Raising money for charity

[neweatherman]

Do news stations have a issue or policy about talent or station employees
raising money for Charity??

While stations ask us to attend the events, what about actually raising thousands of dollars for a group.

[Sultanosurf]

Your employee manual likely has outlines. But it's hard to figure what you're asking.

From experience, if the GM asks you to appear for his charity, you should count on going. And enjoy the rubber chicken...

[MoistureFluxCapacitor]

I'm one step beyond...I'm actually on the Board of Trustees for a 501c3 charity. Bosses are all cool with it...and we even do stories on the charity on occasion. :)

[Eyegetit]

The charity you support today, maybe the one you investigate tomorrow. Stay away. Stay far away.

[s'news]

If you're not comfortable with the charity, and the station wants you to promote it, beg off. You can offer to take on another task, if that's what is needed. But you don't have to pimp for something you do not believe in.

We had a telethon for a charity and I received an assignment. I said I didn't want to do it. The boss said it was a station event. I said I would cover somebody else's shift, but did not want to take part in the event. They relented.

[NYC Street]

First check with your ND. But: being a reporter doesn't mean you give up on being a human.

The rule works like this: if you're involved with a charity, you'd best be certain that the charity doesn't screw up. And if there's a story to be done about the charity with which you're involved, make sure you don't do it.

[Brain Cramp]

We had a telethon for a charity and I received an assignment. I said I didn't want to do it. The boss said it was a station event. I said I would cover somebody else's shift, but did not want to take part in the event. They relented.

Was it The United Way? I ask because I worked for a station that always had our news staff shill for this organization and actually FORCED every single employee to donate money to UW so they could claim 100% contributions. If anyone refused to donate (because they were a number of folks who had a problem with UW) that person's department head had to pony up $5 or $10 in the employee's name. This went on until a couple of people threatened to sue our company for misrepresenting them (as in saying they were contributors when they weren't). Even still, we were strong armed into donating and doing positive stories and attending and or hosting UW events.

[Diplomat]

I have refused to give to the United Way because it supports groups I do not and also because of the Aramony scandal. I prefer to give directly to the charities I support.

[mothball]

I volunteer at my charity of choice. And I do go out of my way to help it out. We are human beings, and we should be able to express our compassion as we see fit.

And yes, if I was still at the station and had to make a choice between the two, there's no question I would have continued to help that charity. Fortunately, I never did have to make that decision.

But... I am an unusual case.

[rawhead rex]

Anyone who is off air and not in management is working for his or her own charity already.

[Sultanosurf]

Most of us have no choice. When it comes to the Red Cross or the telethons, once the station gets involved, we're expected to be there as figureheads.

I have a real problem when the police agencies ask for involvement. Golf tournaments are one thing, but it seems like crossing a line when you're asked to go on air to flack one of their fundraisers.

It'd be nice to be just a quiet supporter like other folks, but that defeats the purpose of involving prominent community members to publicize events. Much as we'd like to have a hard and fast rule, the reality remains that a lot of these charitable groups are like churches. Despite the good intentions, sometimes there's serious riptides we don't always see.

[NewsMom]

It's risky to promote any charity on air, if you do not know POSITIVELY how that charity spends its money.

I thoroughly enjoyed doing an expose on a local chapter of the Easter Seals, which was doing anything BUT helping the folks who needed help.

After my series aired, the station pulled our anchor talent out of the telethon. Now THAT was a good day.

Mind you, I have my own pet charity, for whom I do lots of pro bono work, training, and production. I know the people who started this charity, and I've seen exactly how they spend their money. They are the MOST legitimate charity I've encountered, and they do wonderful things. They've even asked me to serve on a national advisory board, which I'm honored to accept.

But unless I had that level of faith in the organization, I'd steer clear of associating with any charity.

[s'news]

Was it The United Way? I ask because I worked for a station that always had our news staff shill for this organization and actually FORCED every single employee to donate money to UW so they could claim 100% contributions. If anyone refused to donate (because they were a number of folks who had a problem with UW) that person's department head had to pony up $5 or $10 in the employee's name. This went on until a couple of people threatened to sue our company for misrepresenting them (as in saying they were contributors when they weren't). Even still, we were strong armed into donating and doing positive stories and attending and or hosting UW events.

In my case, it was not United Way. But I did not like the pressure involving UW from some employers and I successfully resisted it. I simply said that I didn't like that UW was available for payroll deduction, while charities I wanted to support did not have that opportunity. And I said that while I wouldn't be allowing deductions from my paycheck for United Way, I would be making contributions to charities I wished to support. This was my personal choice and I expected this to be respected, I said.

It all worked out for me.

[Vulcan]

I have refused to give to the United Way because it supports groups I do not and also because of the Aramony scandal. I prefer to give directly to the charities I support.
Diplomat - each United Way operates a little differently, but let me make a couple of general points.

one - by gathering many smaller local charities under a single fundraising banner, a United Way or community foundation can cut fundraising and administration costs. Without a local umbrella, many small non-profits have to rely on more costly direct mail, and would compete with every other small agency at the big time of the year. Not true with all charities, but it is more cost effective for many to put up with the United Way blackout than to go it alone.

two - volunteer committees do the vetting of the work, and help decide the priorities. They are always looking for people to spend time on the committees and make the recommendations. I think you'd like it.

three - you can always use United Way (and the payroll deduction) as a vehicle to direct your contribution straight to the agency of your choice. They don't encourage it, but you can. (If you really want to shake things up, ask for your dollars to go 'post-allocation.' That means your agency will get all of it's regular UW money, with yours as a cherry on top instead of 'first-dollar-in.' They might squeal a little on that, but if they accept your donation with strings they have to abide by those.)

[Galaxian]

Was it The United Way? I ask because I worked for a station that always had our news staff shill for this organization and actually FORCED every single employee to donate money to UW so they could claim 100% contributions. If anyone refused to donate (because they were a number of folks who had a problem with UW) that person's department head had to pony up $5 or $10 in the employee's name. This went on until a couple of people threatened to sue our company for misrepresenting them (as in saying they were contributors when they weren't). Even still, we were strong armed into donating and doing positive stories and attending and or hosting UW events.
I had the same problem at one of my previous stations. The general manager was heavily involved with the United Way, and as such, we were expected to cover any United Way event -- namely, the annual fundraiser campaign announcements. On top of that, we were also expected to donate to the United Way, despite the charity's "no coercion" policy. I never gave the United Way a single penny.

Flash forward two years, and I'm at a different station, where the general manager told us we had to attend at least one United Way meeting. I showed up, listened to the presentation, accepted the pamphlets and forms handed to me -- and threw them out when I went back to my desk. Fortunately, my current station isn't as anal about donating to the United Way.

[neweatherman]

The charity is Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Team in Training...After many calls and emails, things seem to be ok with management.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society is raising funds to help stop leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma and myeloma from taking more lives. I'm completing this event in honor of all individuals who are battling blood cancers. These people are the real heroes on our team, and we need your support to cross the ultimate finish line - a cure!
If You want to help
PLEASE DONATE..or read more.....
www.runwithrich.com
or

http://www.active.com/donate/tntliny/tntlinyrhoffma
THANK YOU
RICH
GOD BLESS AND BE WELL

[TAFKA wacowx]

So...is a post like this SPAM?

Nothing against the charity, but would soliciting here be considered spamming? I'm sure no one is offended by this, but what constitutes spamming when it comes to trying to drive people to a site to give 'you' money?

Just thought about after the recent spam removal. :)

[Vulcan]

So...is a post like this SPAM?

Nothing against the charity, but would soliciting here be considered spamming? I'm sure no one is offended by this, but what constitutes spamming when it comes to trying to drive people to a site to give 'you' money?

Just thought about after the recent spam removal. :)
That recent "spam removal" was the ouster of a brand new member, who, on the very first post linked to a website that was directly soliciting this community for business.

If you've been around for awhile and you link to something, that's very different.

