The List: Counting Down Today's Hot Topic

Top Celebrity Activists

Forums » The List » Top Celebrity Activists

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register

Forums » washingtonpost.com forums » The List » Top Celebrity Activists

Top Celebrity Activists

posted at 11/26/2007 4:50 PM EST

*Moderator*

Carol_Touhey

First post: 11/5/2007
Last post: 8/11/2008
Total posts: 29

In a recent Style piece, Sridhar Pappu examined the Irish rock star Bono’s ability to lobby on global issues (article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501535.html). Bono is one of many celebrities to board the humanitarian bandwagon in recent years. Here we give you a few others, along with their causes of choice:

10. Bob Geldof (Global poverty)
9. Richard Gere (Tibet)
8. Fran Drescher (Women’s cancer treatment)
7. Michael J. Fox (Parkinson’s disease)
6. Ashley Judd (HIV/AIDS)
5. Pamela Anderson (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
4. Don Cheadle (Darfur)
3. Oprah Winfrey (Education)
2. Bono (African debt relief)
1. Angelina Jolie (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

When even Paris Hilton plans a trip to Rwanda, is it about charity or publicity? Do they all merit the “humanitarian” title, or are there others who deserve more credit?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Self-Serving

posted at 11/26/2007 11:56 PM EST

mel_gibson_

First post: 10/8/2007
Last post: 12/2/2007
Total posts: 12

Mostly self-served interests for the Americans: Gere (he's Buddhist) and Fox (he has Parkinson's) to name a couple.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

not the High Commissioner

posted at 11/27/2007 3:14 AM EST

TroyFitrell

First post: 11/27/2007
Last post: 6/12/2008
Total posts: 2

Not to quibble, but Angelina Jolie is not the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. That title goes to Antonio Guterres, former Prime Minister of Portugal. The position is a real job for a real professional, to protect and support refugees and aid in their safe return or resettlement. Ms Jolie, for all her good intentions, is a Goodwill Ambassador, which is to say that she goes on expensive trips and poses for photos.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: not the High Commissioner

posted at 11/27/2007 5:43 AM EST

jmkern

First post: 11/27/2007
Last post: 11/27/2007
Total posts: 1

In referring to UNHCR, it is commonplace to omit the term "the office of" before defining the acronym. The author was thus referring to the office itself not the title of Ms. Jolie within the organization.

And to reply to the overall topic, celebrities do play an important role in the humanitarian field. In the end, it all comes down to money. In media-obsessed cultures such as ours, a celebrity can evoke more attention to an issue, and thus mobilize more financial support than an academic or politician. UN agencies and NGOs need charitable donations to complete their mandate. Without public financial support, they flounder. If celebrities get people excited to donate towards HIV prevention programmes, conservation efforts or humanitarian aid, I think they should be encouraged to do so.

Replying to:

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Wise Use of Celebrity

posted at 11/27/2007 5:53 AM EST

bayern-guy

First post: 11/27/2007
Last post: 11/27/2007
Total posts: 1

It's admirable to use whatever assets you have to bring attention to worthy causes. In this case, it's their celebrity.

Given the record of this administration, it doesn't make any sense to criticize Hollywood / music types for activism. And they're not reaping financial rewards for most of it, only put-downs by conservative media.

Right-wingers want to criticize Jolie, S. Penn, Gere and others who bring attention to problems, but mainly right-wingers aren't activists for anything unless there's a buck in it for themselves. That's why Hollywood money is the "cleanest" money!

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

two for the Irish!!!

posted at 11/27/2007 7:29 AM EST

michelle_rogers

First post: 11/27/2007
Last post: 11/27/2007
Total posts: 1

That's cool
2 Irish on your list Bob and Bono
remember that is from a country of 4 million people.
Not bad...
and no not for vanity reasons,these guys are the real deal.
bravi

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Self-Serving

posted at 11/27/2007 8:00 AM EST

iamweaver

First post: 10/4/2007
Last post: 11/10/2009
Total posts: 118

Replying to:

Mostly self-served interests for the Americans: Gere (he's Buddhist) and Fox (he has Parkinson's) to name a couple. Posted by mel_gibson_

Where 2/5 = mostly? And why focus on nationality, especially given the global focus of many of the missions? It is the culture that the donors spring from that matters, not where they were born, in any case.

I say, more power to them. There are only 2 concrete measurements of a person's generosity - the dent in their wallet, and their calendar. Most of these guys spend a reasonable percentage of both.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

re: self-serving

posted at 11/27/2007 9:32 AM EST

TonyFo

First post: 11/8/2007
Last post: 10/31/2008
Total posts: 4

Mel-

Please explain how Gere's work for Tibet is serving American interests. If anything, Gere is a thorn in side of American policy, raising awareness of an issue that Washington would rather keep under the rug. And is Parkinson's research an American interest? I don't think so.

It's so easy to point to actual instances of self-serving American behaviour; you advertise your anti-American bias by making such absurd claims.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Top Celebrity Activists

posted at 11/27/2007 9:56 AM EST

dgloo

First post: 10/11/2007
Last post: 7/14/2009
Total posts: 19

The United Nations recently estimated that we could totally eliminate world hunger--and all hunger-related disease-- for about $195 billion. Subsequently 22 wealthy nations each committed to donating 0.7% of their GDP to meet the goal. The US is one of 6 nations that has failed to meet its commitment or to even set a schedule for doing so.

On the other hand, the Bush Administration has wasted $195 billion per year for five straight years in Iraq--with no end in sight.

Imagine how much different world opinion would be if the US were to spend money on fighting world hunger and less money on fighting illegitimate wars.

Whether or not these celebrities have an actual on-the-ground impact is debatable, but their ability to accrue goodwill to America--at a time when the Bush administration is doing its best to make everyone hate us--is immeasurable.

I don't care about their motives; I appreciate their efforts.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

re: top celebrity activists

posted at 11/27/2007 10:34 AM EST

bobjohn511

First post: 11/27/2007
Last post: 11/27/2007
Total posts: 1

first let me say to dgloo..this little war in iraq was only done because sadam tried to kill Bush's daddy and no other reason. if you remember correctly, the first Bush was the one who let the cat out of the bag about "the new world order". since then americans have lost 90% of or constitutional rights and their working on the other 10% as we speak.

only one reason for celebrities doing this type of work is "MONEY" no other reason. if you look at the alumb sales for Bono's U2, you will see the increase in revenue everytime he does something regarding his interests and same with the others. now as for pam anderson, what can one say about someone who just doesn't even have a clue she is on planet earth let alone sponser PETA who last year alone killed over thousands of dogs and cats
and still has of yet to comply with The Commonwealth of Virginia's request for numbers declaring PETA's projections of how many will be killed this year.

But yes, it's MONEY and nothing else..

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Self-serving Interests?

posted at 11/27/2007 10:42 AM EST

katiewashpost

First post: 11/27/2007
Last post: 11/27/2007
Total posts: 1

In response to mel_gibson's comments about self-serving interests for Americans, I agree that these issues are not exclusive to a particular country, but more importantly I don't care if celebrities support these causes because of a personal connection. What's wrong with a little passion? (Fran Drescher had cancer, Jolie adopted from refugee countries).

If a celeb wants to promote awareness of a charitable cause, what good can come of questioning their motives and belittling their efforts? And if they have a personal experience that's ignited particular ardor for their cause, the world will only be better for it.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

re: top celebrity activists

posted at 11/27/2007 4:17 PM EST

dkp01

First post: 6/28/2007
Last post: 12/3/2009
Total posts: 188

With all the work he's done to fight poverty, and all the work he'd done for Vietnam vets, Bruce Springsteen should be on this list somewhere. Not sure who I'd bump, but the guy gives money, promotes local food banks wherever he tours, writes songs about it, etc. That ought to count for something, right?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Top Celebrity Activists

posted at 11/27/2007 8:38 PM EST

OuPhrontis

First post: 11/27/2007
Last post: 11/27/2007
Total posts: 1

This list is faulty in the extreme for not including Paul Newman and his successful and well established organization selling "Newman's Own" branded products. Decades of charitable effort and tens of millions of dollars donated must surely qualify him for inclusion in your list. Well at least he's tops in my book.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Richere Gere

posted at 12/3/2007 11:58 PM EST

wangbang747

First post: 11/16/2007
Last post: 6/18/2009
Total posts: 18

Richere Gere is still trying to get that gerbil out of his bum.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Forums » The List » Top Celebrity Activists

Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Classifieds

SEARCH:

Search Archives

The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites

Help | Contact Us

washingtonpost.com

Groups