Wise charity: how journalists harm sick children
"Urgent. A child is dying!" — rarely does an editor react negatively or refuse a request for a publication or a story when a matter of life and death is at stake. At least, I do not recall any such editors.
Any heart would tremble here, and all decent people are ready to meet them halfway.
Yet such a reaction — and this needs to be stated clearly — is the personal will of particular people: journalists, editors, and the heads of newspapers, magazines, and television newsrooms.
For the media, such content is mostly uninteresting, because it is uninteresting to the audience; perhaps that is why journalists themselves informally and dismissively call such materials “aid pleas,” “begging notes,” or “social filler.”
That is why the attitude toward checking requests of this kind is careless.
Management and staff find it in themselves to place charitable materials, giving way. It is like their own contribution to a good cause, like alms. On the one hand, it seems good when it happens at least this way. On the other, with this attitude journalists do enormous harm to the development of civilized charity, simply holding it back.
More than 12 thousand charitable organizations are registered in Ukraine.
Only a few hundred of them run open public fundraisers and report to the tax authorities and to donors, maintain websites and social-media pages, and always respond quickly to inquiries about how charitable funds are spent.
There are few of them, but they exist. They are professional fundraisers, and the result of their work is enormous in scale: thousands of lives saved and annual fundraising in the millions for a variety of purposes.
Reliable charitable foundations with a high level of trust can be found in these lists:
https://ubb.org.ua/ua/operators/
http://ufb.org.ua/rating/blago-list
Yet the wards of these foundations rarely become the heroes of charitable materials, and even when that happens, the names of these aid organizations do not appear in the texts.
Although legally it is the intermediaries who organize the aid from "a" to "z".
Most often editors are against mentioning the foundation, voicing what is, in my view, an extremely absurd argument. They say it is advertising. Advertising on which no one makes money except a sick child.
There is a persistent stereotype that a foundation is something where money is spent without oversight, that this cannot be checked, and that it is therefore easier to “transfer it to a private card.” This is where the greatest danger lies. Most media give in to appeals from social networks without checking the information.
Unverified information and an advertisement for a private individual’s personal card are going on the air.
A strange logic: advertising a personal card is normal, while an organization whose nonprofit activity is regulated by law is a crime. Then journalists film and write about the fraud that they themselves produce.
I know of cases where charitable money collected thanks to publications and stories was spent on renovating an apartment, because the parents decided the child could not be cured, and they still had to live. There were times when the state paid for the treatment, yet the family went on collecting money in reserve. It is impossible to hold a private individual liable if the money is spent for other than its intended purpose.
And charitable foundations are obliged to report quarterly to the Tax Service, the Ministry of Justice, banks, society, and donors. Every year they are obliged to undergo an audit.
What, then, is the role of the media?
The STB television channel, where I work, took clear steps on this issue 5 years ago. They decided to stop placing private individuals’ aid cards in stories. Millions of people see these accounts — they become live bait for fraudsters and get looted, and then neither the bank nor the media can influence this or protect anyone. In addition, the individual for whose benefit the funds are collected is not accountable. We do not know whether they will actually spend the money collected after the story on treatment, or whether it will go toward something else. This is a matter of the viewer’s trust, a matter of reputation.
In 5 years, “Vikna,” working with the Ukrainian Charity Exchange and aid-operator foundations, produced hundreds of aid stories that made it possible to raise at least 50 million charitable hryvnias.
Although specific children’s stories are at the core, we set ourselves broader goals: not simply to help raise money and help a hypothetical Katia, Vania, or Nastia and save them. That is the task of foundations and doctors. We strive to make charity a way of life for Ukrainians, to teach people to unite, and to show the result of that unity — and it is striking.
So when I see yet another report of one fraud or another involving charitable funds that a television channel or newspaper collected onto private cards, I do not understand why these heartfelt impulses have still not turned into more or less organized activity with an effective result.
It is time for everyone to agree: charity should be the work of foundations, and the media should inform society about their work in a well-disposed way.
And telling a tearful story about each child’s fate, backed by their parents’ card, is a road to nowhere both for journalism and for charity.
Iryna Storozhenko, journalist at "Vikna-Novyny", STB channel
The material has been carried over from the foundation’s old website. Original address: https://blagofond.communal.rv.ua/news/2018/06/08/blagodijnist-z-rozumom-yak-zhurnalisti-shkodyat-hv/