do not do excessive exposure for their charity activities I think it is a noble act and shows their sincerity in doing charity activities. But if they publish on all social media, do live broadcasts, and upload charity content with various clickbait then I think they are the ones doing publicity stunts.

Now, in the era of social media, people upload their all daily activities whatever they do, and they post on social media as a publicity stunt or for some other purpose. Whenever we do a good deed we upload it on social media without taking care of the self-respect of poor people. We make photos and videos and then post them for fame and publicity which is totally wrong. By doing this we damage the self-respect of poor people who also deserve to live in this society with their heads held high.  Some people do it as a good deed but when they do hypocrisy, they lose all the blessings of their good deeds. But some nice and noble people do charity in silence without telling anybody. Poor people aren't ashamed of it and they respect this type of people. They do charity with one hand and the other hand doesn't know about it. We should be like these noble and nice people because they are real personalities with high character.

[Solosanz]

Lol   A typical example of what is happening in Africa.

This religion selling narrative succeed in majorly African settlement and in less educated areas. The rate at which people worship their religious leaders and obey whatever they preach to them either right or wrong is alarming. I'm glad people are beginning to open their eyes by seeking religious knowledge to resist some of their slavery teachings. It's funny how some of them don't even practice what they preach to their gullible believers.

It happens in every countries who're fanatic with the religions.

Like, Muslims have to give 2.5% from their total wealth annually to the Mosque and Christians have to give 10% of their monthly salary to the Church, even they don't see what actually the money will be used for and the leader of that Mosque/Church ride sport car, wear a rolex etc.

I would choose to give my money to the teachers and nurses instead of them.