October 16, 1997 | Read Time: 4 minutes
When a charitable organization presents a major award to someone who clearly does not deserve it, people understand that more than bad judgment is involved. Paying tribute to the rich and powerful may seem like a savvy maneuver that can bring philanthropic dividends. But in the long run it could backfire by undermining a group’s credibility with other donors.
Fawning over mighty tycoons is nothing new, and certainly Ted Turner’s recent $1-billion gift to the United Nations, along with his challenge to other wealthy people to increase their giving, will only encourage that tradition. However, in this era of increased competition for philanthropic funds, non-profit groups seem to be more willing to do anything to attract the attention of the very wealthy.
This spring, the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of New York, one of the biggest and most prominent philanthropic organizations in the world, managed to push the envelope of obsequiousness by naming as its “Humanitarian of the Year” the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corporation outlets have consistently called for the slashing of social services. In July, the N.A.A.C.P. gave its prestigious President’s Award to the boxing promoter Don King — not exactly a person known for his personal or business scruples. One can only imagine whom charities will choose to honor next.
The federation says it recognized Mr. Murdoch “because of his longtime support of U.J.A.-Federation of New York’s efforts to provide health and human services in Israel and around the world.” The organization added that Mr. Murdoch’s commitment to philanthropic causes made him “an especially worthy recipient of our award.”
Mr. Murdoch has contributed to such charities as United Cerebral Palsy of New York City and inner-city scholarship programs. And he’s an avid backer of Israel who has declared “my faith and News Corporation’s faith in the integrity and worthiness of the Zionist undertaking.”
But what really distinguishes Mr. Murdoch is that he wields enormous leverage and political clout on several continents through his $28-billion company.
In his native Australia, Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation dominates the mass media. In Britain, Mr. Murdoch controls more than a third of daily newspaper circulation along with much of cable and satellite television. His possessions in the United States include the Fox television network, TV Guide, the tabloid New York Post, the book publisher HarperCollins, and the Twentieth Century Fox movie studio.>
Judging from Mr. Murdoch’s business activities, “humanitarian” is not a term that would seem to apply. In addition to leading the call for cutbacks in social services, he has been a pioneer of union busting in the newspaper industry.
And Mr. Murdoch’s hypocrisy on international matters is all too transparent. In touting his Star TV satellite network, Mr. Murdoch has noted how “satellite broadcasting makes it possible for information-hungry residents of many closed societies to bypass state-controlled television.”
Yet Mr. Murdoch quickly acquiesced to China’s totalitarian regime when Beijing objected to Star TV transmissions of BBC News reports about Chinese human-rights abuses. In 1994, Mr. Murdoch’s network dropped the BBC from its broadcasts to Asia. “The BBC was driving them nuts,” he was quoted as saying. “It’s not worth it.”
By proclaiming Rupert Murdoch to be Humanitarian of the Year, the U.J.A.-Federation has kissed the boots of a media Goliath. Evidently, great wealth and media power can buy a gloss of moral legitimacy.
The N.A.A.C.P. appears to have had similar motivations. At its award presentation, the organization’s president, Kweisi Mfume, compared Mr. King to the baseball legend Jackie Robinson and complained about federal prosecutors who were investigating Mr. King for insurance fraud.
That caused a bit of a stir in the press. Mr. Mfume, wrote the New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, “did not go into Mr. King’s long history of unscrupulous business practices, or the time he spent in prison for pistol-whipping and kicking a man to death.” Mr. Mfume also failed to mention Mr. King’s breach of the anti-apartheid boycott in 1984, when he made $1-million from promotion of a boxing match in South Africa.
Perhaps the assumption is that loyal constituencies won’t mind when an organization bestows accolades on the likes of Rupert Murdoch or Don King. But groups that distort the truth in order to boost their fund-raising prospects are pandering to wealth and power at the expense of their own credibility.
Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a new nationwide consortium of public-policy experts. He recently received a Pioneer grant from the Stern Family Fund to help establish the institute.