I am an admin on another forum related to my personal interests, and we see these float in from time to time. They used to be automated scripts that would register and post messages, but now there are services that hire flesh-and-blood humans to register on message boards and blogs simply to spam links.

There's one in particular that sells itself as being "smart," in that the human agents are coached on how to determine the real topics, and to leave short, relevant comments around the link. If you want the "deluxe" package, his merry band of spammers will leave at least 10 somewhat relevant comments before dropping the first link.

Pretty scary stuff, huh?

If you want to know why Fearmonger isn't booted away from here, please consider the following:

- he defends himself in the comments on these threads.
- he participates in threads he does not start.
- he is not offering services directly to journalists, reporters, broadcasters, or agents
- he is not running a "spam blog".

Have you ever seen a real splog? It has no human-generated content. Just scraps of posts scraped off legitimate sites, then peppered with links to whatever crappy pharmaceutical or sex site is paying the bills. No creativity, no persuasion. Just links to prop up the importance of that particular blog, so it can prop up the sites the owners want to score well in Google's algorithm.

A registered user since 2002 who is just shy of 1,000 posts who happens to recommend a charity he has personal knowledge of is NOT a spammer. Hell, I may at some point have a reason to link to my employer, but that does not constitute spam. Unless you want to assume that I am paid to come here and pimp my organization, or that my being here is the culmination of a nine-year conspiracy to promote my employer, a full FIVE YEARS before leaving television.

I'll go back to being mediocre now. I seem to not feel as frisky.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Excellent Vulcan...thank you. As I said, I have no problem with it and I am glad to see we have some real thought going into what DOES constitute spamming.

:)

Aside: I also have never thought of Fearmonger's post as being spam.

[NewsMom]

There are a number of legitimate watchdogs out there, that can tell you whether a charity is using its money well, or not so much.

One such group is the American Institute of Philanthropy, which operates www.charitywatch.org

Although they do have information on the Leukemia and Lymphoma society, it's not one of the top-rated outfits. I haven't paid the tiny fee to get their full report, nor have I looked up their 1099 online (which anyone can do, but few can understand).

But, based on my prior reports on charities, you want to be cautious before associating with one, or parting with your money. You do NOT want to provide lavish offices, with beautiful decor, and excessive travel expenses for the executives, do you? I'm not saying that this charity is one of the frauds, but even "good" charities sometimes waste money in ways I do not approve.

Oddly, one such example is the American Red Cross, which has a miserable track record of scandal over the last 60 years. Yet, they provided data to the charitywatch group, and got a top-rated slot. That's probably because they have BILLIONS of dollars, and ohly a few hundred million gets thrown away on stupid things. Statistically, their "program spending" is a high percentage of their revenue.

As a general rule, the bigger the charity, the more the waste (in absolute dollars). And yes, clearly, I am a hardcore cynic.

[Vulcan]

There are a number of legitimate watchdogs out there, that can tell you whether a charity is using its money well, or not so much.

One such group is the American Institute of Philanthropy, which operates www.charitywatch.org (http://www.charitywatch.org)

Although they do have information on the Leukemia and Lymphoma society, it's not one of the top-rated outfits. I haven't paid the tiny fee to get their full report, nor have I looked up their 1099 online (which anyone can do, but few can understand).

But, based on my prior reports on charities, you want to be cautious before associating with one, or parting with your money. You do NOT want to provide lavish offices, with beautiful decor, and excessive travel expenses for the executives, do you? I'm not saying that this charity is one of the frauds, but even "good" charities sometimes waste money in ways I do not approve.

Oddly, one such example is the American Red Cross, which has a miserable track record of scandal over the last 60 years. Yet, they provided data to the charitywatch group, and got a top-rated slot. That's probably because they have BILLIONS of dollars, and ohly a few hundred million gets thrown away on stupid things. Statistically, their "program spending" is a high percentage of their revenue.

As a general rule, the bigger the charity, the more the waste (in absolute dollars). And yes, clearly, I am a hardcore cynic.
Hi Newsmom.

I happen to like Charity Navigator (http://charitynavigator.org). A great deal of information, and they pull no punches.