The World Bank presentation provided insightful information about an institution that has always interested me. In low and middle-income countries, the goal of the World Bank is to eliminate poverty, improve opportunity, and reduce social inequity, but this can be said about almost any charity organization. Instead, it was its approach to development in these nations that caught my attention. The representative explained that the World Bank focused its ideas based on the notions that countries determine their path, and that partnerships ensure greater results. I like the first idea because I’ve always been a firm believer in the effectiveness of helping someone learn how to help himself, instead of just helping him. It’s basically the “giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish” argument. I like the idea that the World Bank expects the money to be returned, and that the process is based on a well-organized timeline. This not only assures that the money is allocated appropriately, but also gives hope to the struggling nation by investing in its potential.
This also reminded me of the website we analyzed and discussed in class on Monday. One of the issues I had with our conversation was how much we all seemed to care about the intentions with which the money is being donated. Logically, we donate because we recognize that we cannot control the circumstances, or geographical location into which we are born. The part that becomes skewed is what comes next. Since we recognize this fact, we believe that our luck is relatively undeserved, and we have a desire to know that we did our part to somehow equalize the imbalance, even in the most microscopic way. But this is unnecessary, and ironically makes society actually seem selfish, by giving money away when really, donating is just logic. However, the media clearly exploits our emotions through countless TV commercials usually featuring an African, or Indian child in the rain next to some type of animal (usually a goat), and surrounded by small hut-like structures. Then there’s a man asking you to pay ten cents to save the children, or send them to school. There’s even a Dane Cook joke in which he talks about how it might even be more effective if instead, the commercial featured a Hulk Hogan look-alike yelling something like “Are you kidding, you can’t even pay ten cents a month for this kid to eat? You’re such a useless person, there’s probably ten cents under the couch you’re sitting on while this kid plays in the mud!”
As annoyed as people get with either the commercials themselves, or the blatantly transparent manipulation in action, the fact is that these ads are incredibly effect, or they would have stopped airing years ago. I believe that ad agencies, and charity organizations are being smart and observant of society’s progression. The internet is a much more popular medium for something which required action from the user. It’s quick and easy compared to calling the number on the screen and waiting for what seems like hours. Two key components for a successful advertisement, as we’ve been discussing in my Understanding Media class are emotional ties and personalization. This website achieves both of those elements. While guilt is still involved through specific language and pictures of small children, it allows the donators to choose how their money is specifically used. For someone who believes that education is key to elimination of poverty, there is a link to donate school supplies. The same idea is applied to water, farming, medicine, and even hope.
In my opinion, it is irrelevant why we donate. It shouldn’t matter if we just feel bad for someone else or if we genuinely are about global embitterment. When it comes to a lack of basic needs, the problems just needs to be solved quickly, regardless the emotion involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment