Daylight come and me wanna quote Noam

In light of UNICEF distancing itself from Harry Belafonte after his comments of last week (calling Bush a terrorist among other remarks about the benefits of Central American socialism), this article by Steven Edwards asks if Hollywood stars really help or hurt their pet causes. You have to be a paid subscriber to the National Post so I've put the full text below.

Beneath a picture showing a pregnant Angelina Jolie in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, are the words: "Angelina Jolie and lover Brad Pitt visit a school supported by Yele Haiti, a charity established by Haitian-born musician Wyclef Jean."
That's the entire coverage the New York Post gives to the charity on the couple's visit to the troubled Caribbean republic.
Not that the newspaper should have focused in any greater detail on the organization just because Hollywood's hottest couple decided to don its T-shirts in a bid to get out the word about its good work.
As newspaper and magazine sales show, editors are constrained by readers' demands for celebrity tidbits rather than in-depth pieces on the plight of the world's poor and underprivileged.
Which raises the question: Wouldn't all the cash and time expended in briefing and providing security for these celebrities be better spent directly aiding the world's needy?
Haiti and the political violence there are one of the 10 most under-reported humanitarian stories of 2005, says a recent report by the French-based Doctors Without Borders.
The sweeping visit by Jolie and Pitt isn't likely to change that.
What Jolie has achieved since she began supplementing her acting career with humanitarian excursions is access to the world's humanitarian officials. They, in turn, take time away from their their work to educate her and other celebrity activists on the world's problems.
One of Jolie's latest and most comprehensive briefings took place in November at the Geneva headquarters of the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), for which she has been a Goodwill Ambassador since August, 2001.
Before a trip to Pakistan to see first-hand the well-publicized plight of the October earthquake victims, she met senior UNHCR officials.
"This time I've been looking deeper into specific issues that affect refugees' daily lives," she said afterward.
The UN explained she had been brought up to speed on such topics as violence against women and children, HIV/AIDS, trafficking of women, micro-credit lending programs, clean-water delivery, site planning, emergency operations, and refugees and the environment.
Not that Jolie isn't sincerely concerned, but are the victims of poverty and violence benefiting substantially from the time spent educating her?
If the media are eclipsing her causes as they take advantage of the photo opportunities to snap pictures of her, it's because they have their priorities, says Pitt.
It should be noted his interest in humanitarian affairs became apparent only after his split with wife Jennifer Aniston in favour of Jolie, his co-star in the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
He shared his view of the media's approach to humanitarian coverage in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer after returning from Africa. "It drives me mental seeing what I've seen and knowing that it doesn't show up in our news every day," he said. "I mean, literally, thousands of people died today."
And yet the media are responding to the same market forces he targets in making movies.
Admittedly, the couple, especially Jolie, gives generously to charity. Pitt, the father of the child she is expecting, has also applied to adopt her two adopted children: Maddox, 4 (from Cambodia), and Zahara, 1 (from Ethiopia).
But amid the plethora of other humanitarian celebrity spokespeople -- cellist Yo Yo Ma will soon add his name to a UN list that includes environmentalist Jane Goodall, former heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali and actor Michael Douglas -- some are arguably doing harm to the causes they represent.
Only last week the UN children's fund UNICEF rushed out a press statement distancing itself from goodwill ambassador Harry Belafonte after comments he made in Venezuela.
The 78-year-old singer, famous for his calypso-inspired tunes, had called George W. Bush, the U.S. President, the "greatest terrorist in the world" in a television appearance with Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President.
Belafonte made the comments "as a private citizen and was not speaking as a UNICEF ambassador nor acting in an official capacity on behalf of the organization," the release said.
Perhaps he would have been better off visiting or speaking about some of the other nine under-reported crises highlighted by Doctors Without Borders. They include: deprivation and violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo; a war of attrition in Chechnya; political violence in northeastern India; displacement amid conflict in northern Uganda; and a lack of coverage of research into AIDS and HIV treatments.

I think he raises some valid points, specifically about how much time is wasted getting celebs up to speed on their pet causes. UN organizations already waste enough time and money, why do celebs deserve that time and money? I have no problems at all with celebrities having causes to fight for because almost everyone has charities they support (notice the Terry Fox Foundation link to the right for example). My problem is with the media giving them so much attention and thinking the opinion of some Hollywood star is somehow more valid or informed than the average charity contributor. As I've said about this before, shooting a movie in Italy doesn't make you an expert on Proportional Representation.